Don't you have the names reversed, Jackie? Both lovely.

Yes, I do - thanks! CB is the more blue one on the RIGHT, and BA is the salmon pink one on the LEFT. (My senior moments are getting more frequent than is fair!).

Jackie

Congratulations.

My Bloomfield Abundance is still in a 7-G pot, and needs to go into the ground ... but I can show you a bloom from a more mature plant:

Thanks, Jeri - that looks so much like the original old photo of BA - being a rose collector at heart, not a garden designer (I don't spend any time at all fussing about what color goes with what - luckily most old rose colors go with each other), I am fascinated with this story.

Jackie

This is really exciting news! What I'm wondering now is whether the plant I had which grew to about 6 feet is CB (which is most likely), when I had always read that there was also a smaller version of CB, about three feet tall. Does that mean there are truly three varieties of CB, including the giant climber?

Ingrid, the rose you had was, most likely, 'Spray Cecile Brunner.' The ORIGINAL 'Cecile Brunner', however, can grow to 6 ft. in time. (Quite upright.) I've seen many like that in old Cemeteries. I've grown it, but never grown 'Spray Cecile Brunner.'

And yes, Jackie. When I was standing there, taking these photos, I was struck by what a resemblance the plant had to that old photo. I'm glad that you could also see that.

I planted my baby Cecile Brunner (maybe 8 inches tall) on March 26 of this year. I have never seen a bloom on her that was pink. Mine are more of a white with a pinkish tinge. Oh, well, maybe in late fall I will see a real pink bloom.

She's as tall as I am now.

More photos of Fred's Bloomfield Abundance.

How gorgeous, Kim. Great photos!

Thanks, Sheila. Jeri brought me bud wood from the Sac. Cemetery a few years ago, which I budded to Pink Clouds. It's thrown up quite a strong cane (FINALLY!) about three feet tall, with a side branch of that odd spider spray of buds. The foliage spots easily here in the mild coastal weather and there is no scent, but it definitely is a pretty thing.

Thank you Kim - now I really will protect my baby one, can't wait to see those blooms!

Jackie

Cedemas -- There is a 'White Cecile Brunner,' you know. Could it be that's what you have?

I don't know how these two could ever have been confused as they're so completely different! Their growth habit, their color, their leaves ... everything! I'm so thrilled to finally post a picture of their first blooms grown from a cutting I was given last fall. I was so careful with them over the winter. The plan is to take cuttings off these so I'll have a backup in case it doesn't make it outside. I don't mind keeping it as a pot pet and letting it go dormant in the garage. I think it's the most precious Rose I grow and I feel so lucky to have it !

Beautiful vaporvac! What a treasure.

Remember that this was the only color photograph there was until very recently. There were only two or three photographs of it, period and those weren't widely available when the mistake of substituting Spray Cecile Brunner was made.

Cedemas and Jeri -- this time of year in central Florida (days in the mid-90s, nights hovering near 80°F, stifling humidity), "regular" CB and Spray CB are more the color of Jeri's "white" CB, and the white one is white. So I suspect you (Cedemas) have the regular one.

Jeri, mine was that color in April. Not anymore. Just about everything is white these days: yellow shows white, pink shows white, apricot shows white, and even dark red shows light pink with only a few exceptions. I won't see the "true" colors until Fall. Maybe late Fall.

For comparison, 'Spray Cecile Brunner' in the FSC garden this morning -- much larger bush, long arching canes, huge panicles of flowers, lots of 1- and 2-leaflet leaves up near the inflorescence, and similar flowers, but tending to have much longer sepals:

Thank you, Malcolm! Had there been the Internet when they were confused, they wouldn't have been.

You're absolutely right, Kim. These pictures very clearly show the difference between the two roses, in size of the bush, length of the sepals and, most importantly, the appearance of the flowers. CB has shorter inner petals which BA does not, and that alone should make the difference clear.

I think what must have happened is that they got confused a LONG time ago - I remember reading a statement by a famous rose person in the UK that he was sure they had the correct BA (I think this was before the DNA results) because "my father grew it". So, perhaps the mix up happened in the US, and the wrong plant was sent to the UK, or it happened there right after they got the first plant. Then it became conventional wisdom, so by the time it was questioned everyone's feet were in concrete. Thank heavens DNA analysis can be done now!

Jackie

I totally agree. I only meant that when viewing them side-by-side it's obvious they're not the same. I think it was Peter Beales who insisted theirs was correct as that was what it was called when he apprenticed for E.B. LeGrice. HMF has a reference from an old publication that states it's hardy in CT. Does anyone know what that zone was in the 1920s and if I can risk planting it out here? I would call CB marginal here.

At her talk at the Albany-not-El-Cerrito Gathering in May, Anita showed us cuttings from her real Bloomfield Abundance, which came from Fred Boutin's plant. Nothing remotely resembling MCB about it. Ironically, even as she was giving her talk, in the main hall, someone had placed cuttings on the table for the taking, which they'd labeled as -- Bloomfield Abundance! (In short time, these were relabeled as Mlle Cecile Brunner. Always carry a Sharpie. ;p )

I've noticed that this year, the several MCB's in my neighborhood in San Francisco have shown deeper pink coloration. In the past, I'd thought that one or two might be White CB, but no, here they are, pink. In fact, I wonder if one of them might be Rita Sammons. I think it's just been a good year for roses here, but for sure, the nearby MCBs have had more, deeper colored, and some even a bit bigger, I think, blooms this year.

FYI, folks... this rose looks fantastic next to Viking Queen. I'm going to plant her near her as soon as I can determe if she's hardy enough in my zone. Hopefully, she'll keep her two tone colouration in this higher light setting, although she'll be tucked behind a yucca until she grows up a bit.

vaporvac - HMF says that Thomas hybridized all of the Bloomfield roses in Philadelphia before he eventually moved to LA. If this is correct, then BA should be reasonably cold hardy.

Jackie

Thank you Jacqueline! That's good information to know. They're warmer than us in terms of winter temperatures but since it said it was hearty for Connecticut in one of the HMF old sources from the 1920s I think I should be good I'll just make sure to try and root a cutting in case it goes wrong. My next question is more pertinent. Why is everyone not growing this Rose? It is so pretty! It's definitely one that should not be lost! Especially as it's just been found! Lol! :-)

1. It is not widely available.

2. Few people are aware of it, and some of those are hung up on the old I.D.

3. The foliage can be troubled, in some locations. (Tho it is perfect in Sacramento.)

I think we need to change that! Hopefully, This Thread will help with that. :-). I'm open for cuttings once mine is large enough. What kind of foliage troubles does it experience? So far it's Hangin Tough with black spot, my big Bugaboo.