Foliage doesn't look right to me-- but I don't see OB often.

could be but it sort of reminds me of a caldwell pink.

NOT OB. Michael's right. The foliage is wrong.
Is it possible to get a close look at a stipule?

Jeri

Hope these help. I've also noticed that there are no thorns on the branch I took. I can't remember if there were thorns on the mother plant. New foliage is pretty red. My sister-in-law's is a nice size full, rounded bush. At least 4 X 3. (I wish I took my camera down there with me, darn!)

{{gwi:310037}}

{{gwi:310038}}

{{gwi:310040}}

my CP has much tighter-shape to the blooms. I would go with Old Blush cus of the bloom shapes - except the experts don't think so. sort of a bon silene shape to the flowers, but the color is off. Is it a thorny monster? I had one similar that was supposed to be Banshee - finally got rid of it cus it wasn't worth the realestate it took up - few blooms, no scent, suckered like mad...

I do believe with a great amount of certainty that this is not Old Blush. I grew it for many years and neither the flower nor the leaves have any similarity to that rose. Unfortunately it's often easier to say what a rose is not than what it is, and my wisdom ends here. I hope someone can actually identify this rose for you.

Good luck.

Ingrid

Your going to be mad at me ... but it sure looks a lot like Mistress Quickly. This is a newer Austin I've had for about three years. It's a large vigorous upright growing rose even up here ... mine is in bloom and I'll have a harder look and if I am convinced I will flick you a picture for you to compare tomorrow as it is pitch black right now.

The reasons I say it sure looks like it is it has pink blooms that can go quite messy into that quill ball shape, no more than 1.5 to 2 inches in diameter and strong pointed leaves with prominent veining as in that plant, few if any thorns ... but I notice Heirloom does not carry it so maybe they received it as a mistake.

This is my Mistress Quickly tonight. It seems to share many of the traits of your roses but your in a better position to compare.

{{gwi:310042}}

{{gwi:310044}}

{{gwi:310046}}

Hi riku! Thanks for posting your pics. It does look very similar! (and here we've been propagating it, shame on us if it is Mistress Quickly.) It really seemed like an old rose to us. We all thought it was Old Blush. Heirloom does not currently carry that one. I have some older Heirloom Catalogs, one from 1999 has Mistress Quickly in it. (I acquired lots of fabulous older catalogs from them at their sale this year, PACKED with old rose photos and descriptions.) The 1999 catalog says that it is an 'upright, narrow grower.' My mom and sis-in-law's is a very wide, rounded bush. Not tall and narrow at all. My mom probably got hers about 5 years ago. It is very possible that it may be Mistress Quickly. HMF says Mistress Quickly is Blush Noisette x Martin Frobisher. The photos there look very similar as well. The foliage is a dead-ringer. Very interesting Riku! Thank you so much for sharing. We will no longer give cuttings away or propagate this one any longer. Remember, it was a 'mystery' rose. I've never heard of this rose before, and I like Austins too. Whatever it is, we all really like it. Very disease resistant, never sprayed, it is also very vigorous, and constantly in bloom. How do you like yours Riku?

I like mine and your information (Martin Frobisher cross) sure answers in my mind why it seems to have done well in zone 3 whereas Blush Noisette did not make it through it's first winter even with protection and being in a premium south facing sheltered location for an out of zone roses. I also grow old blush and like most chinas - but not all - it has survived winter with protection but has to largely start over.

Mistress Quickly on the other hand is in the back north facing more hostile winter gardens - I protect it by covering and last year it actually had cane to start with in spring.

It has kept coming back to a respectable size so far (4 feet by September) and gives a reliable bloom - actually I believe this is the third repeat bloom. I believe the 4 foot height is probably more driven by Martin genes as Martin Frobisher does not go much higher than that in my garden. My does not have an arching manner but then for the most part it has to start over and never is allowed to build outward in 100 days plus of no frost.

Once it makes 5 winters - a sort of ARF bench mark - I'll be confident to say Austin's got another that is a good perennial rose for zone 3 and gives a good size in that here I don't need to go down on my knees to admire it- something in his breeding program sure makes a lot of his roses good perennials for zone 3 besides the repeating gene - one smart move being in this case using Martin Frobisher.

As to the propagation stuff, I come here to relax so I am not into passing judgment - unless somebody is being an obstinate, obnoxious, obtuse, arrogant, weeny.

But if you want a suggestion to clear it up forever get two more independent identifications like one from a labeled rose in a public access garden because right now the form of yours is not the same as mine (mine definitely rigid and upright like Martin Frobisher). Doubt you will find many examples as this one is not a "runaway commercial success" but a rose I like.