Since I'm not supposed to be posting in threads initiated by Mr. Bateman, I guess, at his request , I haven't been participating in these interesting later posts on a different topic. But since they are on a different topic than the original ones introduced I thought what I had to say was germane to these later posts. So sorry I "had" to miss the heirloom definitions threads but I was reading here, alternately fidgeting and squirming and laughing and agreeing in certain parts. LOL

But I thought it would be helpful to those of you discussing WI55 and Y55 to pass along two pieces of information.

I know many of us were surprised when Alison, who used to post at GW brought up the subject of Y55 which she found out about when taking a course with Dr Raabe, whom Martin mentioned above. She got seeds from him for what here is being called Y55 and maybe that's what Dr. Raabe also called it, I can't remember, for this was two years ago.

But first, the background of Greater Baltimore was asked about.

I just thought I'd pass along the info that the background/origin of Greater Baltimore is given at Victory Seeds where seeds are also sold.

I imagine the background info was from Craig's catalog collection, but don't know for sure since Mike also does a lot of historical tomato sleuthing.

Second, it might be useful to think of a somatic mutation as being the origin of the Yellow Wisconsin since it and WI55 are said to be identical in all respects other than fruit color.

There is precedence for such a color change, and I can share my own experience as well. Somatic mutations are not common and unlike the majority of spontanteous mutations they take place in tomato tissue, not the seed. So the result is usually seen as different colored tomatoes or different shaped tomatoes on separate branches, akin to what is called a "sport" with fruit tree branches.

Even a single fruit can be a different color, it all depends on where that mutation occurred, and the origin of Yellow Riesentraube was ONE yellow fruit with all others being the normal red on that same plant.

In all my years of tomato growing I'm only seen two somatic mutations and the one is relevant here, just as the Riesentraube one above is.

I was growing Green Gage which is a small yellow, pre 1800 variety. One branch gave me RED fruits identical to the other yellow ones on the plant.

Since the change in genotype and phenotype occurs subsequesnt in growth to where the somatic mutation occurs in plant tissue, it's perfectly possible that a somatic mutation low down on the main stem could lead to a WI plant with all yellow fruit.

I subsequently found out that Green Gage used to exist in both a red and yellow form.

Hope the above helps in some way.

Carolyn

Carolyn, I'm a paying member of GW (so far, although I'm reconsidering it given some recent 'threads') and among the perks is reading what you write. Please post ad libitum. Joe

Carolyn:

Let me just say that when it comes to discussions, whether they take place in an Internet forum or in other casual settings such as cocktail parties or backyard barbeques, I support and enthusiastically engage in free and lively interchages. To do otherwise would be phony and superficial.

I really don't see why anyone should feel intimidated (and you surely don't seem to either), shamed, or otherwise inhibited by anyone's admonishments or retorts. If someone else has a problem with what you or another forum member says (so long as it is not vulgar), I would say that other person should simply get over it and get on with it.

I've only been here a short time. I am not aware of all the intricate interpersonal relationships between all y'all diverse characters, but I enjoy and benefit from most of your messages even though I may not agree with, understand, or even like the way you say things from time to time. (Actually, I chalk up a lot of your style to the fact that you're a professor ... I've been married to a college instructor for 33 years ... and you guys seem to think students that do not respond as expected are "difficult" or "disruptive;" but what the hell.) And as I just said, if I have some problem with the way you put things ... that's my problem to overcome, right? If a person let's pride or ego get in the way of absorbing knowledge, well, that's his or her loss.

So, thanks for contributing interesting, educated, and pertinent information about whatever it is you may wish to discuss in whatever way you wish to phrase it. That goes for the rest of you fine folks who have provided some really interesting stuff in this thread and the other related thread in this forum. So what if they got off the Original Post. We're better informed for it.

For example, I just learned something I had absolutely no idea about when you just discussed "somatic mutation." May you live a long and prosperous life so that we may all benefit from your willingness to educate.

Regards, Bill

Amen, Joe and Bill!
Carolyn,
You bring a wealth of knowledge to the forum.
Terry,
You're contributions are valued.
Let's all try and get along, learn from each other, and enjoy conversing about our common interest in gardening.
It's so easy to take things the wrong way on the internet. Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt.
Peace to all.

Humbly,
Douglas

Very sneaky Carolyn-Very Sneaky, -but I admire your femenine Guile- Highly commendable-highly commendable indeed, "pucker up " and we will call it quits!!!,-what the hell anyway.

Regarding the others- I kind of lost the plot somwhere along the line with so many new posts on this tomato W155 and Y55- even though I have been following it closely, with all the history of them both-very very interesting,But what is it about these two varieties of tomatoes that makes them so desirable other than their rarity, is it flavour,productivity,method of growth etc, etc,

Terry, WI55 was just one more tomato variety created to keep up with the growing commercial demands. It was in an era where some noted universities were working on improving vegetable varieties. Blight was a problem in Wisconsin and Illinois in the 1930s. With that area and New Jersey being the two main tomato processing areas in the US, an all-out effort was made to develop a resistant field tomato variety. WI55 was that result. It was too late to save most of the Midwest's tomato industry as that was rushed to California due to the war effort. After the war, times quickly changed and many of the better horticultural departments switched to other things. Trying to develop a better tomato was left to the commercial companies rather than educational institutions. Of all the tomatoes which were developed during that 1930-1940 era, only Rutgers and Wisconsin 55 have stood the test of time in filling a certain niche for over 60 years.

If you want to do a bit more research on the recent happenings and history of WI55, do a thorough Google search on Wisconsin 55. My initial free seed offer thread in the fall of 2003 is still in there. Locate that and you'll discover all off the hoops that I had to jump through and all of the obstacles which were laid in my path. Nothing more than slowed me but gave even more incentives to completing my goal. In the end, whereas 2003 began with only Seed Savers Exchange offering proved true WI55 seed, 2004 had several more and 2005 more again. And I ain't but halfway done yet!

For that matter, the WI55 story didn't end in 1942. That tomato in turn was used to create several of the noted Campbell numbered varieties in the short post-war era. That was to use the disease and cracking resistance, field hardiness, and semi-determinate growth. With the fun of having a sort of "family reunion" of tomato kin now in my garden, perhaps I should invite the whole clan for 2006! As far as I know, most members of the family are still alive but some are barely kicking.

Martin

Martin:

Earlier in this thread you say, "The yellow (WI55) would have to have come from something in the background of Redskin, John Baer, and Early or Greater Baltimore. Or even something further back than those. I don't have either of the Baltimores yet but I suspect something in John Baer's background due to nearly identical foliage."

I've done some additional research and found a source that says Wisconsin 55's parentage includes a "selection from crosses involving John Baer, Del Monte, Early Biltmore, and Redskin." (NC State's Vegetable Cultivar Descriptions for North America, Tomato (A - I), Lists 1 - 26 Combined)

I'm wondering about "Biltmore" vs "Baltimore." Do you think my source is a typo?

The only other "Biltmore" referred to in the same source is Biltmore XP 1417977, a hybrid from Seminis circa 2003.

Do you have a source of information regarding the "Baltimore" parentage of Wisconsin 55?

