Note: The lower case i is intentional

There are numerous discussions on "Improved Celeste"  I submit that there is no such fig.

I asked Dr. Johnson the question at both of the last 2 LSU Agcenter Fig Field Days and the answer was the same, The O'Rourke is an improved Celeste but there is not an "Improved Celeste" as a separate cultivar.

I know this will result in a discussion but I really wish that the term had never been used and the only place that it is used is in forums and marketing/sales information.


This link is really a "Must read" for anyone interested in LSU Figs.

http://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/communications/news/news_archive/2015/june/headline_news/figs-remain-popular-louisiana-fruit

Notice this sentence..."O’Rourke is much the same as Celeste but with larger fruit and more productivity. “We call it an ‘improved Celeste,’” Johnson said."

Notice the lower case "i"

Dr Charlie has never deviated from this position.

It is time for the "Improved Celeste" myth to end.

Perhaps it should be called "hybrid Celeste". This is more accurate than improved, because "improved" is subjective. So there might be other hybrid Celeste out there, but only one variety was officially released as O'Rourke.

Clear as mud.

Yeah but that one variety you speak of is the very one named O'Rourke. It may be a hybrid Celeste or subjectively "improved" but it would seem neither name is needed as the variety already has been named.

Mine came from a reputable member on this forum.
As I have said before multiple times, "I call my figs what I was told the name of it was called"
I'm not changing it.

Doug

Danny, Thanks for the information.  I will update my signature accordingly.  I have several Celeste & not crazy about them but have heard so much great things of Improved Celeste and O'Rourke with various takes on whether they are the same or not and whether they are the final released version or an interim release.
Sounds like if you have a well performing Celeste for your area then you have all you need?

Although O'Rourke is an "Improved" Celeste release with Tiger and Champagne, the fig circulated as "Improved Celeste" (Mountain figs) is clearly different.

Myth or not, at this point it represents the fig, separate from others.

Besides the "myth" part, how do you like it? Mine has not fruited yet and grows similar to my Golden Celeste (like a bonsai tree).

The O'Rourke is nice, but I liked the Hollier better and it was a larger fruit.

Mike

Danny, just to clarify, is your point that what people are calling "Improved Celeste" is the same fig as "O'Rourke"? Or that what people are calling "Improved Celeste" is some other fig than "O'Rourke" but not named "Improved Celeste". Or... that no fig named "Improved Celeste" was named and released by LSU fig breeding program.

Just trying to understand what we are talking about.

Danny -- 

Do you not accept this account?  The key point is that a fig that has become known as "Improved Celeste" was produced at LSU without every having been formally released by them.

https://mountainfigs.net/answers/orourke-and-improved-celeste-2-distinct-cultivars/

It seems that your account and Tony's are not necessarily inconsistent.  Combining the stories, Improved Celeste would be like an illegitimate child that Dr Johnson does not acknowledge.

Joe, I could not have said it better myself.!!!!LOL!

The f4f varieties list it as just that, an unofficial release from LSU

There is no such thing as a LSU Improved Celeste, official or rogue.  The O'Rourke is an improved Celeste.  These two statements are as factual as anything about LSU Figs can be.  The "Improved" was added as a selling ploy.

I have offered an opinion, you can call your fig anything you like.  I would never buy or sell any fig tagged Improved Celeste, unless it was deep discounted, then I would call it "Fig assorted, Unknown" and sell it as a common fig.  There are probably 3 or 4 people that could change my opinion and they are all in Louisiana.  "Masters" in my opinion.

<< you can call your fig anything you like >>

OK, thanks.  I'll call mine LSU Improved Celeste.

Or Fred.  Maybe I'll call it Fred.

Whatever,

My IC came from Mountain figs. I don't think they need a ploy and will continue to identify it this way along with the source from which it was obtained.

Even if 100% true, I feel changing a name from what I received would be irresponsible and add to the confusion.

The question is have you tried the two, and is the supposed IC better?

I really don't care what it is called, I just want to know if it is better than Celeste, other LSU variants and with the limited space I have to maintain it.

Thanks, Mike

I had the Celeste and the O'Rourke at the first Fig Field day, wasn't enough difference in taste, in my mind.  It must be remembered that the work done by Dr. O'Rourke was intended to make a good dooryard fig for Louisiana.  Taste was not the driving factor, resistance to splitting was actually more important than taste as the Celeste was already a good tasting fig.

