A Few Notes on the Origins of ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’

In the autumn of 2024 I bit into my first ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ – a small, conical, golden-coloured apple, lightly russeted and speckled with brown lenticels, very pretty indeed – with, I have to admit, some trepidation. The reason being: I’ve never been able to stand the taste of actual pineapple¹, and when I first encountered ‘Pitmaston’ at an Apple Day event a few years ago, I was cheerfully told by the organiser that it “really tastes like pineapple!” and so of course I steered well clear.

However, I’m very happy to report that when I did finally take that first bite I couldn’t detect any more than the merest background hint of pineapple flavour. Instead, I was treated to a lovely, crisp crunch and a rush of juice, nothing too sugary, but with a delightful, slightly nutty, honeyed sweetness, and nothing in the way of a strong tropical tang. It was absolutely delicious, and quickly became a firm personal favourite. ‘It’s ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ isn’t one that you’ll ever see in a major supermarket, but if you do find it at a farmer’s market or greengrocer in the Autumn, then I highly recommend giving it a try.

Now, you might already be lucky enough to be familiar with this lovely little apple, but know it under a slightly different name. In which case, you might have noticed that I’ve been writing ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’, rather than ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’ and wondered what I was playing at.

The latter version of the name can be found in a great many fruit nursery catalogues today, but a search for ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’ on the National Fruit Collection database – the UK’s central authority for fruit variety naming – makes it clear that the N.F.C. considers this to be a synonym of the preferred name, which is ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’; three words, not two.

Being a bit of a pedant² though, I was intrigued enough to have a look at the source material, to see if I could unpick the back-story of the ‘Pitmaston…’ and determine which version of the name is definitely correct. And I reckon I have. Are you in the mood for a spot of amateur pomological ~~pedantry~~ detective work? If so, you’re in luck! Do read on. And if not, then please feel free to jump ahead to the summary section for a quick overview of my findings if you’d prefer the TL;DR version.

Checking the Sources

Time to hit the books. I started off with a selection of the essential modern texts, in reverse chronological order. First up, Caroline Ball’s Heritage Apples (2019), in which the author told us:

“Pitmaston occurs in a number of fruit names, and not just apples, the introduction of which can be mostly traced back to one man: John Williams (1773 – 1853) of Pitmaston House on the south-western outskirts of Worcester. The Pitmaston Pine Apple was originally raised, at the end of the eighteenth century, upon the estate of Lord Foley at Witley Court, some fifteen miles north, but by 1820 was being grown in Williams’s ornamental orchard.”

What a start! We already have the original inspiration for the ‘Pitmaston’ element of the name – Pitmaston House, once the Worcester property of one John Williams, now a grade II listed building³ – and both a potential location and an approximate date-range for its raising: nearby Witley Court – currently a “romantic ruin” and gardens, cared for by English Heritage – in the late eighteenth century.

That’s a solid reference to start with, but let’s see if there’s any corroborating info anywhere else. Christopher Stocks provided a more detailed back-story for ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ in Forgotten Fruits (2008) in which he said:

“Pitmaston Pine Apple seems to have first been shown at the Horticultural Society of London in 1845 by the notable fruit breeder John Williams of Pitmaston House in Worcester. Although Williams raised many other varieties, including the Pitmaston Duchess pear, the Pine Apple is said to have been originally grown around 1785 by a Mr White at Witley Court, just a few miles north-west of Worcester. White was steward to Lord Foley, owner of both Witley and Stoke Edith, and a grand mansion east of Hereford, which has confused several writers into stating that it was raised in Herefordshire rather than Worcestershire.”

Stocks also mentioned a couple of times that it’s the fragrance of the apple that’s reminiscent of pineapple, rather than the flavour per se, although obviously the two are closely linked from a sensory point of view.⁴

Next up: Joan Morgan and Alison Richards who, in The New Book of Apples (2002), had this to say on ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’:

“UK; raised c1785 by Mr White, steward to Lord Foley of Stoke Edith, Herefords.
Golden Pippin seedling. Exhib 1845 at London Hort Soc by J. Williams, Pitmaston, Worcester.
In good year, intensely flavoured, sweet yet sharp, rich, nutty, honeyed. Hogg found ‘distinct pineapple flavour’ and Bunyard ‘remarkable blend of honey and musk’, but some years not nearly so good. Repopularised by Bunyard Nursery in 1920s.”

