This may be a good way to introduce people to the various Old Garden Roses -- creating general threads for classes. So I'll start this one, since I have a few of these.

'Celsiana' -- Damask, pre-1732
[EDIT -- I wanted to add a link to its HelpMeFind page here, but I'm "not allowed" yet]








Before I started my current, large cemetery project, I did a sort of "dry run" by collecting some oldies, potting them up, and planting them at a very small old cemetery in my town. 'Celsiana' was one of those, but the rose I got had two plants in the pot, so I kept one here for a future use. It's been growing in a 20" resin barrel for two years now, tucked away with some others I kept, and they were arching toward the sun they craved. Well, since this year they'll be moving to their permanent home, I moved all the pots out into the sun, but last year's arching left them sort of "self-pegged" as a result. This meant they look a bit floppy, but they bloomed like crazy this year. Unfortunately, these seem to be the only pics I took of 'Celsiana' -- the first showing a fresh new bloom, the second compares new and old. This rose fades to white, and when the whole plant is blooming, gives a bit of a multicolored effect. The fragrance -- like that of almost all Damasks -- is amazing. Being as this rose keeps some stamens at the center of its blooms, the clove scent of Rosa moschata -- one of the ancestral species of the Damasks -- is still apparent. 'Celsiana' happens to be located where I do my repotting, so I got to enjoy its perfume all around me while doing that garden chore. When the flush finishes on the old once-blooming European roses like the Damasks, I don't dead-head them. Instead, I wait to see if hips form. If they do, I leave them for the birds. If they don't, I just snap off whatever is left behind.

I'll add more, one per post, and encourage others to do the same with their Damasks and Damask Perpetuals. From there, conversation can begin, since I'm sure there will be roses that, despite being very old, are "new" to some people here. And we can start other threads for other classes, which will serve as "primers" for those unfamiliar with them.

:-)

~Christopher

'Botzaris' -- Damask, 1856








Those pics were from this year. For whatever reason, I didn't take many "glamor shots" of 'Botzaris' this year, so I had to go back a bit in my albums for these below.






'Botzaris' makes buds that are tipped in red, but when open are essentially white. Some of the earliest-to-open blooms keep a pink tint, but those opening when the weather warms further are basically all-white.

This rose is of a denser, bushier habit than the typical older Damasks, which tend to be more gangly. This is one hint that 'Botzaris' was probably the result of a Damask being bred back to a Gallica, or maybe an Alba or Centifolia. In any case, even out of bloom, this makes for a nicely shaped "flowering shrub" here. I've noticed that it does sucker as an own-root rose, but the suckers come up within 12" of the center, appear as simply a widening of the plant rather than a whole new plant popping up elsewhere, and are easy to remove if unwanted. I wait until after the flush is finished, then do some neatening-up on 'Botzaris', including removing any suckers that have appeared where I don't want them. I've also found that if I simply cut the sucker near where it emerges from the ground, a new sucker will emerge the next year in about the same spot -- a good and easy way to make more of the plant, should you want to do that. Considering only one US nursery sells it anymore, that might be a good thing.

I'll add something about 'Botzaris' -- it's very sneaky with its prickles, which are a mix of large-and-vicious hooks, and innocuous-looking hair-like bristles. The former are obvious and easily avoided, but the latter will sneak their way into your skin if you're not careful. I'll often think I've gotten away without getting pricked, until I go inside and find the tips of these little bristles just embedded enough into my fingers to leave something behind when they snap off at the surface. You'd think I'd have learned after having 'Botzaris' for five years, but............

:-)

~Christopher

Christopher, thank you for getting this started, I don't grow any but have photographed a few at the San Jose Heritage Rose garden. Your descriptions are lovely, so informative and I sure wish I could stick my nose in the blooms!

We do have both of these in the database, Botzaris could use a few more photos, hint hint.

Rose (Rosa 'Celsiana')
Rose (Rosa 'Botzaris')

I like your idea too, Christopher, and I expect to learn a lot.

