Aimee Vibert - round 2

Has anyone got some shots of young growth on Aimee Vibert?

I suspect my replacement plant is still NOT Aimee but R. longicuspis var. sinowilsonii again.





You want pictures?
Sure.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I may as well shove it in a pot now to make it easier to send to a willing victim rose-lover next winter.

Thank you Wendy, how did you know I was lerking

I dunno david - it'll eat your house going on the size of the 2 I already have....

I will take my chances Wendy, I have a spare paddock

That's what I tell myself.

But have you ever seen those HUGE mounds of blackberries? (the size you could fit a house under) I'm betting this rose would give them a run for their money...

I paid $50 to get rid of one last Autumn, I will find a picture of where it used to live,
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not sure it's sinowilsonii, Wendy. This is the new growth on mine:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's always very, very red. I have a spare plant of mine. I would really love to send it to someone with the real 'Wedding Day' so they can be grown side-by-side to solve this mystery once-and-for-all!

Oh well, I guess I will have to wait until it flowers to get the next clue.

(assuming mine actually is sinowilsonii )

It's big, prickly and has white flowers. That's a start.

yes... I guess it is lol So big and vigorous that if you stand still too long near it you will be engulfed and eaten whole!

That's our Bridezilla ... But by heck she's going to look gorgeous in about a month's time....

Oh yeah - same... going to have thousands of blooms this year!!!

Is there a question about 'Wedding Day?' I ordered one in this year's collection. What's it do that it isn't supposed to do or vice versa?
I have a BIG question mark over my supposed 'Sombreuil'. Yes, it's a restrained climber. Yes, it has large quartered blooms. But - it has absolutely NO scent. I'm just waiting for it to come into full bloom to photograph it to see if any one has any ideas on identity.
Maree

I've been thinking, Simon, that my original "Not Amee Vibert" isn't really like that last pic you just posted... yours is much redder in the foliage than mine.
I'm now headed towards the thought that maybe what I have is R. gentiliana. (And that rose is on the sales list of the nursery ...)
This shot of the flowers is pretty much identical to what mine was: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I await the flowers with anticipation - so I can take notice of the scent this time!!

(And regardless of who she is, this baby sure knows how to cover a pergola... )

newforold wrote:Is there a question about 'Wedding Day?'

Hehe. 'Wedding Day' is what found me this forum. I was supposed to get an 'Aimee Vibert', got a monster and thought it must be 'Wedding Day' because the plant was the same as a 'Wedding Day' I had down the paddock. Except that in the search for pics of foliage on the internet I found this forum.... and it's turned out that it wasn't 'Wedding Day' at all - so that rose is back on my "Want" list. LOL

So ... what have you got that isn't 'Wedding Day' OR 'Aimee Vibert'?
I find 'Aimee Vibert' interesting because it is reputed to be the first rose to come to Australia, bought in by the Macarthurs. My brother manages Belgenny Farm, part of the original Macarthur estate, so there is a sort of a connection. Maybe next year's rose order...
Maree

LOL I won't know for sure with this new rose what it is until it flowers - but I don't have Wedding Day at present.

'Wedding Day' is a seedling of a rose called Rosa longicuspis var sinowilsonii. The ICON database is the database AQIS keep to show what species are allowed entry into Australia and what the import conditions for them are. The ICON page for Rosa species shows Rosa longicuspis var. sinowilsonii is on the allowable seed import list. This means that at some time someone either brought it in and went to the trouble and expense of doing the paperwork for it or that someone had brought it in before AQIS tightened things up in their effort to control what comes into and out of the country more and it was added to the list because it was already here. This also means that it is in Australia and I don't recall ever seeing any nursery offering it for sale.

