I think the whole problem here is that we are trying to compare apples to oranges. HT's and Shrub roses are two different classes for a reason. If you are expecting HTs to grow and bloom in the same manner as Shrub roses then you surely will be disappointed. Same is true the other way around. If you are expecting Shrub roses to give you the large beautifully formed blooms of an HT you'll be disappointed too. You can not compare them to each other. That's unfair to both classes. In my experience if you try to even compare one HT against another you come up perplexed. EVERY variety of rose is DIFFERENT. They each have their own habits and no two are alike. You need to just enjoy and appreciate each one for it's own unique characteristics.

weeper - the Bill Reid was also suggested to me on the Roses forum. I've been looking into it and it does have some promise. My local trusted nursery does not have it, but she is going to try to locate it for me. If I am able to put it in, I'll let you know how he performs. I am honestly considering "annual" roses for this location. I could put in several hybrid teas and enjoy them for the season, then plan to replace next year. It's a rather expensive approach but would also allow me to enjoy some unusual varieties. The other one I'm looking at - not yellow though - is Champlain. Is it really a true red or is it pinkish?

Interesting thoughts, thank you everyone! I am leaning towards Option 2 for the weaker roses. It gets incredibly dry and windy here, snow does not seem to melt as much as it simply dries up. We are about 60k north of Calgary. There is a subtle colder weather difference, and we are also on a open lot that gets lots of north wind. In the future, I hope to build a more sheltered microclimate. The leaves of all my roses never fell off before the snow and -20C freezing temps. I hope this does not adversely affect them. And now they are calling for +3C on Monday! Too add to my confusion, I came across this interesting article, "In order to help us solve our question, we might ask: âÂÂAre there any scientific studies to help us determine whether winter protection is necessary or not?â There are but they only help to muddle the issue. In Chicago, results of overwintering records��"8,500 of them during the fifties��" seemed to prove Dr. WestcottâÂÂs later contention that winterizing was not essential. The best type of winter protection resulted in over twice the percentage of plants lost than when no protection at all was used. No one could deny that that seemed to bear out Miss WestcottâÂÂs conclusion. But, during the same years, in Cincinnati records were kept on 2,700 plants and the results clouded the issue, in fact, one could say the results were stunning, because they came to the opposite conclusion. Eight times as many unprotected plants were lost percentagewise as were protected plants. What could one say, except that âÂÂwinter protection is necessary, maybe.â " Here is a link that might be useful: Winter Protection

I feel poorly at times when I mention anthracnose on a rose because all roses are susceptible to anthracnose. I had read that Flower Girl was the only rose immune so I picked up three a long time ago. While I love this rose I can say for sure that she can and will get anthracnose if the pressure is high or the rose is stressed. My Campfires are four years old. Some are three and some are two years. We had a night time low of minus 33F. No snow cover or winter protection. All but one had a few canes with a tiny bit of heathy cane. One had the soil washed out with the crown exposed (my bad). It came back but took a while.