I checked my list and found that I'm growing only four damask roses. I'll list them in separate posts, as requested. I actually have three of the first one, Autumn Damask, because it was one of the roses Hortico used to send out, mislabeled, whenever customers ordered an elusive rose that wasn't available and were displeased that the desired rose had been on "back order" too long. Hortico would then slap a label with the name of the desired rose onto Autumn Damask or Climbing Iceberg, which also was sent to me numerous times.

It has pretty blooms, but the bush sprawls too much for my taste.

The second is Duchess of Portland, classed as a Damask Perpetual. It has so few distinctive features that I've never even taken a photo of it, so I'll move right on to the third, but here's a link to the database entry.

Rose (Rosa 'Duchess of Portland')

Joasine Hanet, more commonly known as Portland from Glendora, is also a damask perpetual, or portland rose.

This one is a joy to grow. It grows tall, with arching canes, and it produces beautiful blooms with a button eye. Here's one of my photos of it and one of Sue's, which is the prettiest photo I've ever seen of this one's blooms.

The fourth is Marbree, another Damask Perpetual.

I love this rose. The canes don't sprawl, the bush stays somewhat compact, and the blooms are quite different from those of most of my roses. They're bright pink with white mottling.

'Rose du Roi -- original' -- Damask Perpetual, 1812

First, a little preface about the "original" bit in the name -- there are a few roses going around as 'Rose du Roi' that aren't the real thing. Some are more Hybrid Perpetual in habit, showing the influence of China ancestry. There's also another Damask Perpetual which is similar to the "original", but not quite the same. My plant came from Vintage Gardens, and their plant was propagated as a reversion from 'Panachee de Lyon', which was a "parti-colored" sport of the original 'Rose du Roi'. According to Vintage Gardens, their plant of 'Panachee de Lyon' was a bit unstable, and would produce some blooms that were a dark smoky red, others were a medium to dark pink, along with the blooms with both colors that were typical. They assumed that the solid darker blooms were reversions to the original 'Rose du Roi', and managed to propagate those parts into stable plants that maintained the red color. This they listed as 'Rose du Roi -- original' to differentiate from the other Damask Perpetual they called 'Rose du Roi -- of commerce'. HelpMeFind doesn't differentiate, and so the file for 'Rose du Roi' contains several different roses -- some Damask Perpetuals, some Hybrid Perpetuals. I've also noticed that the rose going by this name in the UK seems to be pinker, and wonder if this might actually be another 'Rose du Roi' sport, since in all other respects those pics are identical to my plant. Unfortunately, it seems that no US nursery carries the "original" form, all seeming to carry one of the Hybrid Perpetual imposters.

Oh, and a quick definition of Damask Perpetual -- these roses originated from a cross of 'Quatre Saisons' with a Gallica -- possibly 'Officinalis' -- which were able to bloom again. 'Quatre Saisons' had many AKAs, such as 'Autumn Damask', and it was the only rose in Europe that rebloomed until the Chinas and Teas came over in the late 18th Century. They have a somewhat more Gallica habit but the Damask fragrance, as well as some of the Damask prickles and "stoutness of cane". None of these roses repeats as well as do Chinas and Teas, but for people in colder areas, ANY repeat bloom was cherished back then.

Here in central NJ, my 'Rose du Roi -- original' has one big flush from late May through mid June, then sends a wave of some new buds as hips from the first flush are forming. If I give a light prune along with dead-heading, that second flush is almost as grand as the first. Then I get some random flowers here and there during July and early August, then a moderate final flush from late August through September. With these roses, the more you trim, feed, and water after a flush, the grander the next flush will be. If you do nothing, you'll get a scattering of a few flowers here and there until hard frost.

This Damask Perpetual in particular grows much taller than the others I have -- though they may do the same as they mature, since some are still young. I've found that if left alone, it produces canes that become too top-heavy to stay upright without staking -- especially after rain. One year, when the rose was two years old and I first noticed this, I cut half of the canes back by half, and waited. They all sprouted side-shoots, leading to more weight below, and new shoots finished with blooms. Then I repeated it on the remaining canes. The rest of the season, it remained upright. The following year, I was tempted to leave it nearly unpruned for the first flush, and again it got top-heavy. So now I shorten all the canes by a third in late Winter, shorten side-shoots higher up, but leave side-shoots near the base longer. This works -- until a heavy rain. But all I've needed were some bamboo stakes tucked in to fix it until the blooms dry.

