When Brent C. Dickerson asked me to write an article about early rose breeding in Germany, I did not know what I had gotten myself into. I know now. Days on end of reading in old books and dusty magazines, and quite a lot of research work–quite frustrating all too often. But this is only half of the truth: I have, on the other hand, spent many pleasurable hours when, at the end, I found what I was looking for.
Finally, I was able to put together some facts and information which you will find below. I’m fully aware that the results in some cases resemble a fishing net, giving only some strands to pull and a lot of holes surrounded by–sometimes rather thin cords.
If it was sometimes difficult to obtain the information from the time all this is about, it was–and is to me–quite impossible to find out if certain cultivars from breeders I have mentioned still exist or not. My information comes mainly from the great inventories of roses such as the Sangerhausen inventory, the inventory of the Deutsches Rosarium Dortmund (DRD), and other rosaries as well as several online resources, among them helpmefind.com, and quite a lot from searches with the major search engines.
I am quite optimistic that many cultivars which are presumed lost still exist in private gardens, even if the owner does not know that ‘this lovely old rose over there in the corner from my Grandma’s garden’ is maybe the last existing plant of a certain cultivar.
Anybody having knowledge of the whereabouts of cultivars I suppose to be lost or extinct is asked politely to let me share in this knowledge. The mail address will be found at the end of this article.
The title of this article is not quite correct. It should be ‘Rose Breeding by Rosarians whose Native Tongue is German.’ Have no fear! I will not bore you stiff with the intricacies of German nation-building. But to limit this theme to territorial aspects of what is German would exclude for instance Rudolf Geschwind, a subject of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy–a man who could not speak one word in Hungarian and who published all of his works in German. Other early ‘German’ rose breeders would be left out as well.
The first mention of rose propagation–not breeding–dates back as far as the end of the 8th century. Following the famine of 793/794, Karl der Grosse–or as you will know him better, Charlemagne–released his order named ‘Capitulare de villis vel curtis imperii,’ in which he orders the abbots of his provinces to plant and cultivate about 74 different plants - among them roses. At that time however, roses were used mainly for medicinal and liturgical purposes.
During the Middle Ages, the attitude towards roses changed. With the upcoming trend to separate roses from other garden plants and the introduction of special rose gardens, the symbolism of the rose changed from a formerly martial and clerical meaning to the associations still valid today. In the 16.th century, big rose gardens existed already, although the labelling of those gardens as a rosary would be wrong. What was missing, was the diversity of roses, although it is stated that the owners of those rose gardens were already trying to collecte as much different roses as were available. About Hans von Fugger, may be the first tycoon, is reported, that in 1580 he had about 775 roses in his rose garden, a relative of him, Georg Fugger is reported to have cultivated the first musk in 1565 in his rose garden in Frankfurt.
The presumably first known–at least first known to me–documentation of controlled breeding attempts on German soil dates back at least as far as 1773, the year when Daniel Schwarzkopf, since 1766 head gardener at the castle of Weissenstein [now: ‘Wilhelmshöhe’ and during the Napoleonic times ‘Napo-leonshöhe’], bred his ‘Perle von Weissenstein’. We can not prove with certainty that ‘Perle von Weissenstein’ was the result of controlled breeding; but what we can prove here is that it may have been:
In 1775, J.C. Ebel describes his successful experiment, done in 1772 and 1773 to cross two ‘Lapalla mirabilis’ (“Wunderblume”) species to gain a hybrid of these two. The initial point of Ebel’s experiment, and this is the remarkable point, to which he refers in the description of his experiment, was an article published by Abraham G. Kästner in the ‘Hamburgisches Magazin, 3.Band’ in the year 1748, in which now Kästner refers to an article of the English gardener Philip Miller in the Gardeners Dictionary from the same year. There, Miller reports about plant sexuality, the two sexes in botany, and the role of pollen, pistils, etc. So in 1748 Philip Miller had in his hands the key to controlled breeding. From this very Philip Miller, Daniel Schwarzkopf got his apprenticeship after he had worked for some time at the nursery of the Duke of Veltheim at Harbke.
In 1777, Böttcher reports in his ‘Verzeichnis der Bäume und Sträucher of the Weissenstein Castle’ [Inventory of Trees and Shrubs ...] about 20 different rose cultivars and about 100 different variations of these roses which Daniel Schwarzkopf, at that time already for 11 years head gardener at the Weissenstein Castle, had received from Miller in England, from Friedrich von Veltheim at the castle of Harbke near the town of Helmstedt, and from Otto von Münchhausen at the Schwöbber estate near Hameln [Hamelin].
In 1785, the botanist Conrad Mönch writes about Daniel Schwarzkopf: “For 12 years, [Schwarzkopf] has been planting seed from all cultivars here; and from some of them he has gotten some interesting new varieties.“ [Complete German citation: „… seit 12 Jahren hat Herr Schwarzkopf jährlich von allen hier befindlichen Arten ausgesät, und davon manche merkliche Abart erhalten…“]
At that time, in 1785, Mönch reported about 150 different kinds of roses.
This reveals three different, and, in a historical view, major facts: Rose breeding in Germany started as far back as 1773. This breeding done by Schwarzkopf may well have been one of controlled breeding, because he would have had the knowledge of the works by Kästner and Ebel and most probably by Miller, from whom he learned his trade; and finally there was more than one cultivar as a result of Schwarzkopf’s work.
Unfortunately, Schwarzkopf could not proceed in his efforts for long. The heir to Weissenstein Castle, Electoral Prince Wilhelm I, decided to build a new and bigger, much more pompous, more adequate to his high rank in the german aristocracy, palace “because he hated everything French.“ (The old Weissenstein castle was designed and built by French architects.) The Electoral Prince needed room for his new great estate; and the best place was– where Schwarzkopf did his rose breeding. So Schwarzkopf had to move his rose garden. K.L.Stock refers to and lists about 133 chromolithos made by Salomon Pinhas, completed 1815, where all the roses of the Weissenstein castle (then ‘Wilhelmshöhe’) are documented. According to Stock the original set was preserved in the castle archives of Wilhelmshöhe castle, and forgotten. In 1975 it was rediscovered. Finally, in 2001, Pinhas’ work was published.
Apart from ‘Perle von Weissenstein’, probably two more cultivars originate from Schwarzkopf’s work: ‘Belle de Weissenstein’ and the ‘Pourpre de Weissenstein’. Of all three cultivars, chromolithos exist at the Schlossbibliothek of the Wilhelmshöhe castle. The ‘rose Perle von Weissenstein’ has survived over the years and is still available today. It is supposed that other roses were bred by Schwarzkopf at Weissenstein too. The names of the ‘Rose Petite Hessoise’ or ‘Rose Centifolie de Hesse’ which emerged in catalogs of nurseries around the town of Kassel from 1811 and 1819, indicate that. [Kassel, or more correct ‘Cassel’ then being the capital of the country Hesse(n)]
Nearly at the same time–towards the end of the 18th century–C.G. Rössig entered the stage of the rose world. The name Rössig is connected with 15 rose cultivars. Carl Gottlob Rössig, 1752-1806, learned jurist, had a wide spectrum of interests. He did not only publish books and articles about his learned profession, but also about economics, works, that are looked at as the basis of modern management studies. But Rössig was interested in botany, especially roses. Between 1779 and 1803, he published his work ‘Oekonomisch-botanische Beschreibungen der verschiedenen und vorzüg-lichen Arten […] der Rose’. Between 1802 and 1817 the ‚Die Rosen nach der Natur gezeichnet und coloriert mit kurzen botanischen Bestimmungen begleitet’ was published. The parts 1-10 of this book were edited and published by Rössig between 1802 and 1804. After Rössig’s death, the book was completed by C.F. Wai(t)z., who published No. 11 and 12. We will hear more about Mr. Wai(t)z in a moment.
