|
'Dulhunty' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
2009 April 16. Jedmar’s comment under ‘Lady Stuart’ HP, 1851 pictures ....Under the name of 'Lady Stuart' there is apparently also an older Hybrid China, which does not repeat. How is this with your rose?
Not good Jedmar. Your reference (and I am presuming this is after 1851 as it was in the Lady Stuart, Portemer pictures) says the hybrid China ‘Lady Stuart’ does not repeat. The 1866 Guilfoyle reference for ‘Dulhunty’ says perpetual.
It is of interest that the 1848 reference for ‘Lady Stuart’ , unknown, pre 1833 (was this Laffay’s –1833 hyb china?) says ....partaking somewhat of the hybrid French. As far as I understand it, a hybrid china can certainly look like a hybrid perpetual and a wise man from the east once told me the signature of a hybrid china was a smoothness about the receptacle. So I can understand the 1864 Handsasyde McMillan catalogue‘s question mark in their reference for ‘Lady Stuart’ “ H Ch. “? or HP.
We might need to look again at ‘Comte de Paris’ as the 1894 reference in the ‘Dulhunty’ file from Robert Rattray also had it as a synonym. But, oh dear, there were four Comte’s prior to 1894. Leveques 1886 HP seems too strong a colour. Laffay’s 1839 HP had stripes (and no reference in the Dulhunty file mentions stripes). Verdier’s 1864 HP has only one tiny ref “Rouge rosé” which is not enough to go on. That leaves Hardy’s 1839 Tea and one reference does say rosy flesh, and the 1841 picture indeed does show petals very regularly arranged (as the 1894 Robert Rattray’s reference said ‘Dulhunty’ was) A tea would have done well in Australia and would have been perpetual as Guilfoyle in 1866 said ‘Dulhunty’ to be.
It is my best guess that the Dulhunty families grew this 1839 rose on their properties, lost the name of ‘Comte de Paris’, and by 1851 the Guilfoyle Nursery re-introduced it under the name of ‘Dulhunty’. I am very good at guessing. Just don’t take it as gospel.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
a new reference for DUlhunty-may shed some light or create more shadows.
J. Graham & Co. catalogue 1874(Sydney Australia) Lady Stuart, (Dulhunty) H C, silvery blush,large and full.
|
REPLY
|
Those elusive shadows. ‘Dulhunty’ (no class usually mentioned) was called a Hybrid China by J. Graham in 1874 and said to be a synonym of ‘Lady Stuart’ (we are presuming this was the Brunning’s <1897 Tea, and not Portemer’s HP 'Lady Stuart'.) In 1894 Robert Rattray called it a synonym of ‘Comte de Paris’, the 1839 Tea. So, the plot thickens, but in the meantime we have put J. Graham’s reference both in ‘Lady Stuart’ and in ‘Dulhunty. Thank you.
|
REPLY
|
Is it clear that 'Dulhunty' is a syn here? Could it be the name of the supplier, importer etc? There is also a Hybrid China named 'Lady Stuart' ?Laffay pre 1833 described as flesh to silvery pink) (ref Dickerson's Old Roses: The Master List 2nd Ed).
|
REPLY
|
Patricia-This reference can't be referring to the 1897 Tea as this 1874 reference predates it. Billy-This catalogue does not contain grower or supplier details-Going by other catalogues of the era only synonyms are bracketed after the listed rose name.
|
REPLY
|
Thanks Sandie. The date of Brunning’s <1897 Tea was prior to 1897, so it might have been feasible. But Billy's suggestion of Laffay's 1833 hybrid china is far better.
|
REPLY
|
It is confused in the 19th century Australian catalogues I've seen. Roses named Lady Stuart with roughly the same description (where one is given) are variously classed as H Ch or HP.
1861 - B. Johnson – Lady Stuart, H.P., salmon rose
1863 - G. Brunning – Lady Stuart. H.P., beautiful flesh colour
1864 – Handasyde, McMillan & Co – Lady Stuart “ H. Ch.”? H. Perp. Silvery blush, shaded with rosy salmon, exquisite.
1865 – J. Harris – Lady Stuart H.P. fine flesh colour
1865 – W. Taylor – Lady Stuart H.P. [ no description]
1866 - T. Johnson – Lady Stuart, H.C., silvery blush
1874 - J. Graham & Co. – Lady Stuart (Dulhunty) H.C., - silvery blush, large and full.
The 1864 Handasyde, McMillan & Co entry is interesting - the classification questioned.
|
REPLY
|
|