Skip to content
CiderHQ
Search

Cider apple

Esopus Spitzenburg

A Hudson Valley apple of the eighteenth century, high in acid and strongly aromatic, better known as a dessert fruit but a genuine contributor to heritage cider blends.

Also written Spitzenburg, Esopus Spitzenberg.

Classification
Sharp — Long Ashton classification
Harvest
Late (Late October)
Single varietal
Sometimes bottled on its own
Blend role
Acid lift, Aroma
Origin
Esopus, Ulster County, in the Hudson Valley of New York
Species
Malus domestica
Vigour
Moderate
Biennial bearing
Markedly biennial — heavy and light years alternate
Keeping
Good

How it is classified

Long Ashton classification

Sharp

High acid, low tannin. Includes both purpose-grown sharps and many culinary apples.

Basis: Above about 0.45% w/v acid and below about 0.2% w/v tannin.

Assessed in Fruit grown in New York State trial plantings.

Every classification on CiderHQ names its system. Why there is more than one.

What it contributes to a blend

A direction, not a measurement. These bands are the level of resolution the evidence supports, and they say which way adding this fruit pushes a blend rather than what the finished cider will be.

Contribution to a blend, scored 1–5 as a band. The filled segment is the typical value; the paler segments are the range.
AxisTypicalRange
AcidHigh
TanninLight
SugarModerate
BitternessNone
AstringencyNone
AromaPronounced
BodyMedium
Based on: published analysis

Cornell acid data plus a long and unusually consistent descriptive record of the cultivar’s aromatic intensity.

High, bright acid with an intense spicy-aromatic lift; among the most perfumed of the American heritage apples.

Aroma

Descriptors associated with this fruit. Each names a character with a known cause, and association is not a promise — what reaches the glass depends on the ferment as much as on the apple.

Put Esopus Spitzenburg into a blend

Measured analysis

Each figure is shown with where and when it was taken. They are not averaged: the same cultivar grown in another climate genuinely gives different numbers, and collapsing them into one would be the most misleading thing this page could do.

Measured on the fruit

Measured on the fruit itself, before anything was done to it. These figures hold whatever was later made from the juice.

Reported analyses of Esopus Spitzenburg, by property and source — measured on the fruit
PropertyReadingWhereWhenSource
Fruit diameter64 mm (60–69)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Fruit firmness58.9 N (31.9–85.9)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Fruit weight124 g (99–150)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Starch pattern index8.0 SPIUSDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit

Measured on the juice

Measured on juice as pressed, before fermentation. This is where most cider analysis lives and what the classification schemes are defined on.

Reported analyses of Esopus Spitzenburg, by property and source — measured on the juice
PropertyReadingWhereWhenSource
Brix10.7 °Bx (9.0–12.3)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Fructose70.7 g/L (64.1–77.3)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Glucose18.3 g/L (15.6–21.0)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
pH3.54 pH (3.53–3.55)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Sorbitol8.4 g/L (7.4–9.4)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Sucrose51.7 g/L (50.2–53.2)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Titratable acidity5.1 g/L (3.8–6.4)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
Total acid0.600–0.850 % w/vGeneva, New York State2010sModern analysisCornell University, School of Integrative Plant Science
Total phenolics850.0 mg/L (760.0–940.0)USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, USA2017Modern analysisCornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit
How these were measured
  • Mean of the fruit sampled per accession; where a bracket is shown it is one standard deviation either side of the mean, not the observed range. Published to two decimal places and shown at the precision CiderHQ displays for the unit.
  • Mean of the fruit sampled per accession; where a bracket is shown it is one standard deviation either side of the mean, not the observed range.
  • Cornell generic starch–iodine chart, 1–8, where 1 is no hydrolysis and 8 is complete. Mean of replicate fruit; a bracket, where shown, is one standard deviation either side of it.
  • Penetrometer, mean of replicate fruit; a bracket, where shown, is one standard deviation either side of the mean.
  • Refractometer on pressed juice. Mean of replicates; a bracket, where shown, is one standard deviation either side of the mean.
  • Titration to pH 8.2 with sodium hydroxide, reported as malic acid equivalents. Mean of replicates; a bracket, where shown, is one standard deviation either side of the mean.
  • Meter on pressed juice before fermentation. Mean of replicates; a bracket, where shown, is one standard deviation either side of the mean.
  • Löwenthal permanganate titration, reported by the source as grams per litre of tannic acid equivalent and stored here as milligrams per litre by exact conversion so that it sits in one column with the Folin–Ciocalteu figures the site also holds. The two methods do not measure the same thing and are not interchangeable.
  • Enzymatic assay (Megazyme). Mean of replicates; a bracket, where shown, is one standard deviation either side of the mean.
  • D-sorbitol/xylitol assay kit (Megazyme), sorbitol dehydrogenase method. Mean of replicates; a bracket, where shown, is one standard deviation either side of the mean.
  • Reported as malic acid across seasons in the cultivar’s home climate.
  • A chart position, not a quantity. Almost every accession here scored at or near 8, which says the fruit was picked at or past full starch conversion rather than that the cultivars are alike.
  • One harvest at one site. Soluble solids move several degrees between seasons and with crop load.
  • A permanganate figure and a Folin–Ciocalteu figure for the same juice can differ by a factor of two. Compare this reading with other permanganate readings, not with a Folin one.

