Notes Regarding Published Taste Scores and Rankings1) It is not possible to assess definitively the fresh-eating quality of a fruit variety at one tasting. The flavor and sweetness of fruits depend on many variable factors. On the day of a tasting, some varieties may not be at peak quality.2) Variation within a fruit sample can be a source of fluctuation in the scoring. To minimize this possibility, tasters are asked to taste two or more samples from each fruit variety, and when they vary significantly in ripeness, to score the one that has the ripeness they would choose if they were picking it from their own tree.3) One of the most significant variables in fruit judging is the difference in personal preferences among tasters. For example, tasters often disagree on the appeal of sub acid fruit (fruit with little or no tartness). 4) Since different groups of tasters can have different taste preferences and different scoring tendencies, comparisons of scores from one tasting to another are not strictly valid. After many tastings, however, such variations in scoring should even out.5) Obviously, the data in this report is preliminary and incomplete. The list of varieties tested is not comprehensive for all fruit types nor is it complete for any of the specific fruit types tested. The various summaries and lists are relative only to fruit varieties tested, not to the entire spectrum of contemporary tree fruits.

MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOV.

MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOV.15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5

15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5

PLUOT®

APRIUM®

APRICOT

WHITE APRIUM®

ASIAN PEAR

WHITE PEACH

PLUM

BLUEBERRYSOUTHERN HIGHBUSH

SWEETCHERRY

PEACH

APPLE

WHITENECTARINE

NECTARINE

Honeycrisp

Pink LadyRed Fuji

Hosui

Fortyniner

Catalina

Geo Pride

Emerald Beaut

Laroda

Emerald Drop

Dapple DandyArctic Queen

Flavor GrenadeFlavor Finale

Flavor King

Flavor Queen

Heavenly White

Arctic Supreme

Fantasia

Zee Glo

July Elberta

O'HenryKaweah

August Glo

Flavortop

Blenheim

HoneykistHarko

Donut

Independence

Snow Queen

Arctic GloEva's Pride

SplashArctic Jay

Arctic Rose

Snow BeautyMericrest

Mid PrideSuncrestHalehaven

Double Delight

June GoldJuneglo

Flavor SupremeCot-N-Candy

Sugar MayGold DustArctic Star

Flavor DelightFlordaking

Craigs CrimsonRoyal Rainier

Utah GiantBing

VanSouthmoon

Varieties achieving an overall score of 6.5 or higher in two or more tastingsHarvest Periods are for Hickman, CA (Near Modesto)

Harvest Dates of Top Scoring Varieties

attractiveness firmness ripeness texture acid sugar flavor overallTop 100 3.85 3.07 3.45 4.09 3.00 3.77 4.28 7.38Average of all samples 3.51 3.08 3.19 3.51 2.86 3.00 3.27 5.54Bottom 100 3.18 2.99 3.13 2.66 2.29 2.05 2.06 3.38

How do the fruit characteristics of the “Top 100 Varieties” and the “Bottom 100 Varieties” compare to the average of all fruit tasting samples?

From the data we can see that all of the components with the exception of Firmness played a roll in the Overall scores. Varieties with high Overall scores had above average Sugar, Acid, and Texture scores, which all contribute to our perception of Flavor. Tasters tend to allocate high scores to varieties that have complex character, not just sweet or tart, crunchy or soft. While some individuals may key on those specific characteristics, in order to have broad appeal, varieties need to excite the pallet and have pleasant mouth feel. Additionally, Attractiveness plays a role in our overall perception. It sets an expectation that is either confirmed by the eating experience, or creates surprise when the result varies from the expectation. The Top 100 varieties rated according to our scoring system as Moderately to Very Attractive, Fully Ripe Firm to Fully Ripe Soft, with texture that was described as Appealing, acid that rated as Slightly Tart, Balanced. Sugar scores were rated as Slightly Sweet to Very Sweet, and Flavor scores that were rated as Very Good to Rich Intense and Superior.

Appearance vs. TasteCommercial fruit breeding, production and marketing place top priority on the appearance of fruit. In the 51 fruit tastings, if only the most attractive 50% of fruit samples had been selected for further evaluation (attractiveness scores of 3.6 or higher), samples of the following would have been rejected: Heavenly White, Arctic Queen, Arctic Rose, Stanwick and Snow Queen white nectarines, Indian Free white peach, Spitzenburg and Red Fuji apples, Red Baron, Veteran, and Eva’s Pride peaches, Harko nectarine, Canadian White Blenheim apricot, Emerald Beaut and Laroda plums, Dapple Dandy, Flavor Supreme, and Flavor Queen Pluot® interspecific plums, all of which earned scores of 6.8 or higher for overall fresh-eating quality – placing them in the top 10% of samples tested.

