In terms of color, they are both beautiful dark reds/magenta/ruby red. The main differences are that Will2000 is a bigger and more sprawling bush. Mine got about 3.5-4 ft tall and about 5-6 ft wide. So far in my zone Munstead has stayed at about 2.5 ft tall and wide, but admittedly Munstead is only a couple years old in my garden.

Will2000 was fairly good at bs resistance, but occasionally needed some help (spray). So far, Munstead has not needed any spraying.

Will2000 unfortunately was in a bit too much shade -- so didn't bloom as often as I'd wish. Munstead, which gets lots of sun, is a much better bloomer. If they were both in sun, I have no idea if Will2000 would have bloomed as well as Munstead--though I'm sure it would have improved.

From my viewpoint, size would be the main difference--and since you already have a couple Munsteads, I might be tempted to get Will2000, assuming I had enough space for it. Will2000 can be quite showy when it is in bloom.

Kate

I prefer the color and scent, and also the shrub form, of Munstead Wood. In my garden WS2000 took on the octopus form.

Munstead Wood has only been growing 1 year in my garden. I have had WS in a pot for three years. I love them both! To my nose WS2000 has the more enjoyable scent. Delicious!. However, the colour on MW is to die for. Although she is a baby she bloomed more than WS2000. Who I think loves it a little cooler.

But my friend , life is too short. I would get them both. Ws2000 may be a star in your garden. But you won't know until you try it. Variety is the spice of life.

I Like how WS turns purple. It seems alot of people see that as a failing, but I like it.

If I seeone at the nursery I'll grab him.

I also readb on one site that he's good for cutting. Is this true?

I use gardeners supply co tomato ladders to support my ws2000, they are sturdy and easy to move after yearly pruning. You only need them until the canes mature in the upright position and then they stay that way. Then you can have a taller than wider bush. WS 2000 has lovely fragrance so don't miss out.

Adam, it would help if you provided your zone and growing conditions since different varieties sometimes do better or worse depending on where you live. Here, Munstead Woods is healthier than WS2000. WS2000 was winter killed last year after being weakened by blackspot (and mine never got big or sprawling) and Munstead is still going strong.

Hi Lori. I didn't realise all my zone details dropped off with the new format!

I think I'm like a zone 10 based on this https://www.anbg.gov.au/gardens/research/hort.research/zones.html. I'm just south of Perth on the west coast of Australia. We have a warm Mediterranean climate with hot dry summers and cool damp winters. I'm by the coast, so winter night time lows are fairly high. But we do get one or two light, light frosts. Soil is pretty much grubby quartz beach sand.

Ah, well my results could be quite different from yours. I edited my profile and put my zone info in my name field or otherwise it doesn't show anymore.

I have both Munstead Wood and WS2000. Both do reasonably well. Munstead can throw canes as long as about 6 to 8 ft. It has a more persistent red color and doesn't purple out as badly as WS2000. WS2000 wants to sprawl sideways, but it sure has an extra good fragrance to the flowers. I think it is a pay your money, and take your choice situation.

So here is the WS2000 I grabbed yesterday, freshly potted on and drenched in worm wee. He's only small but had a couple of buds. But the katydids helped themselves to one this morning.

I can see already he has horizontal tendancies.

I have WS 2000 it's stayed smallish, but the blooms are lovely. I am getting Munstead Wood this year. I can never have too many dark red/purple roses. I also have The Prince and Tradescant. In fact, I will have two Tradescants. The one I have I didn't think it was going to make it through the winter, so I bought another one.

The WS2000 last long and make a good cut flower for a mass display. The fragrance is wonderful. I love the quartered quality of the blooms.

Thanks Buford.

I agree with you on the reds. Provided they're fragrant.

I am moving towards more cutting roses as I've been taking bunches into work to brighten up the section. Munstead is a favorite and lasts at least 4 days. I'm glad I bought two.

Buford, you're in a similar zone as me. How do you find the difference between Munstead and WS2000 now that they're in their second years?

