Just wanted to mention that for me, 'Mrs. John Laing' doesn't need pegging the way the majority of hybrid perpetuals do to maximize bloom potential. I have two bushes of MJL and keep them pruned somewhat like a floribunda and this rose blooms just fine as an upright bush. I agree with you that some of the HP can be stingy bloomers. In fact, for me most of the ones I grow I consider mainly once-bloomers with the rare and highly unpredictable scattered fall blooms. But I have to say that in my climate, good rebloom is a rare commodity due to my short growing season and I may be more forgiving than others. Celeste

Vintage Gardens, to me, is more trusted with the identity of their antiques because they continue to investigate what they have, compare to old records, and have no problem issuing their identification as tentative by placing the name in double quotes. Tammy posted pics of hers, and that is the "thornless RdV" I remember from another nursery -- dull green color to the stems, leaves wider and more rounded, tapering suddenly. Tammy first said hers had thorns, then took the pics and came back saying what she thought were thorns were merely small bumps. My band is just as prickly as a typical Gallica -- no one seeing it would remark about its "smooth canes" because they're not. That's not what I would call the same "a few thorns" as found on Tammy's band -- I can't put my finger on the stem without touching a prickle. The first reference on HMF for RdV is clearly a translation from the French (as noted by both the French title and the text's awkward English). I would much prefer to read the original and translate it myself. It's very likely that the "also the prickles of the branches" which follows a semicolon (which denotes a separation of the second clause from the first, such that it could be its own sentence if grammatically correct, and that the translation isn't makes me wonder about the accuracy of the translation) is not connected to the comment about "red stipules..." It could very well be that missing from the translation is a negative, turning that last bit into a comment about "also the lack of prickles of the branches" which is less awkward of a clause than "also the prickles of the branches." But I can't tell for sure without reading the original French. Be careful about taking an awkward translation as gospel just because it's the oldest. If several descriptions beginning merely a year later describe the plant as without (or almost without) prickles, I'd take that over the claim that the first description (as translated on HMF) is noting "red prickles" which I really don't get even in that awkward translation -- the semicolon would not be used if the "prickles of the branches" were red like the stipules. A comma would be. Also remember that considering the time for a book to come out in print during those years that close together, it's very likely that both authors were writing without seeing the works of the others. Thus the descriptions are better trusted to be based upon actual inspection, rather than copy-and-paste from other authors -- because there wouldn't have been time to read the first description and write it again in a book coming out a year or two later. Ultimately, RdV has had notes in her description over the years about her relative thornlessness. The band which I received would not be called "thornless" any more than many other roses I've seen which never acquired that adjective in their description. Sure, my plant isn't overly thorny, and its prickles are small, but they are not sparse enough for me (or anyone else seeing it for the first time) to say "my, that rose is thornless." But others seeing the real RdV over the years have. That's why I don't think this one is the "real" one, and the one I grew previously (and gave as a gift) was. :-) ~Christopher

With everything being equal, as in no sprinkler adjustments, watering every other day in the winter is very likely too much ( I do not water even close to that frequently, and reside in the driest major city in the country). My sister resides in Temecula which is in Riverside County ( like the poster) and only waters twice per month right now, not every other day. Out of curiosity as well, I sent a text to her, and she reported that the leaves on all roses surrounding her home are still green.... granted, they are all Icebergs with some big box stocked modern varieties in the backyard. Her home is lakefront... which could result in subtle differences.... I am in zone 9a, so slightly colder than the poster in 9b, and our temperatures hit 25 for a couple of hours with temperatures in the high 40's to high 20's at night for a couple of weeks. Riverside is also one of the "desert" areas of CA that has a climate very similar to mine, though a little less extreme during the hot months, and they get more than double my rainfall (Riverside averages about 10" annually). The leaves on ALL of my roses are still green or have turned red, as I take notice when I walk the yard daily and continue to procrastinate pruning..... Like the poster, it does not become very cold here either, we get freezes, however, I am acquainted with overwatering, which can result from too much water at once from rain, irrigation and/or poor drainage. What the poster showed is the appearance that can result from overwatering, which his HOA is very likely doing. Also, another clue for me regarding the overwatering, if my memory is serving me correctly, is the yellowing begins at the bottom and works its way toward the top leaves. The area being overwatered, is almost a given, but cold could be a factor too, especially if the plant is stressed. Lynn

Somewhere here on GardenWeb is a document describing in detail how to keep a miniature rose in reasonably good health indoors, but I can't quite locate it. If any of you remembers where to find it, please include a link. QZ: It is almost certain that the leaf yellowing you are seeing is a result of multiple stressors the rose is experiencing in your home. That's not your fault - its simply a fact that the rose was grown in a greenhouse, and is now faced with trying to acclimate to dramatically different conditions (IE: lower light levels, much dryer air, etc). Now, its not impossible to keep the plant in good health in the home, but there are several challenges that need to be overcome. Most importantly is the light intensity issue: on the average winter windowsill, roses are getting a small fraction of their optimal light levels. This alone can result in dramatic leaf loss. The only remedy for this is to supply additional lighting. Commonly, people use compact fluorescent bulbs, or (these days) LED plant lights. If you are just lighting one small plant then you can likely get away with buying a single bulb that can be used in a standard light fixture. Some of the smaller plant lights are quite inexpensive and come as an all-in-one fixture + bulb configuration. At this point, you have to decide if you want to invest in the technology for a single plant. Only you can make that assessment. A cool windowsill isn't necessarily the worst thing for a miniature rose. As long as the leaves don't freeze, and as long as daytime temps are at least 65F or warmer, you're in the acceptable zone. A major obstacle to rose growing indoors is insect pests. The worst/most common are Spider Mites. It is almost inevitable that you will get Spider Mites on the undersides of the rose leaves, so you need to be ready to deal with that. (You can Google "spider mite damage on roses" or similar, to find photo examples of the issue) Spider Mites love hot, dry air, so if you can maintain some humidity where the plat is, you'll have less of a battle on your hands. Your best (and cheapest) weapon against Spider Mites is water: simply take the plant to the sink once or twice a week and hose off the undersides of the leaves with a strong spray of water. Mites hate water and they are easily washed off, so if you wash the plant regularly, you can potentially avoid the Mite problem entirely. Its easier to avoid insect problems than fix them once they've happened. The HGTV article linked here is a brief-but-reasonable document that explains much of the same info in greater detail: https://www.hgtv.com/outdoors/flowers-and-plants/trees-and-shrubs/grow-a-miniature-rose-indoors I expect you will find that the rose will continue to drop yellowed leaves over the next few week. It may in fact lose all its foliage. That's not unheard of as the plant goes into a semi-dormant state, sensing that its light source has diminished to unsustainable levels. If you should find yourself with few or no leaves left, its a good practice to cut the plant down to about half its current height. Given time, it will make new growth, so it might as well start with strong new growth from close to the base of the plant. Cutting it down helps facilitate that. Also, be more sparing with water if the plant does drop most/all of its foliage. A leafless roses doesn't need a lot of water: just enough to keep the soil barely damp to the touch is sufficient. That might mean watering once a week or less. When the rose does decide to resume growth, it will need more water, which you will figure out pretty quickly by observation. Adding a strong light source will encourage new growth also. Now, it is true that these miniature roses are sold as gift plants, and are considered in the industry to be "disposable" gift plants - much as we regard Poinsettias and the like. That doesn't mean you can't keep the rose going, but it will require some effort and careful attention on your part. It really comes down to you to decide how much effort you're willing to make. Best of luck, and feel free to ask questions, should you have any. Paul