Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
mccommas

What is an old or antique rose?

mccommas
11 years ago

I read the answer on the FAQ page and did not find it enlightening.

These are roses that have been grafted or are they on their own roots or can either be the case?

I thought old style roses only bloomed once a year but maybe this is not the case always?

Comments (26)

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It is a rose that belongs to one of the classes that was in existence before 1867. That is the date "La France" was introduced, and La France has been chosen as the first Hybrid Tea, though there may have been earlier ones. So, all the rose classes prior to the Hybrid Tea class.

    Those classes are:

    Gallica
    Damask
    Damask Perpetual
    Centifolia
    Moss
    Bourbon
    Hybrid Perpetual
    China
    Tea
    Noisette

    The old European rose classes usually only bloomed once in the spring and summer. Those were the Gallicas, Centifolias, Damasks. When the repeat blooming Asian roses, the Chinas and Teas, were introduced to the Western world, rose breeders began crossing them with the once bloomers to create the repeat blooming OGR classes: Bourbons, Hybrid perpetuals, Noisettes.

    I may be leaving out a class or two. (Species are the oldest of all, of course.) But that's the basic story.

    On this forum, though, things are a bit relaxed and people talk about roses that are old, but that don't necessarily fit the technical definition. And Austin roses are discussed here, too. They are modern roses with the old-fashioned look.

  • jerijen
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I've always thought that it is a mistake to restrict discussion or study by the ARS criteria (tho that works for rose shows) -- so I'm just as interested in things like Hybrid Musks, and Polyanthas -- and the old Minis that straddle the line with China's. Also in some of the more interesting early HT's.

    And don't forget -- You can breed a brand new Tea Rose (as an example) and that would be an Old Garden Rose, Into. In 2012. Because it is 'any rose of a CLASS of roses introduced before 1867.'

    Jeri

  • melissa_thefarm
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'll add a bit more to what's already been said. As bellegallica wrote, a rose is defined as an old rose according to the class it belongs to, not by the date of its introduction. 'Perle d'Or', bred in 1875 and introduced in 1884 (dates are from HMF), is classified as a modern rose because it's a Polyantha, a class that postdates the creation of the Hybrid Tea class. The Hybrid Perpetual 'Ferdinand Pichard' on the other hand is classed as an old rose because of its class, even though it was raised in 1921.
    There have been threads on this forum about what roses we discuss here. The forum is defined as being for old roses as officially defined and English roses (hybridized by David Austin). In addition to these two groups, though, we also talk about Polyanthas, Rugosas, Hybrid Musks, ramblers, species roses and their hybrids, and various other shrub and climbing roses. My own conclusion is that this forum, broadly speaking, is dedicated to the discussion of roses that are grown not only for their flowers, but for their ornamental value as plants. Most are old or older roses, but recent varieties certainly are discussed as well.
    Melissa

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Oh gosh, I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't like discussing other roses here. I do. I just wanted to explain why people would see non-antique (as defined by the ARS at any rate) roses talked about here.

    I agree, it's really confusing and goes against logic to say that for instance, Marie Pavie (Polyantha, 1888) would not be considered antique while William R. Smith (Tea, 1908)would.

    Or consider it from the other end. The first Hybrid Tea, La France (1867) is modern while William R. Smith (1908) is antique!

    I think I read somewhere that maybe we should consider the "modern" era of the hybrid tea as beginning with Peace in 1935, and anything before that would be considered antique. (But that doesn't solve the "problem" of someone introducing a new antique rose.)

    All the classes are a mixture of things anyway, and bleed into one another.

    I like what Melissa said,

    My own conclusion is that this forum, broadly speaking, is dedicated to the discussion of roses that are grown not only for their flowers, but for their ornamental value as plants. Most are old or older roses, but recent varieties certainly are discussed as well.

    But wouldn't that include things like Knockout? And I don't have any problems with those either. People should grow and discuss what works for them. But it does create confusion unless we take the time to explain it to someone new to antique roses--however they are defined.

