Beautiful, Jackie!

Jackie, it is beautiful. Seems like you have 2 different roses there.
Jin

Gotta love those changeable roses. 'Mme. Lambert' does that, too ... but 'Anna Olivier' has much better foliage.

Jackie, it’s gorgeous!! What a pretty blend. Seems like for those who struggle with putting pink with buff/apricot, problem solved! Anna Olivier could even be a buffer Rose.

It's a good example of how difficult it can be identifying these bloody things, isn't it? It's gorgeous, but if someone walked up to you with those blooms and asked you what it was, what would you tell them? LOL!

This is true, Kim... although, as problems go, maybe it's not the absolute worst one in the world to have... unless of course your living depended on having the right answers to these tea rose conundrums...

That looks downright odd, Jackie, definitely not something you see very often. That such a pale buff rose could come from those pink blooms is remarkable, even for a tea rose.

Yes, I love that the colors of this rose are so unpredictable - I read an article once that one of the early goals of rose hybridizers was "stable" bloom color. This way is MUCH more fun!

Jackie

What were those hybridizer's thinking? We love our chameleons!

I just got the latest ARS magazine - read the President's column and weep. All about how judged rose shows are here to stay, and are what is most important. Shows which only display un-judged "poorly grown" roses are dangerous. "Properly grown" roses are sprayed, fiddled with constantly, etc. and the goal is to TEACH people how to do that. Sounds to me as if the ARS is reverting to its previous position that old roses are just of historic interest. Only ONE article in the entire magazine about old roses, and that was a historic look back at Pernet.

Jackie

Eeeuuww... reminds me of those dog shows where some of those poor prize-winning animals have such distorted faces and legs and things they can barely breathe, or run... or just be dogs...

Why can't they just let roses be roses?

I wonder if the new ARS President taking over is the issue. Pat Shanley, the last one was wonderful with more focus on the OGRs. The other side is in charge at the moment, sadly, in my view too. I've never been on the other side myself, but those who exhibit and grow HTs probably were bemoaning the sad turn toward OGRs in the past President's tenure.

Is there not a national equivalent society for Older/organically/naturally grown Roses? If not, maybe you need one?

Jackie, don't worry about the ARS and rose shows. The average age for an exhibitor is way up there. More "retire" and leave the arena than enter it each year so the judged rose show WILL eventually die out with the rest of those who worship it. The NRS of Britain is gone. Many local societies are shadows of their former selves. The ARS is but a shadow of its former self. It, too, shall pass and with the "theology" that judged rose shows and chemically enhanced product is "educational" about "how roses SHOULD be grown", the sooner the better. Good riddance.

I had hoped they would turn to the light but you are probably right Kim. The new President is touting rose shows and spray routines which will not appeal to the younger set. Pat Shanley had me hoping they had turned that corner.

It's sort of eerie how the political climate and what is considered a "proper" rose seem to run in tandem. The stiff, artificial, manicured roses are in vogue again, at least I gather according to the ARS, doesn't matter what toxic stuff you put on them, the bees and birds will take care of themselves, don't you know, and pollution and poisons are positively beneficial.

First of all, beautiful Anna Olivier, Jackie! I love roses with personalities!

As far as the ARS, I will not be renewing my membership this year. Pat Shanley’s message reached across the generation divide and taught that roses were for everyone. A very different message is coming from the ARS now with Bob Martin at the helm - it‘s too bad.

Aside from the undoubted environmental harm of this style of heavily chemically controlled/ enhanced (good word, Kim!) plant cultivation (I wouldn't call it 'gardening'), I really don't understand the rationale behind the idea that the only significant feature of a rose worthy of display and judgement, or of any other flowering shrub for that matter, is its bloom. With maybe a couple of leaf sets thrown in as garnish to the 'main dish'; grown with the sole purpose of competing with others to match some idealised concept of what said bloom 'ought' to look like..

None of this, in my view, has anything useful to contribute to the beauty and subtle but scientifically verifiable therapeutic qualities - so essential as an antidote to stressful modern lifestyles, often lived almost entirely in artificial, enclosed environments - of a garden or outdoor area.

Perhaps the "pretty face" with a bit of "foliage garnish" is the American, "bastardized" version of the Asian Aesthetic of valuing manipulated Nature? The appreciation of well done bonsai; melons, pears, apples, etc. grown in lucite boxes to produce perfectly cubed shaped fruit, etc. where Nature is bent to Man's will? But, unfortunately, just as we do with most of everything, our bastardized version pales in comparison. "The pretty face" is precisely what's gotten us in much of the mess we're in. I battled it at the beach...make it pretty, we'll only buy "pretty", even though the underlying plant, structure, etc. was rotten to the core and in danger of collapse, but as long as it was "PRETTY", it was paid for. Superficial, shallow, artificial and worthless, but PRETTY.

The ancient Greeks had a name for it - hubris.

Jackie