I think you covered that quite well, Harborrose. If you're missing something, a bunch of others (including me) are missing it right along with you. The illustration that Micheal posted above is clearly labeled SDLM ROSES, not ROUGE. The former is, and long has been, an alternate name for Beluze's 'Leveson Gower', which predates Gonod's SDLM Rouge by abt 40 years and was NEVER said to be a SDLM sport. To clarify, Michael linked to an artist's rendering of 'Leveson Gower'.

I give much credence to the exhaustive research conducted by Brent Dickerson that culminated in his THE OLD ROSE ADVISOR. Dickerson concludes that Gonod's SDLM Rouge is extinct. Another source of rose info that I approach with respect is the VINTAGE GARDENS BOOK OF ROSES by Greg Lowery & Phillip Robinson. Lowery & Robinson remain silent on SDLM Rouge, noting only that 'Leveson Gower' is NOT related to SDLM. In the many years that I've dealt with Vintage, they have never offered a rose purported to be SDLM Rouge.

Then there's HelpMeFind, almost everyone's leading source for basic rose info. HMF's stance on SDLM Rouge has evolved over time as more info became available & as more people 'weighed-in' on the question. Quite some time ago, however, HMF took the position that the designation SDLM Rouge is now in use only as an erroneous appelation for 'Leveson Gower'. Therefore, HMF concludes that Gonod's SDLM Rouge is not known to exist. At the bottom of the decription page for the rose the HMF editors address the confusion, and refer readers to the comments page where additional discussion on the matter is found.

I don't grow 'Leveson Gower', no. Yet another sport of a rose that doesn't appreciate my climate is not something I would consider these days ;-)

That said, I am inclined to align myself with Windeaux's assessment, believing that what is currently offered as 'Souv. de la Malmaison Rouge' is most likely 'Leveson Gower' which is potentially a misidentified rose of Bourbon descent as well, unrelated to 'Souv. de la Malmaison'.

The fact is that many of these "grey area" roses will never have their true identities returned to them, as too much time and too little documentation has quite effectively erased their original names.

Excuse me, Paul. I just looked at the HMF Leveson Gower page. LG sure does look like your photo.

When I read previously that LG was susceptible to bs, I moved on. SdlM, Mystic Beauty and Capitaine Dyel de Graville do not blackspot in my garden. I wonder about Mme Cornelison. Well, I'll be! HMF says MC is susceptible to bs. I guess I'll let you keep her, Ingrid.

Sherry

Kronprincessin Viktoria is very unstable in my garden giving me at least 8 to 9 solid pink blooms every year and quite a few chimeras
{{gwi:324726}}

I've been growing Malmaison, KV and Rouge for over 15 years. One can see the similarity in all three blooms. M is light pink, Rouge is medium to dark pink, while KV is white.
I've yet to see leveson or anybody post a picture of this rose. In fact, I don't know of anyone that even grows it.
I'd like to see someone, who actually grows it, post a picture of it. As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing more than an attempt by the pc police to rename a rose that many of us grow and love.

I don't have LG/Rouge, but the others all get blackspot in my climate if not sprayed. They are somewhat resistant compared to roses in general. So far, haven't noticed that Mme Cornelissen is any worse or better than the others as to disease. It is a beautiful and free-blooming rose. (Available from Roses Unlimited as Edith de Murat.)

I imported Leveson Gower from Peter Beales many years ago. It matches the various "rouge"-named plants I've seen for sale in the US (of course I can't claim to have seen them all). For us it is susceptible to powdery mildew but not bad about blackspot. I agree that it has nothing to do with SDLM. For us it is far more vigorous even than Souv. de St. Anne's. It also blooms absolutely continuously and heavily -- far more than any of the SDLM clan.

See the photos link.

Malcolm

Here is a link that might be useful: my photos of Leveson Gower

There are two other docummented 'Souvenir de la Malmaison' sports that have been lost. The first is 'Mlle. Berthe Clavel' (Chauvry, 1891), said to have had yellow and pink blooms. The other is 'Mlle Marie-Therese Devansaye' (Chedane-Guinoisseau, 1895), a pure white. I wonder how (and if) MM-TD differed from 'Kronprinzessin Viktoria' -- if her blooms were more refined than those of KV, if they lacked the creamy/yellowish cast that KV often exhibits.

If anyone knows of any antique prints of either of those roses that exist anywhere online, please post a link.

Thanks, Malcolm Manners, for posting the photographs of Leverson Gower. They look identical to the photos of Malmason Rouge that trospero posted above. I think even rayrose will agree with that. To rayrose: rouge isn't translated medium or dark pink. It is translated RED.

jaxondel: I haven't seen prints of those SDLM sports that you mention, but I haven't seen antique prints of SDLM Rouge either. Have you?