  • seil zone 6b MI
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    This discussion goes on in a lot of groups. I asked this spring where I would enter my Eyeconic Pink Lemonade in a show. It's a hulthemia, which is a Persian species rose, but was introduced in 2011. Is it an OGR or a modern? Same thing with the lovely recently introduced hybrid musk rose, Jeri Jennings. Modern or OGR? There's a lot of gray area.

    I like Bellegalica's definition of using 1935 and Peace as a starting point for modern hybrid teas because I do think there is a difference in the ones that came before and after that point.

  • jerijen
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Some years back, when I was still showing roses, they split the Shrub class into Modern and Classic. The Modern Shrubs were mostly Austins and their like. The Classic Shrubs were mostly things like Hybrid Musks.

    But then, you have MODERN Hybrid Musks -- from Capt. Thomas's 'Bishop Darlington,' to 'Jeri Jennings.' So that makes the Modern/Classic division more problematical.

    And I recall taking a spray of 'Buff Beauty' to a rose show, and having people clamor for information about that "stunning new Austin." HAH! ;-)

    Jeri

  • catsrose
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Until someone comes up with a better definition, I'm content with the ARS version simply because it does provide an historical and, to some extent, a genetic definition of the rose classes. I'm not sure why La France was chosen; I've just read it was the first hybrid tea. Perhaps what is implied in that "first" is the degree of breeding across classes it took to achieve it. I have always assumed that the earlier classes have a "purer" pedigree. Sort of like dogs, where there are older breeds and then newer breeds that started off as mutts but then were bred to become as new breed/class themselves. Does anybody know?

    Regardless, accepting ARS as a working definition in no way restricts what we talk about on this forum, much less grow in our gardens. It is a handy rule of thumb, not a commandment in stone.

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I don't remember who wrote it, Brent Dickerson maybe, but someone said that it is hard to underestimate the change in the rose world that resulted from the arrival of the Asian roses in the west.

    Given that, I think someone could make the case that the antique roses are those classes that existed before that point. Any rose or rose class that is the result of the mingling of Asian and Western roses would be modern.

    I know that would never fly, but it makes sense to me. The crossing of Asian roses with Western ones was a greater change than the crossing of all the subsequent repeat-blooming classes with each other.

  • rosefolly
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bellegallica, what you say makes sense to me, but I agree that it would never be acceptable.

    Maybe there should be three groups: first, the old European and species roses being one; second, the earlier blends of repeat-blooming eastern and once-blooming western roses up until the time of Peace in 1935, (it seems to make a good breaking point); and third, roses that came after that. I would probably put modern gallicas and the like in with the first group.

    But that is just me. Perhaps everyone has his own scheme.

    Rosefolly

  • jerijen
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It might actually fly in some areas -- where tough winters make the old European roses the best choice.

    But it wouldn't at all do to eliminate the Asian roses, which are more tolerant of arid summers, and thrive in mild winters.

    So, I actually think the present divisions make some sense, as long as you make it clear that not all classes of roses are ideal in all areas. And so, we come back to the need for REGIONAL divisions.

    Jeri

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The Asian roses would be included. They are antique as well. What I was thinking is that when the two types were crossed, was the true beginning of the modern rose.

    It's really arbitrary that the modern Hybrid Tea is picked as the beginning of the modern. It is simply what is fashionable at the moment. It is also just appearance. Look under the surface and the Hybrid Tea is no different from the Hybrid Perpetuals or Bourbons, just another mixture of Asian and Western roses.

