| Author | Message | ||
     Behcet Fenercioglu (Jedmar) Powdery Mildew Username: jedmar Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2006 |
Another mystery to solve! | ||
| stephen scanniello (Steprose) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: steprose Post Number: 683 Registered: 01-2006 |
Ah yes, I too have found ample information on Philipp Emanuel von Fellenberg, even a connection to the United States (he was planning on opening a school in Pennsylvania). I have never come across a reliable reference proving that 'Fellenberg' was a creation of M. Fellenberg (or Herr?), or even being named for him. Same for the plum 'Fellenberg'. I'm sure that someone is going to jump in here and tell us that we are absolutely wrong, and that Fellenberg was a nurseryman from Germany.........let's see what happens... What I have found is that there is no proof backing up any statements made about the source of 'Fellenberg'. I do know that the rose did indeed exist in the early 19th century (as far back as the early 1830's) sold as a Noisette and was distinctly different from 'la belle marseilles', a rose that is often (without proof) said to be synonomous with 'Fellenberg'. let's see what happens next..... | ||
| Behcet Fenercioglu (Jedmar) Powdery Mildew Username: jedmar Post Number: 13 Registered: 10-2006 |
Stephen, Yes, I live in Switzerland and am of Swiss/Turkish origin. Regarding Fellenberg, you probably do not mean the rose, but the person, right? Philipp Emanuel von Fellenberg (1771-1844) belonged to an aristocratic family from Bern. He spent some time in Paris and was ambassador there in 1798/99, after 1820 he was a politician in Bern. However his main achievement was the founding in 1801 of a model agricultural school in Hofwil near Bern and later also schools for orphans, teachers, young girls. Here is a picture: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Emanuel_von_Fellenberg Was the China-Hybride Fellemberg/Fellenberg his creation? I have never seen a proof. | ||
| Behcet Fenercioglu (Jedmar) Powdery Mildew Username: jedmar Post Number: 12 Registered: 10-2006 |
Hi Stephen, Glad I could help out! Mr. Walker's approach with analysis of early sources is very useful. Especially the description of Marchesa Boccella from 1855 (out of Choix des Plus Belles Roses, Martin-Victor Paquet, 1845-1854 - see Brent Dickerson, The Old Rose Advisor Vol. I p.42ff for comparison) compares very well with contemporary descriptions, e.g. Patrick Taylor, Gardening with Roses). On the other hand, there is beside the stout and bushy version, there is a strain which is a climber. Some people over here have to restrain it at 2,5m! I have a faint suspicion Robert & Moreau launched a climbing version in 1868 and called it Jacques Cartier! However, I do not have access to sufficient literature from the period to clarify. Does anyone know when Jacques Cartier appeared in the US Market? My Modern Roses V from 1958 only lists Marquise Boccella. | ||
| stephen scanniello (Steprose) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: steprose Post Number: 682 Registered: 01-2006 |
yes, that's it! Now, we all need to read this, study it, and apply his reasoning to other rose names/identities as well. Bechet, are you from Switzerland? What do you know about Fellenberg? I'll tell if you tell.... | ||
| Behcet Fenercioglu (Jedmar) Powdery Mildew Username: jedmar Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2006 |
Stephen, Is it this article which you mean? http://www.heritagerosefoundation.org/4resources/articles/marchesa%20boccella%20 vs%20jacques%20cartier/marchesa%20boccella%20vs%20jacques%20cartier.htm Paul, We also think that there are two Jacques Cartier/Marchesa Boccella out there, which are pretty identical, except for their growth habits. It would be nice to get some confirmation from the rose growers. What are the actual heights your Marchesa Boccella resp. Jacques Cartier attain? | ||
| stephen scanniello (Steprose) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: steprose Post Number: 457 Registered: 01-2006 |
Thanks Paul, We need to get the original article on Jacques/Marchessa posted... anyone out there have it?? | ||
| Paul Barden (Trospero) Bug Squisher Username: trospero Post Number: 15 Registered: 02-2006 |
Stephen, I grow Pickering's 'Jacques Cartier', and two clones of 'Marchesa Boccella' from different sources, and 'Jacques Cartier' appears different in growth habit; taller, more upright, whereas 'Marchesa Bocella' is much more squat and rounded in habit. So, my take is that these are different roses. However, I cannot testify to their being what their names say they are! Paul | ||
| stephen scanniello (Steprose) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: steprose Post Number: 445 Registered: 01-2006 |
