Does anyone know anything about this rose? Thanks.

Someone who has proficient Spanish language skills might Google "La Trepadora" and get a usable translation.

It is, in any case, NOT a banksia of any sort.

That's like putting a sign around your cat's neck that says "DOG," and introducing kitty as a pitbull.

But it might be 'Don Juan,' a rather pleasant dark red climber.

Jeri

the Home Depot "Red Lady Banks Rose" is not Don Juan, might be the "Red Ribbons" as some one suggested....still looks a LOT like the Doc to me!

But that doesn't mean it's the same rose everywhere. And other "Red Lady Banks" have not ALSO been labeled Rosa trepadora.
Rosa trepadora seems to be a fairly common term in Spain.

Also, witness another "Lady Banks" which may be Tausendschoen.
The possibilities are legion.

Jeri

I put some pictures on the Rose Hybridizers Forum to show that they are the same.

What I strongly suspect is that not all of the "Red Lady Banks" from Nakase are Red Ribbons -- but that they propagate whatever red climber is handy, and give it that name.

In any case, Nakase Brothers, Huntington Beach, CA has a website, and can be sent email. It would be good for EVERYONE to write to them -- as they are defrauding, not only customers, but Kordes.

Jeri

Jeri

There is no proof Kordes is being defrauded. If the rose is protected by patent, and if they are licensed directly or under someone else's license to distribute the plants, and as long as they are paying royalties for the plants produced and sold, Kordes more than likely couldn't care less. What's to say they aren't buying plugs of Red Ribbons, from whose purchase price Kordes is receiving royalties, then "marketing" them under a name which stimulates their sales? As long as Kordes receives their royalties and as long as the plants SELL, no one in the distribution channel could care less. They are NOT in the business of maintaining the integrity of "botanical nomenclature". They are in the business if moving product and generating sales.

You have no more reason to expect that channel of distribution to provide the proper name of the cultivar, maintain proper identification of the specific rose than you have to expect a puppy mill to provide properly bred, properly documented dogs. If you want as absolutely proper identification as possible, don't buy it from a schlock producer. Nothing they are doing is any different from what has been done in the nursery industry for the past two-hundred years. It is well documented throughout history.

What they ARE doing, is using "Banksiae" as a brand, which is rather consistent with how the consuming public perceives it. Many don't identify it with being a rose, but a white or yellow flowering "vine". I've been there very often. People encounter them and are surprised to learn they are ROSES, because to most, they don't look like roses. They consider them strong growing, woody, spring flowering vines.

Red Lady Banks isn't marketed to YOU (US), but to those to whom Banksiae isn't a rose, but a "flowering vine". You have to change glasses from a minimum semi professional "rosarain" to just plain "plant planter" "Marketing", by its very nature, strongly borders on perceived "fraud". You just need to refocus your vision from the educated, experienced rose person you are, to what those who know little to nothing about them perceive. Kim

I spent my entire career in the advertising business. As you know, I'm a pretty decent advertising copywriter. There's a huge difference between out and out falsehood and "implied truth."

The latter is acceptable.
The former is NOT acceptable -- and can be actionable, when government bothers.
Legitimate merchandisers avoid out and out falsehood, because in the end, it's not worth the bad press, and hard feelings.

I do agree that if you buy roses from Home Depot, Lowes, or Wally World, you're asking to be ripped off ... but that doesn't -- REALLY doesn't -- excuse it.

Jeri
Retired Advertising Copywriter

*** DOESN'T!
That's wrong, too!

Sorry, but a falsehood is a falsehood is a falsehood.
It's one thing when it is done accidentally, and quite another when it's done deliberately.

It's intended to deceive. That's wrong.
It used to be legal, btw, to use shaving cream as a substitute for whipped cream, in advertising photos. It was a convenient thing to do, in a studio photography session -- but it was a lie. You can't do that anymore, because it is intended to deceive.

Jeri