Yup. I'll have to see if I have anything that currently looks like that at the weekend, I haven't had time to do more than feed the burds in the dark for thast few weeks.

That pic was obviously taken in the fall. At this time of year it is only natural for many old roses to become like this. Fungi attack senating leaves as the plants go to sleep after releasing their seed. Part of the natural cycle, I think. Over here, a walk up the mountains, native species habitat, will produce lots of simiar pics. I wouldn't bother about these looks unless they occur very early in the season.

Nik, here in NJ, some roses with heavy Damask ancestry get "the crud" earlier in the season -- usually, for me, around July. I've been doing some experimental leaf-stripping when "foliage issues" arise, and I've found that if I start seeing unaffected new leaves emerging, it's "safe" to remove the "cruddy" ones. Doing so encourages new leaves to form again where I've snipped them off.

I'll have to remember to hit "Grandmother's Hat" with this treatment next year, since I sorta "forgot" about it when the Verbena bonairensis started hiding the older, uglier leaves. Having recently cut them all to the ground, I see what was lurking behind. But I saw it on only the lower leaves which formed before the first flush. Newer growth after that time stayed clean.

I'm not sure, but it appears that "Damask Crud" is like blackspot that was halted before it caused the leaves to drop. The leaves turn discolored, but don't yellow and fall as they do on some others.

:-)

~Christopher

My Grandmother's Hat got this last Spring - first disease I had ever seen on it, and it was several years old. I panicked, but folks on here told me it was some sort o blackspot. I removed the leaves, and yes, new leaves came in clean, and it has not had even one spot since. Perhaps Grandmother's Hat has damask genes in it.

Jackie

I've seen the same thing on some of my roses and usually just ignored it. However, I've lately begun to strip off the older, yellowing, diseased-looking leaves whenever I have the inclination and energy, and I also believe as Nik says that it encourages new growth, and the rose bush overall looks so much better, which is the main reason why I do it in the first place. I drop the leaves under the bushes as mulch and that does not seem to do any harm.

Comte de Chambord and Jacques Cartier both do this early in the year for me. I strip off the offending leaves and then they stay healthy, more or less till the autumn, when the cycle repeats.
Despite the fact that I've never seen a glimpse of this on SDLM, or St Anne, Kronprinzessin Victoria has done it repeatedly all summer. It's a first year rose, so I hope it does better next year.

Spinosissimas and their hybrids develop that type of 'crud' in SoCal, too. I've loved Golden Wings forever and its wood gets nasty like those leaves every summer and fall. I wonder how much is actually fungal action and how much of it is simply pigmentation of aging tissue.

I planted four own-root Mme. Hardy last March and all of them now have most of their leaves looking like this. I can see that there are still tiny 'buds' on the stems that I assume might turn into healthy leaves so I've been wondering whether to strip off the affected leaves - I think I'll do just that tomorrow. We're having very mild weather here at the moment and it's forecast to last for at least another 10 days - all my teas are flowering well now - at leas,t the damasks will be able to go into winter with healthy leaves.

My 'Nuits de Young' and 'Belle de Crecy' both defoliated from this in midsummer. Not very attractive. It doesn't seem to be specific to damask roses, but maybe more common with them?

I spray and I still get the crud. It's oh-so-ugly.

That's a good reason to suspect it isn't fungal. If sprays don't interrupt it, perhaps it is simply what that kind of tissue looks like when it ages?

I have wondered about that - having looked this evening, my Stanwell Perpetual and Felicite Parmentier are both a little bit cruddy looking right now and I can easily put that down to foliage senescence. I'm still not sure about it where it crops up earlier in the year.

It could still be senescence. I have a number of Fedtschenkoana hybrids with miniatures, HTs and floribundas. Their foliage is glorious when fresh, "juvenile", but as they age in this extreme UV, they take on the "cruddy" look even more so than more traditional moderns do here. Everything "weathers", ages due to exposure to the elements. It think it's entirely possible the 'crud' is simply the natural aging due to whatever the responsible genes are. This late in the year, even Banksiae looks "tired" and sort of nasty.