Three rose cultivars are attributed to Carl Ludwig von Willdenow, botanist and pharmacist and the first director of the botanical garden of Berlin from 1801 until his death in 1812. These were a Boursault named ‚À Calice Hispide’, a Carophylla called ‘Gemella’, and finally the Noisette ‘Parviflora’.
It may be supposed that these cultivars were not the result of deliberate breeding but were sports, discovered in the botanical garden, or perhaps found roses. Willdenow’s main interest and occupation was the analysis and plant description of the plants brought to Berlin from South America by Alexander von Humboldt. Willdenow was mainly a botanic taxonomist. Plants which were described by him for the first time, bear his name (Willd.) in their botanical names to the present day.
Around the time when C.G.Rössig’s ‘Oekonomisch-botanische Beschreibun-gen’ was completed by Wai(t)z, the ‘Weilburg’ was built in Austria. The Weilburg, planned by the architect Josef Kornhäusel in the style of romantic-historism for the Archduke Karl of Austria, was ready in 1823. Head gardener of the Weilburg was a Dominik Nowak. Loudon mentions in his ‘Encyclopedia of Horticulture’ the ‘celebrated gardens of Baden’. [The Weilburg was situated near the town of Baden.] As early as 1833, it is reported that the Weilburg rosary contained more than 1.800 different rose cultivars, among them 500 cultivars of teas, Noisettes, Bourbons and 300 hybrids. A listing of the cultivars was made by Anton Rollett in 1834. Rollett, physician and botanist, collected more than 16.000 plants in his herbarium, which is intact until today, among them several hundred of the Weilburg roses. A treasure still to be unearthed for rose historians!
A little bit earlier, the Englishman James Booth was to emerge with a rose of ‘German origin’.
James Booth – a landscape gardener from Scotland – was invited about 1795 by Baron von Vogt of – at that time – Denmark, to create an ornamented farm, following the English example. Flottbeck, or as it is written today ‘Flottbek’, now a suburb of Hamburg/Germany, had fallen to Denmark by succession. Rich businessmen and ship owners, having their trade in Hamburg built their estates and residences in Flottbek at that time. Several others followed von Vogt’s example and more ornamented farms were built. [To meet the growing interests in trees and shrubs, tree nurseries were established in the vicinity of these ornamented farms, where climatic and soil conditions were optimal for nurseries. This, and the prospect to get a job there, led an ex-sailor to move on with this family from Lower Saxony to this place. One of the descendants of this ex-sailor should be the founder of one of today’s leading rose nurseries worldwide: Wilhelm Kordes.]
Alongside his landscape gardening, which lasted for about 10 years, in 1798 Booth built up his own tree and shrub nursery in Flottbek, where he finally started his rose breeding attempt.
The ‘Bleu Rougâtre de Flottbeck’, described by Bosse as “bright red with violet fluorescence,” is probably the only cultivar James Booth ever bred. He died in 1814 and was succeeded by his sons.
In 1826 James Booth Sons released the Alba ‚Königin von Dänemark’, a seedling of the Alba ‘Maidens Blush’ and an unknown rose. It would be their only release. This ‘Königin von Dänemark’ sparked what was called “Der Rosenkrieg“ [‘rose war’] between James Booth`s sons, [‘James Booth Söhne’] and Johann Georg Christian Lehmann, the first director of the Botanical Institute in Hamburg and author of more than half a dozen botanical books of scientific rank. Lehmann accused Booth Sons of selling the known rose cultivar ‚La Belle Courtisane’ under a new name, and of not having bred a new cultivar at all. This “war” took place in the great newspapers of that time, occupying most of the energy of the two opponents. In the end, Prof. Lehmann could not prove his accusations, but the reputation of both opponents had sustained major damage.
Booth Sons, very successful as owners of the tree nursery, did not engage any more in rose breeding. The nursery closed forever in 1886, liquidated by the next generation, without having contributed any more to the rose world.
Between 1826 und 1856, for thirty long years in which Vibert, Laffay, Beluze, and others led rosedom to its first peak, nothing, absolutely nothing is documented about the breeding of roses in Germany. Why?
A quick look back in time shows us that roses were not at all neglected or unknown in Germany. J.W. von Goethe (1749-1832) maintained a rose garden, which is documented partly by Goethe himself. Krünitz lists in his book more than 220 rose cultivars which were for sale in 1809 at the Wrede nursery in Brunswick. Tobias Seits lists 140 cultivars of a private collector named Wai(t)z, a collection nearly as great as Joséphine’s at Malmaison; Wilhelm Döll, 1799-1860, head gardener of the Duke of Sachsen-Altenburg, maintained a private collection of 2000 different cultivars (as of 1850) and by not later than 1842 artificial breeding was common knowledge.
All the requirements were there. So, why no roses from Germany?
There is one possible answer, in my opinion: Rose breeding in France was massively promoted in the second quarter of the 19th century; and in the wake of that promotion, honour (and wealth) could be earned by rose breeding. Rosedom in Germany lacked this special promotion. The great German financers and collectors of that time were somewhat into roses too, but not obsessively. Equal or greater importance was given to collecting rare and seldom-seen plants from such exotic parts of the world like as Asia and the Americas, plants which were brought to Europe by merchantmen or even by specially-equipped expeditions. That rosedom was already firmly in the hands of France and Great Britain [at that time none too close friends of Germany] may have been an additional factor.
This attitude had not changed much by the middle of the 19th century, so it was German rose amateurs, rose lovers with other professions, who started to contribute to rose progress.
In 1855 the physician Dr. Friedrich Ruschpler had released his ‚Dr. Ruschpler’ at the nursery of a Mr. Wendschuch in his hometown Dresden. Presumably in the year before he had introduced his ‘Marie, Königin von Sachsen’, a red Hybrid China. At least Wendschuch mentions this ‘Marie, Königin von Sachsen’ as a reference for the quality of ‘Dr. Ruschpler’.
The son of Dr. Ruschpler, Paul Ruschpler, who had established a nursery himself at Dresden-Strehlen, was not engaged in rose breeding but in rose propagation. Nevertheless, he released two of the three cultivars of a rosarian named Elze: the Noisette ‘Kaiserin Augusta’ of 1872 and, in 1878, ‘Kaiser Wilhelm I’, a grenadine with violet hybrid perpetual from 1878. This ‘Kaiser Wilhelm I’ probably still exists; this cultivar is listed in the newest edition of the Rosenverzeichnis from Sangerhausen. Elze’s third cultivar was ‘Perle von Zerbst’, a delicate flesh-coloured Bourbon from 1872.
Paul Ruschpler’s major contribution to rosedom however was the development of a way to raise from seed rootstocks for standards.
Heinrich (?) Laurentius, is indicated as having released five new cultivars between 1858 and 1859. In 1858, the ‘Beauty of Greenmount’, a cerise Noisette, the white with flesh coloured Bourbon ‘Giuletta’, a tea called ‘Ophelia’, which is described as ‘delicate yellow, center darker’ and finally the pink Hybrid Bourbon ‘Perféction’. 1859 followed ‘L’Elégante’, a cerise Multiflora.
Little can be found on Laurentius. There’s an advertisement where a ‘Laurentius’sche Gärtnerei’ [‘Nursery of Laurentius’] advertises ‘imported rare and seldom-seen plants’ to be shown at an exhibition on the grounds of the nursery at Leipzig/Germany. So it may be guessed, regarding the names of the cultivars, that Laurentius’ roses were imports from other countries.
The German rose literature of that time to which I had access does not show any further trace of Laurentius or ‘his’ roses. Neither Nietner nor Schultheis list any of Laurentius’ roses in the years to come.
