Looks like it, yes. Bummer. :(

Yes--but it may just make a brief appearance in the spring and then disappear the rest of the season. I would just cut off a few of the really conspicuous leaves and then wait and see if the markings return on the new leaves that grow.

I've been growing Earth Song successfully for quite a few years now, despite her spring outbreak every year of RMV. Hasn't hurt her overall appearance nor her blooms. Most of the season she shows no signs of RMV.

Kate

RMV is not a rose killer necessarily even in cold zones. I have several roses that I know have RMV that have been in my garden for 4 or 5 DECADES. The symptoms rarely show up unless the rose is already stressed for some other reason. If you like the rose forget about it and enjoy watching it grow and bloom!

Chrysler Imperial lasted 22 years with RMV and in our hot/cold climate that's a pretty good run for a Hybrid Tea. Unless the marked leaves bother you for cosmetic reasons, I wouldn't worry about it. It's not fatal in and of itself........Maryl

For those who responded that it is no big deal.. How do you know that the virus that you had was the same strength and the same virus that AnnofPA has? Also how do you know that your rose has the same ability to fight off the virus as AnnofPA's rose has? Also how do you know that Annof PA does not have a rose with multiple virus infections?

Maryl, regarding your statement "it's not fatal in and of itself" what is your explanation for the 4 or 5 year deaths in Dr. Manners controlled experiments reported in the ACS article on rose viruses?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is a forum and people express their opinions based on their own experiences. That's all it is, opinion. I don't purport to have scientific evidence to back it up. I am not a scientist. I just tell people my personal observations in my garden. If you want scientific information you shouldn't be asking questions on a public forum. Go to a scientific site for that. But if you choose to come here and ask questions and share the experiences of people who love and grow roses in a home garden then I will continue to post my personal insights.

If you options are shovel prune now or wait and see how many years it lasts, seems like the later gets you more time with the rose.

My pairs of Darcey Bus sells were bought with obvious issues, can't remember when I saw problems with it last,but it is the most constant rose we have. Always in bloom.

Thank you all for your encouragement and sharing your experiences. My preference is to not shovel prune, however I have read Henry's extensive posts regarding RMV which is why I'm hesitating to keep this rose. I do not want this to spread to surrounding young and new roses.

My compromise is to move it to another area where a yardsale rose planted late last season is exhibiting the same issue but really flourishing for such a little thing. DB's had such a time getting established with canes smaller than a pencil since my niece purchased her, I was hoping year 3 would be her year.

Kippy-the-Hippy, Do you prune your Darcey's much? I've read various comments on pruning and DA roses in general. Mine hasn't had much to prune thus far, but perhaps that will change.

Maybe I should do the 'ol switcheroo... like with goldfish and gerbils... and replace this DB with a new thriving one. My niece will be thrilled with it's "progress"! haha...

Hate to tell you, Ann, but a good portion of the root stock for roses in America is infected with RMV--very hard to avoid it unless they are listed as VID (virus indexed)--which most are not. Many gardeners have had RMV roses that have thrived and bloomed for 20 some years. In other words, most gardeners find that the RMV does not negatively affect the rose other than occasionally showing strange markings on the leaves--and some roses don't even do that.

I don't want to downgrade anyone on this forum, but I think it might be significant that only one person on this forum regularly posts about the possible dangers of RMV, whereas many gardeners have posted on this forum that RMV did not negatively affect their roses, nor did it "spread" to other roses.

Take your pick--until more convincing evidence otherwise comes along.

Kate

"I don't want to downgrade anyone on this forum, but I think it might be significant that only one person on this forum regularly posts about the possible dangers of RMV, whereas many gardeners have posted on this forum that RMV did not negatively affect their roses, nor did it "spread" to other roses."

+1
That certain someone is famous for inciting panic in relatively inexperienced rose growers who feel the only rational response to such "news" is to run for the shovel. What are the odds you will spread the virus to your other roses? Its a non-zero figure, but as close to zero as you could hope for.

Panic and horticulture make terrible bedfellows.

