Hi Ann,

It is a matter of opinion, but I think that older roses (including many really historical ones) can actually be better than new ones. Why? Because people only keep growing the ones that have some excellent qualities, and the ones that are poor performers fall out of commerce. Now when we are talking about roses from 1990 -- there were surely some great roses bred around then, but some were not great. This will be the case even now, with new roses. Some will end up being great roses and others... not so much. One development in recent roses is that many consumers are sick of spraying chemicals on their plants, so there is a trend to breed healthier plants. In that sense, there are some roses from 2021 that will outperform most of the roses of the 90s. But there have always been some roses that are healthier than others! Of course some of the folks who market roses want us to think that the newest roses are better than the older ones -- that way they can convince people to rip out their old plants in favor of the new ones they want to sell. My suggestion would be to look at specific varieties -- you can search for them here on this forum -- and see what sort of reputation they have. Some roses will have a great reputation and will do beautifully in your area regardless of the date they were bred. For example, here in Seattle Julia Child (2004), Lady Hillingdon (1910), and Paul Ricault (1845) all do really well.

For me and my heavy disease pressure climate, newer roses that were trialed after the breeder stopped spraying for diesase control in their test gardens are absolutely better. It has significantly expanded the number and types of roses that will thrive in my gardens. If you live some place that disease pressure isn't very significant you might have a vastly different opinion.

So, survivorship bias is a thing, but also be wary of places that "retire" roses just after the 20 year patent exclusivity patent expires (DA is particularly egregious about that).

K S 8b Seattle I saw that you posted about Guillot roses...from the time frame I am wondering about...is it that EU roses from then were worth looking into? (Where did you get yours?) I have Julia Child...favorite bush for color and scent!

Hi Ann, roses from Europe are, in my opinion, always worth looking at! Kordes in Germany has thought about disease resistance in their roses for a long time, and produces great plants. Tantau (also German) roses are harder to get here in the USA, but at least one of their roses, Augusta Luise (1999) has a cult following on this forum. The French rose breeders (particularly Meilland) have dominated the global industry and produced some great roses (not that US rose breeders haven't!). One very famous Meilland rose that does really well for me here in Seattle is Eden/Pierre de Ronsard (1985). France is the cradle of modern rose breeding, and many of the great historical roses were also bred there. Contemporary Guillot roses (as opposed to some of their earlier ones -- they have been breeders since the early 19th century) are hard to get in the USA -- Roses Unlimited is the only source I know of. If you want to try some definitely order early in the season. Pat runs out of many of the popular Guillot roses early on, so it is best to email her about them in the fall or early winter. :)

I have a number of Kordes, after I put in 1 Weeks rose and it just struggled and struggled, I almost gave up, until I found a Savannah at Walmart and the thing loves it here! I decided that I needed more Kordes and got Bliss, Cream Veranda, Earth Angel and South Africa. Since then I have started to pay attention to the breeder.. I also read up on Strawchicago's thoughts. But what is really hard to find is EU that do well in the PNW, there are a number of reasons for that. It does not help that I grew up on Willamette Valley soil and this scabby glacial soil is so different...grew roses for my grandmother, no spray, no problems...but we didn't worry about the look of the leaves as long as their were flowers.