Am I to assume there are several clones of Perle d'Or in commerce? Diane

*** The latter wouldn't surprise me in the least.
The plant we had is gone, but I remember it as prickly. Be sure to check with Cemetery Rose, as they have experience with very old plants.

Jeri

The one I had in Alabama was not at all thorny; I think it came from Chamblees in Texas. I was interested to see that Vintage is offering another clone of Perle d'Or - the one from the Sac City Cemetery, I think. I wonder if that one is thorny. Gean

Mine has some thorns, but mostly on the lower part of the canes.

I remember mine being lightly thorny.

I've been exploring the roses in the "Thornless (or almost)" areas of online catalogs, and after several purchases I can say that the definition of "thornless (or almost)" varies a great deal.

I know that some people say that 'Perle d'Or' is like an apricot 'Cecile Brunner', but I have never thought that. The flowers are, to my eyes at least, different in form as well as color.

Sorry, I meant to say the petals are different. I keep forgetting that words like "form" have a very precise meaning in Old Rosedom.

Laura

I went out earlier to check my Perle d' Or and I would say it's not very thorny.
Molly

Mine are thorny. They came from two different sources. One of them was Michael's Roses, no longer in business. I forget the other vendor.

R

My PdO has few thorns, all at the bottom, the upper half is basically thornless. I think my plant came from ARE or Chamblee, but it was many years ago, so I am not sure.
Olga

At one point, we had nine huge Perle d'Ors in the Sacramento cemetery. It was our impression that they all were the same, and I once discussed that with Fred Boutin, who told me that he saw no difference in the different clones. All of them have well-spaced, sharp, brown, somewhat hooked prickles along the lower canes - the top canes are less prickly, but the petioles have little hooks. It's definitely a rose that will snag the unwary.

I agree that one person's definition of thornless is not the same as another's. I was surprised that Crepuscule and Gloire des Rosomanes both were on the "thornless" lists - they both have the same sort of hooked prickles on the lower growth. Zephirine Drouhin is thornless - not these roses!

I'm sure that Gregg's roses will be armed as I described, since I took the cuttings for him. (It was nice of him to acknowledge that in his email!)

I agree that the flower form does not look like Cecille Brunner to me. I always think of PdO as having strappy or ribbon-like petals. Its bud is not as perfectly formed, either. I have a spray of them by my computer right now, and have to say that it's one of my favorite roses.

Anita

It's really interesting to hear all your observations.

I also agree that PdO form is different than Cecile's. Anita, your description of ribbon-like petals is a great description of the flower once it opens.

I spent today photographing at Vintage Gardens for their website and it continues to amaze me how the rose has a seemingly infinite variety of color and form. Aren't we fortunate to get to live with some of them.

Diane

Mine has very few thorns, most on the lower parts of the branches. Closer to thornless in the range represented by roses, but not thornless.

I also agree that the bloom form is different from that of Cecile Brunner. Perle d'Or has that somewhat "out of bed" look, when Cecile Brunner is more round and packed. I also think about Perle d'Or as "stellata" kind of plant.

The only rose that I've ever grown that I can honestly say is "thornless" is REINE DES VIOLETTES, a purply pink Hybrid Perpetual from 1860. The rest have thorns. In my experience a rose described as "thornless" or "lightly thorned" simply means you can gain purchase on a cane without being mauled.

For example, HERITAGE is not thornless. That English Rose has nailed me on numerous occasions. B-U-T the thorns are widely spaced, so she leaves me be provided I'm careful and wear gloves.