I get it, I live with it. It doesn't really seem to bother anything except my aesthetics.

Part of the cycle. Fduk that's curious about Kronprincessin as it's a sport of SDLM. I have a very large one (well large for that rose) It does always develop powdery mildew)

That whole line of sports and the original have always been mildew heaven when I've grown them, too. They would likely implode from it here in this climate.

Labrea - I know, it's weird, that one sport is affected, while the other is not, that's why I mentioned it. To complicate matters further, what SDLM does have, (that St Anne does not) is mildew. Unfortunately, I think, downy. I didn't recognise it last year, but in retrospect, I think the same thing happened about this time then. It's still warm-coolish, and so, so damp. I was actually planning to ask about it tomorrow, after I take some pictures. If it is it, it may come out.

It's interesting that people in a variety of climates and/or zones all have experience with crud.

Like Labrea, I was surprised to hear of crud on a sport of SDLM. I never tried KP, but SDLM only got the regular blackspot for me, that is spots, yellow leaves, leaf drop.

Like some of the others replying here, I see this at all times of the year on roses that have a lot of damask in their backgrounds, not just at the end of the season.

Like Christopher, I always assumed it was some kind of blackspot. But Kim has made me think that it could be sun damage, or maybe a combination of the two.

I just realized, looking again at the picture above, that the crud is more advanced on the leaflets closest to the main branch. The one furthest away is only half covered in crud. That might be because those closer leaflets are smaller and had much less surface to cover, but I wonder if this is the normal pattern for it. I have to admit that I've never studied it closely enough to see if there was a patter to how it progressed. Lower leaves on the plant first? Upper leaves first? Smaller leaflets then larger?

I will pay more attention from now on.

It probably was, Lynn. The year my Grandmother's Hat set so many hips, it was hot and dry and the hedge on the other side of the fence against which it grew definitely out competed it. And, the oak root fungus was working its way up hill toward where the rose grew. The plant looked dried out, cooked with terrible foliage and wood, no matter how much water I gave it. When the weather cooled and I maintained the heavy watering, it perked back up and produced the expected appearing growth.

I don't know what the root cause is, but the only rose I have that is really affected by it is Comte de Chambord aka Madame Boll (*who knows* which one I have or if they're the same, lol). But boy, it looks NASTY when it happens. I've thought more than once of SP-ing it, but I just don't have the heart to get rid of any rose that smells sooooooooooooo good.

John

Plus, if it doesn't seem to inhibit the rose's performance, why not just ignore it? I believe this is another of the things we forget about when those roses were introduced. Gardening was for the "landed gentry" to enjoy. They employed real "gardeners" who took care of the gardens. Roses generally weren't at their best until mid summer, which is when the rose garden was enjoyed. Prior to its season, other gardens were enjoyed. Afterward, the summer perennials/annuals were enjoyed, leaving the roses to look like dreck until the next "rose season". Of course, we don't have that luxury, so when something does what it is SUPPOSED to do and looks cruddy, we worry about it.

Very interesting discussion. I live in NH where we get terrible black spot and I spray most of my roses with fungicide. My three Portlands (Comte de Chambord Jacques Cartier, Rose de Rescht) have proven to be fairly resistant to our type of black spot so I don't spray them. At this time of year many of their leaves blacken uniformly like the photo above. In the spring and summer the foliage is nice and green.

Yep, that's the stuff my Rose de Rescht gets after the first flush and keeps the rest of the season! I'm in the ignore it group. It doesn't seem to bother the rose because it reblooms anyway so why sweat it. The leaves will look green and pretty again next April, lol!

Thanks. I wish none of us had to deal with it, but it's comforting to know that even those of you growing in cooler climates see crud on your damask types. It makes me feel more inclined to continue growing them because I like them, and just ignore the unsightly leaves--or just pull them off.