    It was Brent Dickerson:
    The 1820s and 1830s were decades of enormous enrichment and ferment in the rose world. To compare 1820, when the once-blooming "European" sorts (Gallicas, Damasks, Centifolias, etc.) were fully and overwhelmingly in control of the rose garden, with 1840, when the Bourbons, Chinas, Teas, and Hybrid Perpetuals had clearly swept the bulk of the old European roses out of the catalogs and out of the gardens, is to witness the most striking change in rose history. Even the often-cited introduction of the Pernetiana strain in 1900, beginning with 'Soleil d'Or', and permeating mainstream breeding by 1920 or 1930, is hardly comparable as a change, being primarily a revolution in coloration, with lesser ramifications in culture. In contrast, the changes experienced from 1820 to 1840 were on a broad front--in addition to an expansion of the color range, the new plants were completely different in appearance and nature from those which dominated the old rosariums, requiring differing care; the look of the flowers both in bud and fully open was different, bringing new concepts and ideals; and, most exciting, some remontancy of bloom became expected of all mainstream roses.

    Hybrid Bourbons, Hybrid Chinas, Bourbons, Hybrid Perpetuals, Hybrid Teas, even Noisettes and Polyanthas, they're all variations on a theme, a combining of Asian and Western roses, and the modern Hybrid Tea is only the latest variation.

    There really isn't total consistency in the old classes anyway. Look at Souvenir de la Malmaison which is called a Bourbon, but is half Tea. They probably should have just called them all Reapeat Blooming Hybrids.

    That said, I still don't think it would fly because I know there are people who worship the modern Hybrid Tea who would laugh at the idea that a quartered rose from more than 150 years ago could be considered a modern rose.

    And, yes, it's all overthinking anyway, and it's best just to talk about what roses are best for what climate rather than splitting philosophical hairs over what year marks the beginning of modern roses.

  • jerijen
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "Look under the surface and the Hybrid Tea is no different from the Hybrid Perpetuals or Bourbons"

    *** OH SO true!
    Moreover, look at the Austins -- many of which, for practical purposes, are Hybrid Perpetuals.

    Of course, here and there, we bring in the Pernetiana influence, which is hugely important in HT-Land.

    And yes, it IS probably over-thinking, because there are multiple exceptions to every "rule" about what the classes do, in practice. Sort of like debating the question of how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.

    But it is fun, all the same. :-)

    Jeri

  • kittymoonbeam
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree with you. Most of my DAs act just like HPs. They fit right in with my Bourbons and HTs and I treat them all the same.

  • melissa_thefarm
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I hope this discussion didn't scare away the original poster. Interesting topic, anyway. I agree that the once-blooming European roses and the Asian roses--Teas and Chinas--belong together as being relatively little hybridized, and they have a kind of integrity and character that the 19th century and later hybrids lack. The European old roses are opulent, the Asian old roses are elegant. The hybridized classes, Hybrid Perpetuals, Bourbons, Hybrid Teas, that I like best are the ones that lean strongly to one side of their parentage: the Portland roses and old HPs like 'Mme. Boll' and 'Marchesa Boccella' that look like European old roses, the Tea-leaning HT 'Mme. Jules Bouche'. This may be why I've never been fond of Bourbons: they are too evenly balanced, neither fish nor fowl.
    There are a couple of other periods in rose breeding that I think are particularly interesting. One is the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when new Asian species were introduced to the West and promptly pounced upon by hybridizers. Rosa multiflora, R. wichuriana, R. rugosa, and the Asian 'Turner's Crimson Rambler'--I was reading about this in Quest-Ritson's book on climbing roses. Climbing roses had been few before their introduction, either relatively tender and heat-loving Noisettes and Teas, or else a handful of once-blooming ramblers bred from three occidental Synstylae roses: the European R. arvensis, which gave rise to the Ayrshire ramblers in the early 19th century, R. sempervirens which gave 'Felicite-Perpetue' and a handful of others, and the American R. setigera, which American breeders and Rudolf Geschwind used to breed hardy ramblers. But with R. multiflora came the Multiflora ramblers, the Polyanthas and later the Floribundas, and the Pemberton Hybrid Musks. The Rugosas brought their unique appearance and qualities, 'Turner's Crimson Rambler', if I remember correctly, produced the small-flowered late-flowered ramblers of the 'Dorothy Perkins' ilk, and the various purple ramblers. And from R. wichuriana came the immortal Barbier and van Fleet ramblers, including, at last, 'New Dawn'.
    I agree that 'Peace', with its big double blooms, its large foliage and general stoutness and vigor, ushered in a new era in garden roses, but I think 'New Dawn' also has a lot to answer for. 'New Dawn' was a prolific parent that passed on its sturdiness, glossy green foliage, and a tendency to big fat flowers to numerous offspring. I have 'Aloha' out in the garden right now, covered in massive peach-tinted double blooms and big fat shiny leaves, not at all discouraged by the brief daylight, dropping temperatures, and frequent rains. In brief, 'Aloha', like so many of the offspring of 'New Dawn', is reblooming, cold-hardy, vigorous, big in all its parts, and full of every kind of practical virtue, BUT it has rather a look of plastic to it, and this is the problem with a lot of the roses produced since 'Peace' and 'New Dawn' appeared on the scene, and the gardens that they've filled. All this is a matter of taste, of course, but give me the delicacy and elegance of the Teas on one hand, or the opulence and a hard-to-define quality of being at once rustic and aristocratic of the once-blooming old roses on the other. I certainly have room in my heart for the Pemberton musks and the Barbier ramblers as well: it would be interesting to find out whether roses like 'Buff Beauty' and 'Alberic Barbier' are bred from primarily oriental stock.
    Melissa

