John Edgar wrote:

What exactly does "truly repeat flowering" mean and why doesn't my
Alister Stella Gray rose do what DA roses say it should?

I think I prefer the term remontant flowering ie. flowering, then if
conditions are right, producing new growth that subsequently flowers.
Austins are quite right, it is a repeat or remontant flowering rose.
However, to compare it with modern repeat or perpetual flowering
climbers leads to disappointment. Depending upon weather conditions,
there can be a considerable gap between flower production - nothing
like the seeming perpetual flowering of many modern climbers.

Anyone else got one of these things and what does it do?

Not now, but I grew it about 30 years ago (bought it from David too)
and in some summers it had 3 or 4 flushes, which for this variety is
pretty good. If I was into growing roses today, it would still be
close to the top of my list despite its minor lapses in this respect.
The flowers are superbly formed and for the uninitiated, rich deep
yellow within, fading to paler at the edges. The fragrance is
wonderful on a warm, still day.

John, 'Alister Stella Gray' is a hybrid noisette, raised and
introduced towards the end of the19th. century. Like a fair number of
noisettes (the most famous being 'Marechal Niel'), it really needs a
nice, cosy sunny spot, preferably one that doesn't get much frost and
a good, rich fertile soil. Given masses of summer heat, it will
flower well and produce good subsequent flowers. During the fiercely
hot summer of 1976, my plant was almost constantly in flower and grew
with almost embarrassing vigour. The following year was much cooler
and it gave only a single flowering.

'Alister' takes a few years to get established and I wouldn't expect
to see a lot for the first 3 or 4 years. Mine took 6 to settle down
well and unfortunately was killed by the severe winter of 1981/2. It
is not the hardiest or most vigorous of roses. I think the only
noisette that still lives up to its promise is probably 'Mme. Alfred
Carriere', but that is a white with pink flushes. Despite being an
older variety, it is possibly more typical of modern climbers

There is also good reason to suspect that 'Alister', along with
'Gloire de Dijon' and 'Marechal Niel' have run out of steam. None of
these varieties are as good as they were - no doubt due to generations
of propping from a limited materials source. Roses do change, not
surprising when you consider that they all arise from a single plant -
the ultimate in mass-cloning. If a shoot with non-visible,
degenerative tendencies is propped, eventually many thousands will
enter the trade.

We saw this with the highly fragrant 'Ena Harkness' during the height
of HT popularity in the 1960's. It lost its scent. A single stem had
regressed to producing unscented flowers. That stem must have been
used for bud wood, giving 4 or 5 new plants. Those plants must have
also been used for stock purposes and in no time, hundreds, if not
thousands of unscented 'Ena Harkness' entered the trade. The
newspapers were full of it back in the late 60's. If I recall
correctly, Woolworths (infamous purveyors of wrapped bare-root roses)
struck it from their lists due to complaints about the lack of scent.
The comparatively scrawny grower - 'Josephine Bruce' was subsequently
promoted to centre stage as the fragrant red-red rose to grow.

Although I didn't make the connection at the time, I suspect the
mistake occurred at Wheatcroft Roses - Harry Wheatcroft himself told
me all about it and then went on to detail the efforts they made to
eradicate the unscented form and re-establish the original.
Wheatcrofts could not be blamed for this and nor can anyone be blamed
non-visible, degenerate forms of old roses entering the trade. Even
nowadays with their popularity well past its zenith, they are still
mass produced and mass production does lead to rogue plants.


Dave Poole
Torquay, Coastal South Devon UK
Winter min -2°C. Summer max 34°C.
Growing season: March - November