Unfortunately I don't have a photo of it, but a couple other people are asking on the web about what rose it could have been, too. Maybe it was grown well before WWII; I don't know and don't remember anybody else having one other than people now talkign about it trying to identify it.
Ours was a rental house and it had been there since at least before
1943, very mature, was huge, on a large trellis, very tall and very wide. I don't know a multiflora from a grandiflora, but it had clusters of small (maybe 1-inch?), double, medium pink to rose colored blooms, for a long period during the summer. Don't remember a particular fragrance and it wasn't much for cutting, but sure looked beautiful when it bloomed. It required no care that I remember.
I remember my mother talking about a Pinnochio rose, but I think that was a shrub rose, and the only other named rose we had was a Peace rose when they became all the rage and some miniature ones.
Here's a Dorothy Perkins; I'm looking in my rose book. I know there are variations within varieties, soil, weather, but I don't remember the blossom looking like this:
formatting link
's not the best sample as those don't look like any rose leaves I ever saw, but the pink is about right.
Too light pink, wrong flower form. This one was more compact but not like a zinnia, no whorls or quarters, don't remember the eye, must have had one. I was only a kid then.
Cardinal de Richlieu is kind of close, but doesn't look quite the same. It doesn't get that large (should have mentioned this to the other poster).
I'll look through my rose book and some more net galleries tomorrow and see what comes the closest; I was drawn to the Richlieu before.
This one withstood harsh winters to at least -10, sometimes more, southern exposure, and didn't die back, actually once it got so large, it might have stopped growing. I don't remember my father pruning it, but it is possible.
Darn, not one photo of that rose even in b&w. I'll ask my younger sister if she remembers anything about it. It didn't have the form like so many of the old garden roses, and the petals were definitely short, but the blossom was full but not packed full, not like a wild rose, Betty Prior, etc.
Some pink climbers in my old rose book (1988), not Zéphirine Drouhin, not Pompon de Paris, not Parade (kind of close, can't go by colors in a book), closest I can find is a climber called Chaplin's Pink Climber but doesn't look quite like it either, not close enough to make out the intricate details. I like that Chaplin's Pink and can't find a good photo of it yet. It was introduced in 1928 and won a gold medal from the National Rose Society, blooms once a year in May.
Way too light and puffy. Beautiful though, will consider that for my arbor.
This one was much darker pink, or rose-colored, and not purplish or mauve. This is one tough mystery to unravel. My memory of it isn't the best but for the color (memory is close but couldn't nail it on a paint sampler) and size of bloom, we moved away from there when I was 12, and much as I loved flowers when I was a kid, I scrutinized it occasionally, but never thought to ask anything about it. Just wrote to my childhood friend but doubt she'll know. She will probably remember the rose though. I don't remember if it had a yellow center or not, sure it didn't have a button center.
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.
Old Blush? (Synonoms: Common Monthly, China Monthly, Common blush China, Old Pink Daily, Old Pink Monthly, Parson's Pink China). China (Old Garden Rose), medium pink. Introduced in Sweden in 1752 and into England before 1759
Thank you for the suggestion, I am writing them now. Here is the only photo I have, and you sure can't tell much from that. You can see the large trellis in the background.
formatting link
think it was taken either in the early spring or late fall of 1949 because one of the people in the photo died July 31, 1950, could have been spring 1950.
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:
formatting link
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.
formatting link
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.
The world rose people wrote right back and referred me to the CR people at
formatting link
which has a list of consultants for each geographical area. I sent them a lengthy email, wish I could have been more succinct, but I also asked them about three other old roses I'm trying to grow, had some nice photo links for those. One we think is the Harison's yellow and the other might be a Charles de Mills. I was discouraged about my cuttings looking bad, but I read on their cutting instructions page that so long as the stem is still green, the plant still has life so not to give up too quickly.
I shrink at the thought of killing a rose but don't know the circumstances. I have one particular red one that has grown from root suckers when the hybrid Queen Elizabeth died off and was going to dig it out because the canes are shooting everywhere. So many people have commented on how pretty it is (that particular one is a huge rambler) that I am going to try to get it trained on a trellis which will be a problem coordinating because the house needs painting.
Always something. It will probably take them awhile to sort through my roses. One is so pretty somebody on a rose forum suggested a grower might be interested in it.
formatting link
trying to root this one. None of the cuttings looks good, but the above one is going a little better; I was able to get longer stems from that one.
formatting link
scent of the second one is heavenly.
You've all been great about my rose id problem, and I heartily thank you all.
Even WITH a photo, it is sometimes difficult. That first one bloomed completely differently this year I guess because of too mild temps too early affecting the blossoms. I guess roses do that. Before I got so interested and infatuated with these heirloom roses (and my childhood one), my idea of growing roses was to go to the nursery and buy an expensive, potted hybrid one, dig a hole and mix with don't remember, water, prune, etc.
From now on I only want to grow own root roses.
Here is what I hope my struggling, scrubby little Harison? Yellow (that is the closest we can find on that one) transplants from suckers will turn into one day, although I'm going to try to prune them to make them a little bushier if I can without ruining them. Most of the ones on the property where the donor gave them to me are on tall woody, extremely thorny stems, extremely hardy. This picture doesn't reflect that so much, but that's the way most of them are.
You've got that exactly right, that's why I decided it's own root from now on so I don't have to mess at least as much with fungicides and powders. I never took the time to learn by doing (just reading and then you forget if you don't actually get your hands dirty except for potted ones). I didn't even know how to prune them correctly, do a little better now, but a pro would roll his/her eyes :-). If the ars people are able to help, I'm sure they will. Sometimes you just don't know for sure, without a photo almost impossible and difficult even with one.
I will look up that Gordon Thomas when I have time. I'm in zone 5 and it might not be hardy enough for here. I have two kit arbors sitting in boxes in my sunroom and my patience is being sorely tried because before they can be installed, a lot of prep work has to be done . . .and there is one delay after another . . .can't do all of it myself or I would.
Good luck with your roses. You've been a great help to steer me to the right people.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.