My understanding was that Austin has replaced William Shakespeare with William Shakespeare 2000 because, in Austin's opinion, the first Will was inferior to the second Will. I don't remember all the qualities that were improved, but one that sticks in my mind was that the blooms of the first Will often would not fully open--they would end up having a bean-shaped look to them as a result. I also thought that Will the second was supposed to have better disease-resistance--but I won't swear to that. Another difference I vaguely remember being discussed was that Will the first had a clearer/lighter red color; Will the second has a gorgeous red with purplish overtones a lot of the time. At any rate, I don't think you can buy Will the first anymore--at least I think Austin took it off the market. I seem to remember some gardeners back then being really ticked off about that. Can't help you with your other questions except to say that in my Zone 6 (southeast Kansas), Will the second grows much wider than it is tall, and it will have some blackspot problems although not a lot of such problems. And I really love its rich red/purplish colors. Have you also looked at some of Austin's more recent reds? Many of his newer roses are more disease-resistant, and I thought I remembered someone on this forum remarking that one of the newer reds has a purer red color. How about using Home Run (a distant relative of the Knockouts) instead of the Knockouts? Home Run is just as disease-resistant and has the advantage of looking much better for the rest of the summer after it finishes its spring bloom--whereas KO can look really ratty for most of the summer, although it recovers a bit for the cooler fall blooming. And in my opinion, Home Run's single bloom is much more attractive than KO's bloom. And it seems like everytime I give Home Run a drink, it bursts into bloom again. What an interesting project to be working on. Good luck with it! Kate

I'm in northern jersey, zone 6A. I got an own root from Chamblees that literally grew 3 feet in one season, the tallest out of all of my roses. It's definitely a climber, the canes are tall and needed to be tied to the fence behind it. The flowers are beautiful, last abnormally long for an austin (like 4 days) since it was a one year plant I only got a few blooms but they didn't have much scent, which is normal for me and young plants. I'd give it a year though to get better. One thing i must say though, it is very very thorny. I'll try and get a picture up of the thorns. Thorns don't bother me though, if the plant can prove itself to be good thorns don't matter at all to me. Let me know of you need anything else. Drew This post was edited by zone6-nj on Fri, Feb 14, 14 at 17:31

I just went out to sniff mine, to confirm what I had already figured...I get zero scent off of her. Never have. And when I say *nothing*, I mean exactly that. Now, why would that be? If a rose has a scent, it has a scent. It shouldn't matter if its planted in one garden or another, right? Anyway, I'd also warn you that I ordered her because the write-ups said she was red. I would heartily disagree. To me she is most definitely pink. A deep, hot pink. On the other hand, she's a work-horse, low maintenance and just plain lovely. I have three of her. And I'll try to include a pic, if I can remember how!

My neighbor grows this as a small (very small) climber attached to the pillars on either side of her driveway. The canes are flexible and arching. What about 'Munstead Wood'? That one is quite compact here, and the flowers are really beautiful.