In my experience JC gets larger than CdC and so thinks my local supplier also. Neither of the two is very good in my climate.

H'mm. Yeah, I think even in this climate, they would both like rather more water than they get, placed where they are in sun from sun up to sun down. I suspect even the good one would be more generous with rebloom if I watered it regularly but I resist watering established plants where possible.

Fwiw Beales also list JC as growing a foot taller than CdC.

JC buds look like they have been bitten off. It's ugly, and a lot of people post here asking what to do about the 'insect damage'.

Aside from that, I agree with everybody else that JC is much healthier and generally a better grower than CdC.

How old are they? I have 3 CDC's & 1 JC purchased as Marchesa Boccella that are 4 yrs old. The JC is shaded by a beautyberry on one side & a hazelnut tree on the other, it is marvellous for being in so much shade, flowers are perhaps smaller than they should be but still a lovely rose. The CDC's tested my patience, small & straggly for 3yrs in an excellent location, they are now so much better. I took the 2 weakest & replanted them in one hole & they loved it. The flowers are heavenly. We have fairly high blackspot pressure but neither variety seems to be troubled by it. They do not appreciate companion plants at least not in my garden, I have also read this from several different sources, the CDCs that is.

Jane

From what I have read about Jacques Cartier, a way to tell is by looking at the leading leaf, which is larger and more elongated than the other leaves on the same shoot. You can see something of that here on my young plant [which I no longer have incidentally]. Also the blooms are not so fine and cabbagey as on CDC, which had the most perfectly shaped blooms, as I remember it, not muddled like 'JC', and a much finer scent...

'JC'.. this June...

H'mm. Sounds like the 'good' one, (I put it in quotes because I suspect all roses are good for someone, somewhere... even if it's only one person!) is probably JC. Ha. Except mine definitely needs more water, if that's what yours looks like Marlorena, omg. The foliage on mine never looks that sleek. The blooms look right though, as does the high up foliage.

Which ever one I had was dreadful here. Grows straight up tall, blooms like a lollypop on top, and is so chlorotic in my soil that the foliage looks white and burnt, not green.

I forgot that happened to which ever one it was when I first planted roses here, and tried it again 15 years later and in another spot. Same thing happened again.

I do believe that it can be beautiful elsewhere, but not here on my hill overlooking the Valley of Heart's Delight.

Rosefolly

I love your picture of Jacques Cartier, Marlorena.

I have Jacques Cartier here and he does fine -- blooms a lot. I've found I get along with him best when I prune hard (to 1/2 in winter).

Oldrosarian's photos look like my roses. Both varieties do well for me. What I particularly notice is their different habits. 'Comte de Chambord' (which may actually be 'Mme. Boll') is a Portland type, with upright growth, of moderate height--in my garden, unpampered, it gets about 3' tall--and with the typical Portland "high-shouldered" blooms, sitting upright at the ends of the canes. It's notably fragrant and a good clear rose pink. 'Jacques Cartier' has laxer, taller, more spreading growth.

P.S. Oldrosarian, your photos are lovely.