Bill

Bill, the Biltmore reference indeed is an error which I believe I may have perpetuated once or twice before getting the correct story. I forget the source right now but It's just one of many errors noted in tomato histories. Some companies have had the wrong year dates as I've seen 1947 and several 1950s dates. Some dates would make a person wonder how a variety which didn't exist yet was being used to develop another! (Then find a reasonably reliable source and they have a typo Red Skin for Redskin!) Wisconsin 55 was later used on one side when developing Campbell 135 and 146. It was also the beginning of both lines to get West Virginia 63.

Here is a link that might be useful: WI55, etc. Accessions

For the few who might be remotely interested, I've been thinking for a long time that the last thing we need is another lemon-yellow tomato. The long-awaited Y55 is soon to have its world debut when all the pieces come together. It won't be on this thread so I'll leave you all hanging with the latest update. Y55 isn't yellow, it's GOLD!

Martin

Hey, Martin. Nobody likes a tease! :>)

Garden Lad,
Tried twice to photograph the first pair but they came out too red both times. Most of the world has waited 63 years to see them, they can wait a little longer! For color comparison, I brought home some Sungold from a friend's garden and the color is virtually identical while leaning a bit more to the orange side. Very close also to Kellogg's Breakfast but I don't have one of those fruits in hand for comparing. Already had a suggestion to call it Wisconsin 55 Gold when released. We'll see!

Martin

Already had a suggestion to call it Wisconsin 55 Gold when released

Here's my scenario Martin; let me know where it departs from reality.

Since before Alison at GW talked about the yellow WI55 you had said nothing about it, I asssume you got seeds from her and/or she put you in touch with Dr. Raabe and you got seeds from him and perhaps both of them.

I assume you grew them last summer and at the same time talked to your friend Dick Sontag (sp?)at Jung's and suggested he have them put into seed production as an exclusive for Jung's/Totally Tomatoes.

But only after receiving permission/support from Dr. Raabe.

I'm further assuming that major seed production was done this summer and with good luck seeds will be listed commercially in the Fall catalogs mentioned above.

And I'm further assuming that the tomato blurb will include both Alison's name, without whom you wouldn't know that seeds were even available, and also Dr. Raabe's name, who kept the seeds going all those years.

And who gets the profits off sales? ( smile)

Taking in everything that's known and published about WI55 parentage, I still think the somatic mutation route is most probable for the appearance of the yellow variant although I haven't seen that discussed here as a possibility other than by me. We know the background of the possible parents in the lineage going back a couple of generations and I don't see anything remotely relating to yellow in them.

Whereas the possibility of a spontaneous somatic mutation from red to yellow is known, as I've related here.

Would you agree to the possibility of a somatic mutation origin and if not, why not?

Carolyn

Martin, I don't know genetics. But I do know word rhythm.

I'd suggest, in this case, leaving out the "55" and just call it "Wisconsin Gold." The lineage can be included in the actual blurbs. But if you say the two names out loud a couple of times you'll see how one trips on the tongue and the other just flows.

The word "permission" can also apply all the way back to day one when someone stole seeds from a UW project! (I don't think that anyone will attempt to prosecute since the statute of limitations has run out!) One could also go back to determine where the funding and grants came from and who initially had the rights to sell WI55 seed. Then one would have to find the trail which eventually gave Jung's the rights. Prior to Jung's donations, it was not even in SSE's holdings. Once it got into SSE's hands, seed was available in bulk for any company which wished to grow or sell it. But that's beside the point, merely facts to ponder if one wishes to be sticky!

Actually, the credit should go to Amy Roy for asking the question: "Why No Wisconsin 55?" What eventually transpired, right up to this reply, had its beginnings with Amy's question. I was merely a single soldier fighting off those who tried their hardest to prevent me from attempting to save WI55. Anything after that is just normal battlefield collateral damage. What happens now to Wisconsin 55, red or gold, should be of NO concern to anyone who took up arms against me in that battle. And we DON'T need that again!

Martin

But Martin,

YOu didn't answer any questions as to the scenario I outlined and the possibility of a somatic mutation, the altter being important if anyone is writing a blurb and knowing you've not even entertained that possibility.

All you addressed was the permission angle and I guess all I was referring to was something to acknowledge how you personally found out about the yellow WI which was via Alison and thence to Dr. Raabe.

If Raabe was the only one who maintained it, which seems quite obvious now, then it seems to me he should be mentioned, thanked and acknowledged in some way and publically recognized if this yellow WI is going national as I presume you facilitated but still have not acknowledged.

But here I am presuming something when you haven't even confirmed the outlines of my scenario. Sigh

Carolyn, and please don't tell me I'll have to wait to see some blurb to see if it corresponds with what I and a few others who saw those threads know to be what happened with the yellow WI as the story unfolded.

What happens now to Wisconsin 55, red or gold, should be of NO concern to anyone who took up arms against me in that battle. And we DON'T need that again!

YOu know, I kind of overlooked that sentence and upon rereading it now take it to be the reason why you are not willing to speak to what I've asked.

But Martin, your memory is faulty.

While you and I have had our disagreements I could care less about who saves and offers WI55 seed and actually I have no memory of any arguments about it. What's to argeu about?

For heavens sake, it's been listed in the SSE Yearbook for years and what was it, two years ago SSE started listing it, which you noted and pointed out the strong association of Jung's with SSE at the time, and I know I mentioned that Bill Minkey in WI sent out WI55 seed for years to anyone who got seed from him.

And you know that b'c I also offered WI55 in my offers for OLD seeds.

So who took up arms against you re WI55 b'c I can't remember any arguenmts whatsoever about that. Why should there be? Anyone who wants to save and offer seed can.

Carolyn, who also says if you don't want to discuss a Gold WI via Jung's/TT here publically that's fine with me as well, but my curiousity will be high when I get my Jung's and TT catalogs to see what has been written, especially after all the many pages of tomato corrections I wrote for you to give to Dick at Jungs and you said you received them but then said you didn't know what happened to them, never did reach Jung's, in terms of Jungs getting all the relevant data on how the yellow WI55 variant was rediscovered.

Carolyn, good girl! You do remember some of that, eh? But for now, please butt on out of WI55 since you've never had one decent word to say about it in the past. This Y55 is one tomato that's none of your business. You go take care of all of those which you raised for money. I'll handle the ones that I want to grow for fun! Besides, it's a non-heirloom by your standards and should not be worthy of taking up any more of your precious time! But if it's just a way of annoying Terry,.........!

There is also one point which is obvious but never discussed as such for special reasons. As it stands right now, we have a noted retired professor who's been growing a variety of tomato which he obtained from a UW field in 1942. Ever hear of employee theft? What happens if we find some more of Walker's notes and he mentions a gold variety which vanished, as in stolen or pilfered? Ooops!

As it stands right now, the decisions and rules of the Y55 game are up to me and a very few other concerned people. It's presently none of anyone else's business as to who those individuals are. Nor is it anyone else's business as to what the exact plans may be. Not only that, I'm not the only person having seeds. We won't know what the others may intend to do until they do it. Perhaps out of fairness to the game, they're allowing me to take the lead.

Oh, we've never considered Y55 as being offered jointly in both Jung's and Totally Tomatoes. Perhaps I'll have to reconsider and include Shumway's as well. Maybe go whole hog and add Vermont bean? Endless possibilities!!

