Tabris/Raspberry Ice/Nicole= Hannah Gordon
Tabris / Raspberry Ice / Nicole = Hannah Gordon
The prime purpose of this post is to try an untangle some of the mystery and confusion, surrounding the floribunda roses; Hannah Gordon (KORweiso, Raspberry Ice) pb 1983; Nicole (KORicole) w 1985; Tabris (KORtabis, Raspberry Ice) pb 1989; and now Raspberry Ice (KORtabis) pb. Maybe, viewing the issue through the eyes of official American Rose Society "ARS" publications, can the problem be brought to a somewhat logical conclusion? Without question, ARS judges and exhibitors would appreciate resolving this controversial issue. The following is "my point of view on the existing situation".
Much research has been done on floribunda roses over past years. One problem encountered, was researching information on a rose named Tabris. (The particular issue was lost in a previous post, receiving limited exposure). E-mail received from rosarians, indicated they would like to see an end to a confusing situation and suggested a new post, hoping this would bring the entire issue to a head. Is Tabris the actual Approved Exhibition Name "AEN", or Raspberry Ice as indicated in Modern Roses "MR XI"? Further research could indicate that neither one is.
In trying to and make a little headway, it is hopped that every one would agree, that by all indications, the floribundas Nicole and Hannah Gordon could be one and the same rose? When these two roses are grown under similar environmental conditions, they have the same color; petal count; growth habit, etc. The only difference found after reviewing many ARS publications, is Nicole was introduced several years after Hannah Gordon. Reviewing three years of Proof of the Pudding "POP" / Roses In Review "RIR", comments received from reporters on Nicole and Hannah Gordon, all noted this similarity. Interesting is the fact that in 1998 and 1999 RIR, ARS National Coordinator pointed out to the public, that Tabris the rose being evaluated is different from Nicole and is more like Hannah Gordon. For most practical purposes, if something looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, you can be pretty sure its a duck. Now, to convince ARS to officially acknowledge itÂs a duck.
As for the cultivators Raspberry Ice and Tabris, these are but two of approximately 2500 unregistered roses in commerce listed in the 1993 MR X. Most were grandfathered in when MR XI was published in the spring of 2000. Looking in MR XI under Tabris indicates to see: KORtabis, which lists Raspberry Ice in bold type as the approved exhibition name "AEN". Looking under Raspberry Ice only refers you back to see: KORtabis. At the present time, no other link between Tabris and Raspberry Ice can be established.
Searching in MR X supplement 4, published in 1999. Containing corrections and updated information of all roses registered since the publication of MR X, shows any listing of Tabris.
Tabris was first listed in the 1996 handbook, but didnÂt receive a rating until 1999. Checking in ARS annuals from 1991/ 1995 indicated any listing of Tabris, in "POP" or in "New Roses of the World". You may ask, why all the confusion and so little information available on Tabris in any ARS official publications? Several possibilities exist. (A)-The rose was either not registered by ARS or published in an edition of MRs, but had been assigned an "ARS Exhibition Name" (B)-It is a synonym used in other countries, and sold in U. S. by that name. (C)- The rose has more than one official AEN assigned to it. (D)-The rose is an unregistered rose about ARS has never published any official data.
In "Parks Rose Guide", an official ARS publication in 1994, lists the alternate name of a rose and the correct name for a rose. For Tabris, it tells you to see: Hannah Gordon (as having the official designated "ARS Exhibition Name").
Searching in MR X (1993) appendix #1. Under cross-references of synonyms to official entries, lists references to the official registered name (they appear in bold type). Under Raspberry Ice, it tells you to see: Hannah Gordon (listed in bold type as having the official registered name).
In 1995 the ARS Board of Directors approved the following; starting in 1996 a rose no longer has to have a registered name to be exhibited in ARS shows. RoseÂs will be shown under "ARS
Exhibition Names", (which is generally the name it is sold by in U. S. commerce). The rose must also be recognized in the same publications recognized in the "Guidelines for Judging Roses"; this includes the Combined Rose List "CRL, (an Approved ARS publication). In all cases CRL lists the "ARS Exhibition Name" as its primary entry. An "ARS Exhibition Name", published in a recognized ARS approved publication is synonymous to the "ARS approved Exhibition Name" AEN, as we know it today.
