|
|
Margaret Furness 
-
-
|
It's hard to think that all the photos on this file are of the same rose. Even if photographed with a phone...
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
yesterday by
Johno
|
Anything within the mauve - pink range with a white centre is probably accurate. Bloom age, climate and soil would impact. The range of colour was noted on the climbing sport.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Does this rose set hips?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
4 NOV 23 by
petera
|
The rose I have as "Port Arthur" can't be Lady Waterlow if the plant as Mottisfont is correct. I photographed that plant at Mottisfont 18 May 2023; it is stunning and I dearly wish I did have it. If the original found plant was really LW then it must have been switched at some stage in the chain by which it came to me. My plant came from John Nieuwesteeg with budwood, I believe, sourced from the HRIA collection at Ruston's.
|
REPLY
|
|
I see that Lady Waterlow doesn't have any descendants listed, as seed parent. Which doesn't mean it didn't have any, of course.
There are hip photos on the "Pt Arthur" file. I didn't try planting seeds.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Jeri, it would be nice to have a side-by-side comparison photo (or photos) of "Orange Smith" and Archiduc Charles at the same stage, please.
|
REPLY
|
|