Nevertheless, Laurentius seems to have had a reputation among the rosarians of his time. In 1863 Eugène Verdier named a velvety crimson hybrid perpetual ‘Heinrich Laurentius’. So maybe the five cultivars attributed to Laurentius were actually bred by Verdier. But this is speculation. It is worth noting that Pentland, in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A., released a cerise Setigera ‘Beauty of Greenmont’ in 1854, and Andrea Gray, of Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A., also released a yellow Tea ‘Ophelia’ in 1858. If these were indeed the same as Laurentius’ similarly-named roses, it demonstrates how widely he ranged for desirable importations.
Remarkably, Laurentius` Bourbon ‘Giuletta’ has survived at the Sangerhausen rosary. It is not known if any other of Laurentius’ roses still exist.
The first German rose breeder of high standing is no German at all. It is the Hungarian citizen and forest warden Rudolf Geschwind, whose life and works concerning roses are properly documented already. But Geschwind was more than ‚Gruss an Teplitz’, ‚Erinnerung an Brod’, or ‚Zigeunerknabe’. When he died in 1910, he reportedly left about 2,400 unnamed cultivars, raised from seed. Some of his more prominent cultivars had made it to the world exhibition of 1886 in Paris and from there to L’Haÿ-les-roses. Some others found their place in the Sangerhausen rosary in later years; but the vast majority, especially of the unnamed cultivars, went to Unter Korompa [Dolna Krupa], Hungary, at that time Europe’s greatest rosary owned by Marie, Duchesse of Chotek. Unfortunately, she was not very interested in bringing rose cultivars into commerce, at least not for commercial reasons. Marie, Duchesse of Chotek, was mainly a collector of roses. Nevertheless,the Duchesse of Chotek played an important role for rosedom, which will be described later on.
The reported number of ‚several thousands’ of unnamed cultivars bred by Geschwind has often been doubted. But even if there were only a few hundred, they would add to the more than 140 cultivars which were released by Geschwind himself or nurseries, which marketed his breedings.
One more word on Geschwind: Geschwind’s theoretic works about “Hybridization and Controlled Breeding from Seed“ from 1866 (indeed published in 1861, and introduced for the first time in 1856 in front of a commission of forest wardeners only to be turned down, then delayed for five years because he could not find a publisher) has, independently from what Gregor Mendel discovered, the same scientific importance as Mendel`s works on controlled breeding, even if some of Geschwind’s assumptions about the possibility to create unusual rose colours seem somewhat naïve in today’s light of genom research and decoding.
Geschwind never received the scientific acceptance he had earned. In some ways, parallels to maybe the greatest rosarian ever, Vibert, show up. Geschwind had dared to attack the German horticultural establishment of the 1860`s as being antiquated, and therefore the establishment choose to ignore him.
In the 1860s and ‘70s, rose breeding in Germany still stayed at the same low level. Amateur rosarians like Peters, Gabriel Vogler, Regel, Elze, Vogt, and the tree nursery owner Deegen were the only known ones to release new rose cultivars. All in all, there were not more than 11 known cultivars in 14 years. 1866 Peters released two Hybrid Perpetuals, the dark red ‘Euryanthe’ and together with the shadowy Laurentius the salmony poppy-colored ‘Ruhm von Thalwitz’. Gabriel Vogler introduced in 1869 his Tea ‘Grossherzogin Mathilde von Hessen’. Professor Eduard Regel, after whom Eugène Verdier named his Hybrid Perpetual of 1883, introduced three Rugosas: ‘Regeliana’ (1871), ‘Regeliana Alba’ (ca. 1871), and in 1879 ‘Regeliana Flore Plena’ aka ‘Kaiserin des Nordens’. Although Regel certainly could have done so, he did not introduce or discuss his cultivars in his own publication “Regel’s Gartenflora”, one of Germany’s leading botanic periodicals between 1852 and 1929.
The ’Mohrenkönig’ from 1880, a Hybrid Perpetual, was the only rose Vogt introduced.
Franz Deegen finally introduced ‘Namenlose Schöne’ [‘Nameless Beauty’] in 1886, a cultivar he had found in 1852. The ‘Weisser Marechal Niel’ [‘White Marechal Niel’], a sport of ‘Marechal Niel’, as we know now, was claimed by Deegen of having been bred or found by him, too. This is most probably wrong. In ‘Die Gartenwelt’ the son of the gardener Georg Blau proves, that this sport was discovered among a field of ‘Marechal Niel’ at the Blau nursery and was cultivated by Blau as well. This however was not the end of the dispute. Deegen claimed, that the sport originated from a cultivar which he, Deegen, had sold to Blau the year before the sport was discovered at Blau’s nursery. This fact Blau conceded later.
During the 70s and 80s of the 19th century, interest in roses grew steadily. More and more nurseries started to propagate roses. At he end of the 1880’s in Britz, a suburb of Berlin, Germany’s capital, more than 50 rose nurseries were propagating roses, mainly for producing cut flowers for the capital., but no new rose cultivars emerged from there. So breeding stayed on the described level. One of the topics of the 5. Annual Meeting of the VdR (‘Verein deutscher Rosenfreunde’) in 1889 was, which German rose breedings were successful. The topic was dropped with the remark, documented in the protocol of the meeting, that it was ‘too early to judge appropriately, because it is only in the last year  that German rose cultivars have been distributed in quantity.’
This would change substantially, when Peter Lambert, Nicola Welter and O. Jacobs entered the scene.
Peter Lambert, born 1859, learned his trade at the nursery of his father Jean Lambert. Jean, son of a gardener himself, established his nursery together with his brother and the nurseryman and landscape gardener Reiter in 1860. Together they formed the nursery ‘Lambert & Reiter’. Jean Lambert soon started to import and propagate roses on a large scale to meet the now increasing interest in roses. Jean Lambert did not very much engage in breeding roses himself, so ‘Mosella’ was one of only very few cultivars introduced by Lambert & Reiter. It was his son Peter, who, after finishing his education at Lambert & Reiter, with some years at Soupert & Notting in Luxemburg to complete his apprenticeship, and the studies at the ‘Höhere Gärtner-Lehranstalt’ at Potsdam, started breeding roses.
The first of Peter Lambert’s cultivars were released by ‘Lambert & Reiter’: It started in 1879 with the yellow and peach China ‘Frau Anna Bloethner’. Then, for about ten years, nothing new was released. The reasons can only be guessed at; but it is not unlikely that rose breeding did not fit into the business plan of Lambert & Reiter, and Peter Lambert was kept from continuing his rose-breeding attempts. So it was not until 1889 that the bright red China ’Moselblümchen’ and the yellow Tea ‘Rheingold’ were released. Shortly after that, Peter Lambert left the nursery Lambert & Reiter to establish his own nursery.
In 1891, Lambert released his Hybrid Tea ‘Kaiserin Auguste Viktoria’. This cultivar would, apart from the quality of the rose itself, become famous for its quality as a parent plant. Prominent rose breeders all over the world used ‘Kaiserin Auguste Victoria’ for their breedings: Bonfiglioli in Italy, Verschuren in the Netherlands, Widow Schwartz and Nabonnand in France, Soupert & Notting and Ketten frères in Luxemburg, Conard & Jones, Van Fleet, and Henderson in the United States, and of course the now slowly growing number of German rose breeders.
Between 1891 and 1901, Lambert released 15 cultivars of different classes. In 1901, the cultivar came into commerce which would lay the groundwork for Peter Lambert’s worldwide reputation: the Hybrid Perpetual ’Frau Karl Druschki’ (‘Merveille de Lyon’ (HP) x ‘Mme. Caroline Testout’ (HT)). ‘Frau Karl Druschki’ was first introduced at a rose exhibition in Stuttgart, Germany in 1889 under the name ‘Schneekönigin’–without any success. Years later Lambert entered this cultivar in the ‘1000-Thaler-Competition’–a competition which took place in 1900 to find a rose cultivar to honour the then-Chancellor Bismarck. ‘Schneekönigin’ lost again. [The victorious cultivar, ‘Otto von Bismarck’, bred by Hermann Kiese and introduced by J.C. Schmidt is long forgotten.] But Lambert had confidence in his cultivar. In 1901 he renamed ‘Schneekönigin` as ‘Frau Karl Druschki’ prior to its release to honour the wife of the president of the VdR of this time.
