HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
Deborah Petersen 
-
-
|
So the question arises: did it sport or revert?
|
REPLY
|
|
Wouldn't we all like to know! The variant bloom is quite pretty.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The photos are really pretty. Definitely descends from Pernets, but the foliage is too nice to be purely Pernet type. The foliage is really pretty in the photos.
|
REPLY
|
|
The blooms are somewhat longer-lasting than your typical "here today, gone today" Pernetiana, too. Last three days each, at least.
|
REPLY
|
|
Vintage also had 'Mevrouw G. A. van Rossem' and 'Heinrich Wendland', so it is obviously not either of those.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have not seen it in person, so it is hard to judge, but some of the traits resemble wichurana traits, sometimes seen in Brownell's roses, and I see in my own hybrids. The foliage density, foliage shine, prickle type. But this is a standard bush type?
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes -- it grows tall over the course of the summer, vigorously extending its canes, but, still, like a typical bush.
|
REPLY
|
|
I wish I could help further. The foliage is a lot like Orange Ruffels and Lafter, which have a similar plant type, too. I looked at all sorts of Brownell Roses, as well as roses from Golden Glow. I don't know what this rose actually is. In some photos, Orange Ruffels *almost* looks the same, but I think that is coincidental.
|
REPLY
|
|
There is variability in the color of the bloom. So far, the posted photos of the blooms are mostly in the apricot, orange or straw phase, but it does become a clear yellow sometimes. I've just put up a little photo of it in a bud vase showing the yellow phase. It is a mystery -- the virus likely indicating it was once a commercial variety, but no obvious candidates.
|
REPLY
|
|
Wow, yeah. The color range is wide. The petal shape is uncommon for Pernet types too.
|
REPLY
|
|
Just FYI-- I have both Orange Ruffels and Lundy's Lane Yellow and they are very different roses.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks for the update on this mystery! Do you have other Brownell roses or roses that look like this mystery rose?
|
REPLY
|
|
The pedicel prickles, the veining on the petals, and the deep green leaves are all directing my thoughts to something like 'Mevrouw G. A. Van Rossem' or a relation of that rose. I am in the middle of adding references for Mevrouw and note that there are a couple of other similar roses mentioned that you might like to investigate.
|
REPLY
|
|
No, I don't Right now, my Lundy isn't doing so well--I don't think it likes our Oregon climate as well as California, plus, I'm afraid I've let some other plants encroach on it. Which is all to say I don't have a lot to look at right now. It has never grown very well for me; I'll have to decide whether to keep it. Orange Ruffels, on the other hand, I've had for many years now, and while it stays small it is quite healthy and a reliable bloomer.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#12 of 13 posted
28 APR by
goncmg
|
Helen Hayes!!! It just came to me! You were on target! The clustering, the confused centers, the bright glossy foliage, the colors and variable coloration, the narrow leaf. Possible differences with number of thorns. But Michael Garhart I think you are have cracked the code here re: Brownell blood.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think Michael Gerhart may have cracked the code, too -- this rose seems very much in the Brownell style, and very much like 'Helen Hayes', if maybe not quite. Vintage did offer 'Helen Hayes' at the same time they were offering this rose, so presumably they could/would have compared them... In their catalog, Vintage describes this rose as having "abundant apple-green foliage" and 'Helen Hayes' as having "glossy olive-brown foliage" (not quite sure what THAT is), but the 'Helen Hayes' foliage in Margaret Furness' photo of it at Ruston's seems very much like the foliage my Lundy's shows (and I wouldn't say either "apple-green" or "olive-brown" -- just a nice deep, shiny green).
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Interesting to see my experience duplicated, Kim. I don't think I've ever seen a white bloom again on mine; it was such a tiny little thing when that happened (as it was for years...) that ALL of the blooms were white!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
As usual, I am wishing that HMF would better distinguish between the climbing form of 'Aimee Vibert' and the shrub form of 'Aimee Vibert'. According to the Vintage catalog, where both were sold, the shrub form was the original and the climbing form (which they called 'Aimee Vibert Scandens') a sport, but the description here gives a height of 9'10" to 15', which would be the dimensions for the climbing version. I have grown the shrub form, from Vintage, for more than 12 years now and it has stayed 4' x 4' with little in the way of pruning and is altogether delightful. With the two forms intermingled under this name, is is difficult to determine, for example, which form a vendor is offering, etc.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
31 MAR by
Lee H.
|
Did you notice that there is indeed a separate and distinct entry for the climbing sport?
I do agree that the listed height seems optimistic for the shrub version.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, but notice that two of the three sources given for the climbing version are historical only and now defunct. And, among the vendors for the supposedly shorter, original variety of 'Aimee Vibert', High Country Roses is, in fact, offering the climbing variety, though Rogue Valley Roses claims to be offering the 4' shrub. Heirloom Roses, based on their catalog entry, seems to be offering the climbing version too. The photos are, of course, also all over the map.
|
REPLY
|
|
Deborah, it is no trouble to quickly skim through 18 or so, mostly French, pages of Aimee Vibert references looking for a height. We have:
1835 2 to 3 feet
1856 moderate grower, dwarfish
1873. 2m. (6'7")
1879 before getting bogged down by this reference.
What about if we make the 1824 Aimee Vibert rose 3 to 5 feet. (Anita has said 5 feet)
Unfortunately I can find no reference to a height for the 1841 Aimee Vibert Climbing, apart from the 1992 and 1993 UK references which mention 15 feet. We will use that height for the moment.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks, Patricia -- I think specifying the correct, shorter height would help a great deal! Folks would then realize that the page they are posting on is for the shrub form of the rose, not the climber, and hopefully, over time, things will get sorted out.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