Shakespeare 2000 without the BS it gets later in the season. I find that the flowers tend to be caged" and so I have to disband them. I also prune him very hard down the second year, to make him not grow in any direction. My Mustead Wood doesn't have as much shading as the Shakespeare does. in the PNW.

Shakespeare 2000 in full sun.

Shakespeare 2000 in only morning sun.

Shakespeare 2000 without the BS it gets later in the season. I find that the flowers tend to be caged" and so I have to disband them. I also prune him very hard down the second year, to make him not grow in any direction. My Mustead Wood doesn't have as much shading as the Shakespeare does. in the PNW.

Shakespeare 2000 in full sun.

Shakespeare 2000 in only morning sun.

Don't know why it added it twice!!

About the only similarities of the two roses are that they are dark red roses with OGR like blooms and damask derived scent, bred by DA. The colour shade, growth pattern, scent etc etc are very different.

How does Falstaff compare to Shakespeare’s and munstead wood?

Janet, Falstaff is quite fragrant and beautifully colored as are the other two. It tends to bloom in a more deep pinkish red than crimson red as the other two do. I also find that Munstead and Wm 2000 frequently age more mauve-violet than Falstaff does. In Portland, I'd rate order of blackspot resistance as follows: best resistance Munstead, next best Falstaff and 3rd Wm 2000. Falstaff is a more upright grower than Munstead and Wm 2000. Almost Hybrid Tea like but with a nice form and foliage. Not one to drape over a wall. Personally, in the right spot, I like it! A lot. I planted Falstaff in several clients' inner city gardens, and it was beautiful, well mannered and deliciously scented. Good cut flowers and the color plays well with others. Carol

Each of these roses has a distinct personality in my garden. WS2K stays fairly short, less than 3 feet, with a spreading stature, moderate thorns. Flowers are heavily scented of violets, well quartered. Mine don't fade to purple like those in the photos above. The flowers don't take heat well at all. Munstead Wood is bushier, but still a bit sprawling in my garden, heavily thorned, sparsely leafed, also not more than three feet tall in its third year. Blooms can be quartered, but not as densely as WS2K, and only with the earliest blooms, usually the flowers are a looser form. Color is dark purplish red in cooler weather, turning to bright fuchsia pink at temperatures above 80F, and tolerate heat better (almost nothing has flowers which don't get crispy in midsummer's dry roasting heat here). Fragrance is rich old rose, gone by afternoon. Falstaff grows to about five feet tall here, spreading, moderately thorned. Flowers stay a rich crimson red throughout their lives, and are cupped. Fragrance is not reliable here, but can be old rose with litchi. Flower buds do not tolerate wind at all, my plant usually loses all its buds in the spring winds. All three plants need to be well watered, especially WS2K, and Falstaff in particular needs a rich diet to perform.

In addition to the detailed and insightful comments from Carol and noseometer, these Austins also differ quite a bit in terms of hardiness. Munstead Wood is reliably root hardy in zone 5, WS2000 is variably root hardy in virtual zone 6 for me, and Falstaff is being given every possible protection in virtual zone 6 without any winter survival in a previous try. Beyond that, I like the dark purple color of MW better, but the form of WS2000 can be a lovely quartered perfection at its best that takes my breath away (but only sometimes).

Cynthia

I think that Carol, noseometer, and Cynthia perfectly describe the differences, pluses and minuses of WS2000 and MW. Here are some photos that might help.

My favorite WS 2000 photo looking more mauve.

My WS 2000 is more consistently red while my MW is more of purple/red.

My favorite MW photo. MW is VERY thorny and requires a lot of work to remove the thorns if you do that as part of making it a cut flower.

MW collage showing color is more purplish than WS2000

Photo from last winter with a touch of frost that makes me think of sugar!

After about three years with Munstead Wood and WS 2000, MW appears to be a much more prolific bloomer with a better shape than WS 2000 which tends to sprawl a bit. WS 2000 can at times be prettier than MW but not consistently.

Ann

Ann I love that last photo of MW...crimson lipstick with a dusting of powdered sugar!

Thanks sjn!

Ann

William Shakespeare 2000

Munstead Wood

Falstaff