# Paph insigne 'Harefield Hall'



## emydura (May 9, 2012)

First time flowering for me. I know a lot of these turn out to be fakes. David Banks said many of the Harefield Hall's coming out of Sydney were hybrids (and this one came from Sydney). But based on photos I have seen this one looks like the real deal. Do you agree?

I got this one in 2008 as a 3 growth division. From that moment the plant went downhill. It wouldn't grow, the leaves were limp and had that sickly green colour. The root system was poor. It was getting hammered by scale. I repotted it and the division fell apart into single growths. One of the growths died and the others were heading the same way. I had no expectation of them improving. Then I changed my fertilising regime (low K, MAGAMP, high Mg and Ca and kelp). These plants suddenly picked up. They grew well, the leaves look great and the scale disappeared. This division has put out a nice new large growth. The other division is still a single growth but is now growing well and looks really healthy.

One of these sold for $140 on Ebay last weekend. It was a similar size to mine although a little better and in bud. I paid a 1/3 of the price on eBay four years ago.


Paph insigne 'Harefield Hall'


----------



## Ozpaph (May 9, 2012)

great flower..............but I wasn't going to pay $140 for it, either!
Do you know the providence of the Ebay plant? Was it the same source as yours?


----------



## emydura (May 9, 2012)

Ozpaph said:


> great flower..............but I wasn't going to pay $140 for it, either!
> Do you know the providence of the Ebay plant? Was it the same source as yours?



No, my plant came from Sydney (on the label it said ex N.F., which stands for Neil Finch I assume). The one on the weekend was from a deceased Adelaide grower.


----------



## Ozpaph (May 9, 2012)

thanks.
Is HHall a triploid or tetraploid? I dont know much about its history and would be keen to hear the story.


----------



## quietaustralian (May 9, 2012)

Ozpaph said:


> thanks.
> Is HHall a triploid or tetraploid? I dont know much about its history and would be keen to hear the story.



I read somewhere that 'Harefield Hall' has a chromosome count of 2N=39. I wonder how they could be sure they were doing a chromosome count on 'Harefield Hall' ?

Mick


----------



## Susie11 (May 9, 2012)

Wow, I love it.


----------



## emydura (May 9, 2012)

Ozpaph said:


> thanks.
> Is HHall a triploid or tetraploid? I dont know much about its history and would be keen to hear the story.



It is a triploid. I'm sure there are others who know a lot more about this clone than me that can help out. I remember reading somewhere it was collected around 1860 (from my hazy memory). I can't remember from where exactly. Hopefully someone can tell us where. 

It is nice to have a division of such an old plant with such a great history.


----------



## quietaustralian (May 9, 2012)

David, I don't know what this flower is but it's very nice. I have read so much conflicting information about 'Harefield Hall' it's difficult to say. I have three different clones tagged 'Harefield Hall', two of which are in bud now for the first time. The description of the plant in the Gardeners Chronicle, December 1898 and the painting of the RHS award give some idea.















Mick​


----------



## emydura (May 9, 2012)

Thanks Mick. It certainly looks like the painting. It is much bigger and chunkier than my normal insigne's. But it wouldn't reach the dimensions in that article. This is a small plant however and I expect the flower will get bigger on a larger clump.

It will be interesting to see yours as a comparison. Do they come from different sources?


----------



## eggshells (May 9, 2012)

That is so nice that it looks like a hybrid hope yours is a true pure species.


----------



## Roth (May 9, 2012)

quietaustralian said:


> I read somewhere that 'Harefield Hall' has a chromosome count of 2N=39. I wonder how they could be sure they were doing a chromosome count on 'Harefield Hall' ?
> 
> Mick



It is a triploid, and the chromosome count has been done in the 70's or 80's by Don Wimber. There were genuine authentic Harefield Hall in several collections, that have been sold and splitted, such as Armacost and Royston, Hill, McBean, Stewart Orchids, Eric Young private collection, De Graaf... all linked to famous orchidist, Betty Bracey, Rex van Delden, Leo Holguin...

Those nurseries had the real ones, with the history of their plants. Since they all closed, we do not know where those plants are today. Emydura plant flower could be correct, however the plants I saw at Stewart ages ago were short and very wide leafed. They did not clump either, this was a trait that made HH really expensive for ages. Sometimes they made a shoot on the old rhizome, most of the time not. If your plant makes 2 shoot out of an old one, it is for sure not Harefield Hall. All the people who owned genuine divisions told the same story, great flower, impossible to divide or nearly so.


----------



## Rick (May 9, 2012)

Damn that's a big wide insigne.:clap:

Good growing and great save David!!