Martin

Carolyn, good girl! You do remember some of that, eh? But for now, please butt on out of WI55 since you've never had one decent word to say about it in the past. This Y55 is one tomato that's none of your business. You go take care of all of those which you raised for money. I'll handle the ones that I want to grow for fun! Besides, it's a non-heirloom by your standards and should not be worthy of taking up any more of your precious time! But if it's just a way of annoying Terry,.........!

Not only are some of your comments incorrect but your accusations are also unfounded as well as being unkind.

If I raise tomatoes for money, why have I offered over 300 varieties free for a SASE here at GW and also at AOL where I first started posting in 1990. Yes, like all other SSE members who list varieties in the Yearbook I am paid for those who order from me, and I offer just a few varieties, less than 15, not the many hundreds that several others do and this past year I received but 22 requests.

I had a good professional career, thank heavens, and don't need to raise tomatoes to make money and you know it.

And why have I always tried to make what I think are great varieties more available to the public by sending seeds to seed companies I respect such that if they like them during trial they can offer them publically? Because that helps to ensure availability of varieties to those who otherwise would have to be SSE members to acquire them.

And you also know that I'm not the only one who sends seeds for trial to certain seed companies.

As I said, your comments apply to all of us who list varieties at SSE, not just me, and making money with less than 15 varieties listed and but 22 requests? Please Martin, get serious.

If you can't discuss issues without accusations and inuendoes then there's no sense my showing interest or trying tio discuss things with you or continuing with this subject.

As many GW members know, you have often singled me out for your numerous attacks, and it used to bother me, but no more, b'c I and others understand you better these days as you have shown yourself in public discourse on various topics.

Carolyn

Martin - Are you aware that you come across so poorly... to the point of losing credibility when you use attacks as a method of expressing yourself? If what happens to "Wisconsin 55, red or gold" is your business, then why bring it up here? Were you hoping that by bringing it up you'd get the opportunity to treat someone poorly? The attacks you've made on Carolyn here and in other messages make you sound jealous or threatened by her. Are you? I can understand if you are. She does seem to have the greater experience and knowledge. Her communication and people skills are superior to yours. And she has done more...

Reign, it's been brought up before. Then there are some who didn't get the word the first time and want to know more. If you ask a direct question of me and I don't answer it, most would think that I'm snubbing you. Correct? Don't answer that! But I've already given you the answers and the questions have been asked or discussed time and again. Yes, you can indeed call it jealousy. I'm jealous that a certain individual can place herself above all else in the matters of tomatoes. She alone can decide which is an "heirloom" and which is not. And this despite supposedly 100% supporting the organization which set up the standards for such determination. That's being hypocritical, there's no other word for it. The rules of the game are supposed to apply to everyone, not just to someone who changes them at a whim! That's either SSE or GW rules, whichever applies for a given situation. The sad part is that a great many other people seem to support such actions. Just like saying that it's OK to steal or cheat or whatever as long as it's done in the name of something or somebody that's all warm and fuzzy. Understand? Stick around for awhile, you'll see it. I don't have to mention individual instances since there's nothing to gain by keeping too many fires going. The early replies on this thread set the mood and eventual theme. One member had a chance to sit on her hands and didn't. Whatever, we're sure making the Heirloom Plants & Gardens Forum popular for awhile!

Carolyn, listing an average of over 30 varieties per year in SSE puts you just a tad bit commercially higher than the average seed-for-seed swappers! 11 years of listing, 348 varieties. That's a bit more than 15, eh? Or does SSE have a serious error in their accounting? If this has gone on for 11 years at a rate of 22 requests per each 15 varieties, one would think that you would have learned the word "futility" by now! You have to be careful there since reporting virtually little or no activity smacks counter to the purpose or usefulness of SSE and your own frequent promotion of that organization. Remember that when I mentioned something like that one time, I was accused of being "consistently negative" toward SSE. If so, I'm at least consistent and not a flip-flop.

SASE? Yes, we've heard of how much effort those projects were! It can indeed be a pain but I've never complained. Everyone knows how much it's cost to get tomato seeds from me for the past two years. It's cost ME roughly $240 in postage alone plus 6 or 7 boxes of coin envelopes. 450+ requests in 2003-04 just for WI55 and one or two others. 188 in 2004-05 with a wide selection of varieties available. (That was just on GW but my seed offers have enjoyed 5 seasons on another forum.) I've always done it for fun and I'll possibly do it again this fall. FREE was apparently an unknown concept on GW until September 2003. FREE caught on well last year. A few others did so because they were really nice sharing people, and perhaps didn't know how to go about offering something free before. Others may have just been on a guilt or ego trip. Doesn't matter as a lot of amateur gardeners got some darned good varieties and they didn't have to spend $35 for the privilege of doing so.

Terry, see how it goes here? Carolyn always tries to pass me but she can't. She often thinks that she's caught up to me but I'll forever be about 6 months older than she is! It's sort of the sheep dog and wolf cartoon thing, you know? We may tear and scratch each other up pretty good but we don't want to kill each other! (-;

Martin

Reign, forgot to mention. The "heirloom" subject was broached in the initial post on this thread. It was Garden Lad who brought up the question about the criteria in deciding commercial "heirlooms" including such noted breeders such as Livingston and Henderson plus agricultural schools such as Rutgers. With Walker and Wisconsin happening to be in both of those categories, how can you suggest that my mentioning them was intended to provoke an argument? After Garden Lad posted that "heirloom" criteria mention, I believe that this thread continued for 15 or more sensible and intelligent replies. Perhaps you can point out which reply you based your opinion on? If you choose to not reply, no problem. It's a long thread with a story plot which is hard to follow. No doubt others got lost as well!

Martin

This is getting realy funny now, with swords drawn and daggers at the ready, with suitable back stabbing along the way, Iv'e never had so much fun for years, perhaps its time to say "Touche" before the Marquis of queensbury rules are promoted, all this der-gottya stuff is getting a bit highbrow for me, and would you all believe that all I ever wanted to know was about Marihannas Peace & Sunset Red Horizon, perhaps its better to start a new thread on the other mentioned varieties, before this one eventualy rolls over to a record 100 posts ,as its fast heading this way,

11 years of listing, 348 varieties. That's a bit more than 15, eh? Or does SSE have a serious error in their accounting? If this has gone on for 11 years at a rate of 22 requests per each 15 varieties, one would think that you would have learned the word "futility" by now!

Martin, you are playing with numbers. The total listings that were presented were just that, total **lifetime** SSE listings to date as I recall, and for many years I did list many varieties just as Craig and all the others much higher up on the list did.

Futility? No, I care not how many requests I get and never have. There are other reasons for listing, as I've mentioned below.

And you don't average them out per year as you did to try and make a point. Each year is different with regard to an individual's listings.

I had to retire in 1999 and moved to a new home and my growouts since that time have been devoted mainly to maintaining certain stocks as I've seen what has happened in the so called heirloom tomato world out there. Varieties listed since 1999 have all been NEW varieties not listed initially by others.

Since 1998 I have offered very very few and that's fact. 12 in 1998, 2 in 1999, 2 in 2000, 2 in 2001, 1 in 2002, 6 in 2003, 12 in 2004 and 22 in 2005. And of course some of those later listings were repeats of ones first listed the year before, from 1999 onwards.

And now that 22 cumulative number will decrease sharply since I can no longer garden effectively b/c of my physical problems.