Here's my 'Rose du Roi -- original' from this year. Unfortunately, my old iPhone camera destroys roses in this color range, but you'll get an idea of its growth habit and profusion of bloom during the first flush.












And below are some pics from previous years. The fourth pic shows blooms in late October.











These last two were from 2014, a year after coming as an own-root band. The first shows the funky extra sepal that the true 'Rose du Roi' shows on some flower buds. This trait was passed on to its sports and some of its seedlings, but is not found among the "imposters", so it makes for a defining characteristic for the real thing. The second photo is about as close as I've ever gotten to accurately capturing this rose's true colors.








:-)

~Christopher

My only Damask (I think) is Autumn Damask. This area is not the best for Damasks, but am enjoying the Damask tutorial.

@zuzu -- you and I now have two roses in common. I also have 'Marbree' and 'Duchess of Portland' (which I have labeled as 'Portlandica', one of its many AKAs). I agree -- they are very compact and "well-behaved" plants that bloom with the same regularity as my 'Rose du Roi -- original'. My plants are still young, having come two years ago from Rogue Valley Roses, and are living in 20" resin barrels. They, too, will be going to the cemetery.

I was originally trying to collect as many of the "true" Damask Perpetuals as I could find. By "true" I mean the ones which Vintage Gardens listed that way -- repeat-blooming Gallica-like Damasks that showed little or no China influence. There are some other roses today known as Portlands or Damask Perpetuals which are really early Hybrid Perpetuals that resemble their Damask Perpetual ancestors but show some China ancestry as well, either directly or through the Bourbons or Hybrid Chinas. I still can't post links, but I remember something from Vintage Gardens' catalog titled "Philip Robinson Examines the Damask Perpetuals" which can be found online via google search. That explains things in more detail.
[Admin edited to add link:] https://ia801901.us.archive.or...

Anyway, the reason I was being picky was because I was toying with the idea of recreating a new 'Autumn Damask' type of rose, using the original Damask ancestry formula -- (Rosa moschata X Rosa Gallica) X Rosa fedtschenkoana -- but using one of the Damask Perpetuals instead of the Gallica. I figured that they're "Gallica-like" and have a lot of Gallica in them, but they repeat-bloom. If I could get that reinforced with fresh R. moschata and R. fedtschenkoana injections, maybe I'd get another repeat-blooming Damask out of it. Well, my other garden projects keep me from getting out there early in the morning during bloom season to try the first cross, but maybe this year. My R. moschata has buds, and the Damask Perpetuals keep going until about July 4th, so maybe the stars will align this year. If Damask Perpetual pollen takes on R. moschata, and I get seedlings from that, then I'll put some pollen from R. fedtschenkoana on them and see what the next generation is like.

So, my little stable of "true" Damask Perpetuals includes 'Rose du Roi -- original', 'Marbree', 'Portlandica', 'Indigo', and "Pickering Four Seasons". I also had 'Blanc de Vibert' but this Spring's heavy rains for a long stretch seem to have rotted its canes from the base. Maybe I'll get new shoots from the roots, but I haven't seen any yet. I also briefly had a small plant of 'Marie de St. Jean' that was given to me -- of all times -- in late June, and it died after transplanting. I'll have to nab that rarity again someday for the cemetery. And I'll also have to locate any sports of 'Rose du Roi' that still exist in this country. Since Vintage Gardens sold them when they were open, SOMEONE must have them. To expand a bit, I also collected a few repeat-blooming old Mosses which were bred from Damask Perpetuals -- 'Alfred de Dalmas' (aka 'Mousseline'), 'Soupert et Notting', and 'Salet' -- but I'll post about those in another thread on Mosses tomorrow.

@porkpal -- I don't know anything about the forum members here who didn't come from GardenWeb, so I don't know what you know and don't know. I'd be happy to share what I've learned, so please feel free to ask any questions. And I'm sure others reading these threads will jump in. There are several other Damasks I don't grow myself, but will be planting at my cemetery project. But I know several others here from GardenWeb grow them, so I hope they chime in with their inputs. And in a couple of years, as roses get planted and grow at the cemetery, I'll have more pictures to share here.

