My love affair with the Penzance roses began in the Arnold Arboretum about 30 years ago. They had a grove of several that were 10' tall free standing shrubs. Checking the label, I found they were 'Greenmantle' and Malcolm Lowe in Manchester, NH was the source of the plants. So I decided that for a wild garden the Penzance roses were what I needed. I headed up to NH where I bought 'Greenmantle' and a selection of OGRs.

Over the years I bought all the cultivars I could find, including 'Amy Robsart' which I still have. All of them, given enough time to mature, will make a tall free standing shrub. I have never managed to reach the magnificence of the Arnold Arboretum grove, but even in zone 4, if given enough time and manure, they will make a free standing shrub with canes arching gracefully from about 10' (over three meters).

All the Penzance roses I have seen have typical R. eglanteria canes and thorns.

The reference from 1900 speaks of "rare and strong" prickles. No mention of arming in other sources. One German nursery mentions strongly armed canes. A further case of mislabelling?

When I was living in San Diego 25 years ago there was a huge free standing MAC in the Quail botanical garden. The plant must have been many decades old and really impressed me with its size and its attractive overall shape.

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to me and the rose photos here, on Flickr, and every other site with rose photos. But what is important to remember is that this site is dependent on user's contributions and we must respect their contributions even if imperfect. Without user photos, this site would be much less useful.

That said, I really don't think that close up photos of the center of a flower contributes in any way to help identify a plant nor are they artistically attractive. I like to give a flower space to "breath" in a photo, that is to say I like to show space around a flower because it adds some sort of context to the photo as well as giving a more complete view. So, I am saying that adding some artistic sense can also contribute to helping identify a plant by the flowers. After all, why does HMF show photos of the flowers? I would argue that rather than being primarily a venue for artistic expression, it is a resource for plant identification.

To that goal, it then becomes important to photograph the entire plant: flowers, stems, prickles, leaves and the entire bush. Some of the roses on this site are extremely rare or the flowers can be very similar to other rose cultivars. In these instances particularly, it is important to show details that help in plant identification. Sometimes it comes down to minor details like the length and shape of a sepal, or the number of glandular bristles on a peduncle.

I don't think you can filter out user's photos, but you can definitely follow a user whose photos you find useful, simply by clicking on the user name and checking out their photos.

I have already said enough, but while I am pontificating about useful photos to help identify a plant, it is important to point out that the provenance of the plant is also very important. That's why HMF asks when the photo was taken and the provenance of the plant. For instance, there is occasionally a vendor who has an incorrectly labeled rose. Those photos eventually end up on HMF mislabeled. If we know the vendor, we can then help them to correctly identify that rose. Even the date of the photo can be useful. If I want to visit a garden in a different region, I would like to know when the roses in that location flower.