Compare within a study to see where these figures sat among the other cultivars the same work analysed — which is a more robust statement than the figures themselves, because absolute values move between laboratories and the ordering inside one study mostly survives.

Watched in the orchard

What named research programmes recorded about this fruit at their own sites. Bloom, harvest and cropping belong to a place and a run of seasons rather than to a cultivar, so they are reported site by site rather than merged.

USDA-PGRU Malus germplasm characterisation

USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York, in the Finger Lakes region of western New York State · 2017 · Cornell University / USDA-ARS Plant Genetic Resources Unit

Humid continental, with cold winters and warm summers moderated by the Finger Lakes — a sharper seasonal swing than any of the European cider regions whose fruit the collection holds, and warm enough in late summer to bring acid down faster than a maritime autumn does.

Held as
PI 588785, held as “Esopus Spitzenburg”

One harvest season. Fruit assessed for weight, diameter, starch pattern index on the Cornell 1–8 chart and flesh firmness by penetrometer; juice pressed and measured for soluble solids by refractometer, titratable acidity by titration to pH 8.2 as malic acid, pH by meter, total phenolics by Löwenthal permanganate titration as tannic acid equivalent, and glucose, fructose, sucrose and sorbitol by enzymatic assay.

In the orchard

Harvest window
Late
Flowering
Not recorded
Vigour
Moderate
Cropping
Markedly biennial — heavy and light years alternate
Keeping
Good

A shy and irregular cropper, which is the principal reason it never became a commercial cultivar despite its reputation.

Disease and pest susceptibility

Recorded susceptibility. Pressure differs enormously by region and by season, so these are tendencies rather than predictions.
IssueSusceptibilityNote
Fire blighthighMarkedly blight-prone, which in the eastern United States is a serious planting objection.
Apple scabhigh
Cankermoderate

Juice and pressing

How it is used

On its own

Sometimes bottled on its own

Bottled occasionally as a single varietal. The acid and the perfume carry it, but there is no structure behind them and the cider reads as a lively one rather than a serious one.

About Esopus Spitzenburg

Esopus Spitzenburg has a reputation out of proportion to how much of it has ever been planted. It was regarded through the nineteenth century as one of the finest dessert apples in America, and it is a difficult, blight-prone, irregular-cropping tree that no commercial grower would choose. Both of those things are true simultaneously, and the second explains why the first never translated into acreage.

For cider it does one job very well. The acid is high, the aroma is intense and spiced, and the two arrive together, which lets a small proportion lift a blend that is otherwise dominated by low-acid dessert fruit. That is the standard use for it among modern heritage producers in New York and New England, and it is a use the cultivar’s poor cropping can actually sustain, because a blend component is needed in smaller quantity than a base fruit.

Its fire blight susceptibility deserves its own sentence, because it illustrates something about this whole family of records. Fire blight is a bacterial disease that shapes every planting decision in eastern North America, kills whole trees rather than damaging fruit, and is very largely absent from the English cider literature this site’s British records draw on. A cultivar description written in Somerset would not think to mention it. A North American one that omits it is incomplete.

Names, origin and identity

Cultivar naming is the hardest problem in cider fruit data. The same tree carries different names across ten miles, and two different trees have shared a name for two centuries.

Origin · documented

The Esopus association is consistent in the early American record; no raiser or precise date is documented.

Other names this fruit is known by. Each is a name for the same cultivar, not a separate one — which is why none of them has a page of its own.
NameKindNote
SpitzenbergHistoric spellingThe commonest alternative spelling in American nursery listings.
True SpitzenburghHistoric spellingNew York State. Used in the nineteenth century to distinguish it from several inferior apples sold under the Spitzenburg name.

Related cultivars

Recorded relationships, including the ones this fruit is routinely confused with.

Parentage

Fruit that plays a similar part

Cultivars sharing a classification under the same system and a comparable role in a blend. Not a similarity score — a stated relationship.

Styles it is characteristic of

Where it grows

What people ask next

Questions readers ask about the things this page mentions. Each one goes to the section that answers it rather than to a page written to receive the question.

Where to go next

Sources

What this page rests on. Where a source is marked as registered rather than read, CiderHQ is recording that the body is authoritative on the subject without claiming to have worked through the document itself. See our evidence policy for what each state means.

Research Evidence standard for this record. What that means.