Lambert had a clearly defined breeding aim. He wanted to breed reblooming climbers, which were, at this time (around 1900), not in commerce. To reach that goal, he bought from J.B. Schmitt of Bischweiler/Alsasse three newly-bred once-blooming climbers which had not yet been released. Lambert called them his ‘Three Graces’: ‘Aglaia’, ‘Euphrosyne’, and ‘Thalia’. These three cultivars he used to cross with cultivars from other classes. He had already in 1903 released ‘Thalia Remontant’, followed in 1904 by ‘Trier’ (‘Aglaia’ x ‘Aglaia’), which is regarded as the first “Lambertiana,” a new class of roses which would not only be successful in itself, but which also would influence the rose cultivation and breeding of the following decades.
The ‘Rosenjahrbuch’ of 1992 lists all (?) cultivars Lambert ever bred, together with more or less detailed descriptions. It lists:
46 Hybrid Teas
33 onceblooming shrubs or climbers
29 Hybrid Perpetuals
5 Hybrid Chinas
Of these 179 cultivars, more than 100 have survived at the Sangerhausen rosary. The reason for that is obvious: Peter Lambert was one of the initiators of the Sangerhausen rosary and therefore equipped the rosary generously.
During a short period around 1908-1910, the eldest son of the founder of the Poulsen rose nursery in Denmark learned his trade at Lambert’s nursery.
Peter Lambert died in 1939, evidently without a successor.
Otto Jacobs was born in 1860. When he died in 1939, 29 of his cultivars were released. Jacobs, who was a school teacher and not a professional nurseryman, lived in the little village of Weitenburg. He worked together with Nicola Welter, Peter Lambert and Felberg-Leclerc. But it was Nicola Welter who released most of Jacobs’ breedings.
About Jacobs’ first cultivar, the Hybrid Tea ‘Gudrun’, little or nothing is known except the year of its release, 1898, and the fact that this cultivar was bred in 1896 or before. In the April edition of 1901 of the ‘Rosenzeitung’, Jacobs’ second cultivar, the Tea ‘Undine’, is mentioned. Jacobs’ cultivars were Teas or Hybrid Teas; he did not breed in any other of the rose classes.
Some of the cultivars of Otto Jacobs have survived up to the present day:
‘Bertha Kiese’ (1913), HT, yellow, double, slightly fragrant, 120-150 cm
‘Dora Hansen’ (1911), HT, salmony pink, large, double, no fragrance
‘Frau Bürgermeister Kirschstein’ (1907) HT, medium, nearly double, strong fragrance [Please note the spelling, the VdR-Yearbook has no second ‚s’ in ‚Kirchstein’ whereas the ‚Rosenverzeichnis’ from Sangerhausen spells this cultivar ‚Kirschstein’.] The spelling ‘Kirschstein’ is probably correct. W. Hinner uses this spelling already in his review of this cultivar in 1909.
‚Marianne Pfitzer (1902), HT, whitish blush, very large, double, no fragrance
‚Max Hesdörffer’ (1902), HT, light pink, center dark pink, large, double, fragrant
‚Kaiser Wilhelm II’ (1909), HT, red, large, nearly double, fragrant.
[Not to be confused with ‚Kaiser Wilhelm I’ by Elze/Ruschpler from 1878.]
At the beginning of the 20th century, like in France nearly a century before with Lyon, a center of rose breeding began to form in Germany. It was in and around the German city of Trier where Peter Lambert, Johannes Felberg-Leclerc and Wilhelm Hinner had their rose nurseries.
About the personal biography of Wilhelm Hinner, some facts are known: He was employed at Lambert’s nursery in 1897, and became a short-term partner of Nicola Welter at the turn of the century. Already by around 1901, Hinner left Welter to set up his own rose nursery. But this nursery evidently didn’t prosper, because in 1906 he is listed as employee again, now at the nursery of Philipp Geduldig in the city of Aachen (which is in the vicinity of Trier). In 1908 Hinner sets up a new own nursery again, this time at Lohausen (now a suburb of Düsseldorf). In 1926 his last breeding was released. Hinner wrote articles for the German periodical ‘Gartenwelt on a regular basis, where he had reviewed the new roses since 1897. In 1924 his last article was published. After 1926, all trace of Wilhelm Hinner is lost. Further data on him cannot be found.
22 rose cultivars are ascribed to Wilhelm Hinner: 3 Hybrid Perpetuals, 18 Hybrid Teas, and 1 Polyantha.
Many of Hinner’s cultivars do not exist any more, but two of them gained success and are still in commerce today: ‘Georg Arends’ (1910), HP, named after the owner of a shrub and tree nursery, and the famous ‘Gruss an Aachen’ (1908) Pol., which is often – and wrongly – ascribed to the Geduldig nursery. Geduldig in fact distributed this cultivar. David Austin puts ‘Gruss an Aachen’ very near to his own breedings: ‘…perhaps the earliest modern rose in what I shall refer to as the English style is ‘Gruss an Aachen’’.
The Sangerhausen inventory still lists the following cultivars by Hinner:
Andenken an J. Diering, cl. HT, pink, shaded white, very large, double, fragrant
Duisburg, 1908, HT, carmine, large, semi-double, fragrant
Farbenkönigin, 1902, carmine, large, semi-double, very fragrant
Franz Deegen, 1901, HT, yellow,large, semi-double, very fragrant
Hedwig Reicher, 1912, HT, yellowy white, large, double, fragrant
Heinrich Münch, 1911, HP, light pink, large, double, no fragrance
Pharisäer, 1901, HT, blush white, inside salmon, large, full, fragrant
Sadly, on the other hand, two of Hinner’s cultivars were lost in the decade between 1994 and 2003. The Rosenjahrbuch of 1994 lists ‘Andenken an Moritz von Fröhlich’ (1904) HT, and ‘Juwel’ (1911) HT as part of the Sangerhausen rosary. In the Rosenverzeichnis 7. Edition, 2003, these two roses are no longer listed.
Peter Lambert, who was Hinner’s employer probably between 1897 and 1900, had a very strained relationship with Hinner. In a letter to Professor Ewald Gnau, then chairman of the VdR, dated 12/18/1926, he complains about Hinner: “... on the other hand the larceny was without limit, as I have encountered with Hinner. If, for example an employer mentions to his employee that this and that cultivar should be crossed occasionally, and this employee does it occasionally, this employee can never think of himself as the breeder of this new cultivar. The material, the time [of the employee], the propagation, and the distribution belong to the nursery, where this employee works. This is a question of principle”. Lambert here apparently refers to Hinner’s mannerism of characterizing himself in the “Gartenwelt” as the breeder of roses when working at Lambert’s nursery. Hinner writes about ‘Frau Geheimrat von Boch’:
(P.Lambert, 1897) … it developed out of a crossing done by myself …’. About the later-named ‘Papa Lambert’, Hinner writes: ‘… named ‘Andenken an Vater Lambert’, a cultivar which is not yet in commerce. It is with great interest that I observe the fate of my crossings and pollinations. It was my wish to dedicate this rose after Jean Lambert.’