I wonder what will happen if you take a small paint brush and paint one or more of those leaves with 3% drugstore hydrogen peroxide. If it is a fungal infection, I would expect to see some bubbling. The hydrogen peroxide should also trigger an immune response from the plant.

Mdm. Hardy did this by the end of June. She is gone now.

Roseseek I love this: "Roses generally weren't at their best until mid summer, which is when the rose garden was enjoyed. Prior to its season, other gardens were enjoyed. Afterward, the summer perennials/annuals were enjoyed, leaving the roses to look like dreck until the next "rose season". "

I was reading about Sissinghurst when I finally understood this idea. The different "rooms" in the garden were geared toward the season. In the spring they would set up their chairs in the spring bulb garden and when that show was over the set up a new camp in the garden with the spring perennials then a few month later set up al fresco dining in the next "room" on the bloom cycle and continue this move around the garden thing through out the whole blooming season. The idea that a particular garden was only designed to be at peak for a small period of time has created a friction between those that want the plant choices and placements to be more historically accurate and trying to balance that with the demands of a pay for veiw garden that needs to look good all the garden all the time!

Exactly! Recreating that for a "pay per view" venue is very difficult. Doing it in the average home garden is virtually impossible and frustrating as all get out! Smaller gardens, which must be relied upon to look "on stage" most of the time don't easily lend themselves to plants which don't.

If you need to have a show garden all the time hire a landscaper or stick to annuals! I've worked very hard to get perennials that bloom at different times so my garden has seasons and I enjoy every one of them. The roses always look their finest in June and the first couple of weeks of July. After that they do bloom but never look great. Between the black spot and the bugs by late August they get down right tatty. I get a small flush of pretty blooms on ratty bushes in the fall. I enjoy them just the same as I do in June when the leaves all look good.

It's actually similar here, Sharon. Though they look rattier due to extreme heat, extreme water stress and extreme UV instead of black spot and bugs. It's always something!

I am so glad I read this thread and to hear that not everyone has perfect looking roses all the time. I have beat myself up trying to figure out what I might have been doing wrong and Kim your explanation really makes sense to me. I think I will enjoy my roses much more next year and not worry so much about spots and other things.

Wonderful, boncrow! You're welcome, I'm glad! What other plant ALWAYS looks good? Very often, YOU did NOTHING wrong. It's simply the way things grow.

My 'Baronne Prevost' got that crud so badly that the rose weakened and died. Or did I end up removing it? I can't remember; it was some years ago. Anyway it was the ugliest thing in the garden and filled me with horror. It happened in June or early July, after spring flush died down but not at the end of the season by any means. I was absolutely appalled.

My tea Mrs. B.R. Cant seems to be the champion crud producer. Because the leaves are so large I feel better when they're gone so I either pluck them off or, when they look yellow and ready to fall anyway, I spray them with a jet of water which also waters the ground so it's multi-purpose. Souvenir de la Malmaison and its ilk seem to get little disease, although Kronprinzessin Viktoria von Preussen gradually died away after a few years. For me Mlle. de Sombreuil so far has been a better white rose but, being a tea, it does get much larger. Instead I planted Marie Pavie in the same general area I had KVvP. It seems there are constant adjustments in the garden, no matter how often you firmly believe that "it' finally done".

Could it have something to do with the texture of the leaves, too? This is anecdotal, but I seem to remember the cruddiest roses having the roughest leaf texture.

I've noticed with my two newly arrived portlands that Marbrée has more roughly textured leaves than Rose du Roi. It will interesting to see which gets crud first or if they get it simultaneously. Of course it would be nice if only one or neither of them get cruddy, but I think that's too much to hope for.

Perhaps the most highly textured foliage traps pollutants and dirt causing a build-up of heat with the intensity of the UV and sun? It could well be some of the "crud" we've observed is heat damage.