Morgan and Richards placed Mr White at Stoke Edith rather than Witley Court, which could perhaps have been a minor mix-up of different branches of the Foley family, between whom the two properties seem to have swapped back and forth during the eighteenth century, although as we’ll see later on, perhaps not. Morgan and Richards also provides that c. 1785 date for the apple’s raising, and 1845 as the date of it being exhibited at the London Horticultural Society, by J(ohn) Williams.

John Bultitude’s Apples (1983) has the following entry for ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’:

“History: Raised by Mr White, steward to Lord Foley at Witley, England, in about 1785. Said to be a Golden Pippin seedling. Introduced by Williams of Pitmaston, Worcester, England.

General Comments: Distinctly small conical apple. It can only be regarded as a garden variety suitable for the connoisseur.”

Then there’s Muriel Smith’s National Apple Register (1971) which includes this typically concise note:

“Said to be Golden Pippin x … Raised at Witley by Mr White, steward to Lord Foley. Introduced by Williams of Pitmaston … Raised c. 1785.”

H. V. Taylor, in The Apples of England (2nd ed. 1945 and 3rd ed. 1946), also mentioned the ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ and, along with a description of the apple, he provided quotes from two earlier sources. The first is Bull and Hogg’s Herefordshire Pomona, which we’ll come back to, and the second is Edward A. Bunyard’s A Handbook of Hardy Fruits More Commonly Grown in Great Britain (1920), in which Bunyard described ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ as having “a most deliciously scented and honeyed flavour” and said this about its origin:

“… this was first shown at the Royal Horticultural Show, in 1845, and the origin then given was that it was raised from the Old Golden Pippin, more than sixty years ago, by Mr. White, of Witley, steward to Lord Foley. Hogg says it was raised by Mr. Williams, of Pitmaston, but this is evidently wrong as it was only sent to London by him.”

Bunyard also mentioned ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ in The Anatomy of Dessert (1929):

“Those who are curious in flavours should try the delicious Pitmaston Pine Apple, a remarkable blend of honey and musk. Too small for modern demands, it is worthy of a corner in any epicurean garden.”

In his Handbook, Bunyard seemed happy to throw shade on the opinion of the late, great Robert Hogg, and honestly, I don’t blame him. I’ve discovered from my own research into the ‘Beefing’ group of apples that Hogg was a bit of one for stating an erroneous opinion and then sticking with it through thick and thin and despite evidence to the contrary. But let’s take a look at what Hogg had to say on the subject of this particular apple, and see where the great pomologist got it wrong⁵.

Hogg was the technical editor of The Herefordshire Pomona (1885), which was produced under the general editorship of Henry Graves Bull, and volume two of the collected edition of that work includes a beautiful illustration of ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’, by either Alice Blanche Ellis or Edith Elizabeth Bull, in the bottom left-hand corner of plate LXIX:

Along with a description of the apple there’s this brief note on the origin of the variety:

“A seedling raised by Mr. Williams, of Pitmaston, near Worcester (c. 1825).”

In my ‘Beefing’ work I’ve discussed the likelihood that a number of the descriptions of apples in The Herefordshire Pomona were taken, pretty much verbatim and presumably with permission, from Hogg’s own magmum opus, The Fruit Manual, the 5th and final edition of which was published in 1884. In that volume Hogg provided a lengthy technical descriptions of the apple, and said:

“Flesh, yellowish, firm, crisp, and juicy, rich, and with a distinct pine-apple flavour … A dessert apple of the greatest excellence in use during December to January. This was raised by Mr Williams of Pitmaston near Worcester.”

A couple of things to note in passing: the first is the spelling of pineapple, hyphenated, as “pine-apple”, and the second is Hogg’s suggestion that the apple was raised, rather than introduced, by Mr Williams. This is the factoid that Bunyard took exception to, and as we’ll see, Hogg was indeed quite wrong, although perhaps forgivably so, as we’ll see.

The earlier editions of The Fruit Manual are the fourth (1875), also included the erroneous Williams raising and the “distinct pine-apple flavour” description; the third (1866) and second (1862), both had descriptions of the variety but no notes as to its origin and a mention of “a distinct pine flavour” – by “pine”, did Hogg mean pineapple, or something more resinous? – and the first (1860), in which ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ wasn’t mentioned.

It’s also worth noting in passing that Hogg might not have been immune to confusion over the spelling of the name. In the second and third editions the variety is given as ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ in a list of Winter Apples, whereas the main directory entry is headed ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’. The latter was corrected for the fourth and fifth editions, so perhaps Hogg noticed the error and corrected it, although of course the earlier mis-spelling could have been a type-setting error rather than an editorial one.