@Calif_Sue -- I'm jealous that you're so close to that heritage rose garden! Your name seems familiar, either from Dave's Garden or HelpMeFind, so I'm sure I've come across your pictures in the past. I figured your climate is too warm for many of the once-blooming old roses, but I'm sure you have some Chinas and Teas and Noisettes tucked in which you could share on a thread for those classes.

Anyway, let's all keep it going.

:-)

~Christopher

Christopher, Calif_Sue did live near the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden at one time, but now she lives near me in Sebastopol, and the two of us live near Vintage Gardens, so she has many, many pictures of Gregg's roses as well. Her photos are on the Dave's Garden and HMF sites, so you probably remember her name from both.

My 'Indigo' succumbed to the gophers here soon after I bought it, so I never even saw it bloom. All of my damasks came from Vintage Gardens, except for the Autumn Damasks from Hortico.

Christopher, I added the link for that Philip Robinson Damask Perpetuals article to your post so at least the info is there. I hope it's the correct link.

I have taken thousands of photos at various public gardens, San Jose Heritage was a favorite, it's 2 hrs south of me now, we are about 1 hr north of San Francisco. I made it one time to Vintage before they closed. I drive by their home and gardens all the time, it's a couple of miles from me and it's a jungle of roses, so colorful in the spring.
I don't grow any Chinas, Teas or Noisettes. The list of roses I grow is on my profile, mostly warm tones.

You have two noisettes that I know of, Sue: Crepuscule and William Allen Richardson.

and I should have looked at my list more closely. And now I'll go to bed.

@AquaEyes / Christopher ..

I think you have hit on an excellent plan to bring information into the NGA site about OGRs.

I have been thinking about this for a few days and playing with the functionality of the NGA site to see if I could find a way to make the knowledge about a particular rose stay with the rose on its rose page in the database. Also, it can become a specific place for a discussion about a given rose.

Zuzu or Sue, please jump in, if you know of a better way to achieve Christopher's goal of enhancing the information available to site users about various old garden roses (OGRs) so that the information can be readily found by site users.

Here are some of my thoughts:

Christopher, when you post a photo of a rose to the rose database, anyone can make a comment about the rose. If you post a photo to the database and then go to that photo and open it, the system allows you to start a thread about THAT photo and you can write as much about the rose as you do in any post on the Rose Forum, but the information stays on the rose page and there is no need to search the forum for posts about the rose.

For example, you wrote above that you and Zuzu are both growing 'Marbree'.

This is a photo that Zuzu posted to the 'Marbree' database entry on NGA:



The blue link in the photo above is a live link and will take you to the database page. If you drop down below the other photos, you can post comments that are specific to that rose. This also opens a "thread" where others can add comments about that specific rose, so that the discussion stays on that rose page.

In a sense, this is a shortcut to the normal search of the Rose Forum for information about a specific rose. Site users would just use the rose database search.

If you don't want to tie your discussion to a specific photo, you can just go to the rose page in the database:

Rose (Rosa 'Marbree')

and under ADDING ACTIONS, you can select to POST A COMMENT. Doing this, opens a thread for discussions about the rose.

One of the great things about NGA is that threads that may relate to that rose also come up when you open the rose page. This thread is already showing on the 'Marbree' rose page.

It may be possible to tag the photos with a comment. I am not certain about that.

As I research a rose, there are times when I want to understand how a rose fits in with other roses of its class and then there are times when I only want to know the specifics of that one particular rose.

I think finding a way to associate the information to the rose page is the best of all possible worlds.

Just some random thoughts that have been going through my head these days ...

What do you think ?

Roseblush, I love your idea about the pictures, links, etc. Sounds great. So nice to know how much flexibility the site has.

Chris, I love learning about roses I don't grow and love seeing your pictures. I am not sure any of them would be able to take our 116 degree temps in the summer. I also tend to shy away from once bloomers. Please let me know if the idea I have about once bloomers is incorrect. I am assuming that they have a first bloom (lasts a couple of weeks) and that is it. Done.