I had two O'Rourke trees, sold them.  It was a choice between the O'Rourkes or Hollier, no question, hands down, the Hollier is a better tasting fig and propagates very well, grows fast.  The O'Rourke is fairly low on my list placing well behind the Hollier, the Gold, Scott's Black, Scott's Yellow, and the Purple.  Hunt and an Unknown Black from a local tree are actually my favorite figs.

I have two heirloom Celeste trees grown from two separate trees, both trees are over 70 yrs old and one of them was grown from cuttings brought from Tennessee in 1845.
They are "improved" enough for me.

It seems to me that
" Improved Celeste" would be considered a name.
"improved Celeste " would be a description

@Mario_1
Absolutely!!!!

Im growing both dkirtexas if you needs some cuttings.

Thx Richie but like I said, I had them, sold them.  I have some really good Celeste, don't need any more, but thanks for the offer.

This is how I see it.  The original crosses that Dr O'Rourke made were in the late 1950's.  Trees became available to growers at some point, and they stated selling trees labeled Improved Celeste, Golden Celeste and Giant Celeste.  I obtained my Improved Celeste from Mr Roy Young's nursery in Abbeville LA.  He had a fig orchard and propagated trees from his inground trees.  He was producing and selling Improved Celeste trees for years before 2007 when LSU officially released O"Rourke, Champagne and Tiger.  At that point LSU said that Improved Celeste was now O'Rourke, Golden Celeste was now Champagne and Giant Celeste was now Tiger.  The thing is, the O'Rourke that LSU released is not the same tree as the Improved Celeste, and that is why people are still referring to it as Improved Celeste.  The Improved Celeste is not a myth.

Look at the descriptions of O'Rourke, Champagne and Tiger on this paper put out by LSU where they refer to Improved Celeste, Golden Celeste and Giant Celeste.
http://figs4fun.com/Links/FigLink240.pdf

From the link Danny posted:  When the fig breeding program was interrupted in the mid-1960s, O’Rourke had hundreds of trees planted in several locations in Louisiana. Those AgCenter trees, however, survived.

Apparently Mr Young had obtained trees from LSU.  His trees were not the same tree that later became O'Rourke.  I also purchased a tree from him tagged Giant Celeste which he was also growing before LSU named it LSU Tiger.

Yes, Chapman, exactly. Furthermore, a paper collectively authored by Dr. Johnson, Dr. O'Rourke, and Dr. Boudreaux also refers explicitly to an "Improved Celeste" fig for the purpose of distinguishing it from the O'Rourke fig:

• "‘O'Rourke’ is a common-type fig that is very productive and has performed well in grower trials and home orchards. This selection has previously been unofficially named and propagated as ‘Improved Celeste’; however, ‘Improved Celeste’ is not necessarily the same as ‘O'Rourke’."

• "I have first hand info here....not hearsay. Dalton sold a fig called Improved Celeste.....not LSU Improved Celeste. Both he and James Robin changed the label on their inventory figs to O'Rourke whne LSU officially [released] it. again let me repeat this important FACT.....I know the information first hand and know what I am talking about. Half the fig people in La. Got,pissed at me when I told them they couldn't do that because they were different figs. When they called LSU for clarification they gave them WRONG information.....adding even more confusion.....insisting that i was the one who didn't know what I was talking about. I was right all along because I had information that LSUs Johnson did not have. There is even more to this than I am willing to reveal at this time." 

What the professors acknowledge by that statement is that there is a named fig (or figs) in circulation called Improved Celeste. That is indisputable.

Now, whether or not any Improved Celeste fig in circulation is a unique variety or is simply a renamed traditional variety remains, by the limits of their statement, open to question.

Their statement also states that any fig in circulation as Improved Celeste may be O'Rourke, and it may not be, "not necessarily". In other words, it's possibly something other than O'Rourke, and whatever it is, it's definitely called Improved Celeste. So, since this IC fig may be O'Rourke and it may not be, according to their statement, and since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that there are very many fig trees in wide circulation for numerous years that are clearly not O'Rourke that are labeled Improved Celeste, of whatever origin, it's a stretch to think that those professors were not aware of this by 2010, the date of the paper. They surely knew there were non-O'Rourke figs circulating under the name Improved Celeste, thus the qualifier "not necessarily."

Beyond that, the naysayers have shown by far the least evidence and explanation to support their case. In fact, I think all I've seen are conclusions with no evidence and very little if any explanation.

Those who point to the differences between Improved Celeste and other figs have shown the most evidence, by far, and have bothered to explain in detail.

People who have both varieties and have fruited for them, should tell their experience as the taste and flavor of both varieties. That will answer a lot of questions.