That first, 1860 edition of The Fruit Manual was a short volume of only 280 pages, so Hogg may have omitted ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ simply because there were other, better-known varieties that he decided to include instead. But it wasn’t included in Hogg’s much longer work British Pomology Vol 1 – The Apple (1851) either, which perhaps suggests that it didn’t come to his attention until some time just prior to 1862.

Hogg aside, was anyone else talking about ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ in-between its debut by Mr Williams in 1845 and Hogg’s taking note of it around 1862? There are a couple of mentions in nurserymen’s catalogues of the day. Alexander Campbell and Sons of Glasnevin in Dublin were offering ‘Pittmaston’s Pine Apple’ – surely just a spelling variation – for sale in their 1861 catalogue. Prior to that ‘Pitmaston Pine-apple’ is listed in the 1855, 1857 and 1860 catalogues from Thomas Rivers and Sons. Thomas Rivers was a great friend of Hogg’s, so perhaps it could have been Rivers who brought ‘Pitmaston Pine-Apple’ to the great pomologist’s eventual attention? And do note the hyphenated spelling again, as that will become relevant shortly. The earliest Rivers catalogue that has been digitised and is available online to-date is that of 1853, and whilst that one doesn’t include ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’, but there are a couple of rather similarly-named varieties, which I’ll come back to in a while.

This all brings us closer and closer to the 1845 date given in those later sources for the introduction of ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ by Mr John Williams of Pitmaston House, Worcester. And unusually for this sort of research, in my experience at least, it turns out that there’s a piece of excellent primary evidence for the details of that introduction, that comes straight from Williams himself.

Meet John Williams

Before we take a look at that primary source, let’s have a few background notes on John Williams. According to a 1999 article by William Watson that I found on the Worcestershire Biological Records Centre website:

“John Williams (1773-1853), described as being a crusty old Tory of the 18th Century school (Gwilliam, W. 1993), built Pitmaston House along the Malvern Road in St. John’s. He was the most advanced of our (Worcestershire’s) growers. He distributed the Pitmaston Pine Apple which is described as being a connoisseurs apple with a firm, juicy and slightly sweet, with a distinctive flavour. It was first shown in 1845. It had been raised by Mr. White, of Witley, steward to Lord Foley.”

There’s also a lively article from April 2025 by Mike Pryce on the Worcester News website that provides a bit more detail of John Williams’ life, and the building of both Pitmaston House and the high walls that surrounded it.

The frontage of Pitmaston House in Worecester. A large, red-brick, three storey house with a stone-built conservatory to the left, and a gravel drive in front. — Pitmaston House, Worcester, via RightMove, June 2026

More details of the Williams family’s history can be found in the 1863 edition of A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland, Part 90, Volume 2 by Bernard Burke, in which we learns that John Williams was indeed of landed gentry stock. His father, also named John, moved from Herefordshire to Worcester around 1750 and bought a significant amount of land in the county. The actual entry in Burke’s Dictionary concerns the younger John’s second son, Francis-Edward Williams, who in 1863 was the owner of Malvern Hall, and the ‘Lineage’ section of Francis-Edward’s entry contains the following summation of his father’s life:

“JOHN WILLIAMS, Esq. of Pitmaston, co. Worcester, J.P. and D.L., who served as high sheriff 1823. He m. June 1800, Dorothy, youngest dau. of the Rev. Henry Wigley, of Pensham House, co. Worcester, and sister of the late Edmund Wigley, Esq., M.P. for Worcester, and d. 12 June 1853.”

We also know that John Williams was an enthusiastic and successful fruit breeder. We’ve already heard from Christopher Stocks, who mentioned in Forgotten Fruits (1996), that Williams raised the ‘Pitmaston Duchess’ pear⁶ and he’s also credited with raising and introducing the ‘Pitmaston Orange’ nectarine, the ‘Pitmaston Sanguinole’ and ‘Pitmaston Seedling Noblesse’ peaches, the ‘Pitmaston Black’ and ‘Pitmaston Black Scarlet’ strawberries, the ‘Pitmaston White Cluster’ grape, the ‘Pitmaston’, a.k.a. ‘Williams’ Double Bearing Red’ raspberry, as well as the ‘Pitmaston Golden Pippin’, ‘Pitmaston Nonpareil’, ‘Pitmaston Nonpareil Russet’ a.k.a. ‘Pitmaston Russet’, and ‘Pitmaston Golden Wreath’ apples. Not the ‘Williams Bon Chretien’, a.k.a. ‘Williams’, a.k.a. ‘Bartlett’, pear though, which was raised in Aldermaston in Berkshire around 1770 and named for a local nurseryman around 1816, according to Joan Morgan’s The Book of Pears (2015).

