The Mystery of Comtesse de Lacépède.

[Camilla]

I was helping a friend find some information on this rose today on the internet. And I came over a strange thing. There are 2 different roses sold under the same name.. :/ They dont look the same at all, how is this possible?

The one that are sold in Norway as the Comtesse de Lacépède looks like this:
http://www.roseexpert.no/images/Comt...ede%20copy.jpg

http://www.rosarosam.com/roses_galle..._lacepede.html

But the other one I found under the same name looked like this:
http://www.rogersroses.com/gallery/D...877~gid~24.asp

http://www.classicroses.co.uk/roses/..._lacepede.html

So I was intrested to find out more about this. In Brent C. Dickerson book The Old Rose Advisor , Volume 1 this decription is given about this rose:
Comtesse de Lacèpède C. Duval / V. Verdier , 1840
Flower round, very full, flat, white with some flesh; outer petals very large, inner ones smaller.

I found simular decriptions in some Norwegian and Danish books aswell. So who is the right rose and how is this posible. :/
What has happened? It would be so intressting to know. Anyone else that has a clue ?

Kind Regards
Camilla

[PeterBealesRoses]

Hi Camilla,

According to American Rose Society Modern Roses 12 published in 2007 COMTESSE DE LACEPEDE reads the following HGal,ip,1840 Duval/Verdier; flowers silvery blush, center sometimes rosy,large dbl; moderate growth; sometimes classed as Hch.

I am afraid i do not know why there are 2 different roses grown with the same name.

Can anyone else put any light on this problem.

Simon

Customer Service Manager P B R.

[taddy]

In HMF you can find THIS COMMENT for Comtesse de Lacepede

[Camilla]

Hi Taddy.
Thank you for the link. I know that they have been mixed in scandinavia. But the one sold in Norway now are a different rose then Mme Hardy. It is slightly pink in the middel of the flower. As far as I know Mme Hardy is all white.I dont grow any of these roses myself so I cant say for shure.

In the book Rosa Gallica by Suzanne Verrier this is said about the flowers on Comtesse de Lacepede: and its blossoms is large, full,cupped, silvery white or with with a blush. Now in cultivation at Sangerhausen, this rose is described as " dark red, medium- sized" Misidentified?.

This is an book from USA so it cant be just in Norway.

And on the rose decription on helpmefind it also describes the rose as near white:
www.helpmefind.com/rose/pl.php?n=1277&tab=1

This is very confusing. :/

Kind Regards
Camilla

[taddy]

So there are at least three Comtesse? How exiting!!

[PeterBealesRoses]

Hi All,

The mystery deepens.

I will see what Peter makes of all this.

Simon

Customer Service Manager.

[hannes]

Hi all,
This really is quite an intriguing and confusing mystery. So there are two different roses sold under one name. This happens sometimes, the identities of old roses often are not that easyily authenticated, some are disputed etc. Classification of some of the old varietes often seems to be a problem too, even for experts. If there are two roses as "possibles" they usually are rather similar though. What strikes me as very out of the ordinary is the fact that there are two roses of different colours (!) – one more or less "white/silvery blush/...", the other more or less "pink/red/purplish" – sold as 'Comtesse de Lacépède'.

One can't but wonder how this came about. I don't think the probability that two different breeders introduced two different roses in 1840 with the same name is very high. I'd suppose that somone would have noticed the duplicity in the meantime. But it still might be a possibility. On the other hand, if there are different records for 'Comtesse de Lacépède' in catalogues/encyclopaedias, let's say one describing her as a rather pink Centifolia, the other as a rather white Gallica this too would pose a number of further questions, don't you think so?

To add to the confusion it seems that in Scandinavian countries 'Madame Hardy' has been sold (is still sold by some nurseries?) as 'Comtesse de Lacépède' (see taddy's link to the comment on the HMF website in the post above for example). And if you look at some of the photos of 'Comtesse de Lacépède' on the web, for my amateur eye the rose depicted is often very similar to (respectively identical with) 'Madame Hardy'. Well, photos of roses on the web often are problematic too.

And it's also a bit surprising in my opinion that there seems to be not much discussion about the identity of 'Comtesse de Lacépède' on the web for example. The Roger's Roses website, one of the few who have the rose as a "Purplish Red (old rose), Strong Pink" Gallica says the rose is available from the U.S. nursery Vintage Gardens Antique Roses. They have 'Comtesse de Lacépède' on their website as a Gallica of crimson colour, introduced by Duval in 1840 (BTW, HMF gives 3 French breeders as origin for the rose: Duval, Verdier – both 1840, Robert 1843.) But this nursery also has the following notice on that page: "As pointed out by Suzanne Verrier in her book Rosa Gallica, this is incorrect, the original of this name being a double white. Nonetheless a handsome Gallica of deep crimson, very double, of excellent fragrance, this is different from all others we grow."

I now have looked at quite a number of websites of nurseries that have 'Comtesse de Lacépède' on offer. Most of them carry the "white cultivar" with a similar description as the one Simon has cited above from 'Modern Roses 12'. 3-4 nurseries have the "pink cultivar". But of course this doesn't prove anything. Would be interesting to know if all the "white cultivars" are identical and ditto if the "pink cultivars" of the different nurseries are identical. Also would be interesting to know if the cultivar at Sangerhausen Rosarium Camilla has mentioned above is identical with the "pink cultivar" from nurseries. So there are more questions than answers. My own conclusion: I absolutely have no clue.

Anyway, I'm glad that Camilla has pointed out the "mystery" to us. And I'm looking forward to hear what Peter Beales will tell Simon. Both of the roses that are sold as 'Comtesse de Lacépède' are very beautiful in my opinion. And I wouldn't mind to have both in my garden :)

Hannes

[KiwiRose]

One wonders if it is simply a case of human error when new stock of a new rose arrives in a new country/new nursery. If the rose is a new variety and no-one knows what colour etc to expect with a given name, a simple error could lead to the wrong rose being propogated under that name, then in that area the 'wrong' rose becomes known by that name... Just a theory :)

Rachel

[PeterBealesRoses]

I have just sat down with Peter Beales and Simon White and they have never heard of a white form of Comtesse de Lacépède. We would hazard a guess that the white form in the pictures above is possibly the Damask rose "Mme Hardy".

We are aware however that there is some discussion about the authentic pink form and although we do not say so on our website, in our catalogue we do use the term not fully authenticated, but Peter Beales believes his stock to be correct.

I hope that helps.

Pete
IT Manager

[jedmar]

This subject has recently come up on HMF again. Researching the early descriptions of 'Comtesse de Lacépède', we can conclude the following:
- the deep lilac-pink CdL found in Mottisfont is certainly not the original. In this case, Beales also needs to review why it believes it stock to be correct (sources).
- the white CdL pictures on HMF show 'Mme Hardy'. There are reports of a different white CdL in Scandinavia, which has a blush tint, but I have not seen definite pictures of this, compared to Mme Hardy.

CdL clearly was white with flesh-coloured shading, with the buds showing a stronger flesh-colour. This description from the "Annals de Flore et de Pomone" (1841) can be found in the "Old Rose Advisor", and now, in original, in HMF.

The lilac-pink Gallica 'Comte de Lacépède' is rather dubious, as it is only reported by one German source, and is probably the source of this misidentification.

jedmar