I would like to remain as a listed member by listing at least one variety in the future, but don't know if I'll be able to do that. No, not to get a lesser price for seeds as a listed member since I don't request seeds from other long time SSE friends who list hundreds each year; I give them my new ones as they give same to me, but just to be a listed member, as I have been since about 1989/90.

While my view of SSE has changed over the years in many ways, and while I agree with some of their practices and decisions and not others, still, I've made so many wonderful friends there, including Craig and Neil and Bill and Marianne and Glenn and others, that I do want to maintain some kind of presence as a listed member and also b'c almost all varieties found at most seed sources initially came from SSE listings, and that has benefited the public at large and b'c I do believe strongly in preservation of heirloom varieties in general and wish to contuinue to support the organization with my membership money.

While I once interacted very closely with certain folks there, that no longer is true, except helping Aaron with catalog blurbs, at his request, and reviewing his growout list, also at his request.

Right now I have maybe 150 varieties I've never grown and never will be able to in the future, and so it goes.

I would like to be able to grow out the new ones that come to me directly from families, but only time will tell if that will even be possible b'c of my current/projected physical disabilities.

Nothing is to be gained by my even attempting to address the many other issues you raise, so I won't.

Carolyn

Martin,

Why isn't it possible to disagree with Carolyn without villifying her? To this bystander, some of your posts appear to be tortuous attempts to misconstrue what she says and what she does. Both of you have a lot to offer, but it becomes unpleasant to read when the posts become mean spirited.

I see no reason for you to resent Carolyn's contributions to this forum as you do. She is rightfully considered an authority on heirloom tomatoes. She certainly ought to participate in any discourse regarding them and deserves to be treated with respect.

Martin, you seem to be seeking absolutes in matters which often are conceptual rather than factual. Categorization is such a matter. Individuals will differ in their concepts of how to categorize tomatoes, for example. There will never be a universally accepted concept about this. So, state your case as best you can and don't take offense if someone disagrees.

So far as offering seed in whatever ways you both do, we gardeners are grateful for it. We all have benefitted directly or indirectly. In both your cases it has, without question, been a labor of love. More power to you.

I offer this in the spirit of constructive criticism. Please accept it as such.

Jim

Everyone simply has to remember one word, "consistency". Without that, everything becomes chaos due to "contradiction".

Normal rules for a question and answer forum is to judge each thread independently. Each thread becomes a new topic and fresh unbiased start. That's actually why many of the GW forums have operated successfully for so long. That's because they have remained primarily within the stated forum purposes. Only a few have become renegade off-topic chat rooms. And that has often been after GW management has set up separate Gallery, Conversation, and Exchange areas within those forums. Doesn't matter since there are a certain small group of members who think that they are greater than the parent forum and flaunt the rules as far as possible. That's possibly why there are so many good tomato questions asked on the various regional forum. Those people are looking for answers, not to enter an open chat room!

In this thread, as I see it, we've apparently had a committee of one claim that Marianna's Peace is an "heirloom". Since it fails to meet any legitimate standard for being granted "heirloom" status, another committee of one has proclaimed that it is an unstable recent hybrid at this point in time. It was a variety with a very suspect background and apparently created strictly for individual financial gain. It is no more an "heirloom" than Earl's Faux. At least, Earl hasn't claimed that his tomato is an "heirloom"!

Martin

>Since it fails to meet any legitimate standard for being granted "heirloom" status,Whoa! Play that again?

If we accept the legend, than it most certainly is an heirloom, by virtually all standards.

That is the question, however. Is the story true? Or did Gary Ibsen, a consumate marketing genius, make it up out of whole cloth? Although we may have suspicions, there is no clear evidence either way.

True, the name is new. But that doesn't affect whether or not the tomato is an heirloom. To deny such status would mean excluding virtually all family heirlooms.

I just collected a greasy bean (literally "just", I've only now come in the door from picking it up) from a gentleman whose family has been growing it at least since his great grandmother. Because we try and keep greasy bean lines separate, I've assigned the name Waddigton's Brown Greasy to it (his g,g, grandmother's name was Mary Jane Waddington). By your reasoning, this bean is not an heirloom, because there was no "Waddington's Brown Greasy" 50 years ago.

Instability, of itself, proves nothing, as there is a condition we can call "consistent instability". There are several varieties that consistently throw different forms and colors. There's an Azerbaijan tomato in my collection, for instance, that produces two different forms that vary in size, color, and foliage. But they _always_ throw those two, and have been doing so for a long time.

It's not a very good tomato, as a matter of fact. But, IMO, it certainly is an heirloom.

Garden Lad, you smelled out my next move, darn it! I expected a lot of people to come jumping at me for calling Carolyn a committee of one in determining "heirloom" status of Marianna's Peace. Nope, I'm referring to Gary Ibsen and his list of 430 guaranteed heirlooms which include the likes of Green and Black Zebra plus Tigerella and made-to-order "heirlooms" by Joe Bratka and others. If a person or company is consistent in being honest and forthright, and has a flawless previous reputation, then one would have no reason to question something new. Was it not Ibsen who was responsible for the Sunset Red Horizon name? And how many know phony histories are connected with his tomato list? If there's a bad smell around, something's rotten somewhere!

Could I ever have fun with a variety that I'm growing! Actually it's two varieties in one. It's a big pink beefsteak and a big pink heart! Identical plants but each throw different fruit and consistent on 4 of each so far. These come from an even more troubled place than Marianna's Peace/Conflict, Romania! Then having been "smuggled" into first England and then into the US after the 9/11 bans. I'm certain that I could come up with a nice tear-jerker, touchy-feely story to convince people to send maybe $5 for 10 seeds. Alas, my personal scruples have never allowed me to stoop so low and I'm condemned to give rather than receive!

Oh, to top things off, we have to walk a fine line now with Ibsen's Tomatofest being a major GW sponsor of the Growing Tomatoes Forum. Those badmouthing him too much may find themselves on the outside and looking in! That's just a reminder that the dog is wagging us, we're not wagging the dog!

One other thing, Garden Lad. I have not mentioned nor care about the "heirloom" standard for beans since this thread is about tomatoes. Whatever the bean standard is was in use much longer than any which applies to tomatoes. As already has been pointed out, assigning an "heirloom" designation to any tomatoes is documented as having begun in 1981. And that was first in connection with Seed Savers Exchange.

Martin

Here is a link that might be useful: Heirloom Committee of One!

Far be it from me to accuse you of being contentious for its own sake, Martin. But you're getting a bit carried away now.

You're the one who insisted that SSE be the arbiter of what is an heirloom, and, in fact, have argued that they don't follow their own definition. And you're the one who has argued that consistency is crucial.

So, let's lay this on for size:

"An heirloom is generally considered to be a variety that has been passed down, through several generations of a family because of it's valued characteristics."

That's as near your quoted SSE definition as to make no never mind, wouldn't you say? Well that's _exactly_ how Gary Ibsen defines heirlooms. It's right there on the site you linked us to.

So, rather than being a committee of one, strict adherence to this definition actually comes from a committee of two: Gary and you.

>I have not mentioned nor care about the "heirloom" standard for beans since this thread is about tomatoes.Whoops! There aren't different standards. An heirloom is an heirloom, whether it be beans, tomatoes, cucumbers or what have you. The open quesiton is, "what makes a variety an heirloom."