Given John Williams’s fruit-breeding track-record it’s unsurprising that Hogg assumed⁷ that ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ was a Williams introduction as well. However, as Bunyard stated in 1920, and Stocks neatly summarised in 2008, John Williams definitely didn’t raise ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ himself. Nor, as Williams himself made clear, did he name it, as we’re about to see.

John Williams Writes

Here then is that rather excellent primary source that I mentioned earlier: a letter sent by John Williams to the Horticultural Society of London at the end of 1845. The letter was published on p.143-144 of the Journal of the Horticultural Society of London, Vol 1⁸ (1846) in an article entitled “An Account of Three new Varieties of the Apple. By John Williams, Esq., of Pitmaston, C.M.H.S. (Communicated December 16th 1845)”.

The text of the first four paragraphs of John Williams's 1845 letter to the London Horticultural Society, the pertinent details of which are discussed in the main article. — Four paragraphs from John Williams’s letter to the London Horticultural Society, Communicated December 16, 1845

Along with the letter, Williams also sent – he wasn’t at the meeting in person, so it’s probably not strictly accurate to say he “exhibited”, or “showed” – four varieties of apple for the Society’s consideration. The first was ‘Pitmaston Golden Pippin’, a very sweet-tasting apple, which Williams said was:

“… a seedling apple which I raised from the kernel of what I believe to be the true Golden Pippin.”

The second was what Williams believed to be the ‘True Golden Pippin’ itself, and a fourth was one that Williams said he had:

“… got upwards of twenty years ago from Mr. Foley’s, of Stoke Edith, in the county of Hereford, where I saw the original tree growing in Mr Foley’s garden. It is known in my garden by the name of the “Stoke Park Pippin”. In character it so much resembles the Old Golden Pippin, that I think it must have been raised from a kernel of that apple.”

There was also a third variety, which I’ve saved as best-for-last, about which Williams said:

“You will also receive a sample of a seedling raised from the Old Golden Pippin, I should think more than sixty years ago, by a Mr White, of Witley, who for many years was the steward to the trustees of the late Lord Foley’s father during the minority of the late Lord. It bears well, resembles its parent, but is a little larger. It is named the “Pine-Apple.””

There are three very interesting details to note here. Firstly, we have the accredited introducer of the ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ telling us that he believed the variety to be a seedling raised from an ‘Old Golden Pippin’ tree that was around sixty years old in 1845. Williams said “I should think more than sixty years ago”, so he clearly wasn’t sure of the exact date, but this must surely be the origin of the assorted assertions in later sources that ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ was raised c. 1785. Although it could be older than that, based on Williams’s opinion.

Secondly, Williams’s letter also helps to clear up something that had been puzzling me since I first spotted the phrase “steward to Lord Foley”, in reference to the Mr White who supposedly raised the seedling, and the attached assumption that this meant the apple was raised at Witley Court. What exactly was the role of a steward in a nineteenth century context? I wasn’t sure, but it sounded as though it might be managerial rather than practical. Surely, I thought, a new apple variety was more likely to have been raised by a head gardener than someone with a more desk-based role?

After a quick online search, I found this handy Regency Servants Hierarchy on Beatrice Knight’s All Things Regency blog, which details the roles of both the House Steward, and the Land Steward, or Bailiff, to whom the Head Gardener would most likely have reported. And Williams said that White’s role was even more specific: “steward to the trustees of the late Lord Foley’s father during the minority of the late Lord”. This suggests to me that Mr White was effectively running the estate of the new Lord Foley, who according to the 1852 edition of Burke’s Peerage, succeeded to the title on the death of his father in 1833, when he was just 15 years old. So Mr White would have most likely been managing the Witley Court estate, and perhaps the Stoke Edith estate as well if that had also passed to Foley junior, all whilst presumably training up the new Lord Foley to take over the reins, from 1833 until perhaps 1839, if the age of majority was considered to be 21?⁹

Note the dates: White’s work as estate Steward, or possibly both, was taking place c. 1833, whereas the raising of the ‘Pine-Apple’ was thought by Williams to have occurred almost fifty years previous to that, c.1785. The question of whether White’s work as Lord Foley’s Steward would have left him with any spare time to raise new varieties of apples is therefore a moot one, due to the gap of decades between the two parts of the back-story.

