Apple tree suggestions

[ameno]

One thing to bear in mind if you want trees to last a long time is that I think very dwarfing rootstocks tend to limit the life of the trees compared to more vigorous rootstocks. Personally I've increasingly given up on less vigorous rootstocks since they always seem to have problems.

In my family's gardens:

Cherry: Gisela 5 - died, Colt - lived
Plum: VVA-1 - almost dead despite vigorous scion (Marjorie's Seedling), although to be fair I lost a couple on St Julien as well.
Apple: M9, M27 - dead (my garden), M26 - most cankered or dead (parents' garden), MM106, M25 - generally no problems
Pear: QA - runted, barely grown in 5 years, under 2m tall, tiny fruit, Pyrodwarf - much bigger fruit, more vigour at same time

And it's not like I didn't do everything you're supposed to do, like keep the ground clear around them, water them in dry spells etc.

Better to have fewer healthy trees than a load of weak, disease prone ones.

Maybe it's just something about your soil or climate?
I've only ever had one tree die on me, and that was because of drought. I have one VVA Victoria olum and an M26 Sunset apple that are growing and cropping well, 5 years after planting (in fact the plum crops better than my St Julian A plums, despite being much smaller).
And I have one apple, Beauty of Bath, on M27, which is very healthy. Admittedly, it does drop most of its crop early, but that's a problem endemic to that variety. The tree itself is the picture of health.

Also, most choose dwarfing varieties because they just don't have space for larger ones. Even my two St Julian A plums are a bit too big for my garden, really.

[chrisdb]

Maybe it's just something about your soil or climate?
I've only ever had one tree die on me, and that was because of drought. I have one VVA Victoria olum and an M26 Sunset apple that are growing and cropping well, 5 years after planting (in fact the plum crops better than my St Julian A plums, despite being much smaller).
And I have one apple, Beauty of Bath, on M27, which is very healthy. Admittedly, it does drop most of its crop early, but that's a problem endemic to that variety. The tree itself is the picture of health.

Also, most choose dwarfing varieties because they just don't have space for larger ones. Even my two St Julian A plums are a bit too big for my garden, really.

It could well be, but I don't think it's isolated to me. This is experienced generalised from my garden, and at least two gardens of family members at quite a distance from me (in one case in France), plus the odd person on this forum (e.g. FB).

I think that for at least a significant minority of gardens, dwarfing rootstocks are just difficult. The question is how big a proportion of gardeners are going to learn from bitter experience and dead trees that dwarfing rootstocks are no good for them.

Very few people have that perfect well-drained but moist loamy soil that always gets mentioned. If you're not in that category, it's worth thinking twice about the weedier rootstocks.

As far as size goes... well, you can grow mm106 as (large) espaliers or cordons, and vigour is partly influenced by variety as well as rootstock, so it's not impossible to have a smaller tree on a more vigorous rootstock. And I'd always go for weak variety + strong rootstock over the other way round.

EDIT: although I have to admit to one case of dwarfing rootstocks massively exceeding expectations. My grandparents planted some dwarfing apples a couple of decades ago and just left them. I'm unsure of the rootstock, but given the age I'd guess m26. They're clearly happy though, since they're mostly big free-standing trees >4m tall. The other possibility is that the trees were mis-sold as dwarfing...

[Lardman]

...the odd person on this forum (e.g. FB).

Fancy calling FB. odd

You can cook with most apples - but who has time to peel and prepare lots of tiny ones rather than just one 1lb apple, dual purpose fruit are rubbish at 2 things rather than just 1.

Rootstock shouldn't be just thought of as sizing. They have that effect but because they're less healthy than standard. Your tree is reduced in size because the roots are too sickly to provide enough energy for it to grow properly. If your tree is malnourished and constantly fighting to survive it's going to catch every bug going.

Get yourself a decent cooker and a mid/late season desert with mid range keeping properties. My personal choice if someone were to take all but 2 of my trees away, would be Edward V11 and Kidds Orange Red.

[nickdub]

If I was picking just two, I'd go James Grieve for an eater/cooker and Ashmead for reasons already given.

[FB.]

If I was picking just two, I'd go James Grieve for an eater/cooker and Ashmead for reasons already given.

I had a James Grieve some years ago and it was a good variety for me apart from it didn't like its original sunny spot but did OK after being moved to a semi-shaded spot.
Unfortunately it eventually died because its MM106 roots got crown rot (most things I've tried on MM106 have died as a result of the roots becoming diseased).
Lots of people up North complain about disease problems with JG.

I also like Ashmead's Kernel. No problems with diseases or pests and even the cropping was better than expected. Some problems with bitter pit, especially on MM106 or dwarf rootstocks, less problematic on M25 which is a rootstock that I find greatly reduces the incidence of bitter pit in my soil.
However 'the books' say Ashmead's Kernel is average growth but I find it's a very vigorous tree that matches the growth rate and size of Bramley, Blenheim, Laxton's Superb, Gascoyne's Scarlet etc.
Some people say it prefers a mild climate to crop well.