Maybe, and this is speculation to some degree, the story of the family Hinner in connection to roses, continued further than the year 1926, when Wilhelm Hinner was last mentioned in the rose literature. In 1929, Gould in the U.S. introduced a dark pink HT called ‘Ellen’, the breeder was a Peter Hinner from Route 1, Woodstock, Illinois. 18 years later, in 1947 the cultivar ‘Briarcliff Supreme’ was introduced. According to Modern Roses, the breeder was P. Hinner, the introducer a nursery called Bauské Bros. & Hinner. In 1949 two more cultivars, both HT’s were introduced by this nursery, in both cases P. Hinner was the breeder, they were ‘Rosemarie Hinner’ and ‘Sonja Henie’. The identity of the surname ‘Hinner’ may be a coincedence, but the very eurpoean sounding names ‘Rosemarie’ and, still more ‘Sonja Henie’, who was a European skater and actress, point in the direction of Peter Hinner being a relative, or even a son of Wilhelm Hinner, who maybe had left Germany as a result of the severe economic depression of the late 1920ies in Germany to go for his luck in the U.S.
In 1902, the amateur [?] rose breeder Louis [Ludwig] Walter started to contribute to the rose world. Between 1902 and 1919, Walter introduced 23 new cultivars. During this time, Walter was the head gardener of the rosary at Saverne [Zabern]. The nationality of Walter may well be disputed. Walter bred in Saverne/Alsace [Zabern, Elsass], which, in the time of question, was part of the ‘Deutsches Reich’ of Bismarck. [After the Franco-Prussian war (1871), Alsace was annexed to Germany until the end of WW I in 1918.]
In the years that followed WW I, Walter introduced several more cultivars. The names of the cultivars indicate, that he at least stayed in Alsace, now belonging to France again – no breeder in Germany certainly would have dared to honour French military personnel by naming a rose cultivar after him so short after the defeat of WW I.
14 of Walter’s roses have survived at Sangerhausen:
Adele Frey, cl.HT, dark crimson-pink, large, double, slight fragrance
Baronin Anna von Lüttwitz, 1909, Mult., rose, medium, semi-double, no frag-rance
Charlotte Wierel, 1926, Poly., rose, medium, semi-double, no fragrance
Fernande Krier, 1925, H. Wich., pink to red, medium, semi-double, no fragrance
Frau Georg von Simson, 1909, Mult., rosé, medium, double, no fragrance
Frau Anna Pasquay, 1909, Poly., dark pink, small, double, no fragrance
Général Berthelot, 1926, HT, dark red, buds pink, large, semi-double, no fragrance
Général de Vaugrenant, 1926, HT, carmine, large, double, no fragrance
Ida Klemm, 1906, Multiflora, white, medium, semi-double, no fragrance
Jeanne Richert, 1929, H.Wich., yellowy white, inside of the calyx currant, medium, semi-double, no fragrance
Marie Dietrich, 1928, H.Wich., creamy white to rosé, small, nearly single, no fragrance
Martha Keller, 1912, Pol., creamy white to blush pink, medium, double, no fragrance
Mme. Georges Landard, 1925, H.Lamb., light pink to carmine, lafge, semi-double, fragrant
Rösel Dach, 1906, Pol., pink, small, semi-double, no fragrance
Johannes Felberg, 1872-1939, had nearly the same conditions at the beginning of his career as Lambert did. Like Lambert, Felberg was the son of a successful nurseryman at Trier, or (to be precise) of the town of Pallien, which is now a suburb of Trier. But unlike Lambert, Felberg would not gain the success and international reputation of Lambert. After an education in the nursery of his father Peter Felberg, Johannes Felberg became an employee of Peter Lambert for several years. At this time, a friendship formed between these two which would last for their whole lives. After his years at Lambert’s nursery, he probably went to one of Luxemburg’s famous rose nurseries to complete his studies.
We do not know for certain if Felberg worked at Soupert & Notting, Ketten frères, or Gemen & Bourg, all in the near vicinity of Luxemburg city; the fact is that, when he returned to Trier in 1902 to take over the nursery of his father, he had married Mimy Leclerc, daughter of a jeweller from Luxemburg city.
In 1913 Felberg-Leclerc (he had taken this name after his marriage) released the first rose from his own breeding, the Bourbon ‘Hofgärtner Kalb’ (‘Mme. Eugène Verdier’ x ‘Gruss an Teplitz’). WWI stopped the release of further cultivars.
In 1921 he released a yellow Lutea-Hybrid named after his wife.
In 1925, ‘Felberg’s Rosa Druschki’ was released. This is probably the same cultivar which had been mentioned already in 1913, not coming into commerce until 1925, due to the First World War. The following cultivars were released by Felberg-Leclerc in the next years:
1927 ‘Frau Dr. Schricker’, Bourbon, pink, flower medium, double, strong
1927 ‘Gruss an Coburg’, Hybrid Tea, light copperyellow to yellow, double,
1928 ‘Cilly Michel’, Hybrid Tea, light orange red, large, double, fragrant
1929 ‘Frau Mathilde Bätz’, Hybrid Tea, pure white, large, double, strong
1929 ‘M. Geier’
1930 ‘Käte Felberg’
1931 ‘Guillaume Kaempff’, Hybrid tea, dark red, large, double, strong fragrance
1931 ‘Edith Felberg’,
1934 ‘Lisbeth Prim’, Hybrid Tea, coppery red, large, double, strong fragrance.
Apart from ‘M.Geier’, Käte Felberg and ‘Edith Felberg’, the cultivars bred by Felberg have survived either in commerce or at least at the Sangerhausen rosary.
When Johannes Felberg-Leclerc died in 1939, he had no successor for his nursery. Mimy Felberg-Leclerc returned to Luxemburg and the rose nursery was closed forever.
Parallel with Felberg-Leclerc, the young F.J. [Johann?] Altmüller from Schwerin introduced new rose cultivars. Only very rudimentary biographical data could be found about Altmüller. In ‘Die Gartenwelt’, O. Jacobs describes the following cultivars bred by Altmüller:
Baby Farbenkönigin, 1913, HT, medium red
Baby Abel Chatenay, 1913, HT, bright currant red
Käthchen Meissner, 1913, pink, center darker
Charlotte Maertz, 1913, pink, reverse salmon red, the description of this cultivar varies, in ‘The Master List’, this rose is described as ‘Pol., light red, silvery reflections.’
Frau Ada Rehfeldt, 1913, flesh on yellowish ground, reverse salmon pink
Gartendirektor O. Schulze, 1913, HT, rosé, center salmony
Berti Gimpel, 1913, HP, bright pink
Of Altmüller’s roses, only ‘Berti Gimpel’ has survived at the Sangerhausen rosary.
Altmüller did not appear with any other roses in the years to come. His further fate lies in the dark. May be he became one of the millions of victims of WW I.
Other rose breeders learned their trade at the nursery of Peter Lambert too. One of them was Josef Weil, 1867(?)-1947. Between 1900 and 1908 Weil worked at Lambert’s nursery. After a short intermezzo at the Welter nursery, still in 1908 he established his own nursery at Trier-Pallien. Although Weil’s main occupation was the propagation of roses, he bred some himself. One of them, the yellow hybrid tea ‘Marga Weil’ was still listed in the ‘Rosenverzeichnis’ of 1976. This only surviving cultivar of Weil is probably lost by now. The last edition of the ‘Rosenverzeichnis’ doesn’t show this entry any more.
Joseph Mock, 1861-1942, inherited the nursery of his father Kaspar Mock at Trier. Just like Weil, J. Mock dealt mainly in rose propagation, not in breeding. Only one cultivar was released by J. Mock, the Tea ‘Therese Frank’ (‘Mme. Lambard’ x ‘Mme. Chédane-Guinoisseau’) of 1901. J.Mock describes this cultivar as “dark pink, center tinged with golden yellow, flower large, double, free blooming until late autumn.”