Mr White clearly had a strong connection to the Foley estate at that later date, but uncovering details of the man himself, never mind the location or contents of his orchard, fifty years previously seems an impossible task; as things stand, we have no idea what White’s status was, or even how old he was, in 1785. White may have had property and land of his own, even if we was of the gentlemanly servant class rather than the landed gentry per se, and so he may well have planted a seedling apple tree, or had one growing in his garden, that was a scion of ‘Golden Pippin’. We can also assume that Mr Williams knew Mr White well enough to hold a conversation with him, perhaps about their mutual interest in apple breeding, which suggests they probably moved in the same social circles. What we can’t say for sure is whether or not White’s ‘Pine Apple’ tree was growing in the grounds or on land that was linked in any way to Witley Court or Stoke Edith. It could have been, if White was a tenant of the Foleys on either estate, but we lack the evidence to say for sure.

Thirdly, Williams said that the name of the seedling variety raised by White was ‘Pine-Apple’. Sadly, what’s missing is a much hoped-for additional note from Williams along the lines of “so-called due to …” and a neat explanation for the inclusion of ‘Pine’ in the apple’s name. Etymonline suggests that ‘pine apple’ was originally used as a term for the seed cases of pine trees, until the tropical fruit was introduced to England in the 1660s after which “pine cone” was substituted. Could be that the ‘(Pitmaston) Pine-Apple’ was so-called because it’s about the size of an average pine cone, and is conical rather than round? Quite possibly, but there’s no confirmation to be had here.

What can be confirmed is that it definitely wasn’t John Williams who decided to add ‘Pitmaston’ to ‘Pine-Apple’. Can we work out who did append the prefix? I think we can.

From Gloucester to Chiswick

Immediately following Williams’s letter in the London Hort. Soc. Journal is an added “Note by Mr. Thompson”. This surely refers to Robert Thompson, who at the time was the Superintendent of the London Horticultural Society’s Chiswick Garden, which included the Society’s vast fruit tree collection. Thompson provided the following opinions on Mr Williams’s apples :

“The Pine-Apple resembles the Old Golden Pippin in shape, but is larger ; skin, rich orange-yellow, partially russeted ; flesh, yellow, very rich and sugary ; an excellent dessert apple. Its season of perfection may be stated from December till February.

The Pitmaston Golden Pippin, and the Stoke Park Pippin, very much resemble the Pine-Apple. All of them are more sugary, but not so juicy as the Old Golden Pippin. As first-rate dessert fruit they are highly deserving of cultivation.”

Note, in passing: Mr Thompson says the flesh of the ‘Pine-Apple’ is “very rich and sugary” but doesn’t mention any sort of pineapple flavour or aroma. As Superintendent of a collection of fruit that included a few dozen different varieties of actual pineapples – see p. 155-159 of the third edition of the Catalogue of Fruits Cultivated in the Garden of the Horticultural Society of London at Chiswick, which was compiled and edited by Robert Thompson, for details – you’d think he’d recognise, and probably mention, a pineapple tang if he had detected one.

Back to the re-naming process. We’ve already seen that Thomas Rivers added ‘Pitmaston Pine-Apple’ to his catalogue of fruit trees in either 1854 – a year for which the Rivers catalogue is unavailable at present – or 1855, when the variety was definitely listed. It’s possible that Rivers sourced ‘Pine-Apple’ direct from Williams and then added ‘Pitmaston’ as a nod to its provider. Another possibility is that, after sending samples of the fruits of his ‘Pine-Apple’ to the London Hort. Soc. in December 1845, Mr Williams also sent scions, or even a young tree, to the Society, c/o Robert Thompson, and he added it to the collection at Chiswick, and that could be where Rivers sourced his young trees and/or grafting material. Could it also be the source of the ‘Pitmaston’ prefix?

We can investigate further by looking at the Society’s published fruit catalogues. The aforementioned third edition was published in 1842 and of course it didn’t include ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’, because Williams didn’t send it to the Society until 1845. The next Catalogue update was the Supplement to the Third Edition, which was published in 1853 in the Journal of the Horticultural Society of London, Vol VIII on pages 243-269. Here we do indeed find an entry for ‘Pine Apple, Pitmaston’, with the note: “More sugary than the Golden Pippin, but not so juicy”, a repeat of Thompson’s earlier opinion.

