Wow - what a gorgeous rose! Some of my favorite roses have appeared in my garden because they were root stocks. We inherited a very boring yellow HT, which I didn't really like. One year it finally died and I dug up the stump. Low and behold, the next Spring up came way different canes - long ones! I decided to leave them, to see who they were. After three years they were still proliferating, and had turned into a large bush, but no blooms. I told that bush that it was going to be shovel pruned the next year if it still was not blooming. Voila! That worked. The next Spring it set huge fat buds all over itself, and they bloomed into the most amazingly gorgeous dark dark pink very double blooms. It was identified eventually as "de la Grifferaie". I liked it so much better than that yellow HT! It is still in my garden - we got a large metal obelisk for it to grow on - it is setting buds right now - it is one of the great joys of my garden when it booms. My next door neighbor has one too (both of our homes are old) - I convinced her to tell her landlord to stop weed whacking it down to 18 inches all of the time, and she let it grow and bought it an arbor to grow on. I can see it well right outside of my kitchen window, so I have two to admire now! Jackie

I'll take the comfy chair, please. Thanks for your thoughts, brittie and Virginia. Yes, it certainly does look a lot like the pictures of 'Souvenir d'un Ami' on HMF (there seems some doubt if those pix are all "fer sher" SduA). Virginia, it's very fragrant with the normal Tea rose fragrance, very vigorous (but in a shrubby way, not a climber way), very floriferous and continuous, not at all disease-prone (in the most humid conditions, maybe just a touch of powdery mildew). As to thorniness, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being something like 'William Lobb', this would score about a 2 at most. There's really nothing about it to suggest that it's anything but a "pure" Tea--in everything, it's prototypically Tea. To my eye, it has the look of something from the 1870s or 1880s (but of course an older rose could have a newer look, or a newer rose could have an older look). The very mature bush is about 6-7 feet tall (and would be at least that much wide if I'd let it). The flowers never droop; however dangly the branch which bears them might be, the flowers themselves always manage to look upwards. The hips absolutely never ripen, never have a seed. Likely if I had a list of all the unknown Teas that Heritage Rose Gardens offered, I could pick out which one this was, especially if it had the descriptions too. What I remember about this one was that it was one of two unknowns bought at the same time which, planted in a sandy soil, did poorly; but when I moved them just a dozen or so feet away to a very clayey soil, they responded with vigor and looked nothing like they did in their sandy quarters. Aside from curiosity, the reason I'd particularly like to identify it is that, though still vigorous on some limbs, the bush is getting old, and I'd hate for it to die with me not knowing that there are others out there to carry on its beauty. It doesn't seem to want to root from cuttings or by layering (going by my repeated failures over the last five or six years). It's much more beautiful than my pictures convey. There are times when I'd say that the opening bud and young flower with their tints and form are as beautiful as any rose could be.

Could be Sun Flaire too. I haven't had much luck bargaining with HD, but I have terrific luck with Lowes. A few weeks ago, I found 3 very pathetic looking DA's - 2 Princess Alexandra of Kents, and 1 Young Lycidas for 1/2 off. Since I already have both, I didn't jump, but when I came back to "peek" a week later, Young Lycidas was still sitting there, with 3' bare canes with new leaf growth at the ends (someone must have finally gotten off their buttocks to water it). I brought it to the manager and said - this guy needs a home, how much. I walked out with it for $6.25. Then, 2 years ago I found a Pink Supreme carpet rose on the dead & dying rack for $1. Someone had been kind enough to remove the dead leaves, leaving it with a handful of 6" bare canes. How could I resist (having no desire for a carpet rose). 2 years later it's about 4' x 4' x 2', and covered with blooms. To this day most of my, now 90 roses were HD and Lowes bargains - body bags, discounted "didn't sell"s, and just some plain ole perfectly good under $8 1.5 gallons. They are intermingled with my quality web orders and specialty nursery roses - and to be honest, visually I just don't see any difference after they've been in the ground for 2 years. And what HD had Vavoom! Not known for its vigor, but I'd sure be grabbing it if you like bright orange.

I found this link that might help: Posted by gardenguru1950 SunsetZ16 (My Page) on Sat, Aug 8, 09 at 13:06 The most common "eater" of rose leaves in California is the Bristly Rose Slug, the larvae of the Rose Sawfly. The sawfly is a pudgy little wasp. It lays its eggs on the UNDERSIDES of the leaves and the caterpillars feed on the UNDERSIDES of the leaves. The rose slug is tiny, no more than 1/4-inch long and very slender, and it's the exact same pale green as the undersides of the leaves. Talk about hard to see and find! It's the critter that "skelotinizes" rose leaves. It's pretty easy to get rid of, actually. Almost any good spray will do the job: insecticidal soap, Neem, pyrethrum. The trick is to spray thoroughly UNDER the leaves. Not stand back and spray all over. You have to get UNDER the leaves. By the way, a commonly suggested spray for rose sawfly is BT. It doesn't work. It doesn't work because it's meant for the caterpillars of moths and butterflies. The rose slug is the larvae of a wasp. And I'm not sure of any beneficial insect that preys upon it. As for your rose buds, Applenut has a good idea. Go outside late at night with a flashlight. The critter most likely is an earwig, sowbug or pillbug. It also might be a slug or snail. Joe Here is a link that might be useful: Bugs that eat roses' leaves