For reasons unknown, the nursery of J. Mock at Trier was closed in 1910. Apparently J. Mock opened a new nursery at Bernkastel-Kues around the year 1912, but nothing more about his activities concerning roses has come to light.
‘Therese Frank’ is presumably lost.
Around the same time as when Hinner, Felberg-Leclerc, and Weil worked at Lambert’s nursery, at the turn of the century, Adolf Mock worked at Lambert’s too. Adolf Mock, 1884-1952, not related to Joseph Mock, left Lamberts nursery in 1901 to work at the nursery of Felberg-Leclerc, where he stayed until 1920. In 1920 he took over the nursery of his father. Two cultivars by A. Mock are known: ‘Katharina Mock’ (1942), hybrid tea, parentage unknown, golden yellow tinged red, large, double, not fragrant,” and ‘Mocks Rosa Druschki’, a sport of Lamberts ‘Frau Karl Druschki’.
Both cultivars have survived up to the present day at the Sangerhausen rosary.
At around the same time, the end of the 19th century, a second center of rose activity formed in and around the city of Dresden and in Erfurt.
It was the nursery of J.C.Schmidt (Johann Christoph) in Erfurt (established 1823), which introduced the cultivars of Kiese and own cultivars, for example ‘Veilchenblau’ (1909), still today a much-beloved cultivar among rose aficionados. The following cultivars were bred and released between 1895 and 1920 by J.C.Schmidt:
Anemonenrose, 1896 Lv
Annchen Müller, 1906 Pol, pink, medium, semi-double, slightly fragrant
Conrad von Hoetzendorf, 1916 Pern
Elsa von Steinkeller, 1910 HT
Emden, 1915 HP
Fimbriata, 1901 HP
Flora Plena, 1896 Rubr
Gartendirektor Ries, 1916 HT
Grossherzogin Sophie Louise, 1895 HP
Kleine Prinzess(in), 1897 Pol
Lachskönigin, 1900 T
Mama Gärtner, 1908 HT
Parseval, 1912 HT
Prinzessin Sybille, 1911 Pol
Robert Betten, 1920 HT, dark rosy carmine, large, semi-double, strong fragrance
Rosalinde, 1903 Pol
Rubin, 1901, Hyb. Mult., carmine, medium, semi-double, no fragrance
Veilchenblau, 1909 Mult
Weisser Herumstreicher, 1899 Mult
Of the breedings by J.C.Schmidt between 1895 and 1920 , only ‚Robert Betten’, and ‚Rubin’ have survived at Sangerhausen and the popular ‘Veilchenblau’, about which O. Jacobs wrote ‘… not very pretty, but useful as basis for other breeders to work upon the colour’, is still available at specialized rose nurseries.
The nursery of J.C.Schmidt introduced the cultivar ‘Gardeniaflora’, bred (or found?) in 1901 by Ernst Benary, also from Erfurt. The career of Benary himself was as a very successful and worldwide renowned garden seed producer (established 1843). The rose cultivar ‘Polyantha Scandens’, a white Multiflora, is also ascribed to him. In the years to come, the cooperation between the enterprises of J.C. Schmidt and Benary was further intensified. In 1929, the nurseries of Benary and J.C. Schmidt, which had both experienced serious economic trouble, were combined.
Since 1882, the gardener Hermann Kiese (1865-1923) had been employed at the J.C.Schmidt nursery. In 1904, Kiese left J.C. Schmidt and became self-employed. When he was still at the J.C.Schmidt nursery, Schmidt released five cultivars bred by Kiese, still giving credit to Kiese as being the breeder:
Kleiner Liebling, 1895 Pol
Venus, 1895 HP
Leuchtstern, 1899 Mult
Crispata 1902, Rg
Lohengrin, 1903 HT
Although Kiese left J.C.Schmidt in 1904, the cooperation between these two went on. In the following years, Schmidt released another six cultivars bred by Kiese, among them the famous ‚Tausendschön’ (1906) and ‘Blumenschmidt’ (1906), which are still in commerce.
Kiese himself brought about 50 own cultivars into commerce through his own nursery, mostly hybrid teas, multifloras and polyanthas. About 26 of Kiese’s cultivars are still listed in the present inventory of Sangerhausen.
But Kiese’s nursery introduced some cultivars bred by the amateur rosarians Jacobs, Krüger, Ulbrich, and Türke as well.
Robert Türke (1858-1926), amateur breeder, was called ‘The Rose-Turk’ [“Rosen-Türke”]–but not because of his breeding of roses, as might be thought, but rather because he was a gifted painter of roses and rose motifs on the Meissen fine bone china porcelain, manufactured in the town of Meissen, where Türke worked.
Türke`s roses were introduced by J.C. Schmidt, the Mietzsch nursery and Kiese:
Papa Gärtner, 1908 HT, pink, carmine reflexions
Johannisfeuer, 1910 Pern, red, yellow center
Karl Maria von Weber, 1892 T, carmine, yellow center
König Laurin, 1910 HT, blush
Königin Carola von Sachsen, 1903 HT, rosy pink
Leuchtfeuer, 1909 B, bright red
Nymphe, 1910 T, white
Schneeball, c.1890 Pol, white
At Trier-Pallien, another rose nursery opened in 1884. In that year Nicola [Nicolaus] Welter, 1854-1920, opened his nursery. All in all, 70 new rose cultivars emerged from this nursery, among them most of the cultivars of Otto Jacobs. During a short period around the year 1900, Wilhelm Hinner was partner of the Welter nursery. Josef Weil worked at Welters nursery after having left Lambert.
The ‘Rosenjahrbuch 1992’ lists
51 Hybrid Teas
5 Hybrid Perpetuals
1 Moschata Hybrid
Unlike Lambert, Nicola Welter and his breedings are nearly forgotten, although during the existence of the nursery, contacts with Cochet, who introduced some of Welter’s cultivars in his “Journal des Roses,” and Jules Gravereaux in France were established. Obviously there were close connections to Soupert & Notting. In 1912 Soupert & Notting named a hybrid tea ‘Dr. Nicolaus Welter’ to honor the German breeder. Some cultivars even made it into the catalogues of Conard & Pyle in the U.S. The online inventory of the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden (SJHRG) in California lists ‘Venus’ (MR, 1904); and, in a private garden in California, the ‘Herzogin Viktoria Adelheid von Coburg-Gotha’ (HT, 1905) is reported to have survived. In 1992 three cultivars were reported to be alive at L’Haÿ-les-roses. Beyond ‘Venus’ and the ‘Herzogin...’, the Sangerhausen in-ventory lists:
Albert Hoffmann, 1904, HT, yellow, very large, double, very fragrant
Apotheker Georg Höfer, 1900, HT, coppery red, very large, very double, fragrant
Barbarossa, 1906, HP, crimson, large, double’, very fragrant
Frau Therese Lang, 1910, HT, carmine, buds red, large, double, very fragrant
Friedrich Alfred Krupp, 1903, HT, light yellow-salmony, large, double, fragrant
Germania, 1889, HP, carmine to crimson, large, double, fragrant
Grossherzog Wilhelm Ernst von Sachsen, HT, rosered, large, semi-double, very fragrant
Rather isolated from the emerged centers of rosedom in and around Trier and the Dresden-Erfurt area, in the town of Weingarten, Bavaria, the amateur breeder Dr. Hermann Müller bred roses. As one of the first breeders, he worked with the Rugosa class. The cultivars Germanica A and B were among them. Soon his interest in the Rugosa class brought him in contact with Gravereaux and presumably with Cochet-Cochet too. It is reported, that Gravereaux got more than 30 different Rugosa cultivars, bred by Dr. Müller and not yet in commerce. This took place in 1901-1902, when Gravereaux equipped the Paris World Exhibition. Futhermore is reported, that Gravereaux brought parts of this Rugosa collection into commerce afterwards. At least two of Dr. Müllers cultivars are still in commerce today: the Rugosa ‘Conrad Ferdinand Meyer’, described as ‘silvery pink, large, double, very fragrant; growth vigorous; habit upright, floriferous’ and ‘Thusnelda’, described as ‘ delicate salmony pink, medium, semi-double, cupped, very fragrant’.