This is the earliest mention in print that I’ve found of the appended ‘Pitmaston’ prefix, and on that basis, it seems likely to me that it was Robert Thompson, Superintendent of the Chiswick garden, who decided to add this variety to the roster of Mr Williams’s ‘Pitmaston’ cultivars, rather than listing it under its original name of plain ‘Pine-Apple’.

I rather suspect this re-naming was necessitated in order to avoid potential confusion. We’ve already seen that the Society was growing several dozen actual pineapples, which were listed under the heading ‘Pine Apples’ in the third edition of the catalogue, perhaps suggesting that the portmanteau version of the name wasn’t in general use quite yet?¹⁰. And the ‘Apples’ section of the third edition already contained a ‘Pine Apple, Lucombe’s’¹¹ which already had the assigned synonyms ‘Pine Apple’ and ‘Pine Apple Pippin’, and there was also a ‘Pine Apple Pippin, Summer’. The name ‘Pine-Apple’ already being taken a few times over, adding the prefix was only sensible, and you have to admit that ‘White’s Pine Apple’ just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

That quite neatly clears up the origins and format of the name of the variety: called ‘Pine-Apple’ and submitted to the London Hort. Soc. as such by Mr Williams, it was most likely re-named ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ by Robert Thompson, presumably when it was added to the Chiswick orchard between 1846 and 1853, when its details were provided in the Supplement to the Third Edition of the Chiswick Garden Catalogue.

“But… but…” I hear the fruit-tree-mongers (whose websites all need updating…) protest, “surely, it’s called ‘Pitmaston pineapple’, because it’s an apple that’s pineapple-flavoured!?” Whilst that’s a natural enough conclusion to reach, I’d suggest that therein lies a logical fallacy, and it’s actually the other way around: because this apple has often been mistakenly called ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’, a lot of folks have assumed that it’s going to have a pineapple flavour – and perhaps have even gone as far as to convince themselves that it does – which has then reinforced the justification for the erroneous naming.

But none of the sources in which this variety was first mentioned called it ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’, it’s very nearly always three words: ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’. Hogg, or his type-setter, might have mis-printed a portmanteau version in the second and third editions of The Fruit Manual, and given the importance of these volumes as a source of authoritative information, the error might have been propagated from there, but an error it remains.

That’s that settled, then. But what of the origins of the variety itself? Might it be possible to delve a little deeper and see if there are any more references to the ‘Pine-Apple’ that Mr White raised, possibly around 1785, and that Williams was growing and enjoying sixty years later? Let’s take a look.

Hunting the ‘Pine-Apple’

Searching online for an apple called ‘Pine-Apple’ is a proverbial needle-in-a-haystack job, for obvious reasons. But luckily I have already done quite a bit of research into historical sources of pomological information, so I have a bank of downloaded and/or online documents that I can scan through for potential clues.

Let’s start with those aforementioned Thomas Rivers catalogues, plus one more from the early twentieth century. Here’s a quick summary of the relevant varieties in each:

1853
‘Pine Apple Russet’
‘Pitmaston Russet’

1855 and 1857
‘Pine-apple Pippin’
‘Pitmaston Pine-apple’
‘Pitmaston Russet’

1860
‘Pine-apple Russet’
‘Pitmaston Pine-apple’

1863
‘Pine Apple Russet’
‘Pine Golden Pippin’
‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’

1867
‘Pine Golden Pippin’
‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’

1912-1913
‘Pine Golden Pippin’
‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’

Could any of these other apples be ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ under a different name? Let’s look at them on a case-by-case basis, along with one or two more potential candidates.

‘Pine Apple Russet‘ – This variety – which is mentioned in several early C19th and late C18th nursery catalogues, the earliest I’ve found being that of Mackie’s of Norwich from 1790 – can probably be ruled out just by referring to the first word of its description in the 1855 Rivers catalogue: “Large”. Nobody has ever described ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ as being a large apple.

