Thank you both for your replies. I've heard of other old roses having "deteriorated" in the course of time, too ,and it's also true that standards and meanings of words change over time. Both of these explanations make sense.
This rose does NOT seem to me to be especially vigourous,by any means.I would be very grateful if some of those who grow this rose could weigh in on the matter. I posted about this on two rose forums and several people seemed to concur with me. Why is it described as vigourous on this site?
It was described as vigorous on this site because references from 1885, 1889 and 1892 quoted it as being so. Perhaps it has just lost a bit of vigour over the past 135 years.
In central NC, this rose become quite large, spreading 6-8 feet wide and 8-10 feet tall. It blooms in a huge spring flush then periodically in small clusters until fall. Its fragrance is intense and unique. It also seems to sucker a bit on its own roots (like other rugosas and related hybrids) but not nearly to the extent that the true rugosa species do.