To wrenwood69, I know what Rouge means, and as I stated
in my post, the plant that I was sold by RU, as souvenir
de la malmaison rouge, is medium to dark pink. I never said that it was red. The photo that Malcom Manners posted of LG is red. I have 2 Rouges or whatever the heck you want to call them, and while they have similar flower form as Malcom's LG, they are much lighter in color. So to me, they are not LG. My bushes will mildew in mildew season, but will not bs. They also grow quite differently, than Malmaison and KV, and are blooming machines.

So, to sum up the thread so far, Leveson Gower of commerce and SDLM Rouge of commerce are the same rose, which is probably neither a sport of SDLM nor the rose of 1882 that was named Malmaison Rouge. However, the rose has cultural characteristics similar to SDLM.

Does it ball as much as SDLM?

Michaelg, that is not the correct summation. The rose
that I purchased many years ago from RU that was sold as
souvenir de la malmaison rouge, is not the same as the LG that Malcom Manners purchased. Although they are similar in bloom form, they are different colored roses.

rayrose, it would be interesting to see a photo of your SdlM Rouge so we can compare it to those we are now growing with the same name. You don't say how your rose differs in color. Is it darker or more of a red rather than pink?

Ingrid

Rayrose,
Thanks for the info on the RU provenance of your rose. I've had the very same selection for quite a few years, only I got it from Ashdown. My RU/Ashdown plant is identical in every way to the Leveson Gower I've been growing. Both plants have identical growth habits and health pressures, and both produce blooms in the same shade of deep rosy pink (not red).

According to Pat Henry, RU quit offering the plant they once listed as SDLM Rouge because of serious disease issues in their propagation greenhouse--issues they've never had with either SDLM or any of the recognized SDLM sports that they carry. Ashdown, however, continued to sell the RU plant as SDLM Rouge.

I think the evidence is pretty conclusive now that you also are growing Leveson Gower. Whew--glad we finally got that settled.

Here is a link that might be useful: RU's SDLM Rouge @ Ashdown

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet;"

This sounds similar to the Francis Dubreuil/Barcelona and Irene Watts/Pink Gruss an Aachen problems.

I love reading about the research and mystery surrounding the found and "gray" area roses. But it would be nice if nurseries would refrain from naming a rose something unless they were 100% sure of what they had. The natural tendency is for people to call the rose by the name they bought it.

I had Francis Dubreuil, and even though I agreed with the argument that all FDs in the U.S. are Barcelona, I just couldn't think of my plant as Barcelona, since that wasn't what I bought originally.

rayrose said "The photo that Malcom Manners posted of LG is red." I guess monitors vary in their color rendition, but I'd never describe our plant as red. It's a bright, medium pink, darkening to a deeper shade in cool weather, but always definitely pink.

{{gwi:324727}}

This is a pic that I took today of my Souvenir de la Malmaison Rouge. As you can see, it's a lot lighter than anything I've seen posted on this thread.

Which is to say what, rayrose? Except that, as expected, your LG isn't rouge?

It's to say that it isn't LG.

rayrose, it's not my wish to be contrary, but my Leveson-Gower looks exactly like yours right now. Since it's been cool it's being holding on to its flower for an inordinately long time, and after two or three days started to look lighter and fluffier than I had seen previously. So many factors go into the appearance of a rose. I would, however, trust Gregg Lowery's (of Vintage) research and if he does not offer SdlM Rouge that tells me a lot. I also grow SdlM Rouge from another vendor and it is identical with Leveson-Gower in every way.

Ingrid

Until you have grown all of the candidates discussed, in the same climate, side by side for several seasons, it is unfair to draw any conclusions about the identity of any of them based on other people's experiences. Cultural conditions and seasonal changes play a huge role in the appearance of the blooms, but then all of us here know that already.

Trospero makes a good point about variations due to culture and seasonal conditions. Since we know that both rayrose's and Ashdown's SDLM Rouge are the plant once sold by RU, any color differences between them are likely due to environmental factors. Also, photography can be very inaccurate where color subtleties are concerned. It's clear that rayrose's pic was taken in direct sun which might cause the roses to look washed out.

Yes, there are times of year when ours looks exactly like that, too. It's quite a variable rose, as to color.

Here is a link that might be useful: Our Levison Gower, on a lighter pink day.

Well mine just went into the ground in it's pot yesterday right next to Capt Dyel.