‘Pitmaston Russet’ – Rivers lists this variety in 1853, 1855 and 1857, and it also appears in the 1850 catalogue from James and John Cranston. In the fifth edition of The Fruit Manual (1884) Hogg identifies it as a synonym of ‘Pitmaston Nonpareil’, which was mentioned as early as 1847 in the catalogue from the Gray, Adams & Hogg¹² nursery. Along the way I’m sure ‘Pitmaston Russet’ also carried the name ‘Pitmaston Nonpareil Russet’, although I can’t quite place the source. Assuming this re-identification is correct, the two descriptions in The Fruit Manual makes it clear that ‘Pitmaston Russet’, a.k.a. ‘Pitmaston Nonpareil’ is a very different apple to ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’.

‘Pine Apple Pippin’ – Also spelt ‘Pine-apple Pippin’ in the 1855 and 1857 Rivers catalogues, and in Hogg’s British Pomology (1851). This variety is a bit more intriguing, especially as ‘Pineapple Pippin’ is listed as a synonym for ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ on the N. F. C. database.

A pedigree for ‘Pine Apple Pippin’ exists in the pages of the Chiswick Garden catalogues. The first edition of 1826 lists it, as does the second of 1831. But by the time the third was published in 1842 is had been decided that ‘Pine Apple Pippin’ was a synonym of ‘Lucombe’s Pine Apple’. The provenance of that variety is linked, according to Benjamin Maund’s The Fruitist (1842) to the firm of Lucombe, Pince and Co., which was incorporated in 1807, although the original Lucombe’s nursery was established as far back as 1720.

However, a ‘Pine Apple Pippin’ is also listed in the 1782 catalogue of Pinkerton’s of Wigan, which pre-dates the founding of Lucombe and Pince’s by a quarter century. It’s possible that the two ‘Pine Apple Pippin’ varieties were different but shared a name, or that the later re-identification as a synonym of ‘Lucombe’s Pine’ was an error, or that ‘Lucombe’s Pine’ was actually a re-named version of ‘Pine Apple Pippin’ – it was fairly common practice for nurserymen to re-introduce established varieties as “new” in order to drum up fresh business, so it’s a distinct, if un-proven possibility – or indeed that ‘Lucombe’s Pine Apple’ could have been introduced any time from 1720 onwards, and it was Pinkerton’s who re-named it, dropping the competing firm’s name in the process, as you might expect.

One thing I would say though, is that having harvested and sampled both ‘Lucombe’s Pine’ and ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ in the past couple of years, I think they are rather different, with ‘Pitmaston’ having a better flavour in a more compact form. But that’s making the rather large assumption that the current versions of these varieties are the same as they would have been back in 1845.

It’s also possible that around 1785 Mr White grew a ‘Pine Apple Pippin’ that he’d obtained from Lucombe’s, or Pinkerton’s, or a. n. other nursery, was told when he bought it that it was a seedling of ‘Golden Pippin’, and passed the variety and the information on to John Williams in such a way as to make Williams think, or to later recall, that it was just called ‘Pine-Apple’ and that White had raised it himself. It’s a whole lot of conjecture based on very little evidence, but it’s a possibility. Likewise, there could have been two, entirely separate varieties called ‘Pine Apple Pippin’, one of which became ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ and the other of which became ‘Lucombe’s Pine’. There just isn’t enough evidence to say for sure.

‘Pine Golden Pippin’ – The earliest mention of this variety seems to be in Hogg’s The Fruit Manual second edition (1862), and the variety was illustrated, once again by either Alice Blanche Ellis or Edith Elizabeth Bull, along with several other ‘Golden Pippin’ types, in Plate XXXVII of The Herefordshire Pomona Vol 2 (1885). ‘Pine Golden Pippin’ is in the bottom-right corner, next to ‘Pitmaston Golden Pippin’:

Sadly, there was no mention in either volume, or any other available work, of an origin story for ‘Pine Golden Pippin’, just another assertion from Hoggin The Fruit Manual that it had “a sprightly and distinctly-marked pine-apple flavour”. Hogg described the variety as “small, roundish-oblate”, rather than “small and conical”, which he said of ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’ – Hogg’s erroneous spelling there – a few entries later. He also said that ‘Pine Golden Pippin’ ripened a couple of months earlier than ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’. And the fact that Rivers continued to sell both ‘Pine Golden Pippin’ and ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ in their 1912-13 catalogue suggests they were definitely distinct. All in all, I don’t think these two varieties are at all likely to have been one and the same.

‘Pitmaston Golden Pippin‘ – From the description in various editions of The Fruit Manual, and from the illustration above, it seems this variety was even smaller and noticeably flatter in shape than ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’; John Williams clearly had a penchant, or at least a preference, for small, golden-coloured, lightly russeted apples. Again though, it seems clear this is a separate variety.