Favorite FruitsIn the 51 tastings to date, 91 samples of named fruit varieties have received scores of 7.0 or better (95 percentile). Among this elite group 38 of the samples were either nectarines, cherries or plums/ plum hybrids. 45% of yellow nectarines, 56% of white nectarines, 62% of Pluots®, and 48% of cherries have earned overall scores of 6.05 or higher (in the top 1/3 of all overall scores). By earning a disproportionate share of the top scores these fruit types have demonstrated broad appeal among the fruit tasters.

EXTERIOR ATTRACTIVENESS5 extraordinarily attractive4 very attractive3 moderately attractive2 not especially attractive1 ugly

FIRMNESS5 very hard4 hard3 firm2 soft1 very soft

RIPENESS5 too ripe, past peak quality4 fully ripe, soft3 fully ripe, firm2 not quite fully ripe1 not ripe

TEXTURE5 especially appealing4 appealing3 not notable one way or another2 slightly disagreeable1 very disagreeable

ACID5 too tart, sour4 tart3 slightly tart, balanced2 not tart, but enjoyable1 not tart, bland

SUGAR5 too sweet4 very sweet3 slightly sweet2 not especially sweet1 lacks sweetness, needs more

FLAVOR5 rich, intense, superior4 very good3 average2 somewhat lacking, mild1 absent or disagreeable

OVERALL9 have never had better8 excellent, outstanding7 very good, well above average6 good above average5 acceptable, average4 below average3 mediocre, barely worthwhile2 poor, not suitable for fresh use1 atrocious

SCORING SYSTEM

Nursery IndustryAlmaden Valley Matt LepowArmstrong Gardens Chris GreenwoodArmstrong Gardens Leah GreenwoodArmstrong Gardens Liz GreenwoodBay Laurel Nursery Jim PattersonBay Laurel Nursery Kristie WellsBay Laurel Nursery Marcia GuelffC&W Nursery Steve CampbellCal Poly Pomona Shaun OverstreetCal Poly SLO Lark CarterCapital Nursery Ken BrizziDinuba Grdn Ctr Jose GarciaDonlen Nursery Darlene DonlenDonlen Nursery Elicia JamesEisley's Nursery Earlene FreemanFlowerhut Nursery Keith MinerFour Winds Ed LaivoFront Yard Sandy HendricksHodges Nursery Ken HodgeJohnson Garden Center Kelley CorbettJon's Nursery Jon Freeman-woodMc Shane's Nursery Steve McshaneMid City Nursery Jake MikolajicRegan Nursery Victoria EvanoffRoger Reynolds Mary WalcherRoger Reynolds Nikki KarimzadScenic Nursery Colette HullSierra Nursery & Rock Janet SimkinsSonoma Mission Gardens Lydia ConstantiniSummer Winds Nursery Brian HjelmstadThe Greenery George SchumacherThe Greenery Jay DegraffTree People Steve HofvendahlUniv Ca Coop Ext Nancy GarrisonUniv Ca Coop Ext. Riverside Tom SheaUrban Tree Farm Travis WoodardVanwinden's Pueblo Gdn. Peter Van WindenWestern Siera Nursery Robyn HollandWestern Siera Nursery Mark HollandYamagami’s Carolyn Villa-ScottYamagami’s Cindi Felde-RiccaFormerly of Front Yard Marilyn LongFormerly of Front Yard Robin YurkovicFormerly of Yamagami’s Hoy Shih

California Rare Fruit GrowersAndrew MarianiCarol ScottCharles AllenChoung CroweDavid MaislenDavid PaytonDebbie SortommeDick PotratzDon GholstonDon JohnsonDoreen WendellEph KonigsbergGeorge QuesadaGretchen SandersJerry SortommeJim NeitzelJoan MaislenJohn Crowe

Master GardenersBarbara LauckCarole MaertweilerJohn G. ErnsbergerMike MaertzweilerShelly WardropTom SavioWilliam D. HollinsWinnie WuYvonne Savio