My point, which nobody else seems to have had trouble understanding, isn't about beans or tomatoes, per se. It's about word usage. You have implied very strongly that the name of a variety is part of it being an heirloom or not. That, in the case of Marianna's Peace, even if the tomato is a multi-generational variety, the name is only a couple of years old, and, as such, Marianna's Peace is not an heirloom. By that sort of reasoning, Waddington's Brown Greasy, which has been in the same family since sometime in the latter 1800s, is not an heirloom---which, I submit, is patent nonesense by anybody's standard.

I reserve comment on your Gary Ibsen notes. You have obviously decided that he is dishonest and a con artist, and anything he says or does is colored by that.

You also, my friend, insist on using the most pernicious form of circular reasoning when it comes to the definition of "heirloom vegetable." You start by saying that SSE is the arbiter, and quote their definition from 1981. Your rationale is that they used it first, so, therefore, they, and that definition, prevail.

But "heirloom," like every other word in the English language, evolves in meaning and usage over time. It has even evolved within SSE, let alone the rest of the gardening community. You cheerfully ignore that evolution, and base all your conclusions on a simple concept: "Here is how _I_ insist on using that word (when it suits my purposes, that is). If you use it any other way, you are wrong. And therefore, you are wrong about heirloom status of particular varieties" Doing this doesn't prove your point, it just makes you sound arrogant.

There is only one reason to even seek a common definition for the word "heirloom." And that's to facilitate communication. The folks who have been growing particular varieties for three, and four, and six generations don't call them that. Most time they don't even have variety names; they just call 'em something like "them yaller tomatoes."

With that in mind, let's look, again, at the two parts of the Male/LeHoulier rubric: Created Heirlooms and Mystery Group. I choose those specifically because, as I've said before, I disagree with them.

However, if Carolyn or Craig or anyone else tells me that Pink X is a created heirloom, I know exactly what they mean. And thus, communication is enhanced, even though I personally don't consider that group to be genuine heirlooms.

In short, it doesn't matter how a word was first used, or even who first used it. What matters is how it is handled in common usage. And, in common usage, there are primarily three general definitions mostly in use by the heirlooms community. Virtually everyone I know adheres to one or the other of them, and is consistent in its application.

Which brings us back to the one question you haven't answered. You keep making an accusation that certain authorities say that Rutgers is an heirloom and WI55 is not. And I keep asking you who. To repeat, there is no way, under _any_ existing definition of heirloom that one of those can be included and the other not. So, instead of being obfuscatory, and moving in other directions, tell us who these "authorities" are.

(With that in mind, let's look, again, at the two parts of the Male/LeHoulier rubric: Created Heirlooms and Mystery Group. I choose those specifically because, as I've said before, I disagree with them.

However, if Carolyn or Craig or anyone else tells me that Pink X is a created heirloom, I know exactly what they mean. And thus, communication is enhanced, even though I personally don't consider that group to be genuine heirlooms.)

B, I don't consider "created heirlooms" to be true heirlooms either although Tom Wagner and others do using the rubric that an heirloom variety is something treasured as the sole criterion.

Please look in my book on page 8, under Created Heirlooms and in the first sentence you'll see I put the word heirlooms in quotes, as in "heirlooms". Now why did I do that first thing in that discussion of that category?

Now look on page 3 right hand column hear the bottom where I wrote,

"Still others argue that an heirloom tomato isn't a true heirloom unless it has been passed down from generation to generation within the same family or extended family. My sympathies lie with this camp."

Again,my synmpathies lie with this camp, ie, passed down from generation to generation. And that's why I wrote "heirlooms" that way.

Now look at page 8 under mystery group and in the first paragraph I wrote " These tomatoes are not true family heirlooms, although their parents were, and they aren't deliberately created heirlooms.

So again, I don't see the Mystery group as true family heirlooms either since above I already noted that that's the group I feel are the true heirlooms.

Of course one could always say that a parent in an accidental cross might be a hybrid, but the majority of these accidental crosses do come fronm two OP heirloom parents from what I gather from reading and personal ecxperience.

Many many seed source sites do not distinguish between created varieties and those that arose from natural X pollination, the so called "mystery" group, as opposed to family heirlooms, which is why for each variety in my book I IDed which group I thought best described them, as perhaps a help to others in terms of origin, as you have noted yourself.

I think the usefulness of talking about created and mystery categories is just as you say, to know the true origin, which was the reason Craig first mentioned the so called created group and I added the mystery group, and that purpose was to be able to distinguish family and commercial heirlooms FROM those that were created and those that arose by accidental cross pollination.

I still feel positive, though, about adopting the suggestion made by others that the Commercial heirloom definition rest with those that were in existance roughly before or around 1940 based on their comment that hybrids were being released to the public roughly at that same time.

It gets wiggy to state a specific date, as everyone knows, but is it really worth arguing about? It's a guideline the way I see it, and just that.

And maybe I'll have to look at the merits of a sliding scale for family heirlooms when I feel "several generations" have passed the about 1940 date. After all, I was born in 1939, and my kids, if I'd had any and they'd grown our family heirloom, of which there never was one, would only put my mythical kids at generation ONE. ( smile)

OK, I'm old enough that MY mythical kids could also have kids, LOL, giving us generation TWO, but I think that's losing sight of the following brief discussion.

What's my point?

If the definition of a true family heirloom is one that says passed down within a family from generation to generation, then how many generations before it can be called an heirloom? Trust me, I don't want to get into that right now, LOL, but it is important, isn't it?

Like wise, if the definition is that "several" generations have to be passed, then how many? Same comment as above.

In other words, there are still loose ends no matter what definition one chooses to adopt.

So you now know which camp I belong in personally re family heirlooms, hopefully with reference to what I wrote in my book and what I've always said in posts, but perhaps you missed that opinion of mine as I wrote it and also expressed it online.

Carolyn, who says yes, it's about word usage and more, and yes, suggested definitions do and might well be expected to evolve with time.

>B, I don't consider "created heirlooms" to be true heirlooms either......I know that, Carolyn. You and I share a philosphy re: family heirlooms. I don't pretend they are the only "real" heirlooms; they're just the ones I prefer collecting and growing.

But we're both aware that others do not, and have broader definitions. The point is, if A tells B that he's growing heirlooms, it's nice if B knows what he's talking about.

That, of course, was my point.

>Tom Wagner and others do using the rubric that an heirloom variety is something treasured as the sole criterionI know he's told you that. But he's also told me that his creations are not heirlooms, and he wished people would stop calling them such, and give credit to the breeder.

Who was it said "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?" :>)

You and I have had, and no doubt will continue to have, disagreements on certain things. But I believe that on the basic issues of this thread you and I are in perfect agreement.

>then how many generations before it can be called an heirloom? Trust me, I don't want to get into that right now, LOL, but it is important, isn't it? Yes, it is important. However, if we use the commonly accepted definition of "generation" as 30 years, then using either 50-years or pre-1940 would mean two generations.

Ironically, the only time I even think about these things is on lists like this, or when I'm writing an article. Out in the field, when I collect seed, and the 70 year old source tells me his grandmother grew it, there's no question in my mind that it's an heirloom in all respects.

