Is This The House That A.W. Built?

It never rains but it pours. After all be dispairing of every finding Kentucky heirloom tomatoes, this year I'm growing four, have seed for eight, and know of at least three others. Whoops! Four, counting the Uncle Bagby's.

Many of these are family heirlooms going back at least 80 to 90 years, and can be described similarly: A large, smooth, yellow skinned tomato often with a blush at the blossom end.

I had concluded, therefore, that at one time around the turn of the century or a little later that this type of tomato was very popular here in the Bluegrass State. Of course, I never expected to find the original variety.

Wrong again, maybe.

The Livingston Golden Queen is an exact match for that tomato. Introduced by Livingston in 1882, it is described (thanks to Mike over at Victory Seeds) in the 1933 catalog as "of superior flavor, solid, always smooth, large, ripens early. Rich golden yellow skin with a tinge of pink on the blossom side." Most of the Kentucky heirlooms I've collected that fit this description are 80 days to maturity. The Golden Queen is listed as 78 days.

So, is Golden Queen the precursor to all these others? The description is right. The timing is right.

We may never know for sure. But I'm confident, frankly, that I've found it. Which means next year I'll have to track down seed and grow it out for a hands-on comparison with these others.

Comments? Suggestions?

WOW!! I'm overwhelmed by your diligence, perserverence and knowledge! Seriously, I'm impressed and will continue to follow your adventures. Bravo!!

This makes perfect sense to me Brook. Like you said...the dates match. I'd be curious to see a grow-out too. There could be some minor crosses in the mix and still retain the basic characteristics..but Golden Queen being right under our noses all the time could prove to be the puzzle piece that fits.

Something that you might be aware of...there's a couple strains of Golden Queen floating around. The ones from Tomato Grower's Supply seem to be the closest to the original USDA form.

Perhaps, Mel. Victory Seeds, which specializes in Livingston varieties, has seed for it too.

Another piece of the puzzle. Until well into the 1960s pack peddlers still worked eastern Kentucky. Around the turn of the century, and up to about WWII they were the primary way people shopped. There were few roads in the eastern hills, and fewer stores.

Peddlers sold seed loosely. That is, they would have a supply. When a customer wanted some, they would pour it onto a scrap of paper until the customer said whoa. The peddler then twisted up the paper and quoted a price.

It's still done that way in many parts of the world. The Azerbaijon tomatoes and eggplants in my collection were purchased just that way in the mid-1990s.

Two things are likely. One, being as Livingston was the preeminent tomato seed supplier at the time, many of the peddlers probably bought bulk seed from that company. And, two, it is likely that the seed was never identified by the peddlers as to brand and variety. Rather, it would be seed for "yellow" or "red" tomatoes, or other generic names like beefsteak.

Now we jump forward a hundred years, and the family heirlooms we collect are still merely the "yellow" or "red" or "beefsteak" tomatoes the family has always grown.

Some more speculation.

When Livingston introduced Golden Queen in 1882 there was no mention of a blush at the blossom end. But in the 1933 catalog it's described as: "Of superior flavor, solid, always smooth, large, ripens early. Rich golden yellow skin with a tinge of pink on the blossom side. Fine for slicing. 78 days." In the original description, after "always smooth" it added something about never having ridges (I don't have it in front of me right now). And the line about a pink tinge was absent. Otherwise the descriptions are pretty much the same.

So, it's possible that the 1882 Golden Queen and the 1933 Golden Queen are not the same tomato. That is, GQ evolved over 50 years. Not uncommon. It's also possible that the original had the blush, but the catalog copywriters didn't include it.

I've got some catalog collectors hunting through Livingston catalogs to see when the description actually changed.

Meanwhile, between Gary Perkins (who's also part of this hunt) and me, we know of at least 9 varieites that fit the Golden Queen rubric.

BTW, Melody, the USDA form may or may not be the actual Livington variety. There are lots of problems with the USDA germplasm collections, and record keeping is just one of them.

Which came first, the chicken or the Golden Queen?

Bet that got everyone's attention. But there is a point to it. I brought Mike Dunton in on this investigation. If you don't know Mike, you should. He heads up Victory Seeds, another specialist in heirlooms. More to the point, A.W. Livingston is a passion of Mike's, and he even has a whole section on Livingston and Livingston tomatoes at his web site (www.victoryseeds.com/Livingston/).

Anyway, here is something pertinent Mike had to say on the Golden Queens:

"Regarding descriptions in Livingston's words . . . there is a chance that the varieties that you guys are finding in the hills are the mother stock and not daughters."

You know I sat up at attention when I read those words. He continues:

"Page 29 of Livingston and the Tomato, he states, "In one of the county fairs which I often attended for the purpose of selling seeds, I saw a very pretty yellow tomato. As I was examining it closely, and admiring it, the owner saw fit to make me a present of one of them, which I prized highly, and took special care to preserve, test and improve. I had it a number of years before I introduced it; but in 1882 I thought it advisable to give it a wider circulation." The description that he gives in the book (1893) omits the "blush on the blossom end" information. However, I have the 1896 seed catalog, and the description is complete there."

Ain't that sumpin!

The search continues.