Take a look at this. This lists those on HMF as thornless or almost.

http://www.helpmefind.com/plant/plants.php?sbSearch=SEARCH&tab=5

Totally thornless roses are rare, but I suspect there might be some. I believe the property I live on has a rose named Tausendschön (German for "Thousand Beauties") with thornless canes, however there are a few tiny prickles on the undersides of the leaves, so I don't know if that qualifies for you.

Tiny prickles underneath the leaf mid-ribs with no or few thorns on the canes makes a rose "almost thornless" in my opinion. Those small leaf prickles can sometimes scratch you more often than thorns on the canes of a rose, because you can't really see them, they are almost hidden.
I have only grown one rose that I can honestly say has never had a thorn on any of its canes AND it has never had any of the tiny prickles underneath any of its leaf mid-ribs.
That rose is: 'Basye's Blueberry', a rose that was hybridized by the late Dr. Robert E. Basye. Dr. Basye was affiliated with the Texas A&M University horticulture department. His goal was to create a thornless disease-resistant rose. In my opinion, he succeeded brilliantly with this rose, with the added benefit of great fragrance thrown into the mix.

A couple of other roses I grow that very nearly, but not completely, reach the "completely thornless" level are "The Jefferson Rose" from Chamblees (no scent at all) & 'Nur Mahal' (beautifully arching natural growth habit). It is a rare day that you'll find a thorn on either of those, but once or twice in a "blue moon", it can happen.

Randy

Basye's Blueberry, a truly thornless rose:
{{gwi:241698}}

Tom, you might also want to ask your question over at the Rose Hybridizers Association (do a Google search). Those folks (and many here too) can give some additional information that would help.

To clarify: using the botanical definition of "thorn", ALL roses are thornless! Roses don't have thorns! They have "prickles". A thorn, structurally, is a modified (evolved) branch. A prickle is a modification of the outer layer of the stem.

Also, to clarify, some roses have sharp hooks on the backs of their leaf-stems that are as scratchy and agressive as the prickles on their stems, as anyone who has ever pruned 'Mme Alfred Carriere' can tell you. :)

Thanks Hoovb, I was about to make that observation. The public has made "thorn" a common name for all pointed growths on plants when it is in fact, not.
It's the same as a rose's "smell". Roses have a "fragrance". We "smell" with our nose.

Zepherine Driun is considered to be truly thornless

Thornless sounds better than Prickle free.

Thanks to all for your replies!

studaddy:I couldn't quite decipher the site you linked to

york rose:this site lists Tausendschon (forgive my missing umlats)as being "almost without thorns."
http://www.classicroses.co.uk/roses/t/tausendschon.html

gnabonnand:This site lists Bayse'sBlueberry as "Thornless (or almost)"
http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/pl.php?n=541

dollsandroses: This site lists the Zepherin Drouhin as having "Few thorns" http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/roses/zephirinedrouhin.htm

Hoovb: What you said is very interesting indeed! I will set about to find a source to be cited but if you are able to point me to one that would be very helpful.

Thanks again to all and I agree that "Thornless" beats "Prickleless" LOL!

Hoovb's point about the hooked-shaped prickles underneath the leaves should be kept in mind when looking for a "thornless" rose. In addition to her example of MAC, G. Nabonnand is another rose that is often called nearly thornless. And it's true its canes rarely, if ever, have any prickles. But those "under-belly" hidden prickles will eat you up if you're not careful. Still an excellent rose though! By comparison, when you run your hand under the leaves of 'Basye's Blueberry', you will feel nothing but complete smoothness.

Randy

Let The Google be your friend. I like "prickle-free" myself. As Randy points out, the nasty pointed structures on the backs of some rose leaf structures are called "prickles" as well. In botany, a "prickle" is also known as an "emergence", so you can really confuse people by asking for an "emergenceless" rose, though most would think an emergenceless rose would be those that don't reappear after a brutal winter. :)

Isn't R. banksiae 'Lutea' completely thorn--uh--prickle-free?

Here is a link that might be useful: prickle vs. thorn

Thanks, indeed Google is my friend! I have found multiple references to thorns vs. prickles vs. spines. Very illuminating and makes for a good 2nd grade science fair fodder.

Wikipedia has this to say about R. Banksiae: Unlike most roses, it is practically thornless, though may bear some prickles up to 5 mm long, particularly on stout, strong shoots.

So, thus far I have no definitively identified truly prickle-free rose variety. It's looking like the answer will be both yes and no!

tomhumphreys, I think HMF states ... "thornless (or almost)", because, of course, it is always possible for a prickle or even a few prickles to show up at some stage in the rose's life. But, I personally have never seen a prickle on either of the two 'Basye's Blueberry' roses that I have grown. Not on their canes, nor under their leaves.

Randy

R. banksiae lutea seems to be mostly prickle-free, but I hear of clones that have some.
"Vina Banksiae" at the Sacramento City Cemetery seems to be delightfully prickle-free, and so does 'Purezza.' If there are prickles, I have not yet found 'em.
MY Reine des Violettes was wholly free of prickles.

Jeri

this site lists Tausendschon (forgive my missing umlats)as being "almost without thorns."

tomhumphreys, the way you get around umlauts is to spell those words the way the Swiss do. Every time you see a German vowel with an umlaut, if you do not have a way of recreating those two dots, add a following "e". That's what the German-speaking Swiss do and it's universally regarded as a totally legitimate spelling among German speaking people.

Thus - "Tausendschoen" (& you will see it spelled that way now & again since that is also a legit. spelling of its name).

Yes, I'm not surprised to learn it's regarded as "almost without thorns". If the rose I have transplanted and pruned is in fact Tausendschoen, then there are no "thorns" ("prickles" is botanically correct, but culturally we have long called them "thorns", no?) on the canes, but there are very small prickles on the undersides of the leaf midribs.

I bought Mme. Berard on the presumption that it is thornless. My newly arrived band certainly is.
Masha

LOL! What a wonderful world the internet can open us up to!

I suppose it is a fool's errand to try to apply scientific absolutism to a poetic metaphor! Of course "thorns" are the de facto term in the culture despite science's stricter nomenclature. And it seems that "thornless" is a term of art among rose enthusiasts.

After parsing this all out with my 7 year old daughter she decide to conclude on her science fair project,

Every rose has its thorn: False
Every rose has its prickle: True

We included our research, results and rationale and she'll be displaying a very thorny/prickley Polar Sun too.

Thanks again to all of you. My budding scientist is richer for your help.

This goes to show that while kids do learn something with science fair projects, the parents have to do most of the work!!! Good job Dad. :)