After a long, wet summer still no sign of black spot while many other roses have it.

Something about this foundling said to me that there was a lot of tea in the lineage and
when I read Harry Hazlewood in the 1933 reference for ‘Mme. Jules Bouche’, and which made me read further, I was fairly convinced that “Marie’s White” (named after the lady who found it at the rubbish tip) could well be ‘Mme. Jules Bouche’. Don’t you just love that? – rescuing a 1910 rose from the rubbish tip. The only thing against this identification is the 1921 reference wherein the Rev. Pemberton says “Wood and foliage claret colour”. I think he quite possibly meant to say …..NEW wood and foliage, and then everything would jell. There are many references for ‘Mme. Jules Bouche’ but they all help to really know what a rose is like. They certainly helped me. My favourite of all is the 1930 reference. Take a look. I would love other opinions on whether “Marie’s White” is or isn’t ‘Mme. Jules Bouche’.

Later edit, November 7, 2016. Margaret Furness confirms to Patricia that "Marie's White" and 'Mme Jules Bouche' at Renmark, S.A. are the same.

Although this rose is described as "moderately fragrant," I would say that, in the San Francisco Bay area, both the climbing and upright versions of this rose qualify as exceptionally fragrant, and rather uniquely scented. I'm kind of at a loss for descriptors, but will try... if Mister Lincoln, Chrysler Imperial or Don Juan could be compared to a glass of red burgundy, then Mme Jules Bouche would be more like cheesecake. Sickly HTs are a class I generally hold in contempt, but I bought this one, despite its mildew problems, for the scent alone.