  • catsrose
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    In my head, I have three divisions:
    1) Antique: the old Europeans, Chinas&Tea, Rugosa (because they are a species, even tho they came to the west later),
    2) Early Hybrids: Bourbons, HP, Polys, HM, early HTs, Ramblers,
    3) Moderns: HTs, Floribundas, Climbers, Shrub, Landscape, Minis.

  • jerijen
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Beautifully thought out, Melissa.

    The one other development that interests me is the advent of the Pernetianas (without which, we'd not have had 'Peace.')

    Not all of the more-modern descendants of the Pernetianas please me, because they don't like my cool humidity. But we've seen a few older Pernetiana types that have survived adverse conditions in forgotten places, and a couple of those are really happy here, with no disease problems to speak of, and good vigor, even on their own roots.

    Without those descendants of 'Persian Yellow,' and R. foetida, we probably wouldn't have many of the brighter modern rose colors -- so they're another stepping stone.

    This one blooms on the grave of Samuel Briggs, in an old NoCal cemetery.

    Jeri

  • jon_in_wessex
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    A very large percentage of what we are used to calling the Old European roses - including many once-flowering ones - do contain China blood. You would have to go back beyond 1796 to ensure 'pure' blood, and even then we know that,for instance, the Damasks contain repeat-flowering, Asian genes from R. fedtshenkoana and therefore so did any later Damask crosses . . .

    I tend to use 1900 as a good cut-off date - as did Graham Thomas in the collection at Mottisfont.

    So I can agree a date with Jeri concerning the Pernetiannas because although they don't do very well in Europe, 'Soleil d'Or' was introduced in that year and gave us . . . blackspot - the defining characteristic of Modern Roses :)

    Best wishes
    Jon

  • jerijen
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HaHA
    ... Jon's Right. pernetianas were a VERY mixed blessing.

    Yet, they're an important part of rose history, all the same. :-)

    Jeri

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Oh wow. I knew R. fedtschenkoana was one of the three roses in the background of Autumn Damask, but I had forgotten it is Asian. That DOES complicate it.

    How about this? Only the species are antique? LOL.

    I do like the 3-way division suggested by rosefolly and catsrose.

    I'm in the deep south, so I've seen blackspot on everything, not just moderns with R. foetida in the background. I think it's a weakness in the entire genus Rosa. (Rugosa is supposed to be the only thing virtually immune to blackspot, but cross it with anything else and it promptly loses resistance.)

    Does anyone have a weakness for an antique class that they can't grow well? I think mine is still the Damask Perpetuals (Portlands). It was members of that class that attracted me to the antiques in the first place.

  • jerijen
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Well, SURE.

