"Chris, current thinking (from rec.gardens.roses days) is that there are two distinct cultivars that are almost hopelessly confused in commerce. One is shorter, more tender, and more floriferous. The other is a horse that blooms in flushes."

I've read good things about Jacques Cartier on Paul Barden's website, but not sure which plant he's actually got. Does anyone know which nursery sells which version? Interestingly, Rogue Valley Roses lists both roses separately. Does anyone grow both? I'm curious if the flowers are identical (size, color, fragrance) just on different plants . I think I would prefer the smaller, more floriferous version, but really prefer whichever is the most blackspot resistant. I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter. Thanks!
-Chris

This size comparison may be of help - in the same order I also got Comte de Chambord (Mme Boll??) Comte de Chambord grew more compactly than Jacques Cartier. Since you mentioned that you'd prefer the smaller more floriferous version, I'll venture to say that my Comte de Chambord is just that, and so far I prefer it over Jacques Cartier. I like the flower shape better and it tolerated wetness better. I spray so can't comment on BS resistance other than to say they both had 100% clean foliage (not true among many of my sprayed roses.

"I first became aware of this confusion somewhere around 1984-85. As with many other confused rose identification issues, there were those who were positive theirs was the one, true "real one". However, I've never encountered a rose sold as either name which wasn't the SAME rose. Whether they are actually one or the other, who can ever really know? But, the same rose has always been supplied as both names in commerce here in the US, except when the one supplied has been an obvious mistake, such as the once flowering type distributed as the "continual flowering" plant. Otherwise, what we have in commerce in the US is all the same. I wish someone could discover the "real" version of each, but after all these decades, I seriously doubt it will happen."

Yet another mystery in the world of roses!

-Chris

● ‘Marquise Boccella’ (Desprez/Cochet, 1842) We limit ourselves to one description of this much-discussed rose: “Light pink; a stout and short grower, the petals are singularly reflexed,” as Hovey’s The Magazine of Horticulture describes it in 1851, and quote our own remarks from The Old Rose Advisor: “There has been modern confusion between this variety and ‘Jacques Cartier’; the primary difference between the two appears to be height. "‘Marquise Boccella’, as we have seen, is ‘stout and short,’ and ‘habit dwarf . . . and very compact’; contrariwise, the plant in modern commerce as ‘Jacques Cartier’ easily reaches to six feet (2 m) and more in a season, whether grafted or own-root.” More importantly, though I previously have accepted the statement of a Lyonnaise editor, who was present in the era, Martin-Victor Paquet, that the rose had been available “since 1840,” years of combing through the records and publications have failed to substantiate this date, and I now believe that Paquet was simply speaking loosely; I consequently urge acceptance of the traditional introduction date, 1842, for this variety. The Cochet family, which introduced Desprez’ rose, also collaborated in the publication of L. Simon’s Nomenclature de Tous les Noms…, in which the 1842 date is given; surely the Cochets scrutinized the information pertaining to their own roses in that publication. The Boccella family figures in the history of Tuscany, Italy, particularly in Lucca, where the Palazzo Boccella may be found. At the time of the release of this rose, the poetically-talented Cesare Boccella was the incumbent; this rose would honor his wife.

And here's the entry on 'Jacques Cartier' from the article on the late DPs:

--‘Jacques Cartier’ (Moreau-Robert, 1868). One searches nearly in vain for contemporary words on this cultivar which today means so much to us! In 1880, Nietner describes it as “beautiful light pink, backs of the petals white, large, very full.” Five years later, Singer describes it as “Vigorous; light pink, center darker; flower large, full.” Jacques Cartier (1491-1557), French explorer of Canada, in search of the Northwest Passage.

I have since found a few more little bits on each of these roses; but nothing changing the above remarks.

Hope this helps!

I have two 'Jacques Cartier' plants. One of them is budded, and came from Roses of Yesterday and Today more than thirty years ago (more like thirty-six, I'd say). Another is own-root, and came from Alice Flores rather more than a decade ago. She was running a small rose nursery then; she also sent me an own-root 'Marquise Boccella' at the same time. The two from Alice came to me specifically because, in her nursery rows, she had noted that the specimens of JC were consistently taller, and those of MB were consistently shorter. All of these were side-by-side in my garden, and all are/were under my eye constantly, as the site was just outside my back door.

My two specimens of JC, which I still have, have indeed without fail both easily reached the six-foot mark every year, blooming freely, in flushes. My MB, which I only tolerated a few years, hardly grew any of the years, and hardly bloomed.

And so the world of Old Roses--characteristically--has a mystery within a mystery: Why does growth of particular specimens of these vary for some people, but remain the same every year for others?

The question of JC vs. MB will I think give rose historians and rose growers food for thought and discussion until the last petal on Earth's last rose finally falls . . .

You surely got that right, OT.