 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
James Delahanty Last May, the University of Chicago Press reprinted Thomas Christopher’s ‘In Search of Lost Roses.’ Christopher’s book is one of those seminal works that achieve an effect far beyond any contemplation at the time of publication. It chronicled the fortunes and practices of persons who searched for ‘lost’ roses—roses that had survived over the years in abandoned farmhouses, overgrown and weedy cemeteries and in sites untended, unwatered, and unfed. The book highlighted the adventure of the search and celebrated the passion for roses that sparked it. If the decades of the seventies and eighties in the twentieth century were the golden days of searching and finding roses of the nineteenth century across America, Christopher was its chronicler and promoter. Many an Old Garden Rose enthusiasm began as a result of reading his book. It sparked for many readers a lifelong love affair with roses and the discovery of them in out of the way places.
Today the search for lost roses extends beyond the wonderful creations of the nineteenth century. At the Descanso International Rosarium, the bed devoted to ‘Vintage Hybrid Teas’ (1867-1940) features a plaque describing them as the roses ‘most in danger of extinction.’ Even more contemporary roses can be placed on the ‘lost’ or endangered list by virtue of marketing needs, the exigencies of maintaining an operating and profitable nursery, or just the devotion to the ‘now’ that overlooks the need to remember tomorrow.
While the wanderlust and spirit of adventure that undergirds the search for lost roses of the nineteenth century still beat in the hearts of rosarians (if a little less vigorously than before), the loci have changed. Abandoned farmhouses seem to have become victims to developments and bulldozers, modern cemeteries make short work of those who would plant roses or anything else to interfere with the supremacy of easy care equipment, and sheer residential mobility tends to prevent the kind of long term plant development that would enable roses to acquire sufficient presence to last through long term neglect.
However, it is likely that the last frontier in rescuing roses of the twentieth century may well be the private gardens of unsung individuals. In a recent article (see www.venturarose.org link to the January, 2003 newsletter Rose of the Month) the rediscovery of Ralph Moore’s l952 introduction ‘Climbing Yellow Sweetheart’ was described. The place of discovery was a modest home in Glendale which had been occupied by the same people for over forty-five years and before that by the original purchaser from the 1940’s. Thus, it is possible to combine the adventure of the original Rose Rustlers by venturing into one’s own backyard and/or those of your neighbors.
This possibility links up with the attempt to gather in one place the more than five hundred roses hybridized by Ralph Moore over his seventy year career. When the project began, it appeared that almost twenty per cent of the total were lost to commerce, the present and posterity. Examination of public gardens and commercial enterprises reduced the list to the current status of about 85 roses from the ‘master of Miniatures.’ Of the missing 85, thirteen are miniatures introduced in the decade of the l950’s, while four were introduced as late as the nineties.
Rediscovery of any of these roses would require the happy combination of an observant eye, a garden of sufficient age, and a long time resident. The age and residence factors are not capable of being manipulated to any great degree: there is or is not a garden with unidentified miniatures and the residents have or have not shovel pruned with vicious regularity. The observant eye, however, is another matter.
Many of the missing Moore miniatures of the fifties were distinctive in that they were small, even for miniatures by modern standards, being no more than a foot in height. ‘Cutie,’ for example, grew only ten inches. A l952 introduction, it had a pointed bud, flowers of clear pink with a white base and only 15 petals. The foliage was small and glossy. The outstanding feature, however, was that the pointed petals seemed to form a perfect star. One commentator in the ‘Proof of the Pudding’ section of the l954 American Rose Annual argued that the rose should be in every miniature collection if only for its startling ‘novelty value.’ Other observers noted this characteristic over the next five years. While the rose apparently did not excite much admiration for its exhibition qualities, as a garden rose it seemed to bloom well in such disparate places as El Paso, Illinois and Northern New Jersey.
‘Pink Joy,’ a l953 introduction, grew up to one foot in height. The flowers were a deep pink, double, with around 30 petals extending only one inch in diameter. Uncharacteristically for a miniature, there was a sweet violet fragrance. The l966 American Rose Annual noted that the plant had good disease resistance, freely bloomed, and that the flower shaded to a ‘slight salmon tint’ as it opened. On the other hand, ‘Lemon Drop’ and ‘Snowflakes,’ both l954 introductions, grew to only six inches maximum in height. What distinguished ‘Lemon Drop,’ aside from the light yellow color and plant size, was the presence of a great number of prickles; ‘Snowflakes grew half a foot high with white double flowers.
