After a slow start, I've finally had two successful years of growth and blossom, and now I feel confident in a decent and more balanced evaluation.
First of all, I've not really seen so many varied experiences in the written, but also oral observations of one plant. My own personal experiences with this cultivar are exactly the same. A mixed bag. Last year, GJ did exceptionally well. After more than a year of brooding and growing roots, giving off few and reluctantly empty blooms (with my forgiving patience and understanding), last year was quite spectacular with a nice flush, then two tiny subsequent and surprising flushes later on in the year, which yielded promise in the repeat department (as some have noted). The petals more numerous, depth of color improving, more deep wine red mixed with a light hue of mauve undersides, hinting on grape... though fleeting, and I'm still not convinced I've captured a good enough subject flower to actually post one (yet).
This year has yet begun to yield yet another experience listed here: Mildew and BS. It's been a more difficult year for BS, and I have noticed more Mildew on those which hadn't been bothered by it in the past. Now, GJ is also terribly bothered by both like I've not seen it before. Some of the lower leaves have dropped and were mottled by heavy BS'ing.
My best guess at this point, as I enter into the 3rd year of having it: Though it has much nostalgia and history, this rose is not for the faint of heart. It's not a "Novice" level rose, it's not an impatient gardener rose, it's not a limited space garden rose, and it certainly is NOT a rose for the person who wants to have one stand-out specimen rose as a centerpiece. This one best belongs in the background like the ugly duckling for perhaps years to come, and with the hopes that it will become that Swan "Someday", and a rose that 'only a mother could love'. Don't expect 'flushes-o-plenty' for a long time.
If you have a LOT of patience, and just want another rose for the kicks, you could choose this one, but I would advise NEVER to consider it if you have only space enough for a dozen or so. It's still somehow intriguing for those who have plenty extra space, and in this case, I'd say to give it a try albeit with low expectations, and it might surprise you!
If you want to grow an easy rose from seed, this is the one in my experiences. You can just throw the seed in the soil, no chilling, nothing, and pretty much immediately as if it was a zinnia and not a rose, up they come, popcorn, huge germ %. And some end up being once-blooming but many bloom right away----they are never very good---but sometimes it is just about the experience and again, you want an easy one to see what a rose is like from seed, this is a good bet.
It is important to note that only roses without species from temperate to artic enviroments in their near ancestry will sprout without chilling- rugosas, gallicas, damasks, and hybrid laxas (for example) won't sprout, but Chinas, hybrids banksias, HT, Teas, and most Noisettes will.
Everblooming Roses for the Out-door Garden of the Amateur (1912) pp. 44-45 Georgia Torrey Drennan
General Jacqueminot, among famous roses of the world, was the most distinct and celebrated member of this family until the appearance of the American Beauty. Charitably granted the weakness of blooming but once a year, paradoxical yet true, both General Jacqueminot and American Beauty must be accorded high place among everbloomers. They simply reverse the season. Their bloom time is winter. Florists find them as constant during the winter months as the Teas during the summer. They supply the cut roses of winter under the heaviest demands of society. Under glass, they make the winter garden brilliant.
Jacqueminot is much more available for amateurs than American Beauty. It is a free and responsive garden rose, blooming in great splendour for six weeks in spring and early summer. No rose can altogether take its place. Florists depend on it for exquisitely beautiful buds in winter, and so popular has it been that one occasion is recalled when the buds sold for eighteen dollars apiece in New York City. Sweep the eye over any garden of roses in springtime bloom, and it will be easily understood why General Jacqueminot is so highly distinguished. The intense glow and radiance of the rich crimson-lake roses of velvety substance, would give it distinction among the roses of Cashmere or the blooms of Damascus. Fisher Holmes, of later origin, is called the "improved Jacqueminot." It has the same deep, rich, crimson hue, and is a larger, fuller rose, blooming a week or ten days longer in spring.
(This discussion was published long before Nicholas imported the truly improved and ever-blooming Gen Jack from France.)
I’ve been so embarrassed. Having gathered into my garden, two separate plants of ‘Général Jacqueminot’, I had to admit to a friend that I wouldn’t know ‘Général Jacqueminot’ if I fell over it. They just haven’t grown that well. To make amends I have been reading up on the rose. As far as I can see, the bloom is not terribly full and it shows the stamens when fully opened. (The black and white illustrations I have found and uploaded on to HelpMeFind seem exaggerated as to the fullness.) The leaves have “marked serrations” and when you consider the parent ‘Gloire des Rosomanes’ with its deep serrations on the leaf edge, that is understandable. The word “thin” occurs often and I believe this refers to the foliage and perhaps to the texture, and not to the width. Prickles are numerous, and unequal. Apparently the wood is green, and supposed to be “slender” or “not very thick". So now, if I stub my toe on the stubs of my plants, I might just know it. But there are two discrepancies that still bother me. Gwen Fagan (1988 reference) has said “stout stems”; and “unfoliated” sepals and her superb photo shows unfoliated sepals. In the 1873 reference the sepals are said to be “leaf-like” and two of those old black and white illustrations do show foliated (leaf-like) sepals. So, can anyone help me on the Auld Jineral’s sepals and stems?