----------



## tim (May 9, 2012)

sry man that's not the real deal. very different dorsal on yours, which to me is Actaeus or maybe a normal form crossed to HH. I have seen many pieces in flower both at Orchid Zone and in the collection of Arnie Klehm (from the collection of W.W. Wilson), and they look identical to the RHS illustration: a tall dorsal with some rolling at the base, wide petals held fairly flat. The foliage is as yours, quite a bit wider than normal insigne. It does of course clump over time, but not as readily as a normal insigne.

It is a triploid, but clearly breeds, as the early history of English hybridization includes mention of HH as a parent in numerous occasions, such as Actaeus 'Durbar' AM/RHS, Goliath AM/RHS, insigne 'Gatton Park', and in the grex Troilus, with several awards.


----------



## goldenrose (May 9, 2012)

I would have guessed a nice exul!


----------



## emydura (May 9, 2012)

tim said:


> sry man that's not the real deal. very different dorsal on yours, which to me is Actaeus or maybe a normal form crossed to HH. I have seen many pieces in flower both at Orchid Zone and in the collection of Arnie Klehm (from the collection of W.W. Wilson), and they look identical to the RHS illustration: a tall dorsal with some rolling at the base, wide petals held fairly flat. The foliage is as yours, quite a bit wider than normal insigne. It does of course clump over time, but not as readily as a normal insigne.
> 
> It is a triploid, but clearly breeds, as the early history of English hybridization includes mention of HH as a parent in numerous occasions, such as Actaeus 'Durbar' AM/RHS, Goliath AM/RHS, insigne 'Gatton Park', and in the grex Troilus, with several awards.



Thanks Tim.

Robert posted one here -

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10201

It is funny as I think the dorsal is almost identical other than mine hasn't reflexed. Mine could be still opening as it hasn't been long, so I expect the dorsal will reflex. I will wait another week and post another photo. The petals are more of an issue for me. The colour looks lighter although it looks like Robert may have used a flash.

You here people saying in Australia that they remember seeing gigantic specimen plants of 'Harefield Hall'. Roy mentions that in the above link. But if what Tim and Xavier are saying is correct, this clone would never make a specimen plant.


----------



## jimspaphs (May 9, 2012)

*so many Harefield Halls*

David I have 2 clones taged as Harefield Hall.the one on the left is much larger and has very slow growth.The one on the right came from Mackineys Nursery many years ago and is a good grower.--If I had to vote the one on the left would win as the true Harefield.







emydura said:


> First time flowering for me. I know a lot of these turn out to be fakes. David Banks said many of the Harefield Hall's coming out of Sydney were hybrids (and this one came from Sydney). But based on photos I have seen this one looks like the real deal. Do you agree?
> 
> I got this one in 2008 as a 3 growth division. From that moment the plant went downhill. It wouldn't grow, the leaves were limp and had that sickly green colour. The root system was poor. It was getting hammered by scale. I repotted it and the division fell apart into single growths. One of the growths died and the others were heading the same way. I had no expectation of them improving. Then I changed my fertilising regime (low K, MAGAMP, high Mg and Ca and kelp). These plants suddenly picked up. They grew well, the leaves look great and the scale disappeared. This division has put out a nice new large growth. The other division is still a single growth but is now growing well and looks really healthy.
> 
> ...


----------



## emydura (May 9, 2012)

Thanks Jim. Yes, the first plant looks a lot more like it and not dissimilar to mine. The fact mine hasn't reflexed yet is making it hard to compare. I checked it this morning and the petals have widened a little further and the dorsal looks to have started reflexing.

Mine is also a very slow grower and doesn't look like it will develop into a clump of any size.


----------



## W. Beetus (May 9, 2012)

The bloom has a great shape! Nice!


----------



## SlipperKing (May 9, 2012)

Cool plants. Nice discussion


----------



## SlipperFan (May 9, 2012)

I wouldn't mind having that one!


----------



## Ozpaph (May 10, 2012)

I'm enjoying the interesting discussion and photos. Thanks to all.


----------



## quietaustralian (May 11, 2012)

emydura said:


> Thanks Mick. It certainly looks like the painting. It is much bigger and chunkier than my normal insigne's. But it wouldn't reach the dimensions in that article. This is a small plant however and I expect the flower will get bigger on a larger clump.
> 
> It will be interesting to see yours as a comparison. Do they come from different sources?



David,

My three plants were purchased from 3 different sources but I believe two may have originally come from the same source. 

I'm not holding my breath but the best prospect I have is a plant that *is said* to have been purchased from Ratcliffe's 40 years ago. The leaves on this plant are almost twice the width of any of my other insignes and the stem is almost twice as thick as well. This clone isn't a vigorous grower as demonstrated by the potting dates on the tag. The first date recorded on the tag is 1997 and its only a 3 growth plant.