To indicate the fragility of the modern rose shelf life, you might consider that of the four missing Moore roses of the l990’s, two (‘Billy Boy’ and ‘Tag-a-long’) disappeared from commerce only five years ago and the other two (‘Isles of Roses’ and ‘Pretty Penny’) were still listed in the Combined Rose List up to the year 2000. The likelihood that these four roses are still growing in a private garden somewhere has to be considered high given the propinquity in time. ‘Billy Boy,’ (1990) has pointed buds leading to small medium red blooms with 15 to 18 petals in a cupped form, usually one bloom to a stem. The prickles are unusual in that they are slender, straight and brownish in color. It is a low growing, bushy plant with medium green dense foliage. ‘Tag-a-long’ (l992) is a medium grower, with few prickles, and semi-double blooms with 6 to 14 petals about one and a half to nearly three inches across. What is most distinguishing, however, is the contrast of reddish lavender against white in the blooms.
‘Isle of Roses’ (l993) produces clusters of yellow blooms one and half inches to three inches across; it has few prickles on a plant that grows nearly two feet in height, clothed in medium green semi-glossy foliage. ‘Pretty Penny’ (l994) produces copper colored semi-double blooms of 6 to 14 petals one and a half to three inches across mostly singly, but occasionally in clusters. There are no prickles at all. Medium green matte foliage grows on a spreading but compact bush. (The ‘spreading, compact’ bush was taken directly from MR11; it adds to the intrigue of locating lost roses.)
For a complete list of the missing Moore roses, you can go to the Sequoia Nursery website and click on the link to the list (www.sequoianursery.biz) Armed with the rose bible of Modern Roses 11, the age of the garden, the length of the residence, you are ready to start rustling at home, or at least close enough for a quick retreat should the forces dedicated to sound thinking and rational decision making make their presence known. In honor of the old ‘master of Miniatures,’ the beverage of choice should be Dr. Pepper. If the forces arrayed against romance and adventure are particularly noisome, something stronger can be added.
Findings or sightings or inspired guesses should be reported to Lyn Griffith (RoseBlush@aol.com) who is coordinating part of the search and discovery process.
James Delahanty 21Mar03 This article first appeared in the Ventura County Rose Society newsletter in April, 2003 Notes:
This article may be forwarded or reprinted freely without the need for the written permission of the author.
Table Of Ralph Moore Lost Roses By Year of Introduction
Variety Name Class Color Date Cutie Min MP 1952 Pink Joy Min DP 1953 Lemon Drop Min LY 1954 Snowflakes Min W 1954 Fairy Princess Clmin LP 1955 Lilac Time Min MB 1955 Polka Dot Min W 1956 Baby Jayne Clmin MP 1957 Sparkie Min MR 1957 Perky Min DP 1958 Bobolink Min DP 1959 Lollipop Per Mr 11 Min MR 1959 Orange Elf Clmin OB 1959 Lady Ann Min MP 1961 Little Flirt Min RB 1961 Scarlet Ribbon Clmin DR 1961 Silver Tips Min PB 1961 White King Min WB 1961 Little Showoff Clmin YB 1962 Red Arrow Min MR 1962 Tiny Jack Min MR 1962 Tiny Jill Min MP 1962 Nova Red Min MR 1964 Peachy Min AB 1964 Red Wave F MR 1964 Yellow Necklace Min MY 1965 Pink Ribbon Min LP 1966 Baby Pinocchio Min PB 1967 Little Mike Min DR 1967 Purple Elf Min M 1967 Orange Sunshine Min OB 1968 Pink Frostfire Min LP 1968 Whipped Cream Min W 1968 Candy Pink Min LP 1969 Josephine Min WB 1969 Persian Princess Min OR 1970 Little Curt Min DR 1971 Desert Charm Min DR 1973 Sleepy Time Min OP 1973 Tweetie Min LP 1973 Very Busy Min PB 1973 White Madonna Min WB 1973 Brightside Min OR 1974 Happy Time Clmin RB 1974 Honeycomb Min WB 1974 Orange Fire Min OP 1974 Sunny Morning Min MY 1974 Wee Lass Min MR 1974 Gidget Min OP 1975 Gypsy Jewel Min DP 1975 Small World Min OR 1975 Christine Weinert Min OR 1976 Fashion Flame Min OP 1977 Pinwheel Min PB 1977 Rosetone Min MP 1977 Sundust Min AB 1977 Cream Gold Min MY 1978 Happy Thought Min OP 1978 Orange Pixie Min OR 1978 Red Button Min DR 1978 Rose Hills Red X Min DR 1978 Star Twinkle Min PB 1978 Orange Cascade Clmin OB 1979 Shakespeare Festival Min MY 1979 Carmela Min OB 1980 Crazy Quilt Min RB 1980 White Feather Min W 1980 Gypsy Fire Min OR 1981 Sweet Sunshine Min MY 1981 Holiday Cheer Min DR 1982 Autumn Fire Min OR 1983 Sun Honey Min MY 1983 Country Joy (1985) X Min PB 1984 Cindy Marie Min 1985 Coral Cameo (1982) Min DP 1986 Spanish Dancer (1980) Min OR 1986 Billy Boy Min MR 1990 Tag-A-Long (1993) Min RB 1992 Pretty Penny (1995) Min OB 1994
|