Is there anyone who would argue that your photo of Lady Banks blooming in the fall proves that the rose is not, in fact, Lady Banks because Lady Banks blooms but once a year in the spring?
Is there a rose that predates 1820 that has a form such as the rose pictured above? Does anyone really believe that it is a gallica, an alba, a centifolia, or a damask rose?
I have grown a lot of "repeat" blooming roses that have not bloomed once in a year, let alone twice. And if you live in a place that is not that great for growing roses in the first place, and have a bad rose-growing season you might find the same thing, especially if the rose has not had a lot of TLC. My guess is that this one has been a bit neglected.
Sadly, we do not all live in California where the sun shines every day, the rains come reliably, the soil is fertile, the air is warm, the people are beautiful, and everything else is absolutely perfect. Sometimes roses elsewhere behave less favorably.
