Hi Guys, Please forgive this one last intrusion concerning Rome apples. I received an email today from a member of the list who said that my information about the Rome Beauty being yellow isn't correct. Since even modern apple orchards are confused with the issue and since the Coxs and Gilletts are from Lawrence County, and I had some other primary source documents that prove the point I thought I'd go ahead and send one more post to the list about the apples. I would agree with the gentleman if he's saying that the Red Rome was not yellow, but the Rome Beauty was yellow with bright red markings. Here is a description of the Rome Beauty being presented to the Cincinnati Horticultural Society. http://books.google.com/books?id=UzkYAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA235 The Magazine of Horticulture..., 1843 "Mr. A. H. Ernst presented the Society speciments of a new seedling apple, of great excellence and beauty...[from] the farm of Mr. Joel Gillett... above medium size, of bright red color, on yellow ground..." This actually gives a short history of the Rome Beauty, as of 1843. Elliot's Fruit Book, 1854 (Elliott & Company was a large Garden, Field, and Seed distributor out of Cleveland) describes it similarly to the others with a bit more emphasis on the ground. "Fruit, large; form, roundish; color, rich light yellow, mostly overspread and striped with shades of clear bright red..." http://books.google.com/books?id=aUUMAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover The revered Andrew Jackson Downing wrote The Fruits and Fruit Trees of America in 1859, in which he described the Rome Beauty as "Fruit large, roundish... skin yellow, shaded and striped with bright red, and sprinkled with little dots." His whole description can be found by going to http://books.google.com/books?id=o6saAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover So my original source, The Ohio Cultivator, 1855, that said it was "Fruit, large; form, roundish; color, rich light yellow, mostly overspread and striped with shades of clear bright red..." is well backed by numerous other well respected sources all prior to 1860. I didn't give the link to the Cultivator in my original post http://books.google.com/books?id=nrIYWV54UpYC&pg=RA1-PA So yes, the Rome Beauty was bright red, but on a yellow ground, just like my original post read. Which is why when Mr. Cox's Red Rome was described in 1921 (see my earlier post), it read "Red Rome, a Rome wherein dark red would appear as the dominant color factor." In other words, it appeared to be a Rome Beauty but differed in that red was now the dominant color -- the yellow ground was gone. The Red Rome was/is also frequently referred to (in the 20th century) as the Red Rome Beauty, so there is all the more confusion; but when taken in context with what my 1921 source said, it makes sense. A Rome Beauty in dark red skin = Red Rome Beauty. <grin> Anyway, I have more sources but they all say the same thing anyway. :-) Here are two modern orchards that have colored photos of the true Rome Beauty. http://www.woodbridgefruittrees.com.au/html/big%20and%20small.html http://wb7.itrademarket.com/pdimage/48/601448_apelmalangromebeauty-km.jpg Anyway, I hope I didn't bore everyone, but Rome Beauties and their offspring the Red Romes were born in Lawrence County, though from my reading the genealogy of the Rome Beauty is pretty much a brick wall. :-) Linda .