Chris, the reason it is there is because the real Irene Watts still exists. I believe it is only available in Europe. At least that is what I heard.

Irene Watts is included in the 2005 AEN book because we believe it may still exist in Europe. That does not mean it can be exhibited as Irene Watts in the U.S. The rule remains that it must be exhibited as Pink Gruss an Aachen in the U.S. since there is overwhelming proof that the rose sold in the U.S. as Irene Watts is really Pink Gruss. Hope that clears things up.

No it doesn't clear things up!

Until you can produce a picture side by side that shows the definative difference that the variety sold by Arena Roses is actually Pink Gruss an Aachen, then she shouldn't be D/Q'd.

How are we supposed to know which is which? I must be from Missouri - so show me!!!!

You don't have to know which is which. Until further notice all roses labeled Irene Watts must be shown as Pink Gruss an Aachen. At this point we don't even have any proof that the real Irene Watts still exists. The originating nursery certainly doesn't have it anymore. If and when we are able to gather some proof that the "real" Irene Watts is available, we will let everyone know and it will be up to us to tell you how to differentiate.

If it is thought to be extinct -- then why is it in the current and latest issue of he AEN? And - why doesn't the AEN make this notation?

Irent Watts --- see Pink Gruss an Aachen (which by the way the handbook doesn't either).

So, Irene must still be accepted as an OGR until a correction is made in the magazine which will take precidence over the 2005 AEN.

You can certainly believe whatever you wish. You might even get away with entering Irene Watts as a China. However, we have already made it clear the rose sold as Irene Watts in the U.S. is really Pink Gruss an Aachen. Thus if you enter it as Irene Watts I think you will be subject to DQ as misnamed. The fact that we listed an Irene Watts in the OL doesn't mean the plants sold under that name in the U.S. are really Irene Watts. In fact, all evidence says they are Pink Gruss an Aachen. We made it clear they must be shown under that name since that is what they are. Unless and until we can verify that the real Irene Watts is being sold in the U.S., that doesn't change.

I didn't say Irene Watts was extinct. I said we still don't know. Thus we can't just act as if the historical rose doesn't exist. However, we do know all roses sold under that name in the U.S. are misnamed. They must be exhibited under their correct name - Pink Gruss an Aachen.

How can you say that you made it clear when you look up the info in the book it is nothing but gray area. Everyone knows that the judges and the exhibitors go by what the book says period. Let's be realistic, both are going to be shown, and Irene Watts cannot be DQ'ed, the book says so.

Phil -- you missed the entire point of this debate.

What rule says IW is not IW? I checked my Judging Guidlines and there is nothing there (just kdding). Are you referring to the article in the ARS Mag? If so - okay -- who had the epiphany and claimed that the IW in the US is PGAA? Where's the proof? I'm like Clara Peller -- Where's the Beef!!! Where's the evidence? Pictures? If you have them -- where are they published? If so where? Heresay doesn't count.

In the 2005 Handbook -- go to IW and what does it say? No reference at all. Answer me this -- Why didn't the handbook make this reference -- Irene Watts -- See Pink Gruss an Aachen. ????

In the 2005 Edition of the AEN lists Irene Watts. Why doesn't it say. Irene Watts -- See Pink Gruss an Aachen?

My contention is that when ARS makes a major change like this, especially on such a high profile variety, it should be done with clarity and consistency. So all references to IW should have the same footnote -- see PGAA.

An exhibitor who has purchased an IW, refers to Modern XI, purchases the 2005 handbook and the 2005 AEN book, would certainly have a reasonable expectation that all that information listed in the THREE publications are consistent and correct. I know I would be furious with the ARS after puchasing all the current publications to find the big D/Q on my tag because of some obsure article in the ARS magazine.

So - I would highly recommend that you publish an article in the ARS magazine that presents all of the data along with whatever photos and drawings you have that shows the differences between the varieties. This would put the whole issue to rest. After that -- make the appropriate notations in the 2006 AEN and Handbook.

Remember - conflicting information just leads to confusion. Shouldn't we be trying to make it easier for the exhibitor and not more difficult?