Along with rule changes beginning in 1996, the Handbook for Selecting Roses was to contain the most up-to-date source of correct approved "ARS Exhibition Names". In 1997 the handbook changed and now was to contain only the roses in commerce in U. S. and Canada, plus any roses reported in the "Horizon Rose List" and by other importers of roses.
Tabris is listed in all ARS handbooks since 1996 as a pink blend floribunda. Appearing in "RIR" in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 rose surveys, receiving high ratings. In 1998 and 1999 it was considered one of the top 10 exhibition roses. So how did Tabris just appear out of no ware as part of "POP", and end up in the 1996 Handbook? One theory that makes sense, is in EdmundsÂ roses 1994-1995 catalogues, is a beautiful photograph of a rose with an AEN of Tabris, code name (KORicole). "Knowing there was a controversy with the American Rose Society over the previous two years, that the rose was so similar to Hannah Gordon (KORweiso, Raspberry Ice). We decided not to get involved and just introduced it". This could prove to be a positive factor in answering the Tabris question. One scenario that seems very logical is after the 1994-1995 EdmundsÂ catalogue was published listing Tabris, in conjunction with the new judging rules taking effect in January 1996. The Handbooks editor picked up on this unregistered rose Tabris, and listed it in the 1996 handbook?
The following year in EdmundsÂ roses 1995-1996 catalogue, this same photograph appeared only with a different AEN, Nicole but the same code name (KORicole). "Admitting to the confusion they created the previous year with Tabris, went ahead and listed it under this new name".
On the cover of the 1996 American Rose magazine is the same photograph, only this time it is called Hannah Gordon. (It should be pointed out, the photograph constantly being referred to, is a winning slide from the 1993 ARS photo contest, and called Hannah Gordon). Inside the magazine is an article about the rose on the cover, an asked the question. "Who knows the difference between Hannah Gordon (KORweiso, Raspberry Ice), Nicole (KORicole), Tabris (KORtabis, Raspberry Ice)? "If you think you do, you are better than most rosarians. There are those that swear itÂs one and the same rose. ARS thus challenged its members to respond, if they think they can tell the difference". You do have to wonder, what rose was actually being evaluated by reporters in "RIR"?
Over the years, only three readers responded. A-One indicated "it appears to be the same picture as Nicole, in EdmundsÂ catalogue". B-Another said, "He grows all three, between 5 and 7 years and indicates there is no difference. And it was time the sameness be acknowledged and one name be recognized". (C)- The only difference is in comparison, that "Nicole had a larger petal count and pink edges; Hannon Gordon has darker pink, reddish edges".
Modern Roses XI lists Nicole (w) having 35 petals, white with pink edges. Hannon Gordon (pb) having 35 petals with deep pink edges. Breeders have testified that color in a bloom varies by temperature, and color of the petal edges of many roses will intensify in bright sun. Many people are fully aware that the color of a rose when first introduced, is in some cases debatable, and many times the color classification of the rose is changed after becoming established. Several examples; In MR IX, Nicole is classified as a pink blend (pb) floribunda. The same with Hannah Gordon, when first appearing in the 1984 CRL, the nursery introducing it, classified it as white (w). Growing four Nicole roses from EdmundsÂ roses and two Hannon Gordon roses from another source, found no difference between them, both are beautiful.
In 2000 ARS published the "Ultimate Rose". Listed on page 83 is (a reversed image) of this same photograph, its called Hannah Gordon. Readily seen from the various episodes listed, as long as these roses are sold and exhibited as Hannah Gordon, Nicole, or Tabris, and now referred to as Raspberry Ice in MR XI, confusion will always be the norm. Without ARS getting involved the issue will only intensity, it definitely is not going to subside by its self.
