I'd say that we'd know Rose A pretty well from that description, and most of us could make a pretty quick decision about whether we'd want it and if so, just which of our current roses it might replace!

Advantages

Picture the advantages to our hobby if reference roses were designated and used for comparing new varieties. New as well as experienced rosarians would benefit by avoiding me-too roses. Better results with the better varieties would help increase the joy of roses across the country. Further, hybridizers and introducers would know what the target was: any new introductions that didn’t compare well to the reference varieties on some important trait would be harder to sell; the quality bar would be raised as far back as seedling evaluations. Eventually, when all the new introductions were ‘better’ than the reference rose on all characteristics, a new, higher quality standard could be chosen and the bar raised still further.

Getting Started

Reference Rose Designation: Since most of the new rose introductions seem to be one of five modern types (HT, FL, GR, Mini, Shrub) I think the need for reference roses is probably the highest there. Much as I love the OGRs, they are not being introduced in large quantities so the need for screening new introductions is not as keen. Further, the diversity of the OGRs and debate over the categorizations would greatly complicate that endeavor. Thus, I think there should be a reference rose chosen for each of the those five types, for the major color classes and major color combination (red/yellow, red/white, red/pink, etc.).

Stabilizing the list of characteristics: We also would need to come up with the list of characteristics to compare. The example above could be used as a starting point for discussions, but refinement is clearly needed.

Disease Resistance: an exception?

One refinement occurs; what would the best comparison for resistance? We could put more emphasis on disease resistance by comparing new roses’ resistance to a variety known to be extremely resistant, rather than a reference rose in its class which might or might not be very resistant. For example, if Mister Lincoln were a reference rose, it would not be hard for many varieties to be ‘better than reference rose’ on rust resistance. Thus, it may be better to designate one highly-resistant variety for each major disease, and comparing all roses’s resistance to them to them.

Possible Side Effects: 'And Then What?'

One effect, as noted above, could be to reduce the number of new roses commercially introduced. But if the introduced roses were the better ones, would we miss the rest? Arguably diversity is a good thing, but with 20,000 varieties and species in Modern Roses X it may be that we don’t need to go for diversity, at the cost of adding me-too varieties.

Another possible effect could be convergence of breeding activities. If everyone shoots at the same targets, wouldn’t most of the results be similar? This would be regrettable. If the disease was too many me-too introductions, the cure shouldn’t inhibit the production of truly unique roses. There will always be a need for unique plants, and these should be encouraged. Mossy miniatures, dahlia-flowered roses, halos, micro-minis, ground covers, new varieties of the OGR classes, and the list goes on and on. My sense is that a truly unique rose will get the reception it deserves; that rosarians know a truly new thing when they see it.

Putting it into Practice

Of course, this idea may not be completely practical. To work, we would need to get a set of standard roses defined, and get them established in the test gardens so comparisons can be done easily. And, resistance and inertia can be strong brakes to changes of this sort; as one very knowledgeable rosarian told me when considering this idea, "Joel, this could cut new rose introductions by half." Of course, the half that would be cut would be those we’d probably be digging out three years hence...would that be such a bad thing?