Radio PersonalitiesKSRO Radio Beverly TanemKSRO Radio Bob TanemKSTE Radio Fred HoffmanKSTE Radio Jeanne Hoffman

John LongKaren PaytonKit LongLarry HollisLarry ShoreJill SabolJoe SabolLyle OverleyMarv DanielsMichael ZarkeyPaul GuyPet DanielsPhoebe LiebigRobert ScottThomas PopeW. Karl GrossNino CupaiuoloPaul Fisher

Master Fruit Taster™ Award Recipients

Talk with people who know what it's like to eat it fresh from the tree! Just click the Master Fruit Taster symbol when you see it next to the name of a local retail nursery on www.davewilson.com

acid sugar flavor overall1993 2.94 3.12 3.45 5.981994 3.00 2.96 3.20 5.611995 3.00 2.98 3.30 5.681996 3.06 2.95 3.30 5.591997 2.85 3.12 3.38 5.761998 2.77 2.99 3.23 5.511999 2.87 2.91 3.19 5.352000 2.78 2.92 3.25 5.332001 2.76 2.96 3.14 5.272002 2.79 2.95 3.28 5.262003 2.95 2.98 3.23 5.522004 2.77 2.98 3.19 5.372005 2.84 3.15 3.37 5.742006 2.90 3.16 3.41 5.822007 3.01 3.17 3.56 6.102008 2.60 2.95 3.09 5.372009 2.89 2.96 3.25 5.452010 2.88 2.96 3.21 5.412011 2.82 3.21 3.48 6.102012 2.68 3.10 3.43 5.94All Years 2.86 3.00 3.27 5.54

Average Scores by Year

acid sugar flavor overallArctic Jay white nectarine (Z) 2.73 4.00 4.79 8.23Flavor King PluotR (Z) 3.10 3.90 4.40 8.10Snow Beauty peach (Z) 2.40 4.10 4.80 7.90Dapple Dandy PluotR (Z) 3.20 3.90 4.50 7.90Indian Free white peach 3.20 3.80 4.30 7.90Snow Queen white nect. (Z) 3.13 3.87 4.50 7.87Arctic Sweet white nect. (Z) 2.51 3.88 4.43 7.84Flavortop nectarine (Z) 2.90 4.10 4.50 7.80Flavor Supreme PluotR (Z) 3.30 3.70 4.50 7.70Van cherry 3.20 3.90 4.50 7.70Arctic Star white nect. (Z) 2.73 3.78 4.38 7.65Harken peach 2.78 3.65 4.18 7.51Arctic Supreme wht. pch. (Z) 3.50 3.50 4.30 7.50Heavenly White wht. nect. (Z) 3.10 3.70 4.10 7.50Liz's Late nectarine (Z) 3.50 3.80 4.70 7.50Emerald Drop PluotR (Z) 3.00 3.75 4.43 7.46Craig's Crimson cherry (Z) 2.10 3.50 4.30 7.50August Glo nectarine (Z) 3.10 3.78 4.14 7.42O'Henry peach 3.00 3.80 4.20 7.40Royal Rainier cherry (Z) 3.07 3.67 4.25 7.31

(Z) = Zaiger varieties

Top 20 Varieties 1993-2012

www.davewilson.com

The First Name in Fruit Trees™

The primary objective for the fruit tastings and the fruit tasting report is to provide retail nursery personnel with knowl-edge of, and experience with, tree-ripe fruit, that they might encourage the sale and planting of the consistently best tasting fruit varieties. Dave Wilson Nursery also uses the results of the tastings as a systematic means of evaluating new varieties and re-evaluating current selections for the home garden inventory. In the past 19 years Dave Wilson Nursery has conducted 51 formal fruit tastings, featuring 1,714 variety samples, each variety sample being evaluated by an aver-age of 30 tasters. Since 1994 we have compiled over 43,000 individual variety ratings. All of the tastings have been conducted “in the blind” with the tasters not knowing the variety names until after the evaluation. The samples for each tasting are selected based on their proximity to peak maturity at the date of the tasting. Prior to the year 2000 most of the tasters had been retail nursery owners and their employees, since then however the panel has included significant contri-butions from media personnel (radio personalities, garden writers, ABC World News Tonight television) and members of the California Rare Fruit Growers.

2012 FRUIT TASTING REPORT

$ 1.00