I think some roses that we call damasks today, could be subsets of both gallicas and albas. And some gallicas, could be subsets of damasks and albas; some then even have China blood thrown in. All sorts of breeding was happening during the 19th c, more than often without any record keeping. | ||
| stephen scanniello (Steprose) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: steprose Post Number: 444 Registered: 01-2006 |
then there's the possibility of alba roses, as well, especially if you are in a cooler climate. These tend to be larger growing shrubs, in blush, white, and pink colors; noticeable gray-green foliage. | ||
| stephen scanniello (Steprose) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: steprose Post Number: 441 Registered: 01-2006 |
pink and smoothness lead me down the damask path, put those paths have many forks! | ||
| alida ray (Altora) Bug Squisher Username: altora Post Number: 107 Registered: 10-2005 |
one of the suckers i have we found growing at my parents house, nobody remembers a rose being there, it was coming from under a stone wall. i'll get a pic when it blooms, i remember they were a strong pink, bush stayed under 2'(i think). i think it is a gallica...or damask! do smooth canes mean anything one way or the other? alida | ||
| stephen scanniello (Steprose) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: steprose Post Number: 439 Registered: 01-2006 |
there were definitely distinct roses of both classes. For me damasks tend to be the "softer" roses. Yes, more to the pink side of the universe, while gallicas are the "rough" rose ladies, leaning to the purple side of the universe. | ||
| alida ray (Altora) Bug Squisher Username: altora Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2005 |
Not sure who said what re: JC/MB, but I think the article regarding the confusion about 'is it a damask or gallica' was interesting. alida | ||
| Kent Krugh (Kkrugh) Board Administrator Username: kkrugh Post Number: 64 Registered: 09-2004 |
Stephen, I don't have a copy of that article. Get me one, please, and I'll put it on the website. Kent | ||
| Fara Shimbo (Fara_shimbo) Shovel Pruner Username: Fara Shimbo Post Number: 53 Registered: 04-2006 |
Hmmm... so, calling the local roses "Damasks" because it's easier to sing, "O, the Pink Damasks of Hygiene..." is as good a reason to call them that as any? ;) What I was going by was that "Damasks have Down" and the local roses are indeed very fuzzy. I'm sure the reason they're fuzzy is that they are all local seedlings and downy plants tend to survive here, as the down holds on to dew and keeps the plants wetter here where 20% humidity is considered much too much. Many of the local weeds are similarly fuzzy. I also heard that Gallicas tend to the purples while Damasks tend to the rose pinks. How far is this true? So, what is the current thinking? Are damasks a subset of gallicas, then? | ||
| stephen scanniello (Steprose) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: steprose Post Number: 436 Registered: 01-2006 |
for quick reference, if I see an old rose in a cold zone with rough textured leaves, glands, not moss, but small noticeable glands, and a sprawlling habit - I think gallica. you'll discover that many roses we have been calling "damask", "gallica", "centifolia", etc. are indeed hybrids of all of those classes and then some. There were some roses in all classes that at one time may have been close to a type, but hybridizers and nurseries jumped on the "bandwagon" and filled their lists with many cv's of the most popular classes of the times. If it was fashionable to have Gallica's in your garden (era of Malmaison, for example) then you sold Gallicas. If it was fashionable to have centifolias, then you had C's, etc. So, you can see, that this would, and did, result in many roses that may have characteristcs of both. In a way, this happened with hybrid teas and other more modern classes. by the way, I noticed the rose name 'Jacques Cartier' on Paul's posting. Was that from Brent Dickerson? if so, what source was he quoting? I thought that it was pretty well proven that that rose really never existed, instead it's Marchesa Boccella. Maybe we can get Kent to post the old HRF newsletter with the well-proven research on this topic? | ||
| alida ray (Altora) Bug Squisher Username: altora Post Number: 101 Registered: 10-2005 |
Here is an interesting article from Paul Barden. http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/damasks/index.html I am always trying to figure this one out. I have 2 'found' roses that seem to belong to this group, I'd be interested to hear what others here have to say! alida | ||
| Fara Shimbo (Fara_shimbo) Powdery Mildew Username: Fara Shimbo Post Number: 50 Registered: 04-2006 |
Been reading a lot about characteristics of various types of roses, and am more confused than ever... what criteria would one use to decide if a found rose is, or is mostly, a Gallica as opposed to a Damask? |