Back in 2007 I bought a few acres down here in Tasmania and have spent my time since then trying to clear out the jungle, a battle I am not necessarily winning, and in one section I cleared I found a rose bush climbing up through the trees and heading for the canopy. It was in very poor shape because it was competing with scotch broom, hawthorn, laurel, and holly bushes but there it was. I struck a few cuttings of it and planted it out in the open where it took off like there was no tomorrow. It made the most amazing plum red new foliage that looked as though it had a metallic sheen. In mid-spring it made an enormous display of single white flowers and from what I can tell it is a bush of sinowilsonii. It's leaves are enormous!!! I have photos of it on HMF here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Since then I have been asking about the differences between this rose and 'Wedding Day'. Someone, it might have been Margaret but could also have been Cass Berstein in The U.S., mentioned that 'Wedding Day' has fringed stipules and my plant does not. It was Cass' photo of sinowilsonii on HMF that made me see the very likely probability that my plant was sinowilsonii. The new foliage, enormous leaves and flower structure are identical to those in her photos. You can see in the link above I have a photo of one leaf against a ruler that is measuring about 30cm long.

Then along came Rosalie (OzRose) in WA She posted that she was growing 'Wedding Day' and I pounced on her Rosalie kindly obliged to my request to take some diagnostic-type shots of her 'Wedding Day' rose so that I can compare it to my own because I still couldn't rule out that what I have wasn't 'Wedding Day'. You can see these photos in the following thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] . Rosalie's photos were extremely helpful. They showed that the plant I have is clearly not 'Wedding Day'. Her photos show that her plant of 'Wedding Day' has fringed stipules as I was advised it did, and that the new growth does not have that intense plum-red colouring and the leaves aren't as big. We don't know what the pollen parent of 'Wedding Day' is and it might well be a self-pollinated seedling of sinowilsonii but there seems to be enough differences between them to tell one from the other if you look really hard.

Then, along came Wendy (AutumnDamask) Wendy has a most beautiful specimen of a plant she thinks (thought???) was 'Wedding Day'. You can see her photos here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] . To my eye it looked to be a dead-ringer for sinowilsonii but she does have a point about the colour of the new growth. It's a very distinctive feature. I also notice, looking at Wendy's photos more closely, that her plant also has fringed stipules on the leaves. I think she is right in doubting the sinowilsonii ID I jumped to based on this feature alone. I reckon it probably is 'Wedding Day' now that I look at the photos with this 'new evidence' in mind

My question was how would a plant of sinowilsonii end up in Tasmania planted in the middle of nowhere in a jungle???? The only answer I can come up with that makes sense is that it was bought as 'Wedding Day' because they are so hard to tell apart and that I can only expect that this mistake is made often. I have since cleared the jungle around the original plant and cut it back and it has groqn back strongly with no competition at all. I have sent a plant to Bruce (Ozeboy) and last time I asked it was growing strongly for him as well in a much warmer Sydney climate.

The one in Wendy's 'Wedding Day' link above isn't 'Aimee Vibert', because 'Aimee Vibert' is a double white sempervirens hybrid. 'Aimee Vibert' is nothing like either sinowilsonii or 'Wedding Day'. My gut feeling is that if the rose in her first post in this thread turns out to be a white single it could well be 'Wedding Day' (fringed stipules again), and its leaves don't look like any 'Aimee Vibert' leaves I've seen before either.

That's the background

Fringed stipules:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wow, thanks for the detailed reply. My 'Wedding Day' is only a new plant so is not showing much of anything yet. I bought her from a big grower, but I am learning from comments on the board that my blind faith in nurseries may be somewhat misguided.
Maree

I checked the new plant today - yup, it has the fringed stipules - and it looks more likely that it is the same as what they sent last time (furry flower buds also..) .... I don't have room for a THIRD one (well... I do have room but I would like to have a different rose rather than 3 of the same when it comes to ramblers).

The fundamental difference I saw from Rosalie's pics of Wedding Day is that stunning almost-orange yellow of the stamens and heaps of pollen. Mine stayed more lemon-y rather than egg-yolk colour and didn't appear to have the enormous amount of pollen. Also the stigma wasn't as prominent on mine?

Wendy, do you want my address for delivery