I am very late coming to this thread, but want to share a few thoughts.
I had read the post about 'Stormy Weather' on GW and dismissed it simply because a sampling of 10 is too small to be considered significant statistically. Sample size is one of the
few things I remember from that class taken decades ago ..
However, they may be onto something. I think the field testing is where they will get more valid information.
@Protoavis re: your comment:
I don't see breeders leaving a seedling that isn't growing for several years on hope when they're probably got thousands to sow and asset each other.
It happens a lot more than you think. Often it depends on how many roses are available to be introduced in a given year, what is happening in the market place and more. One of Ralph Moore's 2005 introductions, 'Lady Moss', was bred in 1970 and sat on the bench until he felt that people might want to buy it.
More often, breeders would sell the rights to roses that were good roses but too similar to other roses that the marketing department selected for introduction to smaller rose companies that did not have as broad a distribution and would not put the rose into serious competition with the rose they chose to market. A good example in the US is 'Golden Sheen' bred by Swim & Weeks in 1966 and introduced by Carlton Rose Nurseries, Inc.
As for fragrance ... no it has not been bred out of roses. The gene for fragrance is a recessive gene, but there are other factors that can impact the fragrance of a rose. The anatomy of the rose petal makes a huge difference.
Here's a link to a post I put up with an explanation from one of Jack Harkness's books a while back:
The thread "Fragrance In Roses" in
Roses forum
As for own root vs grafted ... all of that could go into a completely different thread. The industry is going own root. It's just that the nurseries are not telling their customers how to grow own root plants well, so most gardeners don't get the best results.
