I don't know if mine is a freak of nature, but mine is less that 2 feet tall and 2 feet or so wide. It appears to be healthy...so maybe who knows. I thought it was suppose to get bigger. I've had mine for 3 years and no bs problems;but I spray every week.

I strayed by a guy down the street that had an Othello and it was really large like you described and that was in Columbus. I was impressed.

Even so, you could probably get away with Tradescant if you prune it so it doesn't send out really long canes. It's supposed to be smaller than Othello, although DAR lists it as a climber in warm areas, so I would assume if you let it go it would be as large as Othello too, but I don't know. The only deep red/burgundy Austin I have is WS2000(which is a beautiful rose). WS2000 stays quite small for me. It never gets past 3 foot tall and blooms quite well, although I would assume it would do better in an area with more light.

Other deep red/burgundy/wine Austins that I don't grow:
Chianti-(gorgeous but once bloomer for most)

The Knight-old and rare.....more of a true deep red, not so much wine or burgundy from what I've seen

Glastonbury-older Austin.....irrelevant as it's mostly unavailable to most everybody....I'd like to try it, but I can't find it

Prospero-This seems like a nice rose. It's more of pinkish purple crimson, but very pretty. It is SUPPOSED to stay compact in growth. DAR lists it at 3x2 and HMF says no more than 4'.

Wenlock-Reddish crimson, although growth is supposed to be similar in size to Othello

Fisherman's Friend-More than likely too large and I've heard skepticism over disease resistance and growth habit.

LD Braithwaite-Great red coloring......closer to a true red although has purplish tones in it. Growth MAY be slightly smaller and more shrubbier than Othello. Listed as 4.5x4 by DAR and 6' on HMF.

The Prince-Held in high praise by many on here. A VERY deep red.....almost a pure dark purple at times. Stays smaller than Othello, but you may want to hear from people that grow it in terms of how prolific it blooms/repeat blooms and disease resistance. Very wineish colored.

The Dark Lady- More of a deep pink/semi deep red. Supposedly smaller than Othello

Tess of the D'Ubervilles-Very pretty true red, although too large as it is grown by a climber by many it seems.

Falstaff-Very varied rose from what I've seen/heard. Growth tends to be smaller than Othello, although I've heard a few people say it gets just as large and the color ranges all over the place, but primarily is a true red fading to more of a burgundyish purple.

William Shakespeare 2000

Benjamin Britten- More of an upright bush that stays smaller than Othello and has smaller deep red coloring that really stands out, but has a hint of orange in the red coloring.

Darcey Bussell-Pretty true red fading slightly to a wineish color, although not as much as others. Grows smaller than Othello.

Munstead Wood-similar to WS2000 from what I can tell and stays quite small and compact....no more than 3ft?

Like I said, the only one I grow is WS2000, so take everything I described with a grain of salt. NUMEROUS people grow a lot of those red Austins and will be able to provide you with much more accurate info. Reds are also the hardest color to capture and portray via computers.

Tradescant is healthy and hardy (I don't spray). It is also a weed protecting octopus.

Surely not more of an octopus than Othello!

My Tradescant is an octopus. I've tried pegging it , but the canes are kind of stiff. I may cut it back a lot next spring and start over. The bloom is the truest red I have.

the Prince does have a very nice full bush shape, finally after 3 years of being a bit spindly and floppy. The blooms are a dark purple and fade to a red purple.

Thank you, JeffCat and others for all of this info. Buford, how would you describe truest red? Like a fire engine or dark red? When you say you may cut it back, how much do you mean?

'Tradescant' is a dark Garnet red; the darkest of reds with burgundy tones. The fragrance is fleeting IMO, often not there at all. It is an awkward grower with branches heading every which way; not the most graceful architecture. However, it does remain under 4 X 4 feet which is a good thing. Rebloom is respectable. In my climate it tends to Rust and Blackspot both, and rather badly if not sprayed. 'William Shakespeare 2000' is a far better plant, although it is more of a purple than a red.

I agree with Paul. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE 2000 is a better rose. The flowers are larger, the fragrance more complex, and the repeat bloom is ten times more reliable. The bush is also more attractive. In my garden WS2000 is a lush, 3x4 shrub. The only thing TRADESCANT has over WS2000 is the depth of the crimson coloring. Tradescant is the darkest of David Austin's crimson roses. The black and ruby red tones combined with the perfect flower formation result in a true Gothic beauty. I wanted to grow it as a short climber but the canes refused to grow up. So I shovel pruned the stingy octopus.

Get William Shakespeare 2000 instead.

Will do. I imagine WS does fry in late afternoon sun much like any dark color?

redsox: thats a no, in my experience. And let's be clear; we are talking about 'William Shakespeare 2000', not the older version, which is not worth growing, IMO.

Redsox,

WS2000 has never fried on me, but he will fade out to hot pink. Right now we are having scorching heat in the 90s combined with swamp like humidity, and the blooms on my WS2000 are deep pink. I'm not complaining. To have any blooms in this hellish heat is remarkable. This has happened before and I can predict with 100% certainty that the blooms will turn crimson once the temps drop down into the 80s again and the intensity of the sunlight lessons. The blooms in September and October are much deeper: a rich candy apple red that must be seen to believed.

BTW, this rose can handle partial shade just fine.