I have to agree with Chris on this one!

After winning 11 trophies with Irene Watts over the past four years, including the National Stemler OGR Challenge, and twice the PSW District Los Angeles OGR Challenge, and the rest were Victorians, I am sick at heart at the murder of Irene Watts. I've heard the word of mouth story of how several famous national and international rosarians thought Pink Gruss an Aachen was Irene Watts and passed it around and propagated it by the thousands, sold it to everybody in the World as Irene Watts and five years later confessed they were wrong and it is really Pink Gruss an Aachen. Even if that story is true, Chris is absolutely correct! If Irene Watts is listed in all those "Official Publications" without any mention that it is obsolete or really is Pink Gruss an Aachen, then we exhibitors should be allowed to exhibit the plants we purchased as Irene Watts, until the time that these "Official Publications" say we cannot.

Although nice for landscape purposes, I refuse to show this rose (whatever its name) as a floribunda, because it makes a crummy exhibition floribunda. It's stems are too short and the sprays are too small to be competitive.

I've seen the original color plates of the real Irene Watts, and it looks exactly like the Irene Watts that I grow. The color plates were artist renderings of a rose that was grown in God only knows what micro-climate in one particular point of time. Who's to say that the artist didn't take creative license? Or that the paint color was correct? Or that it was grown in a cool weather climate? Or that the rose rendered in the painting was heavily fertilized, or not? The mystery won't be solved until a DNA test proves it.

The rose that has been in commerce as Irene Watts doesn't grow like a tea. It takes more than a bloom to define a rose.
Just enter one of your other tea roses.

Ann - you are absolutely correct. It doesn't grow like a tea because she's a China. She also doesn't grow like floribunda either.

Chris,
I grow over fifteen chinas, and the rose in commerce as Irene Watts doesn't have the chinas' trait of putting out blooms from unexpected nodes.
RICA Irene doesn't begin to bloom with the chinas or with the slightly later teas and breeding will tell when it comes to commencement of bloom.
And not all Floribundas look like modern FLs; the FLs have different growth habits, if you get past the exhibition FLs.
Ann

The person who started the misidentification was Peter Beales. He has now publicly admitted he was wrong and that the rose is really Pink Gruss. So have most of the other experts who have been involved in the issue. Sangerhausen, which was the source of the plant, has removed Irene Watts from their list of cultivars. The growth and blooms of this rose look nothing like the plate of Irene Watts in Brent Dickerson's book. What possible justification do you have for claiming they are all wrong and you are right?

You're still missing the point. It isn't an ID question, but a show rules question.

For years we couldn't exhibit Jenny Duval because MR10 claimed it was the same as President de Seze, and the real Jenny Duval was extinct. Our Jenny looked nothing like President de Seze, and would have probably been DQed if entered under that name. But the real name wasn't listed in any of the references.

Either the books are assumed to be correct, and you go by the book, or they aren't, and name changes can be justified to the judges. The real solution is for the ARS to finally take OGRs seriously and make an honest attempt to get the references correct. Since that isn't happening, either you go by the words printed on the page or not.

So the question is, where in the official ARS show documentation does it say that the rose has to be exhibited as Pink Gruss an Aachen, overruling all the statements that the official references have to be taken as gospel?

BTW, the ARS documention is bad enough on OGRs that our show still lists the CRL as an acceptable entry reference. We have too many OGR entries not to take them seriously.

Phil - you're missing my main point...

Lets take it down to a basic scenario...

1. An exhibitor gets an Irene Watts from a reputable nursery.
2. Takes a fabulous spray to a rose show.
3. They look in the Handbook 2005 and see nothing under Irene Watts
4. They check Modern XI and see:

'Irene Watts', Ch, w, 1896; bud soft apricot-orange; flowers with a button eye, dbl.; Guillot, P.

5. They also look her up in the 2005 AEN and see: 'Irene Watts'.

6. They enter IW into a show and much to their shock - -D/Q.

So the exhibitor takes all the information available to them at an ARS show -- enters a rose only to be D/Q'd.

