The comment that catalogs are written to sell roses is correct, but location, climate, make a tremendous difference. I grew Henry Nevard back in the mid 1980s, in my first garden in Granada Hills, CA. I succumbed to the Roses of Yesterday and Today catalog description only to find it is NOT a desert rose. The foliage burned very badly in hundred-plus degree heat, as did the flowers. I never saw anything deeper than a medium red bloom due to the intensity of the heat and light. Mildew, rust and black spot were constant companions unless the heat was high and humidity low. I finally gave it away to someone who tried it for a year then shovel pruned it. I had the same experience in that garden with most of the other Hybrid Perpetuals I'd bought from them. The only one which basked in that climate was Everest, a tremendous white rose for that area. I've learned, though, that deep red is not a color which accompanies good plants in general. The garnet velvet with damask fragrance often brings with it thorny, disease prone foliage. Studying Austin roses will show much of that. It's not absolute, and it is highly climate dependent, but in general you'll find that link to be pretty solid.

 Each writer can either repeat what's been written previously (which is MOST often the case), or report his or her own experience. Unless you're reading a catalog which has been written by someone who has grown the rose for a while, you're only going to see the established rose lore regurgitated. A rule of thumb I adopted many years ago was never to buy a rose book written by anyone who hadn't grown roses, LOTS of roses, for many years. Otherwise, there is seldom any new information, and never any new knowledge  in it.  Even when buying rose books from knowledgeable authors, the new information is seldom worth the price of admission. Study Peter Beales' books. They advertise hundreds of roses covered in each volume. Looking up the same variety in each one will provide you with the same photo with the same blurb found in the other volumes.

Catalogs from large companies often follow the same path. It isn't realistic to expect anyone in the company to really know anything about the rose, other than the R&D person who made the selection to include it in the product mix. Those aren't the folks who are going to create the descriptions you're going to base your choices on. Someone in some office is charged with obtaining a description which will sell that product. Each retelling of the description lends more authenticity to the information, even though the last  people who have used it have never even seen the particular rose, much less lived with it in their gardens. Remember the misinformation about English Rose sizes offered everywhere up to about five years ago? British descriptions stated a particular rose was a "mannerly four foot shrub", which it probably was in England. That information, nor the rose, translated well to America, where many of our zones produced sprawling, ten to fifteen foot monsters. Yet, until someone tired of promoting misinformation and began paying attention to those who lived with the roses, the catalogs all stated the rose is a "mannerly four foot shrub".

Forums such as this one are your most reliable source of information. Read the "rose porn" as it will open your eyes to roses you might otherwise miss seeing. Researching them here, with people who have actually lived with them is still your most reliable information. As the old Packard automobile ads said, "Ask the man who owns one".