Since you're a fan of huge fragrant stuffed blooms, I'm not at all surprised that you're not enthralled with Austin's 'Comtes de Champagne', a rose which produces blooms that are on the small side of medium, have fewer than 20 petals, and with very mild fragrance (at best).

Is there any chance that you've confused CdC, with 'Comte de Chambord' -- a rose that does possess all the attributes you prefer?

(Responding to this has me craving a Kir Framboise. My recipe: Place a shot of Chambord in a tall champagne flute; fill the flute with your favorite champagne.)

This post was edited by jaxondel on Thu, Aug 1, 13 at 10:12

I was charmed by pictures of Comte de Champagne. Thought I'd get out of my comfort box and try something different. Not sure it's working. :)

Sounds like a good recipe!!

Carol

I had CdC but having a very on and off thing with Austin roses, this was one of the unfortunates which didn't make the cut when we ripped out the old garden. The fault, however, was largely mine since CdC had a prominent position in front of a far too narrow bed. It is a graceful rose with much that reminds me of china roses and consequently, required some strong supporting cast members to flesh out the gangly coltishness and reticent blooms. I know I am not giving this rose a glowing review (it got BS as well) but I honestly liked it. It was refined and demure - a rose for a mixed border and not a standalone specimen.

Hmmm....that does not sound good. :)
Since all of my roses are in pots - they need to be stand alone roses.
I know someone whose garden it will look fantastic in. I think I'll give it to her.
Thanks!
Carol

Good Idea....and well done for looking further than your usual choices - those are the times when serendipity strikes and offers up lovely surprises - all the better after taking a bit of a risk.