If you click on the name of a poster, you might see a notice "send me an email". That might be a better way to post personal information, attacks, etc, than here publicly.
Joe

Garden Lad, now I'm becoming slightly confused here! Think of what's happened just with you on this thread. First, you were ignorant of the fact that the term "heirloom", as applied to tomatoes, is documented as having begun in 1981 and by Kent Whealey. Prior to that, it was documented as having been used in reference to beans. Also, it is not I who is suggesting that SSE become an arbiter, I'm merely informing you and everyone as to where it all started. My point is that it began there and everyone since has been making up their own rules to suit whatever purpose. In reality, there are no rules. In some cases, one wonders just what IS going on when an individual, company, or organization appears to have two completely separate and conflicting standards. Just ask about Tigerella. Carolyn can tell you the history and exactly how it was created and that it is NOT an "heirloom". Tangella was created by the exact same team of people and it IS supposedly an "heirloom"! That's just one example of what may apply to many varieties.

A second thing that we've established here is that there is no official board anywhere to determine the status of any vegetable variety, period. The first use of "heirloom", in connection with non-bean vegetables, may or may not have been materially motivated since it was when SSE was still young and seeking members and dollars. Were one to view it from a totally un-biased position, we now know that it turned out to be a great marketing ploy. Of late, certain individuals and companies have played off that "heirloom" mention to fatten their own pockets. And as we see with Tomatofest's alleged 500, virtually any OP variety becomes an "heirloom". That's just one example of many and not a specific attack against Ibsen. When Hilton did stuff like that, he was considered a scoundrel for doing that. When two people commit the same crime, one isn't any less guilty just because he's your friend.

Personally, I have no personal standards since I have nothing to gain financially or otherwise. I grew my Paquebot Roma for 4 or 5 years when it was one generation removed from Sicily and I knew its history. I grew it for fun and gave it to whomever requested it. I'm not going to make up some story to promote it as the world's best ever determinate paste tomato. The last thing that I figured that this world needed was another paste tomato, especially since the Italians already had a 300 year head start! I'm growing 5 varieties right now which have never been listed in the SSE Yearbook. There's one which I probably wouldn't pay to make someone grow it since I don't think that we need another small lemon yellow thing which has a flavor just a tad above White Wonder! Another is virtually unique and could go over big with a bit of publicity. Several more are getting loads of interest from my fellow local gardeners who aren't used to seeing such varieties which many of us are familiar with. But if the SSE system really is so bad as to expect 22 requests for 15 varieties, any more than a single offer isn't worth the effort of copying and filling out the submission forms.

If anyone thinks that I sound anti-SSE, how many spent as much money as I did with SSE in 2004? Without counting the subscription fee, it was $130.99. Or $160.00 including dues.

And now, Garden Lad, you asked for it! Everyone wants to know why the very mention of WI55 invariable turns into what everyone considers an attack on a certain individual by me. Carolyn Male has been the only one who has proclaimed that Wisconsin 55 is NOT an "heirloom" tomato variety and has done so on more than one occasion. One member asked her point blank if Wisconsin 55 was an "heirloom" and the reply was that it was not. More than one time, she has suggested Break O'Day, another created commercial variety, as being a better choice. Can you spell hypocritical?

To all, all that I have been guilty of is having to defend one single variety of tomato since February 2003. During all that time, I have never once set myself up as a committee of one to proclaim that Wisconsin 55 was or was not an "heirloom" variety. Nor have I ever set myself up as a one-man campaign to discredit anyone's personal favorite tomato. If I've grown something, I reserve the right to comment on it, favorable or unfavorable. If not, it's none of my damned business.

As my mother often said: "Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

(Joe, do think twice before suggesting "attacks" via the GW message system. That's the quickest and surest way to commit forum suicide!)

Martin

(Carolyn Male has been the only one who has proclaimed that Wisconsin 55 is NOT an "heirloom" tomato variety and has done so on more than one occasion. One member asked her point blank if Wisconsin 55 was an "heirloom" and the reply was that it was not. More than one time, she has suggested Break O'Day, another created commercial variety, as being a better choice. Can you spell hypocritical?)

I'm the only one? Or the only one you know of?

I think not in terms of me being the ONLY one.

And if asked today I'd respond the same way in that Break O Day is pre-1940 and WI55 is not.

Not being hypocritical at all, actually being quite consistent.

Anyone adhering to that particular definition for commercial heirloom varieties and knowing the release dates would respond the same way .

Sure it's cutting a fine line on dating, I agree, but that was discussed in my last post here where I referred to the situation as being "wiggy" when talking about date definitions around 1940 and I'm not going to return to it.

I have been consistent in applying that 1940 date to commercial heirlooms as you can see from that type presented in my book, and also online, but seldom does anyone ask about such things, quite honestly, only those who might have a vested interest and only those who discuss/argue about heirloom definitions. ( smile)

No hypocrisy at all.

I have never recommended Break O Day as an alternative to WI55. Why would I? I usually suggest:

Druzba
Red Brandwyine
Bulgarian #7
Break O Day
Rutgers
Picardy

... when asked what **I** might like for canning tomatoes, and those are all nice round red high yielding good tasting varieties.

Yes, what **I** like. What **I** personally prefer.

Another topic:

(Just ask about Tigerella. Carolyn can tell you the history and exactly how it was created and that it is NOT an "heirloom". Tangella was created by the exact same team of people and it IS supposedly an "heirloom"! That's just one example of what may apply to many varieties.)

How very strange because the results of the cross between Aisla Craig and I forgot the other parent done at the Glasshouse Research Inst in England gave three sibling varieties:

Tigerella
Tangella
Craigella

All created at the same time from the same cross and all genetically stabilized at about the same time.

I don't know of anyone who would apply so called heirloom status, created or otherwise, to one of the siblings and not the others unless they didn't know the origin of the cross and the progeny.

I've never seen Tangella referred to as an heirloom and Tigerella not, I guess you have which is why you mention it, but then why fault someone for not knowing the relationship between the two if both were presented some place at the same time with the wrong info you mention. I consider all three to be created heirlooms.

And heaven knows of the plethora of wrong information out there about many "heirloom" tomato varieties. Some of that wrong information deliberate and some due to lack of knowledge about specific varieties.

Carolyn

Well, Martin, I've played long enough. Your obvious goal, here, isn't to share information but to merely be argumentative, to take shots at anyone who dares disagree with you, and to prove that everything has to be your way or the highway.

You say, for instance: "Also, it is not I who is suggesting that SSE become an arbiter,"

Yet, among the many times you have, indeed, taken that position are:

"As for who determines is something is or is not an "heirloom", I would tend to use SSE as a guide or reference"

And:

"SSE established the game rules and set up the playing field. And by the originators rules, WI55 and Rutgers come under the exact same designation."

But, of course, self-contradiction isn't something that has ever bothered you.

You also remind me of the blurb writers for movies, who can take a completely bad review, carefully select words from it, and turn it into a positive comment.

You say, for instance,

"(Carolyn Male has been the only one who has proclaimed that Wisconsin 55 is NOT an "heirloom" tomato variety and has done so on more than one occasion. One member asked her point blank if Wisconsin 55 was an "heirloom" and the reply was that it was not."

Carolyn certainly doesn't need my help defending herself. But this is ridiculous. The accusation you made was that certain authorities claim that WI55 is not an heirloom while Rutgers Improved is.

