I think the Harkness Elizabeth looks like Chandos Beauty. Which makes me wonder do breeders try to improve an old rose from their own stable and if say only one aspect eg speedier rebloom is bred in is it a new rose?
I was on there briefly, then it became overwhelming and I left. I just rejoined to follow a few rose gardens but that’s it. That’s ridiculous to have stalkers!
To be honest, I found it rather amusing, but a lot of people wouldn't. You can always 'block' or change your page to 'private' I think.
@Tack ..yes, this sort of thing goes on all the time, but what you are referring to there is more a case of 'improved forms' of an original rose, which are not necessarily bred but 'sports', where a rose improves itself.. two of the best examples are 'climbing Iceberg' which sported [produced a shoot with a different characteristic], that repeat flowered, whereas the original was once flowering.. and 'New Dawn' which is a repeat flowering version of 'Dr. W. Van Fleet'.. nobody bred those, the roses morphed themselves..
Other roses are bed to be improved versions but without the same genetics.. compare William Shakespeare and William Shakespeare 2000, similar breeding but not identical.. also Wisley and Wisley 2008..
What is annoying is when they reintroduce a rose under a different name... take Austin's 'Ludlow Castle' [2000], just 2 years later it was reintroduced as 'England's Rose', then in 2009 they brought out another 'England's Rose' the one you have, but totally different to the other one.. A well known French breeder is suspected of reintroducing the same rose under a different name..
Perhaps next year we'll get 'Munstead Wood 2023'..
from the leaks.. the new rose is mentioned as best for flowering and best for health.. smaller flowers as well.. not sure about the fragrance.. if not fragrant then not for me.. My Emily Bronte does produce huge blooms with good fragrance.. But did not find her producing much flowers as some other Austins, but I felt she improved after a year (second year potted) with me..
I am on FB but have not posted in years.. To be honest, I am spending most of my time here.. and still cannot keep up at times..
@Tack Harkness Elizabeth was a proper pink rose in previous pics..
I quite like the new DA, I like that sort of fluffy, button eye flower type but then I have considered Emily Bronte in the past. I'll pass on buying it though as I only have one pink space and I want something quite robust (it's for a crevice😉). Be interested to see how it gets on if any of you succumb😊
I'm definitely going to pass, not my sort of rose at all. Interesting about the breeding, thank you for explaining Marlorena. I rather wish the offering was a Munstead Wood revamp.
Posts
stalkers?
@Tack
..yes, this sort of thing goes on all the time, but what you are referring to there is more a case of 'improved forms' of an original rose, which are not necessarily bred but 'sports', where a rose improves itself.. two of the best examples are 'climbing Iceberg' which sported [produced a shoot with a different characteristic], that repeat flowered, whereas the original was once flowering.. and 'New Dawn' which is a repeat flowering version of 'Dr. W. Van Fleet'.. nobody bred those, the roses morphed themselves..
Other roses are bed to be improved versions but without the same genetics.. compare William Shakespeare and William Shakespeare 2000, similar breeding but not identical.. also Wisley and Wisley 2008..
What is annoying is when they reintroduce a rose under a different name... take Austin's 'Ludlow Castle' [2000], just 2 years later it was reintroduced as 'England's Rose', then in 2009 they brought out another 'England's Rose' the one you have, but totally different to the other one..
A well known French breeder is suspected of reintroducing the same rose under a different name..
Perhaps next year we'll get 'Munstead Wood 2023'..
https://www.davidaustinroses.co.uk/products/elizabeth
..majestic,... commanding.. I like those terms I admit..
But I too would prefer a Munstead wood type.