POSTING THIS ONCE MORE AND HOPEFUL TO GET A RESPONSE!
My Peace is blooming "oddly" - second year plant from Edmunds' is growing quite well - no complaints there. It's the blooms that look odd. It seems like the flower buds never quite fully develop before the sepals come down and flowering begins. Now in its second year the odd bloom has continued. The coloring of the bloom has a lot of white with very little yellow or pink. But the biggest thing is a rather large and green vegetative center. There are rose petals but the very center of the bloom is quite elevated (if not protruding) compared to other roses I grow. Has anyone ever experienced this with their Peace rose?
It's not overfertilization - my Peace has been under-fertilized if anything. Only organics have been used on Peace like Chicken manure, Fish emulsion and Kelp.
That said, where can you get the Peace Rose where it has been heat-treated to rejuvenate it and looks like the Peace of 50 years ago?
I have a somewhat similar experience with a 2 year old, own root purchased from a supporting vendor of HMF. In my case, about 90% of blooms are stark white, akin to JFK. But at the same time, even on the same cane on the same day, I will get a beautiful “normal” Peace bloom. Appears to have nothing to do with heat, rain, or other environmental factors. I note that a member in Jan. 2021 mentions that Star Roses distributes the rejuvenated variety (ID 105-476). I can’t vouch for the veracity of that claim, but it seems that if any entity had an interest in keeping Peace viable, it would be Meilland’s US distributor.
Thank you for pointing out Star Roses me. I have another Peace this year planted in a pot that has been quite slow to get going and hasn't bloomed yet. If that potted bloom looks good I'll probably swap it for the "oddly blooming" Peace. I've never been a big Peace fan in that there are so many much better hybrid teas out there but I want to grow it for sentimental and historic reasons.
And next spring I'll scour the local garden centers looking for a Peace from Star Roses!
Just an FYI: I’ve had my own problems sourcing a good Peace, and on my third try last fall, I paid Heirloom’s price. This one is the real deal, and I’ve been very happy with it this spring.
If it is the real deal, you might get a sport. I did, a kind of buff colored version, which I did propagate, but then had to leave behind in a cross country move.
I have replaced the Phyllody infected Peace I had from Edmunds (purchased in 2021) with one from Palatine (planted April 2022) and another from Heirloom (planted April 2023). I'm very happy with them - the color in the early stages of bloom is something to behold. I do believe I have the real thing now from two different sources.
My Peace is blooming "oddly" - first year plant from Edmunds' is growing quite well - no complaints there. It's the blooms that look odd. It seems like the flower buds never quite fully develop before the sepals come down and flowering begins. The coloring of the bloom has a lot of white with very little yellow or pink. But the biggest thing is a rather large and green vegetative center. Has anyone ever experienced this with their Peace rose?
It's not overfertilization - my Peace has been under-fertilized if anything. Only organics have been used on Peace like Chicken manure, Fish emulsion and Kelp. I am trying to figure out if I need to replace my Peace next Spring.
That said, where can you get the Peace Rose where it has been heat-treated to rejuvenate it and looks like the Peace of 50 years ago?
I sent 25 VID (virus free) cuttings from Foundation Plant service -UC Davis to K and M nursery that were grafted onto Fortuniana (VID) rootstock. This is my attempt to bring back the vigor of the Peace rose to the 1945 rose that I knew as a child. Let me know if you are interested in this experiment.
That's good to know but Fortuniana rootstock is not very viable in the Chicago area!
I finally diagnosed that my Peace (purchased from Edmunds' in 2021) suffers from the Phyllody malady - growing excessive vegetative centers which essentially malforms the bloom. That Peace is being replaced by one from Heirloom in a few weeks.
There is some question as to the correct parentage of 'Peace'. There is an article in the October 2005 ARS Magazine in which some data is missing/incorrect. Particularly the parentage listing, which has one of the parentheses missing. The missing parenthesis belongs immediately after the 'Souv. de Claudius Pernet', thus: ((George Dickson X Souvenir de Claudius Pernet) X (Joanna Hill X Charles P. Kilham)) X Margaret McGredy
I have always felt that such use of parentheses should be done this way (using a square paren. when multiples are needed) to avoid confusion:
[(George Dickson X Souvenir de Claudius Pernet) X (Joanna Hill X Charles P. Kilham)] X Margaret McGredy
You might also note a misspelling in the parentage, which I find very amusing: The pollen parent's name is spelled "Margaret McGreedy" in the ARS article!
In Alain Meilland's book Meilland: "A Life in Roses", Alain clearly states the parentage to be the same as it is listed in HMF:
Joanna Hill X (Charles P. Kilham X Margaret McGredy).
Surely Meilland would not have allowed an error of pedigree to be published? (Although the book was co-authored with someone else, and perhaps there was an error introduced inadvertently. Perhaps it was even intentional! Who knows. It is not unheard of for breeders to put other hybridizers "off the trail" by publishing misleading breeding data, though I cannot imagine why that would be warranted some 35 years after its introduction.) Yet clearly there are numerous references to the more complicated parentage, including the listing in MR10 (a resource that is not without its share of errors, admittedly). Perhaps Dr. Tommy Cairns can provide provenance for that listing?