I know the standard that Carolyn applies to tomatoes, and she's consistent with it. By her standards (i.e., pre-1940 for commercial introductions), WI55 is _not_ an heirloom. But neither is Rutgers Improved. So, again, I ask you to support your contention that certain authorities claim heirloom status for the one, but not the other. I suggest you cannot do so, unless you use the word "authority" the way you use other words---to mean what you want, despite common usage.

>First, you were ignorant of the fact that the term "heirloom", as applied to tomatoes, is documented as having begun in 1981 and by Kent Whealey.Strictly speaking not true. Reread what you and I discussed above about Kent's source of the word. I never professed ignorance that Kent used it for tomatoes and other veggies. I was just unaware of where he got the term.

However, this is another of your obfuscatory comments, used merely to try to discredit.

The fact is, the orginal use of the word is only important from an historical point of view. It otherwise has no relevance to the conversation. What counts is how the word "heirloom" is used today.

There are thousands of heirlooms growers and collectors who not only do not know the source of the word, they've never even heard of SSE. I guess by your sort of convoluted reasoning that means they aren't actually growing heirlooms.

Garden Lad, if one doesn't know something, he is ignorant of that knowledge. You doubted my Kent Whealey claim and thus were ignorant of it, plain and simple! Being ignorant of something doesn't infer anything to a person's intelligence. I'm ignorant as to how to make an atomic bomb despite having survived the largest such bomb ever detonated in the Western Hemisphere!

Both of you are getting a bit outrageous in your presumptions! One is seemingly playing ignorant and asking loaded questions while already knowing the answers. The other is denying her own past GW replies. I don't think that I have to explain every single previous instance which has led up to this point but you've both asked for it.

One thing is that I have NEVER claimed WI55 to be an "heirloom". I've been happy enough with Kent Whealey's description of such varieties. I can live with that! Kent and his SSE didn't say 1920, 1930, 1940, or whatever as a cut-off date for including in the "heirloom" designation. Nor has SSE ever designated one commercial variety as an "heirloom" while proclaiming a similar one as not being an "heirloom". What we have are some people either changing the rules or making up new ones to benefit only their own purposes. Either that or they continue to perpetuate and defend an error made in the past. The evidence is plain if you know where to look for it.

Tigerella has come up here for a reason. That happens to be another which I've grown and which has been proclaimed as not being an "heirloom". I could care less despite my strain having been no doubt tinkered with in the USSR and DDR! At this point, I suppose that I should admit, for the first time, to having purchased a book about tomatoes even before I heard about Garden Web. (The Madison SSE store had them for as long as I had been visiting there.) In that book, Tangella is an "heirloom" despite having the identical origins as Tigerella. Carolyn has indeed gone on record as saying that Tigerella is NOT an "heirloom". If so, then Tangella also can NOT be one. All I know is that there is a book out there which supposedly contains 100 "heirloom" varieties of tomatoes. Not 90 or 85 or whatever, but 100. When the author of that book takes it upon herself to be the final judge as to what is or is not an "heirloom" variety, and then contradicts the facts which are in that book, what's the word for that?

Also, Garden Lad, Carolyn is NOT consistent in using 1940 as a cut-off for commercial varieties. Read the book. There's a commercial one in there which is stated as being about 35 years old. That would have been around 1965 according to when the book went to print. In chronological order, 1965 does NOT come before 1940!

As for siding with SSE, I'm going strictly according to what was the mood here in 2002. One of my very first replies on the Growing Tomatoes was to a long and glowing thread about SSE. I asked the question why I should bother joining when I've got an SSE outlet less than 10 miles away from our shop. I suspect that nobody has to guess very long as to whom it was who replied to my question to convince me that SSE was THE ultimate equal to sliced bread when it came to tomatoes and all other vegetables! Since then, despite my finding a lot of chinks in their armor, I'll still defend about everything that the organization stands for, not just what may benefit myself. If I wasn't willing to conform to their rules and standards, I wouldn't continue paying my dues and supporting their purpose.

No matter if you like the answers or not, the facts are there. Try to paint me into a corner and it won't work. I've kept my mouth shut about Carolyn's book until now. In the past, I've only said that it was probably the best such book since it was the only such book. There was never a point in nit-picking over the inclusion of at least 15 varieties which do not meet the "heirloom" qualifications as since maintained by the author. Nor do we need a detailed explanation of why the contents of the book do not back up the title and v.v.

My point is this, and you can dispute it all you wish and try to have the final word. If Carolyn used the same set of rules or guidelines now as when the book was written, this discussion would probably never had included her. It's chaos! Five years later, we're still trying to find out what guidelines were being followed when the copy was being prepared. Were there any, surely they would have come out already in this thread. All we have to go on is learning where the origin of "heirloom" came from in connection with vegetables. But nobody has come forth linking to a site showing what those guidelines are. If none exist, and any one individual may decide without arbitration, then everyone reading this may set themselves up as a committee of one to decide. That would then give credence to every concocted "heirloom" offered on E-Bay or other Internet sites. Those who are growing and offering such varieties would have every right to call them what they wish. After all, we already have Marianna's Peace, Sunset Red Horizon, and Julia Child's as examples just from this thread. On the face of things, they appear to all 3 being strictly marketing ploys. One released while still being an unstable hybrid and the other two being new names to otherwise probably ordinary tomatoes!

Martin

Martin and Terry, you both smell like burnt chicken. Leave the Lady alone. You got any B*lls, jump on me. Your antics are pathetic, and anyone with a lick of sense would think you're Chickenman. You do this crap [jumping on Carolyn] every so often and it gets old having to put up with your crabby ol' man mentality.

Carolyn has given more of her time and energy to making the tomato forum work than you or anyone else has. She would be missed, but you sure as hell wouldn't be, not by me anyway. So lay off.

Earl, seems that YOU were the one not happy to let the sleeping dogs lie. Well, you didn't see the forest for the trees. I've had Carolyn's book for a long time and never felt that I had to dispute anything in it. Why should I discredit it? It would do neither she nor I any good to point out the inconsistencies in that book. Especially so since the forum rules might prevent her from defending or explaining something. I don't feel that she has to defend her errors but I'm here to remind her that they were made. If she's changed her standards since then, all she had to do was say so and explain why. But since she can't do that without promoting a product for personal gain, there's no reason for me to try to get her in trouble.

There's another point in that book thing. I had it before I even heard of GW as I had the SSE store handy. A great many here have it. Are all of them so naive as to not see the inconsistencies? Or must they forget every bit of information given out here and blindly accept something so confusing? Carolyn has stated time and again that any tomato created after 1940 is NOT an heirloom and yet there are a number of those in her book. At least, I'm consistent even if it's consistently negative, as Craig once stated!

There's another point that I'm going to make. Nowhere in the forum rules does it state that someone can not disagree with another. Just because someone says something is so, there is nothing which forbids rebuttal. That's the normal manner of discussions. Discussions can only take place between two or more people and they may have differing views and opinions on any subject. Just because you or Carolyn says YES to something doesn't mean that someone else can't say NO.

Insofar as this thread went, one person could be blamed for the way it went. He doesn't have to admit it but he knew the answers before asking the questions. When that began to get ridiculous, I think that I made it clear that enough of that fun was enough.