The flower in Orchids limited's photo best fits the description of Harefield Hall, if it's 5-6 inches wide, you could have some confidence that it is a division of the 114 year old plant.

Xavier mentioned that he had seen Harefield Hall but did'nt mention anything about the size of the flower, I hope he gives us some more info.

I was talking to 4 veteran judges (all 30+ years judging) last night and asked if they had seen Harefield Hall, the answer was yes, they had all seen the plant. I said " it must be a sight to see a 6" /150mm insigne with 1'/25mm petals" and there were some blank faces. I showed them a copy of the original description and all agreed that the biggest they had seen was about 4"/100mm max.

If we look at the description, it says that the flower was carefully measured, so it wasn't a guess. I have looked for other written contemporary evidence that confirms the colossal size of the flower but have only found a few references without actual measurements. There is a mention of 'Harefield Hall' in a 1908 edition of Orchid review, "the flower is gigantic". 

The Feb/March 2000 edition of Australian Orchid Review has an article by Gary Yong Gee about Paph insigne. A very detailed article that discusses many of the forms/varieties/cultivars of insigne. Gee says that 'Harefield Hall' is about 4"/100mm wide and a double page photo shows what is claimed to be 'Harefield Hall' and a normal size insigne. There is a difference in size but its not that dramatic.

Does 'Harefield Hall' exist? I don't know..

Regards, Mick


----------



## biothanasis (May 13, 2012)

Very beautiful!!!


----------



## emydura (May 19, 2012)

Thanks Mick

That plant from Ratcliffe's sure sounds promising. Look forward to seeing a photo of it as a comparison. 

Mine is 4 inches across. Five inches if you spread the petals horizontally. It is way bigger than a normal insigne but short of 6 inches. I'm sure my flower will get a little larger on a bigger clump but 6 inches seems out of reach.

Here is a photo of it fully opened. To my eyes it looks very similar to Robert's clone except the petals are not as flat, although this is a pretty plastic trait. I sent some photos to David Banks as he has written about all these fake 'Harefield Hall's' and he said it was the 'real deal'. He sent me some photos of a few of the fake ones and mine looks nothing like those. One of the fakes looked all but identical to Jim's 2nd photo.


----------



## emydura (May 19, 2012)

I had a further conversation with David Banks. His and my plant come from the same source - Neil Finch (DUNO Orchids). Neil Finch's father started growing this clone in the 1950's. So I'm still to be convinced that this isn't "Harefield Hall". Unless it is true that the flowers need to be 6 inches across.


----------



## quietaustralian (May 19, 2012)

It certainly looks more like the RHS painting in this recent photo. I acknowledge that your plant is small and that on subsequent flowerings it could increase in size. I've been astounded by the increase in size from year to year at times. 

As I mentioned previously, there is so much conflicting information about the plant. Xavier said its not vigorous and doesn't clump, yet I read that Olaf said it is a very vigorous plant and that it was divided many times.
There appears to be a gap in the literature from about 1910-1936 regarding 'Harefield Hall'. 

Should my plant flower to look like the RHS painting and be of good size, I'll have a chromosome count done. Ironically my largest insigne is marginally larger in some dimensions than given for 'Harefield'. I'll take a group shot of some of my insignes tomorrow to show some variation in size.

Like any division of an awarded plant, you would expect at some point in time, given good culture that you could achieve the dimensions as per the award. In this case 150mm wide with petals 25mm at the widest point. I'm not saying that 'Harefield Hall' doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen or heard of an insigne that matches the description 100%.

Mick


----------



## Ozpaph (May 19, 2012)

emydura said:


> Thanks Mick
> 
> That plant from Ratcliffe's sure sounds promising. Look forward to seeing a photo of it as a comparison.
> 
> ...



that looks more like the RHS painting.


----------



## Paphio (May 21, 2015)

emydura said:


> Thanks Mick
> 
> That plant from Ratcliffe's sure sounds promising. Look forward to seeing a photo of it as a comparison.
> 
> ...



Hi David!

I'm in Sydney and would love one of these to the collection. HH would be up there with my favorite paph's. Would you be willing to sell a division?

Cheers,
Aristotle


----------



## emydura (May 22, 2015)

Paphio said:


> Hi David!
> 
> I'm in Sydney and would love one of these to the collection. HH would be up there with my favorite paph's. Would you be willing to sell a division?
> 
> ...



My plant is in bud at the moment. It shouldn't be long before the flower opens.

My plant isn't big enough to divide sorry. I'm finding it very slow to multiply. Certainly much slower than a normal insigne. 

You do see divisions on eBay from time to time although you need to be careful it is the real deal. There are a lot of fakes out there.


----------