[nickdub]

I've got my James Grieves on MM106, been healthy here for 35 years no problem - mind you my soil is over a very free-draining light one over limestone on a sunny slope about 450' above sea level, so although we get a lot of rain, the soil is never waterlogged at all - you're bang on about Ashmead's Kernel, my two trees also on MM106 are best part of 30' high after 33 years -only had bitter pit one year early on - my guess is when the roots really get down in the soil the trees can get whatever they need and so bitter pit is no longer an issue - oddly one of these trees has had a lot less leaf this year - might be a fungus problem so will have to wait and see on that one.

[ameno]

Very few people have that perfect well-drained but moist loamy soil that always gets mentioned. If you're not in that category, it's worth thinking twice about the weedier rootstocks.

I suppose so. The soil in my garden is very good (loamy clay, well-drained), so that definitely would help.
It's why I'm actually slightly concerned about the Quince C pear and VVA plum I'm getting for my new allotment, where the soil is a bit heavier. They won't allow any tree over about six or seven feet, though, so it's either those dwarfing rootstocks or no trees at all, so I'm taking my chances. I plan on improving the surrounding soil with plenty of compost and sharp sand.

[chrisdb]

I suppose so. The soil in my garden is very good (loamy clay, well-drained), so that definitely would help.
It's why I'm actually slightly concerned about the Quince C pear and VVA plum I'm getting for my new allotment, where the soil is a bit heavier. They won't allow any tree over about six or seven feet, though, so it's either those dwarfing rootstocks or no trees at all, so I'm taking my chances. I plan on improving the surrounding soil with plenty of compost and sharp sand.

There's no harm in trying. As I said, you can also train some of the semi-vigorous stocks as restricted forms like cordons, espaliers or even step-overs, and I'd imagine that would go well with an organised allotment look and maybe reduce the chance of complaints from neighbours compared to a unrestricted tree.

You can also get dwarfing varieties that will remain relatively small even on vigorous rootstocks. I grow a cherry called Celeste on Colt which is naturally quite slow growing, even though Colt is a quite vigorous rootstock. I've had it for about four years now and it does seem generally healthy even though it grows up about an inch a year... and it does produce quite a lot of cherries if some of the branches are netted to prevent the pigeons from pecking away all the leaves and fruit.

Similar for other fruits. For example, on the pear side, many of the more modern varieties like Beth and Concorde are very weak growers even on the supposedly semi-vigorous rootstock Quince A.

That's what I meant about a weak variety and strong rootstock working better (or being less likely to die) for me.

[Hereford fruit grower]

I'd second the recommendation to plant a James Grieve. I think it's a wonderful apple, it has now stood the test of time, and it was bred in Scotland.

Years ago, I read that it preferred a climate drier than the S W Midlands (650-700 mm/year) and not too rich a soil. Possibly yes to both of these. I know someone whose tree was planted at the bottom of a shallow slope and it suffered canker. Mine's on the same soil, except that water probably drains away a bit faster, and it's very healthy. (Both on M9).

Mine overcrops every year and gets thinned ruthlessly, but if you remove as much fruit as you need to do on Sunset the apples will be very large for dessert. Also the fruit bruises and must be handled like a ripe peach. Otherwise, an excellent apple, especially if you like largeish fruit.

[ameno]

Mine overcrops every year and gets thinned ruthlessly, but if you remove as much fruit as you need to do on Sunset the apples will be very large for dessert. Also the fruit bruises and must be handled like a ripe peach. Otherwise, an excellent apple, especially if you like largeish fruit.

I thin my Sunset every year what I think is a normal amount, but I always end up with massive, Bramley-sized fruit, so I do wonder whether I thin too much. Especially as Sunset is supposedly a small-fruited variety.

[nickdub]

I thin my Sunset every year what I think is a normal amount, but I always end up with massive, Bramley-sized fruit, so I do wonder whether I thin too much. Especially as Sunset is supposedly a small-fruited variety.

I don't think its possible to thin too much from the p.o.v. of looking after your tree - of course if you prefer more but smaller fruit, then thinning a little less might be a good idea from that angle :-)

[ameno]

I don't think its possible to thin too much from the p.o.v. of looking after your tree - of course if you prefer more but smaller fruit, then thinning a little less might be a good idea from that angle :-)

That's just it. The fruit are a bit too big, really. I think next year I shall try and thing a bit less, in the hope that I get more smaller fruit. It's a healthy tree and well-established by now, so it should be able to handle a few more fruit.

[nickdub]

That's just it. The fruit are a bit too big, really. I think next year I shall try and thing a bit less, in the hope that I get more smaller fruit. It's a healthy tree and well-established by now, so it should be able to handle a few more fruit.

That should work OK for you I think - I have one Sunset tree which is about 25 years old, and I hardly thin at all mostly due to laziness, and the apples are a bit too small for my preference.