The grapes of New York

by U. P. Hedrick

1. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1862:148. 2. U. S. D. A. Rpt., 1865:16. 3. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1867:114. 4. Mead, 1867:222. 5. Rec. of Hort., 1868:46. 6. N. Y. Ag. Soc. Rpt., 1868:228. 7. Mag. Hort., 34:7. 1868. 8. Horticulturist, 24:138. 1869. fig. 9. Grape Cult., 1:150, 181, 327. 1869. 10. Am. Jour. Hort., 5:264. 1869. 11. Am. Pom. Soc. Cat., 1869:42. 12. Grape Cult., 2:148, 149, fig., 298. 1870. 13. Mich. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1877:205. 14. Am. Pom. Soc. Rpt., 1881:42, 138. 15. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 9:329. 1890. 16. Ill. Sta. Bul., 28:261. 1893. 17. Tenn. Sta. Bul., Vol. 9:187. 1896. 18. N. Y. Sta. An. Rpt., 17:535, 542, 543, 544, 548, 553. 1898. 19. Mich. Sta. Bul., 169:175. 1899.

Rogers’ No. 22 (1, 2). Rogers’ No. 22 (3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15). Rogers’ No. 53 (4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17).

Salem is the one of Rogers’ hybrids of which the originator is said to have thought most and to which he gave the name of his place of residence. Taking all of its characters, the variety is as close an approximation to the ideal Rogers had in mind of a European grape and an American vine as any one of the score or more of his hybrids. Salem ranks among the best of these hybrids for either the garden or the commercial vineyard, and while commonly found in both it has not been sufficiently recognized by those who grow grapes for the market. It is difficult to say why it is not more largely grown as a market fruit in New York. The two chief faults, unproductiveness and susceptibility to mildew, are not found in all localities, and in these at least and especially near good markets, Salem ought to take high rank as a commercial fruit.

As compared with other hybrids of Vinifera and Labrusca, Salem is early, hardy, vigorous and fairly productive of handsome fruit of high quality both for table and for wine-making. Though the color-plate does not show it, there is a suggestion in bunch and berry of Black Hamburg, the paternal parent. So, too, there is such a suggestion in the flavor and the keeping quality and, as with the parent, the fruit neither cracks nor shatters and therefore ships well. To the two faults named above must be added that of pulpiness of berry, a defect common to many hybrids of the two species represented in Salem. It is useless to recommend for testing varieties that have been known as long and as widely grown as Salem but it is worth while, is almost a duty, in a work of this kind to urge further trials of some of the grapes of highest quality, as Salem, on a commercial basis. Such fruit properly grown, packed, and placed in the market ought to bring remunerative prices.

This one of Rogers’ hybrids is No. 22 of his Vinifera-Labrusca crosses. It early attracted favorable attention from the various cultivators who had received vines from the originator for testing. It was christened Salem by Rogers in 1867, two years earlier than his other hybrids were named. At about this time, owing to a confusion of this variety with some other, and charges that certain parties were sending out a black grape under the name Rogers’ No. 22, Rogers changed the number of Salem to 53.

Salem was placed on the grape list of the American Pomological Society fruit catalog in 1869 and was removed in 1871, reinstated in 1873, and has since been retained. It is possible that the dropping of the name from the catalog for the one year was a printer’s oversight as there is nothing in the body of the text to indicate a reason for such action. Salem has always been one of the most popular of Rogers’ hybrids and it is offered for sale to-day by practically all grape nurserymen.

Vine medium to vigorous, unusually hardy, variable in productiveness, susceptible to severe attacks of mildew. Canes long, of average number, intermediate in thickness, light to dark brown; nodes enlarged, usually not flattened; internodes medium to above in length; diaphragm thick; pith medium to above in size; shoots slightly pubescent; tendrils continuous to intermittent, long to medium, bifid to trifid.

Leaf-buds rather large, of average size, thick to medium, often compressed, roundish, obtuse to conical, open early. Young leaves faintly tinged on lower side with slight rose-carmine. Leaves variable in size, medium to thin; upper surface dark green, dull, of medium smoothness; lower surface pale green with slight bronze tinge, pubescent; veins moderately distinct; lobes none to three with terminus acute; petiolar sinus deep, narrow, often closed and overlapping; basal sinus lacking; lateral sinus shallow, narrow, often notched; teeth intermediate in depth and width. Flowers sterile, open in mid-season; stamens reflexed.