Dr. Georg Dieck, 1847-1925, German botanist, was not engaged in the breeding of roses. His contribution to rosedom nevertheless was a great one. Georg Dieck, director and chief gardener of the garden belonging to the Duke of Schwerin/Germany, collected more than 300 species roses from all over the world. This collection was shown at the World Exhibition at Paris in 1908 and was then moved to Sangerhausen in 1909, where it built the basis of today’s great species rose collection of Sangerhausen. Furthermore, Dieck re-introduced some old cultivars he had found on his expeditions in search of unknown species roses and rare groves, trees and shrubs. His collection of trees and shrubs survived as well as most of his collected species roses. The tree and shrub collection can be visited today at the Dieck-Arboretum at Kötz-schau/Germany.
We know already, that Marie Henriette, Duchesse of Chotek (1863-1946) had bought the heirloom, as far as roses are concerned, from the heirs of Rudolf Geschwind. At the end of the 19th century, the Duchesse of Chotek, had started to create her own private rosary. Ten years later, her rosary was comparable to that of Gravereaux at L’Hay-les-Roses of that time or the Sangerhausen rosary of today. ‘The rose collection of the late forest warden Geschwind has been bought by Mrs. M.H Gräfin Chotek in Korompa. The Duchesse Chotek sent two men to Karpona to get the roses and is now planting them into an own departement of her own great rosary. About 2.000 cultivars, nearly all of them own breedings by Geschwind and not yet in commerce, are replanted now’. In he wake of WW I, the rosary at Korompa was devastated for the first time, due to neglect. One of the consequences of WW I was, that Korompa fell to Checoslovakia and was nenamed to Dolna Krupa ‘Of the Hybrid Perpetuals, Teas and Hybrid Teas, of which the collection was nearly complete, only sad mains have survived. Many porcelain plates indicate the places, were the cultivars stood. To rosarians it looks like a great cemetary for lost cultivars’. Miraculously, most of the cultivars of Geschwind had survived. ‘I was lucky to see ‘Seedling No.4 [This would become Geschwinds Nordlandrose], one of the nearly 300 different breedings by Geschwind, not in commerce and planted here at Dolna Krupa’.
Rosarians like Lambert, Böttner, Dr. Brada, Kiese and, last not least, Wilhelm Kordes, founder of the Kordes nursery, were personal friends of the Duchess of Chotek. Peter Kordes, son of Wilhelm, worked for two years as gardener in the rosary.
Parts of the inventory of Sangerhausen rosary originate in Dolna Krupa. In 1930, the Sangerhausen rosary was completely broke as a result of the hyper inflation in Germany, resulting in New Yorks ‘Black Friday’ of 1928, the then gardener at Sangerhausen, Vogel, ordered 150 rare cultivars at Dolna Krupa and the Duchesse of Chotek sent them as a present to the Sangerhausen rosary.
Since the Midthirties of the last century the Duchesse of Chotek lacked the means, personally and financilly, to keep the rosary going. It was, together with the Chotek estate, completly destroyed in WW II.
Victor Teschendorff from Cossebaude near Dresden established his rose nursery in 1904. Although the nursery was mainly in rose propagation, some cultivars emerged from there:
Erna Teschendorff, 1911, Pol., red, fragrant
Eva Teschendorff, 1923, Pol., white, medium, semi-double, slightly fragrant
Hadley Eliator, 1927, cl. HT, deep red, large, semi-double, strong fragrance
Hermes, 1935, HT, yellow, large, semi-double, fragrant
Rankende Teschendorff’s Jubiläumsrose, 1930, cl. Pol., cerise, medium, semi-double, slightly fragrant
Weisse Margo Koster, 1939, Pol., white, small to medium, semi-double, no fragrance
After WW II Teschendorff’s nursery was nationalized by the government of the GDR and integrated into the VEG [‚Volkseigene Gartenbaubetriebe’]. Since 1963, the grandson of Victor Teschendorff, Dr. Eckart Haenchen, bred roses for the VEG. Since the re-unification of Germany in 1989 the rose nursery Teschendorff exists again, but up to now, new cultivars did not emerge from there.
Apart from the now developed scene of professional rose nurserymen of the year 1900, amateurs continued to contribute to the rose world.
Between 1886 and 1894 , the teacher H.(?)Drögemüller from Neuhaus / Elbe introduced rose cultivars. Five of them – and it is not known if Drögemüller ever bred more – have survived at the Sangerhausen rosary:
Fürst Bismarck, 1886, T, yellow, large, double, fragrant
Fürstin Bismarck, 1887, T, light red, large, double, mild fragrance
Kaiser Wilhelm, 1889, T, pink to whitish yellow, large, double, fragrant
Kaiserin Friedrich, 1890, T, light yellow – pink, large, double, strong fragrance
Emin Pascha, 1894, HT, deep pink, large, semi-double, no fragrance
Three cultivars, ascribed to Dr. Krüger are in the inventory of Sangerhausen:
Dernburg, 1915,HT, pink to rosy carmine, large, semi-double, no fragrance
Kynast, 1916, HT, dark carmine, large, semi-double, strong fragrance
Rübezahl, 1917, HT, red, large, semi-double, mild frangrance
Frau Hedwg Wagner
Frau Dr. G. Krüger
Presumably do not exist any more.
Nothing much more added to my knowledge about this Dr. Krüger apart from the fact, that Max Hesdörffer, publisher of ‘Die Gartenwelt’ made some mocking remarks about the lenghty contributions of Dr. Krüger in ‘Die Rosenzeitung’ of those years and the fact, that the amateur breeder Ulrich named a cultivar, brought into commerce by Kiese, ‘Dr. G. Krüger’. Remarkably though are the years of introduction of Krügers cultivars – during the ongoing WW I, a time, when only very few other rose cultivars were introduced.
Rosedom in Germany had missed nearly a full century of rose development. The 19th century was dominated by French and English rose breeders. Only at the very end of that century did rose breeding emerge on a professional scale. At that time, it was rather unforeseeable that only 20 years later two German rose breeders would start to conquer the rose world: Wilhelm Kordes and Mathias Tantau. Really enough has been written about both; and the descendants of these two keep alive the memory very well. But, as we know now, the worldwide operating rose corporations of Kordes and Tantau had been initiated by the idea a landlord had to build ornamented farms, a good 110 years before these nurseries were established.
The biological background and the technique of controlled (artificial) rose breeding was already known to Schwarzkopf in 1773, when the ‘Perle von Weissenstein’, which is regarded as the first German rose cultivar, was released.
Comparable rose collections, as great as Joséphine’s at Malmaison in France, existed at the same time in Germany and Austria.
Rose breeding in Germany did not start on a notable level before the 1880s.
Two centers of rose breeding then formed: at Trier and around Erfurt/Dresden and only little later in Northern Germany around the town of Elmshorn.
© Copyright 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Harald Enders
 Der Rosengarten, Dr. Zander a. Dr. Teschner, Gartenbauverlag Trowitzsch, Frankfurt (Oder), 1939
 Rosenjahrbuch 2005, Yearbook of the VdR, page 87
 Ebel in: Beschäftigungen der Berlinischen Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, Band 1,Berlin 1775
 A.G.Kästner, Hamburgisches Magazin, Band 3, 1748, S.16
 Rosenjahrbuch 2005, Yearbook of the VdR (Verein deutscher Rosenfreunde, page 86
 Böttcher, Verzeichnis der Bäume und Sträucher des Lustschlosses Weissenstein, 1777
 The Baron von Veltheim started in 1744 to build a ‚Lustgarten’ at the Harbke Castle
 C. Mönch, Verzeichnis ausländischer Bäume und Stauden des Lustschlosses Weissenstein bey Cassel, 1785
 Philip Miller, Figures of the most beautiful and uncommon plants described in the Gardener’s Dictionary, London, 1755-1760
 Other sources name more botanical reasons for the great revirement of the design of Weissenstein and its gardens, the one as good (or in this case bad for rosedom) as the other.