    I still love the Gallicas, and Hybrid Chinas -- and the Damasks and Centifolias.

    I learned, by stubbornly insisting on growing them, that they don't work here -- but I still admire them.

    Jeri

  • melissa_thefarm
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm aware that the old garden roses have been hybridized right from the start, including the once-blooming European old roses and the original Chinas imported to Europe during the 18th and early 19th centuries. They're not "pure". But my speculation was that heavy hybridization between classes that are distant from each other, both in geography and in characteristics, and resulting in hybrids that show in their appearance characteristics of both parents, lose a degree of charm, beauty, grace.

  • jerijen
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    ... and so, we come to the Hybrid Tea Rose.

    ;-)

    Jeri

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The classifications are just a manifestation of the human desire to organize things into groups, and as this involves living things which can crossbreed and/or be selected according to human desires, static groups will continue to find "messiness" as new roses continue to arise through time. Right now, the popular designation starts with three main divisions -- species, garden variety groups created before the hybrid tea class was named (i.e. "old garden roses") and garden variety groups created after that point (i.e. "modern roses"). If this designation was determined a few hundred years ago, perhaps the introduction of the damasks would have heralded in the "modern roses" grouping to distinguish them from the others that were grown previously. And as roses continue to be interbred and selected for new desires, perhaps a new group will be named that is as different from what we now see as hybrid teas were felt to be different from the groups that existed before. It's really arbitrary.

    On this forum, there is a marked preference for growing roses that have "withstood the test of time" and the general plant characteristics that accompany them. Ironically, when new roses are bred which capture similar characteristics as those (i.e. David Austin's roses), they are also cherished.

    What is an antique? Well, outside of roses, a common denominator is that it is something of a minimum age, say 100 years. That would include many early hybrid teas, as well as many polyanthas and hybrid musks.

    What makes a rose something that is cherished by members here? There are several things (from what I've gathered by reading old posts). One might be a nostalgia for the past -- growing something that was passed down for generations in a family, or finding a rose they remember from their childhood in their grandmother's garden. Many people see photographs of old gardens or paintings by the old Dutch masters and seek to emulate that look, choosing plants with similar habits -- this could be done with the same cultivars, or modern reproductions. There is also a preservationist feeling -- we should not let cultivars which were once cherished be lost forever, so we should continue to grow and promote them. Many become so enamored of the process of gardening as an art form that they seek to divert from the bare-bones landscaping with a few token flowers by planting things not commonly seen, and so become attracted to the uncommon old roses. The fact that they require seeking out gives them the allure of precious gems.

    :-)

    ~Christopher

  • jill_perry_gw
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    This same question was asked to an international group of heritage rose enthusiasts I belong to. Most didn't respond, and there was no consensus among those of us who did. I said that I think we can all agree that post WWII roses are modern, and pre-1867 classes are Heritage/ Antique/Old. But I wouldn't know where to draw the line in between, and perhaps a 3 part division would be better. Sort of like Catsrose, but with the Bourbons and HPs in the Antique.

    Jill

  • AquaEyes 7a NJ
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think hybrid teas were considered the beginning of "something new" but other classes that followed were reversions to "something old" (i.e. polyanthas and hybrid musks). The thing with hybrid teas is that, as a class, it continued to evolve and foster new introductions for over 100 years and at a faster pace of change due to advances in selective breeding. Within the group, we have the earliest primary crosses with teas and resulting intercrosses among those, followed by the period of introducing the pernetianas, and then the "new ideal" flower form set by 'Peace' and plants which were primarily grafted and sprayed to keep them vigorous. For the most part, aside from a few random introductions, the earlier classes were basically dropped from further breeding and evolving. So we look at those classes as being antique. But being as many individual cultivars of hybrid teas themselves are very old (and cultivars are clones -- developing them further would create a new cultivar through breeding), I can understand the idea of calling them antiques as well. As time goes on, we will look silly if we call an entire class of roses developed 150 years ago as "modern" and those developed 180 years ago as "antique."

    :-)

    ~Christopher