Skip to content
CiderHQ
Search

Perry pear

Stinking Bishop

A Dymock perry pear named after a nineteenth-century grower called Bishop, and now better known through the washed-rind cheese that is bathed in its perry.

Also written Stinking Bishops.

Classification
Medium sharp — Perry pear classification
Harvest
Mid (Late September to mid October)
Single varietal
Sometimes bottled on its own
Blend role
Acid lift, Aroma
Origin
Dymock, Gloucestershire
Species
Pyrus communis
Vigour
Vigorous
Biennial bearing
Markedly biennial — heavy and light years alternate
Keeping
Poor — mill soon after picking

How it is classified

Perry pear classification

Medium sharp

Moderate acid with low to moderate tannin.

Moderate acid with low tannin, from descriptive material. If the equation with Moorcroft were accepted, the classification would be the same, which is one reason the dispute has never been forced to a conclusion.

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
AcidModerate
TanninLight
SugarModerate
BitternessNone
AstringencySlight
AromaPresent
BodyMedium
Based on: description rather than analysis

Descriptive material on a moderately sharp, low-tannin pear, with confidence lowered because the cultivar’s identity is not settled.

A moderately sharp, low-tannin juice giving a light perry; the pear’s reputation rests on its name and its association with cheese rather than on any unusual character in the glass.

Aroma

No aroma descriptors are recorded for Stinking Bishop, and for a great deal of cider fruit that is a finding rather than a gap. Bittersweet apples in particular contribute tannin, sugar and body while being close to aromatically mute, and most of what a cider made from them smells of was produced by the fermentation rather than carried in by the fruit. CiderHQ publishes the absence rather than filling the space with descriptors nothing supports.

Put Stinking Bishop into a blend

Measured analysis

No analysis recorded

CiderHQ holds no sourced juice analysis for Stinking Bishop. Figures for this cultivar circulate, but they reach the present through compilation rather than through the original tables, and publishing a number we cannot attribute would give it an authority it has not earned. What is known about how the fruit behaves is described above and below.

In the orchard

Harvest window
Mid
Flowering
Not recorded
Vigour
Vigorous
Cropping
Markedly biennial — heavy and light years alternate
Keeping
Poor — mill soon after picking

Late September into October, on the descriptions available. Where the cultivar is identified with Moorcroft the harvest is reported earlier, which is one of the practical points on which the two descriptions diverge.

Mid-season. Self-incompatible.

Pears need a pollinator

Pears are not self-fertile. A variety needs another in blossom at the same time to set fruit, which is why the flowering band matters more in a perry orchard than the harvest window does.

Disease and pest susceptibility

Recorded susceptibility. Pressure differs enormously by region and by season, so these are tendencies rather than predictions.
IssueSusceptibilityNote
Pear scabmoderate

Juice and pressing

How it is used

On its own

Sometimes bottled on its own

Made alone in small quantities. Anyone doing so is relying on an identification that the record does not fully settle.

About Stinking Bishop

Stinking Bishop is the perry pear with the highest public profile and the least secure identity. Its name is attached to a washed-rind cheese made in Gloucestershire, whose rind is bathed in perry made from this pear, and the cheese has carried the name far beyond the parishes where the tree grows. Most people who can name a perry pear name this one, and most of them have never encountered the perry.

The name comes from a nineteenth-century Dymock grower called Bishop. The epithet, on the consistent local account, described the man rather than the fruit or the drink. Like almost every perry pear origin story, it is repeated everywhere and documented nowhere, and CiderHQ records it as tradition rather than as fact.

The identity question is more serious. Several accounts treat Stinking Bishop as a synonym of Moorcroft, itself also called Malvern Hills; others hold it as a distinct Dymock cultivar. The national collection keeps them separate. This file does the same and marks the dispute on both records, because the alternative is to assert an identity on preference. The two descriptions differ mainly in harvest timing, which is the practical place a grower would notice the difference.

As a pear it is moderately sharp with low tannin and makes a light, clean perry. That is a fair description and not a diminishing one: most perry pears make light, clean perry, and the disproportion between this cultivar’s fame and its character is entirely a product of the cheese.

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 · traditional account

Tradition names a Dymock grower called Bishop, with the epithet reflecting local opinion of the man rather than of the fruit. The story is consistently reported and nowhere 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
MoorcroftDisputed identitySeveral accounts treat Stinking Bishop as a synonym of Moorcroft, also called Malvern Hills. Others hold it as a distinct Dymock cultivar. CiderHQ keeps both records and does not resolve the question.

The National Perry Pear Collection’s identifications are supported by DNA analysis of the trees it holds, which is why they are treated here as the stronger account where they conflict with a documentary one. Where the collection records a name for two varieties it holds as distinct, the name identifies a group of trees rather than one variety, and fruit offered under it needs checking against something other than its label.

Why it matters

Related cultivars

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

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.

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.

Traditional record Evidence standard for this record. What that means.