Earlier this year on this very forum, we went thru ALL of this when Rayrose decried the validity of DNA evidence clearly demonstrating that plants sold as 'Souvenir de la Malmaison Rouge' show no direct relationship to SdlM.

I'll repeat now what I said then . . . I can sort of understand where Rayrose is coming from because I'm equally as recalcitrant as regards Pluto, that now-maligned celestial body. I steadfastly stick to my guns on this point: Pluto is a planet, by gum, regardless of what renowned astronomers or pointy-headed astrophysicists might have to say, okay? Pluto is a planet. 'Nuf said, end of story. Pluto=planet. Got that?

Rayrose feels the same way about 'Malmaison Rouge'. So be it.

The next time this forum gets a little boring I'm going to announce that I'm buying SDLM Rouge and ask for some opinions and then stand back, something like Peggy has done. She is probably cackling somewhere. This whole thread has been highly entertaining.

It is no concern of mine, and never has been, about any realtionship that the rose that I purchased many years ago from RU as Souvenir de la Malmaison Rouge has or has not by DNA or any other evidence to SDLM. I could care less.
What does concern me, is a rose that I have won awards with at rose shows as SDLMR now is disqualified, because some supposed "expert" has decided that noone can call it that name anymore, but must call it LG. Who the heck gave that person the right to do that. Why not just call it "Rouge", as apparently some people have started to do.

Huh?

Oh, I think, enough said......

Ingrid

With profound apologies to Ingrid (who's had quite enough), I'm posting this for Harborrose's continuing entertainment -- and for anyone else who may find a grain of truth herein:

"Most people, when directly confronted with proof that they are wrong, do not change their point of view or course of action but justify it even more tenaciously."

-- Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
in MISTAKES WERE MADE (BUT NOT BY ME)
Harcourt Books, 2007

I am casually reading this thread, and I don't really see a change of subject. I agree that it is frustrating to purchase a rose only to discover that it has a different name.

The OP asked what we thought, and she received many answers. I am not sure that there is a right or wrong. I don't find it entertaining to put down a poster.

Sammy

"What does concern me, is a rose that I have won awards with at rose shows as SDLMR now is disqualified, because some supposed "expert" has decided that noone can call it that name anymore, but must call it LG."

If you don't care about its provenance/identity, thats not a problem. Clearly you are concerned about having the ability to exhibit it for awards/prizes. Then exhibit it as 'Levison Gower'. Is that not a solution to the problem?

I found the thread entertaining because it is fun to hear different opinions about a rose's history, its genetics, its name, other's experiences. I enjoy a heated discussion that's not centered on gossip of a person, but a rose. I think it's fabulous that people care enough about it to have an opinion. I think it's wonderful that someone would do a thesis on the genetic markings of a rose to see if it's related to SDLM.

I am not sure I understand what Rayrose is saying, except that he is frustrated with his SDLM R/LV being disqualified from a rose show because he entered it under one name but the rules now only accept the rose under the other name. That would be aggravating, for sure.

My enjoying this thread or topic has nothing to do with that part of it - just the spectrum of discussion of the rose. This is the kind of rose topic that's interesting to read about.

Yes, Bellegallica, very similar to the Irene Watts, etc. and to the Sombreuil/Colonial White, and the Jacques Cartier/Marquise Boçella debate of a few decades ago and of the old Irish Elegance/Irish Fireflame debate, and.... The more things change....

Ok, guys, I'm not cackling. I purchased mine from Long Ago Roses and the flower sure smells like SDLM but my rose is full of mildew and some of the older leaves have BS! :-p I do not spray but I have some fungicide around so I'll spray it now until it gets hot here. I'll probably end up shovel-pruning it by late May. :-( Oh well...

I think I'll start calling mine Leverson Gower. To me it is not ordinary for several reasons. One, the color. Mine is not a deep pink, but more of a beautiful silvery rose color. It has some bluish tones, not leaning towards coral at all. By silvery I mean it has sort of a sheen. The buds are especially fat and beautiful, white with deep rose edges. It makes a good plant, short and bushy with few thorns. It reblooms very well. The first flush balls here in a particularly ugly way..the blooms are so full of petals that they crack open in quarters. But later flushes are good. It might not ball at all in dryer climates. I agree with Michael that it is less bs prone than many other roses, but will get some blackspot. We don't get much mildew here. I would not be without it.
Linda

The "RU's SdlM @ Ashdown" link I posted above no longer works. Here's the same at its new Paul Zimmerman Roses address --

Here is a link that might be useful: RU's SDLM Rouge @ Ashdown/PZR

tenorpeggy, so you've only had the plant about four months, and those have been cold, wet winter ones? Often, own root roses take much longer, even under ideal conditions, to produce the plant they are programmed genetically to be. You honestly can't accurately judge ANY rose from any source on such a short period of less than ideal weather (or even ideal conditions).