The more involved you become in this issue; the sooner you realize that all roses in question could be the same rose. Unless ARS is absolute, and can substance ate that Hannah Gordon; Nicole; Tabris or Raspberry Ice; are different cultivars, ARS should consider Hannah Gordon, as the rose having the official AEN in U. S. The next logical step is to instigate the initial steps required, in making such a transition official. What problems could be encountered, that is as bad as confusion now existing among judges, exhibitors, and nurseries? After 10 years, "this can only prove to be a step in the right direction"
Has the paper trail ended, we will have to wait and see? With all reported information derived from official ARS publications. It could well be that Hannah Gordon code name (KORweiso), is the pb floribunda W. Kordes hybridized in 1983, regardless of what name nurseries sell it under. This is not the first time a mix up in naming a rose had accrued, and it will not be the last. Infallibility is a goal at many rose nurseries, which has yet to be achieved. As one knowledgeable rosarian put it, how can anyone forget the saga involving Uncle Joe and Toro?
In 1996 when the new rules on exhibiting officially started, the handbook was considered the best authority for ARS Exhibition Names. Along with the transition, (& ARS Exhibition Names) appeared on its cover, remaining there until 1999 when MR XI was published in the spring of 2000. In March 2001 ARS published its first "AEN", this was considered the new leader in verifying an "AEN". Containing the latest varieties, both registered and unregistered, designating their Approved Exhibition names, corrections, changes, and information from previous Modern Roses and other ARS official publications. With all the information the AEN was to contain, it was suggested several years ago to add a roses petal count, it could eliminate a judges need to carry the handbook.
With the words (& ARS Exhibition Names) removed from the 2000 handbooks cover, it lost its identity; ARS no longer considered it the best place to verify an AEN. At the present time if a
rose is not listed in the latest AEN, and the latest handbook may not be correct, the next logical place to look would be in MR XI. The CRL would be of little use, being ARS mandates there publications takes precedence in case of a conflict. Although in 2003 the CRL did receive a substantial workout.
With the handbook relinquishing its official status in 1999 as the number one source for official AENs. Its editor in a related matter on the handbooks use, posted this on the Garden Web (GW) "Rose Exhibitors and Judging Forum": "We need to remember that the primary purpose of the "Handbook for Selecting Roses" is to help the general rose grower in deciding upon roses to purchase and grow. Its primary purpose is not to assist judges and exhibitors. That is the purpose of the Official List of Approved Exhibition Names "AEN". Two entirely different publications, with entirely different purposes". It may be advantageous to ARS, in the 2005 handbook along with its primary purpose; it also indicates what the handbook is not. Some judges and exhibitors are not fully aware, since 1996 several major changes in judging had accrued in 2000. As it reads now, many people assume the handbook is still the prime exhibiting reference to verify an "ARS Exhibition Name" as in past years.
In conclusion, several questions seem appropriate to address at this time. When MR XI was published in 2000 listing Raspberry Ice as having the recognized AEN, Tabris should no longer been listed as having an AEN. 1-Why were the names Raspberry Ice and Tabris omitted from the ARS 2001 and 2002 official "AEN" publications, and indicated a change in AENs had taken place? 2-Why is Raspberry Ice not listed in the latest handbook as having an AEN, and Tabris removed in order to conform to the listing in MR XI? It would seem ARS remain consistent in their official publications, right or wrong. This could account for the incidences listed below.
The latest Rose ExhibitorsÂ Forum "REF" publication indicated in 2003, Tabris received the "ARS Best Floribunda Spray Certificate" at a show. In 2002, Tabris was awarded the certificate several more times at various rose shows around the country. Why after MR XI was published showing a status change with Tabris, would judges award an "ARS Best Floribunda Spray Certificate" to a rose no longer designated as having the official AEN? It could be, judges used information contained in the handbook as their main source of reference.
To avoid further problems using ARS publications as official references, it is imperative clarification from ARS on the many questions and issues are fully addressed at this time. This would be greatly appreciated, and extremely helpful to everyone involved in exhibiting. Some may perceive this post as addressing several issues; in essence all are someway related to the prime purpose of the post. This post it is not to fault anyone, merely document some important findings. That will have a positive impact on finding a solution to a long over-due and necessary correction, "that could be the beginning of the end for a rose named Tabris". (1-12-04)