The more I look at the first photo, the more I think Tea, and not HT. I just don't remember seeing photos of any early HT's with that particular quilling tendency. If I'm wrong, please educate me. The second photo looks rather like 'Testout', but I'm not sure her flowers are the right form to be the rose in the first photo? Tessiess, the first photo looks like 'La France to you? Do you think the foliage looks right for 'LF'? It's useful to remember that many Teas bred after the 19th Century were introduced because they had some of the HT-like qualities considered desirable at the time (upright growth and flowers that were less inclined to nod, for example). It seems likely that some roses introduced as Teas were actually hybrids. In an earlier thread we discussed the likelihood that the original (probably lost) 'Francis Dubreuil' had a richness of color that suggested it may have been more HT than Tea in ancestry. When Melissa recently asked about Teas that remained small, Ingrid mentioned 'Enchantress', which was (and is) classed as a Tea, but had an HT (yes, 'Caroline Testout') as a parent. When Henry Bennett introduced 'Viscountess Folkestone', he was reluctant to disclose her parentage, but went to some trouble to explain that she was a pure-bred Tea; he was ignored and his contemporaries insisted that it was an HT, as it is still usually classed today. My point here (circuitously expressed) being that it may not be easy to distinguish late Teas from early HT's. If the flower in question has an old-rose fragrance, that does argue in favor of an early HT, such as the famously fragrant 'La France'... Virginia

Looks a lot like the climber, America.

Nur Mahal does repeat bloom, but will languish if kept in a container for too long. It easily grows beyond 6 foot and has arching canes and would be best grown in ground. Valentine will work very well as a container rose, and is repeats bloom all year. I like Phaleonopsis (from Antique Rose Emporium) for a container rose. It does have thorns, but not the large hooked thorns of Knockouts. Molly

Patty, thank you very much! I just looked up Dr. Huey and I would guess that you're right. All of the growth is very long and floppy, and I wasn't sure why - but now I see it's a climber. I'm not sure it will have a place in my garden going forward but I am glad I'll be able to tell its next owner what it is and how to deal with it! I think you're also right about the two knockouts. #4 is the only remaining mystery. Its growth is somewhat leggy and long too, so I'm wondering if it's a climber as well.