Here is a full bush picture:

Jackie

It looks lovely Jackie. I surely do not see how that name mixup occurred, since yours looks so different from CB.

There was a famous rose person in England (I forget which one) who was really pushing back on the DNA proof that spray CB was NOT Bloomfield Abundance. He said "my father grew BA (the CB one)", and so it was grown by 2 generations of his family. So, all I can think of is that when the true BA was first hybridized (in the US in the 1920s), or shortly there after, the wrong plant must have been sent to England, and they have been growing and selling it under the wrong name (and some still are) ever since. Here is a pic from a rose book from South Africa, showing what it says is BA, which looks much more like the one I have than any CB!

If I recall correctly, it was Mr. Beales who stated since his family had grown Spray Cecile Brunner for two generations, it MUST be the correct B.A. Remember, also, he was the gentleman who identified Pink Gruss an Aachen as Irene Watts, and when presented with the proof that they were the same rose, he maintained he HAD and SOLD the correct one, but never supplied photos of the right one in all the years he had the opportunity to demonstrate he was correct. He was also the gentleman who distributed Barcelona as Francis Dubreuil, though that ID was likely Sangerhausen's fault.

The confusion about B.A. was more difficult to uncover because until photos of Fred's rediscovery, there were only three photos of the real B.A. (though, you could argue there were only TWO, as one was a simply a colorized copy of one of them) and none of them had been printed since 1926. The latest place these were shown is Help Me Find, where I would link them, if it was working properly. Since that is only showing green screens until whatever the issue is can be found, I've "borrowed" them for here. This was printed in the 1920 American Rose Annual.

This image was printed in the American Rose Annual, 1926.

And, this was printed in The Practical Book of Outdoor Rose Growing (1920), by Captain George C. Thomas, Jr. who created the rose, and is simply a black and white print of the colorized print above.

The breeding provided would never produce a plant so obviously multiflora-based, but as few had access to these images, who could see the error? Anyone with any knowledge of rose classes and of an inquisitive mind, questioned how a hybrid Wichurana and a Hybrid Tea resulted in a multiflora type poly, just as those same minds questioned how anyone could possibly consider the obviously Wichurana-based "Sombreuil" a "Tea".

Thanks, Kim! I am afraid that some people will always be of the "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" group.

You're welcome, Jackie. Unfortunately, you're right. Some minds will never be informed and the resulting mis identifications and confusion will continue to appear.

Yes, I think it was Mr. Beales. He may have been stubborn, but I love his books and devotion to his mentor, Mr. LeGrice. Seeing these pics makes me so sad as I was gifted one a couple of years back which grew marvelously in a pot until this past winter when almost all my dormant potted roses bit the dust due to (iunknown) air seepage in their hibernating hole. ..and its rooted cutting died the same death. : (( I regret having not just planted it out and taken my chances that way. It is a LOVELY rose that should be more widely grown. I've actually considered getting another to see if it is hardy, but it seems to be hard to come by. Thank you for the glorious pictures.

There are a number of other photos of Fred's identification on Help Me Find. You can easily tell which photo is of which rose there. https://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.17020

Yes! Having grown both, it's a mystery how they could have ever been confused. They are obviously two different roses.

Absolutely! Once you see Fred's candidate, that's obvious, but until you can see the original photos or what could well be the original variety, who could prove much without DNA?