I have Antonia Ridge's book, "For Love Of A Rose", which is referred to in the ARS article, and without reading the whole thing through, I cannot find any reference to exact parentage in her writings. (I have been saving the book for Winter reading, you see!) Perhaps the ARS author did not find this parentage listing is Ridge's book but gleaned the data from Modern Roses. This makes it more important to determine provenance of the ARS's data.
Which one is correct? I don't know for certain. Someone with a better source of information needs to submit their knowledge.
Thank you Paul. This is what HelpMeFind is all about. Collecting the expertise, and opinions, of people from around the world. That expertise can be the observation of a beginning rose gardener or the knowledge of an esteemed authority like Paul Barden. We are very grateful to have all levels of expertise contributing to HMF.
We broached the subject with another of the rose community's noteworthy, Bill Grant, and he contacted Meilland. Speaking with his friend Jacques Mouchotte (in charge of all the hybridizing programs at the Cannet des Maures) he was told "The Modern Rose genealogy of Peace is perfectly correct, absolutely right. That's exactly what it is".
As such, we are updating HelpMeFind's parentage for 'Peace' but we share Paul Barden's wonderment of the erroneous listing in Alain Meilland's book.
P.S. Thanks Bill. You seem pretty knowledgeable about this rose stuff - you should consider writing books or giving lectures maybe.
Grace, The parentage listing currently presented here at HMF is the correct one:
Seed: [ George Dickson × Souvenir de Claudius Pernet ] × [ Joanna Hill × Charles P. Kilham ] Pollen: Margaret McGredy
Reply
#5 posted
8 MAY 06 by
Unregistered Guest
Thank you so much. So the legend of an unknown seedling X Margaret Mcgredy can be scrapped.
I also have a note from somewhere that Joanna Hill and Peace share the parentage of rose Michelle Meilland ?? Do you think Meilland Roses - or another site - would have a chart with the complete family?
Surprise, surprise! The page from Francis Meilland's notebook which allegedly shows the cross 3-35 of 'Peace' reported in the Meilland book states the parentage to be 'Joanna Hill' x seedling 103-32-A, which according to the book was 'Charles P. Kilham' x 'Margaret McGredy'. This used to be the parentage listed by HMF prior to 2005. The only thorn in my side is that the notebook has originally pencilled cross 3-35 on June 3, 1935 as 'Joanna Hill' x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). This pollen parent is mentioned in a further cross above as no. 99.32 (non-repeating yellow large bloom). 2 such plants were budded. The notebook has then been modified to show 55 plants budded on June 15 with the cross 'Joanna Hill' x 103-32 A. Was the original cross of June 3 discarded and the number replaced with a new idea on June 15? Or the notebook doctored to tell the story in the book?
"(...) Or the notebook doctored to tell the story in the book?"
Seriously ????????????... As if Peace is not already a story of its own.
If I can post the page (you could have cite me) on HMF, because I don't know where you read (127.7 x Dr. Eckener)
No magic... the cross was done partly 3rd of June and continued 15 of June (more flowers... more pollen)
Then the 1st notation was showing the cross of 103-32-A (if you can read the code... I'm amazed, because I can't and I have the notebook), and after was completed by the full number (Cross 1932 - Selected during spring 1935...nothing magic)
55 was the number of flowers hybridized, not plant budded, as in June 1935, the seedling 3-35-40 was just an idea in a young 22 years old French breeder notebook.
Seedling of the 3-35 cross (with the N°40 selection) will bloom for the 1st time in Spring 1936.
Please ask us when you have questions on our varieties, we will be delighted to help you
Matthias, we can discuss it here. I was looking at a scan of this page which you had published earlier on fb. My point was that seedling 3-35 was originally pencilled as Joanna Hill x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). 52 flowers were hybridized on June 3. The pollen sedling was also used in cross no. 1-35 with the remark "non remontant jaune grosse fleur" Later this entry was modified with a stronger pencil: - June 3 is now June 15 - 55 plants instead of 52 - the pollen parent was replaced by 103-32 A
Anyway: Joanna Hill x 103-32A is also not the complex parentage which was announced at a later stage.
"My point was that seedling 3-35 was originally pencilled as Joanna Hill x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). "
- 127.7 cannot be a seedling number for us (We always use "cross number - year - seedling number"). I can "see"(1277 x Dr. Eckener) but it could have been the intended cross, as Francis was working on it during the winter. But still 1277 or 127.7 is not a number from us, so we might "read" something that we cannot understand.
"52 flowers were hybridized on June 3."
- I don't see 52 on it, only a 2 is clear.
"The pollen seedling was also used in cross no. 1-35 with the remark "non remontant jaune grosse fleur""
- Yes. and it is noted Yellow also on this cross.
" June 3 is now June 15"
- Because the page contains 3 other crosses made June 3 (traditionally, we start early June in Lyon), it is logic, but we don't see the 3 (but we see the 15 was added later). We can only assume.
- If you look, even the year date on 3-35 was rewritten...
"55 plants instead of 52"
- Not plants, (FL = Fleurs / Flowers) The 52 added in a ink pencil is the number of fruits harvested (52 fruits on 55 flowers)
My point was that we don't doctored Francis' notebook. This is the original notebook, but this notebook was written by a 22 years old, and it is not the only element to base the History of Peace ;)
