Re: New Iceberg!

David King of <greenman@ucla.edu> writes in part:

.<snip> As it is, I am at my desk on campus and someone recently posted
>about breaking down and putting in an Iceberg rose stirred these
>sleeping brain cells into recalling that we saw slides of new roses
>either being released this year or in coming years.  One of this year's
>introductions:  Brilliant Pink Iceberg.  A sport of Iceberg, it really
>is something like an Iceberg crossed with the color form of
>Regensberg.   Which brings me to thinking, why not just plant
>Regensberg?  And now I wonder, why plant Iceberg at all?  For my money,
>Gruss an Aachen is a better rose with the same flower - better scent.
>
>However.  I wish to God I had stock in the company with Brilliant Pink
>Iceberg - it's going to be a huge, HUGE success.  The slides we saw of
>it were magnificent - great color.  And it has all the other
>characteristices of Iceberg, floriferous and disease free - even in
>shady conditions:  the next rage in the common rose.
>

I was given a trial version of Pink Iceberg last year and honestly 
didn't like it.

I have several of the white Iceberg roses and am very familiar with 
their growth and blooming characteristics. If any of you grow them, 
you'll recall that at the end of the season, many of the blossoms 
will either start out with a magenta pink color, or even if they open 
white, soon fade to a magenta pink color. In my mind it is a muddy 
magenta, not a very pretty color. But of course each to his own.

I assumed that they worked on that magenta-like characteristic to 
form the pink form. While it does open to the pretty true and pale 
pink, the blooms all fade to that same kind of stripe-like dull 
magenta as it ages.

I've got mine sitting in a pot to take up to a Western Horn meeting 
for a plant raffle -- I just don't care for it at all.

Carol Moholt
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index