My roses will usually hit their peak mid April. I am sometimes lucky (this year has been a lucky year) to have that bloom last until the beginning of May, when the heat starts to hit here. Then I may get a bloom or two until the fall (November/December) when the weather starts to cool down. Then it turns cold and we start to have freezes, so the blooms stop. So I am thinking I would only get to see flowers for a week or two (on once bloomers) and that is it for the year.

So, for once bloomers, do they normally bloom for a month or two or three and then stop? Or, do they only have the first blooms (that last a week or two) and then quit until next year? Sorry for my ignorance on this topic, but I have always wondered about this and as a result, have stayed away from any rose that is listed as a once bloomer. The result of that is I have missed out on some beautiful roses that I would have loved to grow. Sigh.

Mustbnuts said:Roseblush, I love your idea about the pictures, links, etc. Sounds great. So nice to know how much flexibility the site has.

Chris, I love learning about roses I don't grow and love seeing your pictures. I am not sure any of them would be able to take our 116 degree temps in the summer. I also tend to shy away from once bloomers. Please let me know if the idea I have about once bloomers is incorrect. I am assuming that they have a first bloom (lasts a couple of weeks) and that is it. Done.

My roses will usually hit their peak mid April. I am sometimes lucky (this year has been a lucky year) to have that bloom last until the beginning of May, when the heat starts to hit here. Then I may get a bloom or two until the fall (November/December) when the weather starts to cool down. Then it turns cold and we start to have freezes, so the blooms stop. So I am thinking I would only get to see flowers for a week or two (on once bloomers) and that is it for the year.

So, for once bloomers, do they normally bloom for a month or two or three and then stop? Or, do they only have the first blooms (that last a week or two) and then quit until next year? Sorry for my ignorance on this topic, but I have always wondered about this and as a result, have stayed away from any rose that is listed as a once bloomer. The result of that is I have missed out on some beautiful roses that I would have loved to grow. Sigh.

The old once-blooming European roses generally need periods of cold in Winter in order to flower -- in that way, they're rather like lilacs. They also tend to shut down as soon as really hot temperatures arrive, so that's another reason they don't do well in zones like yours. In areas with cold Winters and less--than-Hades Summers, these roses do well because they get their Winters, and Summers are milder, making bloom time last a bit longer.

Once-blooming roses have one full, dramatic flush and then are finished for the season. How long it lasts depends on how many buds form, and how long they take to mature and open. The warmer it is at bloom time the faster that progression happens. Where I live, that time varies between three and six weeks, depending on the individual rose, when it gets started, and how big the plant is. I have some once-blooming roses, but most repeat to varying extents. Here, Bourbons and Bourbon-like Hybrid Perpetuals have an extended flush -- really two flushes, beginning with blooms on last-year's wood and continuing with blooms on new wood immediately after -- that lasts from late May through early July, then scattered blooms in Summer, followed by a 2/3-full flush in late August through September. Damask Perpetuals and Hybrid Perpetuals that take after them have a bit of a pause between their first two flushes, fewer blooms through the Summer (some stop completely), and another lighter flush near Autumn. Chinas and Teas vary between always having at least one flower on them and blooming in successive waves. I prefer the waves, so I dead-head the whole bush when the last bloom opens, rather than as each bloom fades.

:-)

~Christopher

Thank you, thank you, thank you Chris for responding! I have a much clearer picture. Sounds like those once bloomers need a chill factor time (just like the stone fruit we grow here). So many hours below 45 degrees or so. Well, unless I move, looks like those old rose, once bloomers won't work for me Sad as some of those are so beautiful!

Plant comments are a good idea, but photo comments aren't because they're usually used for misidentified photos. A photo comment automatically creates a thread in the Plant Photos Forum and notifies the photo owner that his or her photo has been singled out by another member for discussion. It is best if the photo comments are kept quite brief because the Plant Photos Forum is frequented by the plant admins and other members eager to help so that the misidentified photo can be moved to the appropriate entry.

Photo comments are also used to compliment the owner on an exceptional photo or to ask the owner questions about the photo rather than the plant.

Another strike against the photo comments is that they're not readily available to people looking at the plant entry. Plant comments are displayed on the entry page, whereas photo comments are accessible only when someone clicks on that particular photo to enlarge it.

I feel that the more information that I can see on a particular rose's database page the better. I might, however, not think to go searching further.