Found this post in another thread, maybe the strain I dealt with was different from Diane's: henry_kuska 6 years ago There is no such thing as a virus named RMV. RMV is the group name for a number of viruses that infect roses. Even for a single virus in that group there are different strains that have different virilities. Also, the rose imune system has been shown to be more efective at fighting PNRSV (usually considered the most common rose virus in the U.S.) at higher temperatures than at lower temperatures. Thus, someone in a warmer climate may feel that a certain virus infection is not a big deal, but that experience probably will not apply to the same variety of rose with the same virus (and same strain) infection grown in a cooler climate. Also, since we are normally dealing with hybrids, the immune system can vary from rose variety to rose variety. When you add that it may be a different virus, a simultaneous infection with two or more types of virus, and/or an infection with a different strain of an individual virus; you see that it is risky to make general statements about what an untested rose virus infection will mean to someone else.

Oh my goodness, Helen! I do believe this is it! Having searched even more images online, the shape and flowers look identical, as do the buds, and the scent sounds much more like what I remember. I am SO grateful, thank you!! Strangely I had never come across TIMF in any searches, including on the DA website, but then their images don't especially resemble the way they look on my neighbour's plant. Well, I am going to order one of these as soon as I'm back in London and ready to plant. Once it's established I'll confirm once and for all if you were right, but I can't see how it could be anything else. Thank you! And Sheila, I see you're in the Rogue Valley — so am I! What an amazing coincidence. Happy gardening to you all and thank you again Helen, you may never know just how happy you've made me.

I have 3 SOF own root plants: it does great here. I got a 1 gallon pot from Chamblees for around $12 plus shipping around 9 years ago that had 3 plants in it. The DAR website says that it grows up to 8 feet tall, but some of the canes on our plants are over 15 feet long. I would not really want to grow it on a rootstock here, as it might get even taller. I live in central CA in USDA 9/Sunset zone 14. Our growing season is ridiculously long here, (roses bloom here from mid March until December) which is why most roses and other plants, grow larger here than most other places. I don't know how it would when grown own root in your area, but I expect that it would be smaller. Perhaps you could contact your local rose society and see if any of its members is growing this variety.

Though DA does deserve to be boy-cotted,I tend to agree with Sheila-get the varieties that you really want while they are still available. The fact is, DA is not about the love of roses; I don't think it ever was. I read somewhere that David Austin himself, was not even trying to breed roses when he started; his first one was an accident. Over the years, he made it prretty clear that he was out to make money,I think. Again, I read somewhere that someone questioned his advice about spacing 3 of the same variety very close together and his cynical reply was: "would you rather sell just one plant to a customer, or three all at once?" The clincher for me was one year, in their catalogue, they stated that roses only live for about five years,and after that should be replaced.(I think they did have the decency to remove THAT, or else it was just too many customers protested). Now, I can't prove any of this, since it's stuff I gleaned over the years in my rose questing,but when I see their glossy catalogue and all the rest it just stikes me as snobby and false. It also does seem to me that the new varieties -from the photos at least-look more and more alike , there are always lots of yellow and pinks,beginning just to look a bit like a lot of cupcakes or something; the older varieties seem to have more character. Another thing that baffles me: one thing I did like about DA was the fact that they produced some nice deep,velvety purple-reds (Falstaff, Munstead Wood, The Prince, William Shakespeare, WS2000,etc).They don't seem to even try to do those any more. Now, some of these as plants might have had several defects, but that colour range is so rare and special in re-blooming roses that I feel that I, at least, would be willing to close an eye on the defects. In fact, even though I'm so anti-DA,I DO indeed toy with the idea of trying to get new plants of Falstaff, WS 2000, and maybe even The Prince, all of which I once had but failed to grow properly and had to sp. I still do have Tradescant, also from years ago-now that plant has been ignored completely by me for years, was mistreated in the beginning,as well-and yet last year I discovered it among the weeds-small, yes, but with those beautiful dark blooms,and in decent health, too. I dug it up, potted it (removing a cane that had gone own-root and potting that up seperately ). So for at least 10 years that plant has survived in good health with no real care-that is a good rose! but has been discontinued, of course. I plan to coddle mine along a bit in a pot (it looks great so far) until it's big enough, and then plant it out in my garden-this time in a better spot; it seems to deserve it. To be honest, I suspect that. since this company never was about the love of roses,by now they are gradually in the process of dropping all attempts to breed interesting, lovable, "real" roses, and will more and more aim towards developing -how shall it put it? -a new brand of "pseudo Knock-outs", because all they want is to make money. Now there is nothing per se wrong with Knock-outs and their ilk, but they can NOT take the place of "real" roses. So grab the real ones while they are still available.