North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

["H.Dessureault" <inter.verbis@atreide.net>]

Mr. Fackler,
Thanks for your response regarding the origin of Williams Pride and sorry if 
I have offended anyone particularly M. Ed Williams, or his friends and 
acquaintances, with my doubts about the origin of the Williams Pride. 
It is an unfortunate coincidence that Apples of New York, in vol. II, p. 442, 
lists and shows a picture of a very beautiful early apple called Williams, 
alias Williams Favorite, etc.. which by the way looks more like my Williams 
Pride than the picture of those very nice looking Williams Pride sent to me 
by a member of this list (quite green with very dark red shading) with whom I 
am exchanging some thought on the subject and soon I hope a digitized photo 
of my nice but very different Williams Pride. 
My problem is not really with the name, but you might say with the apple. I 
suggested that his apple may not be Williams Pride, and he replied that it 
was the same as other Williams Pride he had seen.  
Maybe, he has the Williams Prides and I don't. 
But, my apple sure looks like the description of the Williams in the book, 
and I took the scion from a tree labelled Williams Pride, which had been 
grafted also. So, you can now appreciate my comments on the origin of the 
apple.
Maybe, someone else confused the two.
My apple is «pale yellow turning bright red in downward stripes, and has a 
definite russet spotting around the cavity only, uneven but spread all around 
the cavity, which is shallow. The two sides are uneven. The shape is somewhat 
conic and the size is medium, somewhat like an Empire. »
The tree is vigourous and hardy, somewhat sprawling and spreading but with a 
central leader (as opposed to compact). The bark is medium brown tinged with 
green.

I tried to pick my only specimen this morning to examine it more closely but 
it is attached very solidly to the tree, so I left it thinking it may not be 
fully ripe yet.

I was also interested in your comment about bitter pit associated with Ca 
deficiencies. It explains why Williams Pride are not recommended with M111, 
which happen to perform quite well in low ph, sandy soil, BUT poor in Ca and 
Mag. 

I felt an explanation was in order.
Thanks again,
Hélène, zone 3



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/zoU8wD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/VAOolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->





------------------LIST GUIDELINES----------------------

1) Please sign your posting.  Include climate and location information if 
relevent.
2) Attached files will be stripped from your messages.  Post attachments on 
the www.YahooGroups.com website.
3) To unsubscribe send a BLANK message to 
        nafex-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
4) Include only pertinent comments/questions when replying to a posting and 
NOT the entire message (especially if the initial posting was large). 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/