"Paulo da Costa" wrote in message
. com...
I Love Lucy wrote:
Thanks for responding. It's hard to imagine those fancy French-named
roses out here in the midwest, but maybe. People wouldn't have spent
a
lot on a rose in those days, not that just because they have French
names they would have necessarily been that expensive.
They wouldn't be expensive, new varieties may be more expensive, but
these climbing and rambling forms are different. For instance the
Cecile
Brunner dates back to the 1880s and grows like a weed, I've been
trying
to kill one for years. Roses like that would be old and probably
common
in the 1940s (whoever planted them before would still have too much of
them).
True, I wonder where people bought them then. They must have had some
garden centers, but not like we see so ubiquitously today. Hardware
store? My farm relatives usually seemed to trade for most of their
plants, but they could have bought some that caught their eye when they
went to town.
Named varieties vary, too, I've found out from my own experience, so
nothing can be ruled out completely at this point.
Here is an old rambler I photographed in May 2003, huge thing growing in
bush form atop a concrete rubble terrace, won't post the entire bush
photo:
http://www.white-peacock.com/OldRose2.jpg
Here are blooms from the exact same bush this year, got there a little
late; they were past their prime (May 31). Owner thinks that because we
had prolonged mild weather so early, the plant was forced into bloom
before the buds were fully mature.
http://www.white-peacock.com/IMG_4196.jpg
You would never know it was the same rose. Imagine the variations in
descriptions these two photos would evoke. The blooms were quite a bit
smaller this year and the form looks quite different. Someone on
another forum has one similar to the first link he thinks is Charles de
Mills. I'm not convinced but it certainly could be, very similar to
some photos I've seen.
Note that the above links have nothng to do the with rose I'm trying to
id in this thread.
Paulo