ARS rating is something I never consider when I buy a rose, especially OGR. I look at HMF, book references, GW recommendations, fragrance (how strong), etc, but never ARS rating. I try and see if it works in my climate. It really doesn't make a rose perform better in my MD garden if it got great ratings in CA or TX. It is all specific to your climate and taste.
Olga

Judging from how much the ratings change from survey to survey (as presented in the annual ARS buyer's guide) I don't think enough people are participating to produce a consistent result. One time a rose isn't rated, a few years later it's an 8.1. Another factor is that performance varies regionally, a national survey gives a combined result from all over - if there is that much data contributed. A rose could stink in a huge section of the country but be terrific in your particular region. We have that experience here where I live, which lacks the cold winters and hot summers of most of the rest of the country - often plants that are good for us here are the same that are liked in the UK, with its similar dull weather.

Catalogs may not have current ratings, either. Check other web sites and books for profiles of varieties that interest you, to get more of the story.

Like Olga, I never consider ARS ratings --
particularly those for Old Roses.
Those that have no ratings have simply never been listed for ratings. But over and above that,
a high rating for a Gallica doesn't mean it would perform in my garden -- likewise a high
rating for a Tea Noisette does not mean it would perform in New England.

I applaud the effort, and I always participate, but I pay little attention to the results.

Jeri

It's like the gambling websites that claim 'for entertainment purposes only'. I look at the results just to see how much they differ from my personal experiences. As far as using them for anything, well there are just too many major flaws in the process.

About ten years ago when I bought my first OGRs I bought them based on ARS ratings and I was very disappointed in those roses. I do not know how the ratings had changed but in my garden Baronne Prevost would not get 8.7 although its fragrance is excellent. It is also true of Rose de Recht despite its 8.9 rating. OTOH, my Mme J. Schwarz had a rating under or around 5 and it is far less disease prone in my garden than the highly rated OGRs in the handbook.

In recent years I prefer asking rosarians who garden in similar climate - not only similar zones - because zone 8 in CA is very different from zone 8 on the east coast -, before I decide to purchase a rose. I usually accept fragrance evaluations coming from any zone although even fragrance is effected by climate issues (though I cannot detect tea fragrance anyway) but not as much as blackspot or botrytis (that I have too much of) versus powdery mildew (that is not a serious problem in my area and even if it shows up, does not have a long life span around here).

My guess is, though I couldn't prove it, that there are many more rosarians and rose societies in CA than e.g., around here in NC who submit reports  so, while the ARS handbook editors cannot do anything else as rely on data submitted, due to the numbers, the handbook could not give a balanced evaluation.
I do not blame anybody; it is just fact of life and P. Schorr cannot change it although he works on it hard.

In the last few years I submit my experience to RIR every year although I am not a member of ARS but it would be interesting to see how many gardeners submit evaluation from my state compared to CA.

In my experience those roses that have no ARS evaluation in Pickering's catalog if they are modern roses, lack points because they were not introduced in the US and as a consequence they are not evaluated by ARS (in the past - I have a feeling that this is also changing).

Having no evaluation attached does not mean anything - it maybe one of the best roses you can get. But, for example Scent-Sation has a very mediocre 7.3 rating and it is one of my healthiest and most productive roses.

In case of OGRs the situation is even more complex due to the fact that there are still few people who grow them. Quite a number of OGRs are just coming back thanks to certain nurseries who do a great job listing them. In addition, thanks to those who collect 'found roses' and get the good ones to nurseries, so these found roses do get back to commerce in a few years.

I give you just one example. Arethusa has no rating and it is a gorgeous, no-spray rose for me (thank you JeanTN, again) while Eugène de Beauharnais has a high rating of 8 and I was told by reliable gardeners in my climate that this rose is a blackspot disaster in humid climate.

So ask the forum members about any particular rose you want to get but listen only to those whose climate is the same or very similar to yours.

Ditto to what everyone else has already said. I check ARS ratings out of curiousity only -- never to aid in making decisions, however.

I use Sir Thomas Lipton as a good example. I grow it, and I think it's great here in my yard. The ARS survey says it only rates a 5.5. I wish the spent blooms would shed better, but the lovely foliage makes up for this short-coming IMO.

Recommendations and experiences of fellow rose-growers in your area are your best bet. (or visit a garden and see for yourself how different varieties perform.)

Connie

Due to innumerable environmental factors/variations, ARS ratings are essentially worthless, IMHO. The only time I take them into serious account is when a rose is rated EXCEEDINGLY low (generally speaking, modern roses garner the lowest ratings). In my experience, a rose rated at the bottom of the heap is likely to be a dud that's not growing -- regardless of one's environment.

I don't even take into account the really low ratings. For example, Dame de Couer has a very low rating, somewhere around a 5 (I'm going by vague memory), but it is a very good rose in my climate. Gorgeous red flowers, and pretty good disease resistance.

Sandy

Dame de Coeur is a pretty good rose in most climates, from what I have heard.

My impression is that the ARS ratings are really a guide to growing roses for exhibition, not for garden worthiness, though I don't know if that is their stated aim. It may be that they work better for that purpose. Not being an exhibitor, I ignore them, except as Connie said, out of curiosity.

Rosefolly

No -- The forms for rating roses differentiate between value for exhibition, and performance/value as a garden rose. There are separate ratings.

IIRC, the single "permanent" rating is the garden rating.

But that's really not the issue.
The issue is whether that rating has value in the selection process.
And there, I would say the value of the rating is diminished by the fact that it is not specific to ANYONE'S conditions.

It's like me trying to tell someone in New Hampshire that they should grow Noisettes, because they're so good in my coastal SoCalif garden.

It's too bad, too. In theory, those ratings are a great idea.

Jeri

In many districts, the district itself publishes the results of the ratings from its area. This is a list that is more attuned to local conditions and therefore more helpful though generally the list is more limited than the national ratings. It's especially helpful when comments are published along with the numerical rating. You wouldn't find many tea roses on the NY District list or many gallicas in New Mexico and with good reason.

The ARS ratings for OGRs are largely meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. If Pickering offers it in their catalog, then its worth having. Choose according to your climate restrictions, of course.

Paul