Now if the ARS had simply made a notation in the AEN and Handbook: "Irene Watts -- see Pink Gruss an Aachen" there would be no problem.

What I'm saying is that let Irene live for one more year until the proper notations are made in the two most important tools that an exhibitor can have. Either that of just stop waisting your time printing them and only use Dobson.

Have I made my self clear enough!!!!

We should always err on the side of the exhibitor. IW has been receiving OGR trophies for years - -one more is not going shake the foundations of the ARS.

In the future, when God sends ARS an epiphany to change a name -- especially one that has won so many trophies and so widely grown - substantiate your changes with as many photos, drawings and notations as possible. And include those changes in ALL publications so everyone is on the same page.

I have no doubts that IW that we have in the U.S. is missnamed but I do have my doubts if its really a sport of GAA. My flowers are very different. I think the name change was premature until more research could be done to really find out what this rose really is.

The ARS magazine is one of the official sources of information on Approved Exhibition Names and judging rules. The August 2004 issue of the magazine clearly stated the rose sold as "Irene Watts" in the U.S. is really Pink Gruss an Aachen and must be exhibited as such. We are not saying the "real" Irene Watts, if it exists, can't be shown as a china. What we are saying is that the plant sold as Irene Watts in the U.S. is not the china, but the floribunda Pink Gruss an Aachen. If you enter it as Irene Watts it is subject to disqualification as misnamed. Someday we may find the real Irene Watts in Europe (we are looking) and get it back in commerce. Then that rose can be shown as a china.

By the way, the ARS judging rules and guidelines clearly state the Combined Rose List is an acceptable source of
AENs for roses that have not been published in an official ARS publication. Once the ARS has published the data, then the ARS publication takes precedence. If you allow the CRL to overrule the ARS publications when there is a conflict, you are violating ARS judging rules.

As to the charge that the ARS doesn't care about OGRs and those who love them, that is nonsense. Much of the assistance on researching the Irene Watts issue came from OGR people - some of them in California where you are located. Many articles on OGRs have appeared in the ARS magazine over the last couple of years. Classification issues are under discussion with OGR experts. The ARS is working more closely than ever with organized OGR groups.

So what you're saying is the lack of information in handbook and the AEN is perfectly acceptible.

Should an exhibitor only use the two aformentioned publications, happens to miss the article on Irene Watts (which was so colorful and richly illustrated) in the ARS magazine thats just too bad. What a shame!

BTW -- how's the membership doing? Increasing or decreasing? Hmmmmm Phil????? Cavalier attitudes like this in a volunteer organization like ARS is just not good!

What a shame!

Just fix it in the next printing of the Handbook and the AEN.

Never did I say that ARS doesn't care about OGR's! Where did that come from?!

To say ARS is responding to the need of ID OGRâÂÂs, As one of their concerns is somewhat confusing.

Phil Schorr started a group to study âÂÂfoundâ roses. The ORG & Shrub committee took this on as a primary project. Purpose: narrowing down âÂÂfoundâ roses that are the same rose under a different name, and make recommendations to ARS Registration Committee.

Why has this study group suddenly lost momentum, and no longer active on this project?

Ron S.

Glad to see that in the current issue of the ARS Magazine, Irene Watts was clarified again.

Now, if it will be correctly noted in the 2006 Handbook and AEN book, all will be well.

I have this rose and it does not look exactly like GAA to me either. But we shouldn't use a name that is wrong for it. I was explaining this all to my sister. Later, she came out while I was digging a hole to plant Sugar Moon and said "Let's just call it Once Upon A Watts". I couldn't stop laughing and was smiling all day. Maybe we should just have a new name for this lovely rose. Lots of roses get new names when they come to America. Something really lovely because this rose surely deserves it.

Due to a niggling sense that I'd read those words before, I was certain the Cartier spammer above had plagiarized those comments about Irene Watts . . . Then I remembered: Paul Barden's website & his IW entry!

Just giving credit where credit is due. (BTW -- Have never seen IW, but Paul's photo sure looks like the plant I've been growing as Pink GaA.)

Here is a link that might be useful: Irene Watts @ OGRs & Beyond