‘Pine-Apple‘ Finally, what of the name that Mr Williams ascribed to the variety he sent to London? Are there any examples of this name to be found, outside of Williams’s 1845 letter? As it happens, there are one or two. The 1833 catalogue of the nursery firm Masters of Canterbury listed ‘Pine Apple’, albeit as a synonym of a variety they called ‘Pine-Flavoured’. And the first three editions of the Chiswick catalogues also listed ‘Pine Apple’, although by the second edition of 1831 it had been decided that it was another synonym of ‘Lucombe’s Pine Apple’. There was also a variety simply named ‘Pine’ listed in the 1795 catalogue of Archibald Dickson & Sons of Edinburgh.

Sadly though, none of these catalogue entries included any sort of background detail and so cannot be conclusively linked to Mr White’s putative 1785 seedling tree, or the ‘Pine-Apple’ that Mr Williams sent to the London Hort. Soc. in 1845.

I think that’s as far as we can take it, as things stand.

Summary

After all of the above, what conclusions have we reached? Here’s a quick summary.

The correct name of the variety is, most definitely, three words: ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’, not the two of ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’. All the earliest sources that mention this variety agree on that point – a probable type-setting error in a couple of editions of Robert Hogg’s The Fruit Manual aside – as does the U.K.’s modern-day authoritative source of information on apple variety names: the National Fruit Collection database.

When the variety was sent to the London Horticultural Society by John Williams of Pitmaston House in 1845, he said it was called ‘Pine-Apple’. He also suggested that it had been raised as a seedling of ‘Golden Pippin’ by a Mr White, around sixty years previously. White later worked as the Estate Steward, or House Steward, to Lord Foley at Witley Hall and possibly Stoke Edith as well, but there was no suggestion by Williams that the apple had been raised at Witley Hall, or that White had done so during his time there. In fact almost five decades separated the supposed origin date of ‘Pine Apple’, c.1785, and White’s work as “Steward to Lord Foley”, which was from 1833, when the new Lord Foley inherited his estates at the age of fifteen, until the young lord reached his majority a few years later. However, the connection has become conflated over the years, resulting in the common idea that Witley Court is where the apple originated. It may well have done, but we don’t have any clear evidence to that effect.

The ‘Pitmaston’ prefix was most likely added to the variety’s name by Robert Thompson, who in 1845 was the Superintendent of the Horticultural Society of London’s Chiswick garden and reference orchard, and it most likely happened when the variety was added to the collection. This, in turn, was most likely a necessity in order to avoid confusion with a few existing apples named ‘Pine Apple’, and also with actual pineapples, which according to the Chiswick catalogues were labelled ‘Pine Apple’ as well.

'Pitmaston Pine Apple' apples growing at NT Quarry Bank, September 2024. The apples are golden yellow, speckled with russet brown dots and patches. — ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ apples growing at NT Quarry Bank, September 2024

Robert Hogg seems to have been the first writer to suggest that the ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ had a pineapple-like flavour, whereas others, such as Robert Thompson in 1845, Edward A. Bunyard in the 1920s, and Joan Morgan & Alison Richards in the 1990s, described flavours of sugar, honey, nuts and musk, but made no mention of pineapple. I suspect that Hogg made the suggestion that the apples had a pineapple-like flavour because he thought they probably ought to, due to their name. This suggestion then led to the name being incorrectly written as ‘Pitmaston Pineapple’, which in turn has further reinforcing the idea that they surely have to have a pineapple flavour, and so on, in a circular loop of self-reinforcing power of suggestion.

Then again, taste is subjective to the observer, so perhaps, for some folks, ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ really does taste of pineapple after all. If though, like me, you really can’t stand the taste of that particular tropical fruit then don’t worry. I’m with Thompson, Bunyard, Morgan and Richards. You can take it from me that ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ is perfectly safe to try, and perfectly delicious too.

I do hope you’ve enjoyed this latest bit of pomological detective work on my part. If you have, then please do take a look at my (ongoing) series on the history of Norfolk Biffins and the ‘Beefing’ group of apples or Ancient Roman “Apple” Varieties, or perhaps my Search for the Original Summer Pudding.

If you have any questions, observations, or memories of ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ that you’d like to share, please do feel free to leave a comment, or you can send me an email if you prefer.

A Few Notes on the Origins of ‘Pitmaston Pine Apple’ – Orchard Notes