|
|
'G. Nabonnand' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
I think the description as upright (which I have seen repeated in a nursery catalogue) doesn't fit how the rose grows in South Australia and Perth. It sprawls, and so does its sport Peace (1902).
|
REPLY
|
|
My three ‘G. Nabonnand’ and ‘Peace’, all 20 years old, on their own roots and in an unsuitable climate for teas, are upright. From my 2009 reference, I suspect that with ideal conditions the main branches may be rather weak and just lie down, unable to support the weight of foliage. I've added "spreading" to the description. Thank you Margaret.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
19 DEC 22 by
jcm
|
I became confused reading these comments. May I ask, if I buy ‘Jean Ducher’ from Ross Roses, is this the rose I will receive? (Actually G. Nabonnand.)?
|
REPLY
|
|
You will receive G Nabonnand.
No-one in Australia (or possibly elsewhere) has a true Jean Ducher named as JD.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Ay up.
I was looking at the nurseries listed for this rose, and found it amazing that only one nursery in WA was listed. This would have to be one of the best Teas ever, so why wouldn't it stay in commerce in other states?
Turns out nurseries for it are listed, but you have them listed under 'Jean Ducher'. The description page for 'Jean Ducher' mentions that the rose in commerce is actually 'G. Nabonnand', but provides no link to the correct rose.
Seems to me the nurseries stocking it as 'Jean Ducher' should be listed under 'G.Nabonnand'. These would be Reliable Roses, plus Roses & Friends*. I've checked their sites and they still have 'Jean Ducher' listed. Roses & Friends even have it listed as: G. Nabonnand. (t) (sold as Jean Ducher)
I did a bit more checking too, and Ross Roses also have 'Jean Ducher' listed (in their complete web variety PDF, page 9). So that's three nurseries still in business and not bound by WA's strict in/out regulations.
*As well as T4R and Mistydowns, but of course they're out of business now. Still, they do have it in the ground.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think Roses and Friends is out of action, since the death of Sue Kingsford.
Later edit: I understand Roses & Friends is still selling.
|
REPLY
|
|
Oh. The site doesn't mention them being out of business, but it may not have been updated for a while.
|
REPLY
|
|
‘Jean Ducher’ was an altogether different rose to ‘G. Nabonnand’ so I’ve whizzed the four nurseries out of ‘Jean Ducher’ and now list them as selling or sold ‘G. Nabonnand’. Thanks Give Me Caffeine. Always appreciated.
There are quite a few gardens - and photos - of ‘G. Nabonnand’ in the ‘Jean Ducher’ file, but it really is up to members to correct their listings and photos. .
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This rose was introduced as 'G. Nabonnand' and although in the intervening years we see the 'G.' replaced with 'Gilbert', 'Georges' or 'George' in various publications and catalogues, the correct name is simply 'G. Nabonnand'.
In the Journal des Roses, July 1892 the entry on G. Nabonnand (reproduced in R.E. Edberg's Encyclopaedia of Antique Roses Volume III pp99-100), begins:
"G. NABONNAND
Tea 1888
The variety G. Nabonnand (and not Georges Nabonnand, as is written heedlessly, and in spite of our recommendations, on the chromolithograph), was gotten as a seedling by Messieurs Ph. Nabonnand et ses fils, rose-growers in Golfe-Juan, and dedicated to Monsieur Gilbert Nabonnand pere......."
And the accompanying chromolithograph of this rose is captioned 'Rose Georges Nabonnand' with the 'eorges' crossed out, leaving 'Rose G Nabonnand'
|
REPLY
|
|
This is correct.
We will amend our records. Thank you Billy.
|
REPLY
|
|
Many thanks Jocelen
|
REPLY
|
|
Ph. was Gilbert.
Apparently he went by the name Philibert on his catalogues because he disliked the name Gilbert.
|
REPLY
|
|
Aha. Many thanks Billy.
|
REPLY
|
|
Apparently his son's first name was Gilbert as well but he went by the name Clément.
|
REPLY
|
|
I am not too sure that the father would have given a son a name that the father disliked. Apparently after 1964 (when Clement was born) the father assumed the name Philibert, presumably for others to distinguish between father, Gilbert [Philibert], and son Gilbert [Clement].
Can someone please check the 1897, p. 110 Rosen-Zeitung reference in which HelpMeFind is quoting that Gilbert was born in 1893. I am not sure whose typo that would have been.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 9 posted
28 NOV 19 by
 jedmar
|
Corrected. The text says 1829, not 1897.
|
REPLY
|
|
Wonderful. I (in Australia) give thanks to you Jedmar (in Switzerland).
|
REPLY
|
|
