Off the top of my head, I think there was a DNA study that showed the Damask rose itself is a complex hybrid between R. gallica, R. moschata, and R. fedtschenkoana. Whether or not Ispahan includes something else, I don't know. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will chime in.

@bellegallica9a Thank you for your comment,

I believe you are right! I saw on HMF that the damask group is R. Gallica, R. Moschata, and R. Fedtschenkoana, pretty cool, and crazy since they are specie roses far away from each other

Facts, @mad_gallica

Thanks for the wisdom

"Damask rose itself is a complex hybrid between R. gallica, R. moschata, and R. fedtschenkoana."

To the best of our current understanding, this is the case, yes. The "Centifolia" types pretty much fall into the same vague category; they are all mongrel hybrids, most of which we know next to nothing about (in terms of their parentage).

So, I have adopted a very loose definition of what constitutes a "true Damask": if it quacks like a duck, etc, etc. Many roses have been classified this way, with someone looking at the variety and deciding that it looks most like a *fill in the blank* so we will call it that. The ARS had a hand in making a lot of decisions as well, since every rose had to be classifiable in order to compete in shows. (IMO a lot of dubious decisions were made, and now we are stuck with them, but oh well)

So is 'Ispahan' a true Damask? Sure, why not?! As true as the class definition allows, really.

@Paul Barden Honestly you saying this makes it clearer to me. You honesty are completely right! On top of that, is it just me or do Centiflolias & Damask resemble each other significantly? I feel like Gallicas have a distinct features, albas not as much but their features are there.

Thanks friend!