Now, if you wish, we can take this up in the Growing Tomatoes Forum. We can present a list of 100 varieties and critique each one as to their worthiness and right to be called a term that didn't officially apply to any of them 20 years prior. I don't think that we have to go that route. Just as with my acknowledging that I had the book, I wasn't about to admit it unless pushed into a corner. However, I never back into a corner without an escape hatch handy. Carolyn and Brook realized that and opted to allow me to not have to use that hatch. Your choice now, Earl. You opened that hatch after all was calm and came attacking from the rear! We don't need to appear like we're trying to bring down an empire now, do we? Or perhaps you do! You just know that I'm going to come out of that corner fighting!

However, if that's your choice, it would be terribly unfair to Carolyn. Just as an owner of a seed company can not come onto GW and engage in discussions, neither can any other commercial venture. Doesn't matter if they are selling tomato seeds, compost, plants, or anything else commercially connected to gardening. There are precedences which could be cited if there were any such defense by the author. That's not a far-fetched statement, that's fact and you know it! If you wish to go that route, say so but be prepared to share the bad-guy role.

For others wondering why I ended up with two totally different versions of Marianna's Peace, I never once suggest that perhaps it was my source where it became either crossed or mixed or whatever. Didn't feel a need to point my finger at a possible poor source. Could it have been a diabolical plan from the beginning? Send me the wrong or mixed stuff so that there'd be fuel for some future conflict? Virtually nothing is impossible. Incredible, yes, but possible! Nevertheless, I ain't saying since it had no bearing on this subject until now and ain't worth it.

Now, if anyone else has b*lls, as Earl so nicely typed it, you can petition the GW management to delete this thread in its entirety. Otherwise, should this thread continue under further hostile conditions, there WILL be a real discussion critiquing a fine book, page by page if needed. And it WILL be done within the stated purpose of the Growing Tomatoes Forum, within the normal rules of forum discussions, and under Garden Web rules. That is a promise, not an threat!

-30-

MARTIN

Martin,

Why are you always so concerned with "rules"? Do you consider these forums contests or games? I don't. I consider them a place for friendly discussion and exchange of information. My friends and I seldom need rules, referees, commissions or appeal boards to regulate our conversations. Friendship and courtesy suffice.

Jim

Martin is always right, haven't you figured that out Jim? Everybody else is wrong and if you think differently he will blather on and on for so long you'll get dizzy, forget what the original topic was and give up. Just like a little yappy dog that won't shut up, and even more annoying. He has the stamina of the energizer bunny wound just a bit too tight. I have never in my life seen anybody that liked to hear himself talk or write like a case of diarrea and enjoy the stench so much. Oh, I forgot. His crap doesn't stink.

Especially so since the forum rules might prevent her from defending or explaining something

They don't.

I had discussed this with Spike two years ago.

I can discuss anything in my book with anyone who asks, and I can refer folks to specific pages in my book either for text or for pictures as an aid in what I'm writing.

And most of the time I don't need to refer folks to my book in answering questions. For what I wrote is still in my head and spills out rather easily. For pictures it's different.

What I can't do is to directly SELL my book, which I never have and never will. As I said, I discussed this with Spike to be sure there was no conflict of interest.

And if others name the book and discuss it that's OK too, just as they name and discuss other books such as Carol Deppe's, Wilbur's, Ashworth's, etc.

From the day I first posted in the Tomato Forum when folks have asked what the name of my book is, for the purpose of buying it, I have never once responded by giving that information. If other's don't, so be it.

There are several folks who are commercial who post here and that's also fine as long they aren't directly selling something. Only once since I've been here did I see someone commercial post a link to that person's website where plants were sold, and that is against the GW rules. I did not report it for I don't do things like that.

And no, I have no intention whatsoever of participating in any page by page discussion/critique of my book, or any page by page discussion/critique of ANY book by anyone that's mentioned and discussed here at GW.

Enough is enough.

Carolyn, who at this point is deeply saddened to see the way this thread has evolved and would support a general cease and desist decision ASAP, for nothing positive is really being accomplished, as I see it.

Dukerdawg,

Your point is well taken.

Carolyn,

Your's is too. I wasn't thinking of your book when I commented about Martin's obsession with rules. (The fact that you have authored an important and popular book, from which you receive royalties, certainly does not disqualify you from participating in these forums. Quite the contrary!) If I recall correctly, Martin often cites "rules" with regard to usage of the term "heirloom" and seems to assume that there is some sort of official governing body with the authority to determine its definition. Or maybe he just wishes there were. I'm not sure. Believe me, I'm not trying to open that can of worms again. It's just another example.

Anyway, I also hope for these unpleasant distractions to fade away. That may be too high an expectation.. But, for my part, I will try to refrain from fueling the fires.

Jim

from which you receive royalties

In your dreams Jim, in your dreams. LOL

I didn't write the book for money, I was asked to write it and wrote it to share some of what I know about heirloom tomatoes and that's good b'c I haven't received one cent in royalties altho I did receive a non-returnable advance when it was published. ( smile)

(Anyway, I also hope for these unpleasant distractions to fade away. That may be too high an expectation.. But, for my part, I will try to refrain from fueling the fires.)

Thank you for that Jim and my wishes are the same as well.

Carolyn

"from which you receive royalties

In your dreams Jim, in your dreams. LOL "

Please, Carolyn, don't interfere with my dreams of becoming wealthy on the royalties of my next (well, OK, my first) book.

Jim

Only one way that happens, Jim.

First, you become president.
Second, you serve badly, with lots of scandels.
Third, you write a book for which they pay you a ridiculous advance.

Although my last one _did_ earn back more than the advance I was paid---a distinct rarity. It's a very strange business.

Well, that pretty well dashes my dreams of fame and fortune from book writing. I'm confident I could handle step two and probably step three, but that first one is pretty daunting. I'll have to try one of my other million dollar ideas.

Jim

Gee - didn't know that Dubya wrote his book yet....otherwise the fit is purrrrfect...

go ahead, guns blazing...

Craig

No blazing guns here Craig. Hmm...economy humming along...no senseless war...a little hanky-panky in the White House vs King George and Hitler Jr. Dick Chan..oop...better stop now.

D-

My man D!....a virtual toast to you with a great beer or a great wine (your choice)....perhaps a great tomato!!!

C

I finally just read all of these posts and noticed Martin's saga of the Yellow W55. I'm sure that everybody sees through his cr*p, but I'm going to have to call bullsh*t on at least part of his story. Martin hints that credit cannot go to Dr. Raabe in the catalog blurb because this might somehow tarnish his image. Yet Martin clearly identifies respected emeritus professor Dr. Robert Raabe in an earlier post. He seems to believe that long lost journals are going to note the missing seeds from this precious tomato (a tomato so precious that it was never released). Martin said that Raabe took some seeds, not that he ripped the entire plant out of the ground. And if some reputation tarnish will develop, we all know who took those seeds now, don't we? Thanks, Martin.

Martin, if you want to be the great savior of all things Wisconsin, have at it. Just have a little honesty in the process. I like WI cheese as much as the next guy, but yours really stinks.

Now back to more important things. My wife made it worth my while to take the Dubya bumber sticker out of my truck before the election. I am willing to compromise for peace.

I can't help but be reminded of something Henry Kissinger once said," Arguments in academia are so vicious because the stakes are so small." Garaj