That is one huge, impressive, but odd looking rose. Are its origins some canes hiding behind the center pictured woman, or more likely, is it some strange, alien life form, erupting from the little building it covers, where an evil rose hybridizer dwelled, performing his diabolical experiments using byproducts of beer production to produce monster roses which have escaped their confines, murdered the hybridizer,and growing huge, shot through the top of the building?? Oh, oh...I'm going over the top...back to reality.That is a very interesting pruning job someone has done. Diane

What a fascinating photograph! I wonder where the base of the plant is . . . Do you suppose it is planted to the right of the structure, grew up its side, and is cascading over it? The foliage on the canes silhouetted against the sky looks rather like R. banksiae. It would be interesting to know what month the photo was taken. Thanks for posting it, and let us know if you learn anything more about it.

Thanks for posting

By zooming on the picture, I can see two places where what look like rose cane/trunks may be - one is in back of and to the right of the center lady in the back row, and the other is way to the left, near the window of the little building/shed.

Jackie

I think you are right about both origins of the canes, Jackie, and I think there is a rose growing from each of them. In other words, there are two roses, not one. Diane

Bet money that's 'Mermaid.'

Jeri

I'll take your bet, Jeri. The photo is pre 1900. Mermaid was introduced in 1917. Plus, those flowers look double. Kim

I tried to crop the pic to get a closer look at the rose - here it is: (definitely double)

Holy cow, what a great rose and photo! That rose is more than 25' tall. I might guess some old rambler (e.g., like Baltimore Belle or the Moser House Shed rose?) or maybe the ever-irrepressible MAC. Such wonderful festoons of flowers. -- Debbie

I'm betting on Climbing Cecile Brunner. Discovered by Franz P. Hosp (United States, 1894). Especially since she's grown so frequently in the Bay Area.

Diane

Zooming in, the leaves do not look like CB leaves. They are long & skinny, like banksaie leaves. They are also very shiny. The size of the blooms looks to be about 1 1/2 - 2 inches. What about a white double banksaie? On the far right some canes are trailing down - look like my yellow banksaie canes. The amazing density of the leaves makes me wonder - does not look natural. Could it be the way it is pruned or trained?

Jackie

Normally, I'd vote for a banksia -- but those blooms look too large for that. You're right Jackie. It IS double.

Fortuniana's blooms have that much size. Could be that.

Jeri

A picture of Fortuniana on HMF from a cemetery in Northern California linked below does bear a resemblance, long shiny leaves, etc. They are, I see, not MAC leaves.

Here is a link that might be useful: Fortuniana in NoCA cemetery on HMF

Yup. Our monster Fortuniana originated as a cutting from another NoCal cemetery . . .

Jeri

Catspa - thanks for the picture of Fortuniana! It does indeed look like the rose in my old picture - leaves and all.

Jackie

Knowing how popular Cecile was and knowing the mountains that mine are she's my vote. I looked up the date of introduction 1894.
What a wonderful photo!

Wouldn't a rose that large and well-established be several years old at the time the photo was taken?
Molly

I agree with Jardineratx that would have to me an older rose look at the trunk behind that lady... The photo that Jeri has of Devoniensis at the cemetery is what over 100 yrs old and look how that is, I know that they are not the same but just comparing.

The leaves on my 4 Cecil Bruners are a completely different shape than those in the old pic (bigger, & much rounder), and also more matt. The ones in the old pic look exactly like those in the pic of the big Fortuniana on HMF - long & skinny, & shiny. I also agree that CB is way too young to be this rose - this pic was taken (from historic evidence not in the pic) at least 10 years before CB was introduced.

So, I am still betting it is Fortuniana (at least 2 bushes - there are 2 main canes in the pic, and who knows, maybe another out of sight on the other side of the shed?).

Jackie

I like 'Fortuniana' for an id -- that was my first thought upon seeing the photo. Under Florida conditions, you could grow one that big in about 3 years. So it may not have been ancient.

What about this rose? Maybe something like it?

Here is a link that might be useful: The Flores Street House Eater

In California conditions, too, Fortuniana can quickly become a giant.

Ours starts down in a far lower corner of the hillside, and grows along an ugly fence, almost to the top. It was a cutting collected in San Juan Bautista and it's probably less than 10 years old.

Jeri

Thanks Malcolm - that clinches it for me.

Jackie

One interesting thing about this -- assuming it IS Fortuniana (which is my guess). We find Fortuniana here and there, and I've assumed that most of them are rootstock reversions.

But if Fortuniana was planted in CA contemporary with the locations in which we find it, then those plants may have been deliberate plantings of Fortuniana.

Jeri

Fortuniana was available in California very early as a variety all its own, not just as the remnants of died out scions. Like Dr. Huey, Odorata and Ragged Robin, it's been used as root stock, but much of it was deliberately planted. Kim

I'm glad to know that, Kim.

Jeri

It reminds me of the Tombstone rose (white lady banks). Jeri I googled it and found an article you wrote about it. Could that be what it is?

I don't think so, Jackie.
The blooms of R. banksia banksia are really tiny. Perhaps a third the size of Fortuniana's blooms. And always in clusters.
They do share the violet fragrance.
(We grow both.)

Jeri

I'm looking at the structure and wondering about it. I think it might be one of those structures seen on the property of old farms in the San Joaquin Valley - usually quite near the home - and the tallest structure on any California ranch or farm. I think they were pump-houses/water-towers, in which case that rose would likely have had access to ground moisture - as I recall, the insides of those things were always damp.

Laura

I'm thinking that I should have only ordered one Fortuniana. :>(

Well, you don't HAVE to let it get that big.

The one mine was a cutting from had been sheared like a big lollypop. :-)

Jeri

Jeri said "Well, you don't HAVE to let it get that big." Right. We grow ours for rootstock cuttings and keep them to about 6' tall by maybe 8' wide, grown as free-standing shrubs. They don't mind pruning, even in fairly hot weather. But like most once-bloomers, if you cut them too hard too late in the season, you may get less bloom the next spring.