The year to put down is 1947 and show it as a Victorian. Havig to put down the year of a rose has to be removed. It just another reason for a DQ from judges that dont know roses. Or should the year be put down on all roses including HTs!

Technically, Rose de Rescht is a found roses, and therefore ineligible to be exhibited as either Victorian or Dowager Queen, according to the latest judging manual.

The standing rule is that an OGR without any indication of year must be shown in the Victorian class unless the ARS publications indicate otherwise with two asterisks by the name. Rose de Rescht must be in the Victorian class.

As to the "found" rose issue, Rose de Rescht is so well established the ARS is not including it among the roses that fall under the "found" rose rule. It is eligible to be exhibited. I can understand the issue, and technically it is a found rose, but it does not fall under the "found" rose rule. It would not be included in new ARS publications if it did.

With regard to the year to be placed on the tag for Rose de Rescht, my friend and longtime mentor, Bob Martin, instructed me that I should put ~1950 (circa 1950) on the tag, and that a P indicated that it was a Portland.

It has been winning that way for me for a number of years in the Victorian Class. I'd say that's the way to go.

I've been exhibiting Rose de Rescht since 1994, having won 8 Victorians with her. It's been difficult keeping up with her type and date because ARS keeps changing it. That's why I hate it when show schedules require that the exhibitor write the type and date on the entry tag. Back in 1994, she was called a Damask and the intro date was 1940. Somewhere along the line ARS changed her to a Portland and the date is either 1950 or unknown depending on which book you refer to. So, at a recent rose show that required this info be written on the tag, I wrote: "Portland, 1940 or 1950 or unknown." I won the Victorian.

Thank you EVERYONE!

My story with this rose is pathetic. Two weeks in a row it has been DQ'd!

First week I read the show schedule, it indicates to show the date...ok, go to the handbook Brenda, look it up, I see it is a Portland, no date. Hmmmm, I don't want to be DQ'd so Joe runs everywhere asking other exhibitors (who are judges). After about 5 people the consensus was write "no date". Ok....the sun is beating down in the meantime, I am desperate to get the entry in. In MY HASTE I write "no date" BUT it is under the fold of the tag! So...it was DQ'd. I spoke to some judges, they came back and pointed out the error of my ways. BUT no one said oh, by the way No Date is wrong it should be 1940, 1950, bla, bla, bla.

Our dear friend and judge Walt Kilmer showed me Peter Schneiders book - I have one on order. Another judge told me, that book is not "official". But it appears to have more detail. Do you use this book? Then there were several dates mentioned, first one date then another reintroduction date.

Fast forward to the next weekend....the NIGHT BEFORE I fill out my tag as indicated from judges the week prior "no date" and VISIABLE to the judges.

Guess what....DQ'd again, a judge wrote "No Date - 1950"! Needless to say I was not happy - and confused. I looked at several other Rose de Rescht specimens and each were marked different regarding the dates.

I like your approach the best Kitty - write all of it!

Why in the world are your shows requiring dates on the entry tag? Is this a rose show or a research show? It sounds like just another way to DQ roses so they don't have to be judged. It is not an ARS requirement and I really can't see much excuse for it. I would suggest you get together with others who don't like this requirement and start pushing for change.

Phil,

I've been pushing for a change for 10 years here in the West. Mostly it is falling on deaf years as the oldtimers think the requirement to include type and date of introduction on the entry tag is educational. I see it as a cause of many, many DQ's. Just last week at the Kern rose show, nearly the entire class of species roses was DQd because of this. However, since I am the schedule writer for my own Santa Clarita rose show, I have been able to eliminate that archaic rule for our show. A few other local rose societies have done the same, but then a new schedule writer comes along and copies another society's schedule with this dumb rule and there we go again. It just seems to perpetuate itself.

For your information âÂÂRose De Reschtâ is not a âÂÂfoundâ rose. Of the many 100âÂÂs of âÂÂfoundâ roses tabulated from the Combined Rose List (CRL) 1995 to 2005 publications, âÂÂRose De Reschtâ is not included. It has a Garden Rating of 8.9.

As to classification and year, it is a Portland that qualifies it as an OGR and for the Victorian Award. It was re-introduced in 1950, that year American Rose Society (ARS) officially recognized and published it in the 1994 âÂÂParkâÂÂs Rose GuideâÂÂ. An official Rose Society Publication, and a source that was listed in past ARS Guidelines, contained exhibition roses names. Because ARS no longer list all dates of roses in the AEN, does not mean the date is no longer valid.

âÂÂRose De Reschtâ is listed in the 2005 CRL as re-int in 1950, and until it appears in an ARS publication with a different date, 1950 is considerer the official date.

As for it being disqualified by show judges for not having a date, is not one of the reasons listed in the Guidelines, as having a DQ factor, should not have been disqualified. DQ are the only actual âÂÂrulesâ of judging, even if local show rules state a date must be on tag. Interesting is what rule they actually used to DQ your rose?

For more information on âÂÂfoundâ roses, âÂÂA Review Of âÂÂFoundâ Rosesâ was posted on this Forum on 12-31-04.

Ron S.

Well, folks, Brenda certainly figured out what to put on the entry tag. At the Ventura Fair Friends of Roses Show yesterday, her tag read 1940, 1950, undated. Granted, the show did not require that information on the tag, but the entry was a really nice one.

Her rose won the Victorian!

Way to go!

Suzanne

{{gwi:1195443}}

Thanks Suzanne....it was actually the Victorian Spray class but nonetheless we were very happy to see it on the table finally. Thanks to everyone for the discussion here on the REF. Special note of thanks to Kitty for always being there to answer my questions on a multitude of subjects!