 K.L.Stock, Rose Books, a bibliography on rose books and articles, England, 1984
 Rosensammlung zu Wilhelmshöhe, Lutze, Becker, Grimm, 2001
 Rosenjahrbuch 2005, Yearbook of the VdR, page 88
 Brent C. Dickerson, Roll Call: The Old Rose Breeder, Paperback Edition, page 458
 Brent C. Dickerson, The Master List
 Not to be confused with the castle of the same name (and same owner) at Weilburg/Lahn/Hessen
 The Weilburg castle at Baden/Austria was completely destroyed at the end of WWII
 Loudon, Encyclopedia of Horticulture, London 1833
 Theaterzeitung, Edition from the 15th of July 1833
 Anton Rollett, Verzeichniß der im Garten des Erzherzoglichen Schloßes Weilburg befindlichen Rosen, 1834. Fotocopy of the original handwriting.
 J.F.W.Bosse, 1.Nachtrag zum Vollständigen Handbuch der Blumengärtnerei, Hannover, 1849, p. 577
 Rosenjahrbuch 1993, Yearbook of the VdR (Verein deutscher Rosenfreunde)
 Johann Georg Krünitz, Enzyklopädie, Berlin 1819
 Tobias Seits, Die Rose nach ihren Früchten, Prag 1825
 Die Gartenkunst, 1941, page 141
 J.F.W. Bosse, Vollständiges Handbuch der Blumengärtnerei, Hannover, 1842, 2. Edition
 Regel’s Gartenflora, 1855, page 45
 Regel’s Gartenflora, 1855, page 45
 Rosenverzeichnis Sangerhausen 7. Edition, page 115
 Brent C. Dickerson, Roll Call: The Old Rose Breeder, Paperback Edition, page 290
 Brent C. Dickerson, The Master List, Paperback Edition, page 269
 Deutsches Magazin für Garten- und Blumenfreunde, 1861
 Theodor Nietner, Die Rose, Berlin 1880
 Schultheis, Deutsches Rosenbuch, Steinfurt, 1887
 Rosenverzeichnis Sangerhausen 7. Edition, page 88
 Die Gartenwelt, XVIII. Jahrgang, 1914
 Folia Mendeliana 10 F. Weiling, Rudolf Geschwind, ein wenig bekannter Forstpflanzen- und Rosenzüchter des ehemaligen böhmisch-ungarischen Raums, Prague, 1975
 Not to be confused with Nicola Welter’s tea from 1904 with the same name.
 Gartenwelt, Jahrgang 8 (1903/1904), page 608, 517
 This is not the end of the story. ‘Marachal Niel’ seemed to be very generously producing white sports. Apart from a nursery owner called Westphal, three more nurserymen claimed to have found white sports of the ‘Niel’.
 Die Gartenwelt, 1909, page 433
 Maybe this statement is not so true after all. In 1911 the J.C.Schmidt nusery introduced Kiese’s ‘Perle von Britz’, a seedling of ‘Tausendschön’. But the meaning of ‘von’ is clearly ‘from’, so it is left open, if maybe Kiese got this cultivar from Britz, or bought the rights on this cultivar from some rose breeder from Britz.
 Regel`s Gartenflora, 1889, page 310 f.
 Rosenjahrbuch 1992, Yearbook of the VdR (Verein deutscher Rosenfreunde)
 ‚The luxembourgish rose patrimony’, article by Les Amis de la Rose, Luxembourg
 The price money of 1.000 Talers – a small fortune in 1900 – led to a longer dispute between H. Kiese and J.C. Schmidt. In the end H. Kiese got the money. With the help of this money he was able to establish his own rose nursery.
 Rosenjahrbuch 1992, Yearbook of the VdR (Verein deutscher Rosenfreunde)
 Ken Grapes, Value for Money, p. 112
 The sons of Peter Lambert seem to have survived WWII, but did obivously not engage in rose breeding. One of the descendants of Peter Lambert today owns a garden center in the town of Trier.
 Rosenbogen 4/2005, page 29
 Deutsche Rosenzeitung, 1896, Heft 5
 Descriptions from the Rosenverzeichnis, 7.Edition; Rosary Sangerhausen
 Die Gartenwelt, Jahrgang XIII (1909), page 316
 David Austin, 1992, Old Roses and English Roses, page 162
 Rosenjahrbuch 1992, Yearbook of the VdR
 Die Gartenwelt, Jahrgang III, 1898, page 48
 Die Gartenwelt, Jahrgang III, 1898, page 51
 Modern Roses 4, page 83
 Modern Roses 4, page 127
 Botanica’s Roses, page 386
 Brent C. Dickerson, Roll Call, The Old Rose Breeder, Paperback Edition, page 568
 O. Jacobs in ‚Die Gartenwelt’ Jahrgang XVII, 1913
 Descriptions from Rosenverzeichnis Sangerhausen, 7. Edition
 Möller’s Deutsche Gärtnerzeitung, 1913, Issue 27, page 317
 Descriptions from the Rosenverzeichnis Sangerhausen, 7.Edition
 Rosenverzeichnis Sangerhausen, 7. Edition, divon pages
 Die Gartenwelt, Jahrgang XVII, 1913
 Brent C. Dickerson, The Master List, page 129
 Möller’s deutsche Gärtner-Zeitung, Erfurt, 1912
 Rosenverzeichnis, Rosary Sangerhausen, 7. Edition, page 117 listed as ‚Katharine Mock’
 Rosenverzeichnis, Rosary Sangerhausen, 7. Edition, various pages
 Brent C. Dickerson, The Master List
 O. Jacobs in ‘Die Gartenwelt’ XIVON Jahrgang, 1910
 Brent C. Dickerson, The Master List, Paperback Edition
 Thomas Ott, Ein interaktives Modell zum Flächennutzungswandel am Beispiel der Stadt Erfurt, Dissertation, Mannheim 1997
 The entries in the Rosenverzeichnis, 7. Edition are puzzling in this case. ‘Venus’ is attributed to J.C.Schmidt only, ‘Leuchtstern’ has the entry ‘Kiese 1899’ and about ‘Lohengrin’ is said ‘Kiese/Schmidt, 1903’. At least these 3 of 5 of Kiese’s first roses have survived.
 The name ‘Blumenschmidt’ originated in the telegram address of the J.C.Schmidt nursery and was later on – and is even now – the known synonym of the J.C.Schmidt nursery.
 Brent C. Dickerson, Roll Call: The Old Rose Breeder, pages 261-263
 Decriptions of Türkes roses from Brent C. Dickersons ‘Master List’
 Rosenjahrbuch 1992, Yearbook of the VdR
 Rosa Gallica, Spring 2006, The author of this article (F. Joyxaux) quotes the German author Anny Jacobs as source of information. The words chosen leave open to speculation, if Dr. Müller knew and accorded to the fact, that „his“ roses were sold as french. Maybe the answer to this question got lost in the tangle of translations from German (Jacobs) to French (Joyaux) to English (Rosa Gallica Journal)
 2005 Catalog of the Martin Weingart rosary, Bad Langensalza, Germany
 Information obtained from the Website of the Sangerhausen rosary
 Rosenzeitung 1910, page 125
 Dr. Brada in ‘Rosenzeitung’, 1921
 Information obtained from the website of the Dresden rosary.