That said, I would return the plant to the nursery from whence it came and request a refund. There is no excuse for nurseries to be producing new introductions on virused root stock. No excuse whatsoever. You deserve a replacement or a refund. The plant was sold to you with a disease built in, and that is something that warrants a refund, IMO.

Now, if this were good ol' 'Chrysler Imperial' or some other such relic, that would be a bit different, as its unlikely there are grafted plants of it (and most roses of its generation) available that do not have virus, as Kate mentioned.

It is disappointing that given that it is possible to buy the indexed rootstock that it is not being used even for the premium priced growers.....

Someone once mentioned that DA was using indexed, but I can not find that info anywhere. Does anyone know if any DA is not virused (unless it has been indexed else where) I was surprised to see markings on some rather new to the market plants.

I haven't heard of anyone going to the trouble of using VI root stock - not on a commercial level at least. Some of the older HT's, as was said, are almost non-existant if grafted without the virus. And many of those Hybrid Teas don't perform half as well without the graft in my area. After someone repeatedly banging the "Chicken Little" drum about RMV, I purposely found and bought a VI own root Chrysler Imperial. Remember I had the old one with RMV that had made it 22 years (Oklahoma weather years to boot), As much as I love Chrysler Imperial the VI own root after 3 years was still just barely limping along. The RMV infected one was, even in advanced age, doing better. So much for that approach on older HTs.....Also one of my current oldest roses, Aloha (planted 1987) has RMV. Big Deal. Around here there are real boogy men to fear, such as RRV (Rose Rosette Virus) to which I lost more rose to then ever last year. ......Now, I have seen some pictures of seriously affected leaves on roses, and there is more then one strain of the virus. With some strains being more virulent from what I read (never encountered any myself). Those plants I might consider replacing, but with a modest display of symptoms, usually in the spring/fall, I wouldn't even think about the shovel if it is producing blooms and doing well otherwise........Maryl

Maryl brings up a very important point, and that is: almost all of the Hybrid Teas introduced between 1900 and 1990 were not selected for their ability to perform on their own roots! Promising new seedlings had buds immediately grafted onto the breeders chosen understock and the original seedling was discarded, so all further testing and evaluation was done only on the grafted test seedlings! While there are some cultivars that can do OK on their own roots, many don't, and fewer still come close to performing as well as their grafted siblings. This is a hybrid crop designed and bred to be grown on roots more vigorous than their own.

If you acquire an own-root version of most any HT bred before approx. 2000, whether it be guaranteed virus-free or not, you are likely to raise a specimen that never display the kind of vigor and performance that a grafted specimen will. It is the nature of the beast.

Kippy-the-Hippy stated: "Someone once mentioned that DA was using indexed, but I can not find that info anywhere."

H.Kuska comment: Maybe this is what you heard:

http://www.davidaustinroses.com/american/Advanced.asp?PageId=1998

"Our roses are grown on virus free root stock and inspected regularly throughout the season for the presence of virus. While we cannot guarantee complete freedom from virus, in the very unlikely event of you receiving an imperfect plant, we will, of course, replace them free of charge."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Here is documentation that even within each virus type, there can be differences which cause a specific form to be more or less potent than another form.

The following link leads to the full copy of a reviewed, published, scientific 2011 paper that studied this point for three PNRSV strains that have been found to infect roses.

Title: "Biological and molecular characterization of Prunus necrotic ringspot virus isolates from three rose cultivars"

"The PNRSV-R1 isolate seemed to be the most pathogenic. It produced more severe symptoms on Cucurbitaceae plants than PNRSV-R2 or PNRSV-R3."

Please note that each statement made by the authors had to be approved by the reviewers and the editor.

---------------------------------
Variations in structure of PNRSV that infect other plants also have been reported.

http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PHYTO.1999.89.11.991

Here is a link that might be useful: link for rose study above

I'm slightly pleased to announce this rose, disease and all, is the first to produce a bloom this year! Yeaaaaahhhh!!! You go Darcey Bussel with your RMV-self.