My experience and observation over the past nearly thirty years, all around the south west (which is, I know, different from your conditions) many, MANY OGRs require several seasons to mature into what you want them to be. I am convinced the primary thing which has kept Malmaison and its variants on the market is the flower. I have never seen any of them, anywhere, make great plants.

Even budded, they aren't as healthy as many modern roses. It's just the nature of the beast. I'd suggest if you really want the thing, give it a year or two without heavily pruning it and with providing it the best cultivation you can before determining it isn't for you. For the most part, Bourbons and HPs aren't happy in milder moist, warm climates. Why should they be? Most were selected in Mediterranean and northern European climates, no semi tropical conditions. Healthy in the south of France won't necessarily be healthy in Florida humidity, and certainly not as an immature plant in winter conditions. Kim

Kim, Glad to see your post above. I've often wondered about the 'White SdlM' listed by Paul at Ashdown, who attributes discovery of the sport to you. Do you still grow the plant? How does/did it differ from 'Kronprinzessin Viktoria'? Thanks for any info.

Here is a link that might be useful: 'White SdlM' @Ashdown/PZR

Hi, while at Limberlost Roses in Van Nuys, I received budded roses from a San Jose nursery from "he who shall remain nameless". There were many identification errors in the order and Malmaison and Cl Malmaison were equally confused with each other. Quite a few of them flowered white but were otherwise identical, all the way to the lousy foliage, balling flowers and die back of the original pink Malmaison. It took a bit of research to find the Kronprinzessin identity as I wasn't a Help Me Find user at the time. "He who shall remain nameless" was of no help and stated he hadn't propagated a white Malmaison. How it may or may not differ from Kronprinzessin, I honestly have no idea. None of the permutations have ever performed sufficiently well to attract me anywhere I've ever seen them to make that effort worth spending to find out. I guess Paul called it While Malmaison to prevent any issues with Kronprinzessin in case they differ. I don't have it, nasty thing! FEH! I've been there, trying to make stubborn, roses unsuitable for my climate happy and it just isn't worth the effort. I would much prefer growing roses which thrive here without always looking Pd'off all the time and pimping pollen.

roseseek, it hasn't really been that cold and wet lately. We're getting more rain than usual this winter but that isn't saying much. My teas and chinas are not full of powder so maybe it is just this variety? I had SDLM a couple of years ago (I lost it one winter when we had a freeze and it was in a pot left outside all night) but I've never seen this kind of PM on that one like I see on SDLM Rouge so maybe this isn't a SDLM sport after all...

roseseek, your comments about the SdlM clan once again point up the huge difference location can make to the performance of a rose. SdlM and its sports and indeed all the small Bourbons I have are as happy as clams in mud in my hot, dry location. No disease whatsoever, and no balling either. A rose friend who lives about 25 miles away in conditions that SEEM fairly similar to mine has had much less luck with SdlM. I completely agree with you that, rather than chasing after the dream of a perfect SdlM or any other rose that is a dog in your garden, it's so much more rewarding to grow the roses that love your unique garden environment. I should know; I've discarded/given away almost as many roses a I have in the ground for this reason. It's so easy to fall in love with a gorgeous picture or the glowing descriptions of others about a particular rose only to find it hates you. Fortunately, there are thousands of roses to choose from so the nasty divas don't have to be a part of your life for very long.

Ingrid

I guess it's another reason you might have best luck buying from a nursery in your area. They will have a better idea how the rose does in your climate. I have no idea which ones are susceptible to rust and powdery mildew since we don't get much of that here. I know some excellent nurseries don't even describe roses at all and leave it up to the buyer to research them. I always appreciate a few comments about disease issues but you always have to take into account climate differences unless the nursery is local.
Linda

tenorpeggy, it still CAN be a Malmaison sport. We don't know all the various characteristics which mutate at once. You can see the color, but what else is different? I observe in my climate and those surrounding it, that Teas and Chinas are generally more disease resistant than the majority of the Bourbon and HP classes. I would seriously expect your Malmaison to be diseased earlier and longer than your Teas and Chinas based upon my experience with them here. Yes, location can greatly alter things.

