The only thing that came to mind was Siloam Double Classic and that seems correct :)

Looks a lot like Dorothy and Toto.

This post was edited by mantis__oh on Mon, Aug 4, 14 at 20:02

It's a very pretty double, but it doesn't look like my Siloam Double Classic.

Does this daylily winter over in your solarium? It's gorgeous.

Here are pics of Kirchhoff's evergreen 'All About Eve'.

Here is a link that might be useful: All About Eve

don't know who it is, but, know its not double classice.
but, its really pretty, who ever it is.

jean

It definitely looks like All About Eve.

On most websites, 'All About Eve' is listed as being evergreen, I've never noticed anything different about the foliage, it goes dormant along with all the others and easily manages my zone 3 winters.

Gosh, it's so beautiful! I have to agree with the others doesn't look anything like my Siloam Double Classic either.

It's beautiful, whatever it is.

Maybe JOHN KIRKLAND???

I have John Kirkland, the color is rather similar but different. John has a darker band around the eye, but it is not nearly so vivid as yours. Really don't think it is John Kirkland.

I don't think it John Kirkland, yours is too bright.

The photo of this daylily is amazing. But was it taken early in the AM under controlled conditions? I realize that Canada has a much milder climate then mine, but in order for me to recognize this daylily, I'd have to see it as it looks exposed to hours of harsh sunlight and buffeted about by mother nature. It's a beauty in your picture though and I hope someone comes up with a name............Maryl

Maryl, thank you for your input. The photo was taken about 5 pm on a very pleasant day with high cloud and a temperature of about 80 F. I've never observed these flowers looking so good, the conditions must have been to their liking.

Agree with you, guys, that JOHN KIRKLAND photos aren't a perfect match to that double. Hence those question marks. :) But I have similar doubts about ALL ABOUT EVE, and for the same reason.

The problem with trying to ID from a photo is that the photo captures the plant as it grows in that particular garden. My WEBSTER'S PINK WONDER is always a very pale pink that bears no resemblence to the database image. My NEON FLAMINGO, bought in its intro year from the hybridzier, has FINALLY bloomed a bright "neon flamingo" pink. I bought MORRI (Taylor 1978) because I saw it in a Long Island garden blooming just like its registration info: a lovely "lavender self." Mine is always a muddy, washy pink(ish) color. MOTHER UPDUFF isn't a fawn pink here; it's a kind of orange-pinkish color. RUBY LIPSTICK has more of a creamy yellow than an ivory background color, with a definite yellow cast. VIRGINIA B. HANSON is yellowish, not "cream ivory."

(I should provide at least one example of an eye zone or other similar feature that differs from the database info/image, but nothing comes to mind at the moment.)

Cool weather, hot weather, different growing zones, acid soil, etc., etc., all these can change the appearance of blooms. In cool weather this summer, I saw, for the first time ever, so-called cheetah pattern on BAUGHSTON HORNSWAGGLER, which is registered as as a purple with faint red eye.

I won't go on, but I'll bet many of you have seen similar differences between daylilies you grow and online images and info.

Anyway, I'm certainly not insisting on JOHN KIRKLAND! Whatever that double is, it sure is lovely though.