Absolutely, Ingrid! I love your "nasty divas" comment. I'll file that with my "cocaine addicted French mistresses"! LOL! Kim

Rouge does smell very much like SDLM. My poor powdered thing is still trying to produce buds so I'm gonna try to clean it up before it gets too hot to spray. It is in a pot so I might move it to another location and see if that helps...

tenorpeggy, you do know that water stress can trigger mildew? I never believed it after reading it in Rose Growing Complete by Edward LeGrice, until I experimented with the idea. Roses which never mildewed for me in the old garden could be forced to mildew simply by keeping their pots too dry. These same roses never mildewed on automatic watering nor in the ground where water wasn't nearly as great an issue, but they sure did in pots which dried out too far between waterings. Pot ghettos also tend to be more crowded with less air flow which can create the right conditions for disease.

Banksia here is rudely healthy. There are several on the property and all but one are spotless all year round. The large double yellow which caps the large stand of golden bamboo out front not only flowers several times a year (the ones in the back don't) but is mildewed all year. From what I've been able to determine, it behaves this way for two reasons. First, the bamboo transpires a tremendous amount of water all the time which raises the humidity around the foliage. The ones in back are growing on a bare hillside which is kept free from weeds and don't have the transpiration around them, so are more arid. Second, the amount of water the bamboo sucks from the ground is very likley keeping this plant water stressed. The plants in back survive on ground water which flows through the back hill from the areas above. I water the bamboo and double yellow monthly; the ones in back never get irrigated as they obviously don't require it.

I'm thinking your mildew problems on this rose probably have several causes. It's immature, therefore likely malnourished. Iceberg here only experiences mildew on well grown plants, but whack the devil out of it, removing much of the wood and foliage and you can force it to black spot heavily. It requires the stored food in the wood and the food producing capacity of the foliage to out grow the black spot.

Second, the pot may dry out too far between waterings, causing the immune system of the plant not to function properly. Third, perhaps where the pot is provides just the right conditions to foster the unexpectedly greater disease issues. The final two possibilities are the unsuitability of this particular variety for your climate and the conditions it's experiencing due to the weather this time of year.

It's likely that putting it in the ground and allowing it to mature into the plant it is genetically programmed to be and waiting until the disease conditions change (warmer, drier) it may prove to be acceptable in your garden.

I WOULD suggest you disbud it until it puts on more growth. Quite often, a rose will flower at the expense of growth. Producing all those heavily petaled flowers requires a whole lot of resources. By pinching off the buds, reserving that nutrition to stimulate growth, it may recover more rapidly and become the plant you expect. Here, Rosaium Uetersen can grow almost like a floribunda, pumping out flowers like one at the expense of climbing. My Annie Laurie McDowell can also take her time to climb because she flowers incessantly. Grey Pearl will flower so heavily it uses up all of its resources and literally dies.

Own root Tea roses will also frequently flower at the expense of growing. Preventing them from forming flowers will stimulate them to develop into the plants they need to become much more quickly. You might consider trying it with this rose and see if it behaves better. Kim

Kim, your suggestions sound very reasonable and could help many a rose which is being threatened by the shovel. Some get too little water, some too much..nearby plants have an effect..wind, animals, all sorts of things. I have relocated or potted up puny plants with good results, so sometimes it's not the plant but the conditions. I guess that's what's meant by babying a small plant too...the smaller amount of leaves and wood make it more vulnerable.
I never thought about wood storing energy until this year, when I read about carbohydrates in canes. I may add something to my site about possible need to baby small plants patiently so they can become as good as they can be.
Perhaps larger plants would be worth the investment for many people though for me most small plants do well. I have a Mme Antoine Mari which was tiny for the longest time. Once it gained a decent size it seemed to thrive..maybe it just needed a certain amount of leaves and canes to cross the tipping point into good health. It finally gained momentum.

I hope your plant will turn around and start doing better for you as soon as possible, Peggy. If Malcolm M grows SDLM R in FL it may do well for you too.
Linda

Yes ma'am Linda! Small plants ARE infants. You read all over about varieties out growing problems; taking time to "settle in". Climbers can take three years to produce the root system they require to support the climbing canes. They grow roots first, then leaves and canes. Infants, whether they are animals, people or plants, require some special conditions and treatment until they mature into what they are to become. As long as you are sure it's a suitable variety for your climate and cultural practices, treat it as you would an infant and help it grow up. You can't expect a year old child to fend for itself and flourish on its own any more than you can a young cutting grown plant to perform as a mature plant. Growing an unsuitable variety for your area is like trying to get penguins to be happy in the desert. You MAY be able to recreate what they want, but it is really worth it?

If Kim's white SdlM had foliage like SDLM, it was not Kronprinzessin Viktoria. My KpV has very different foliage, yellow-green when young, as well as different, looser flower form and a fragrance different from SdlM.