Bingo!
I can find that back as far as the 1850’s. I’m not convinced that the meaning is what you suggest, but I’ll try to find more.
And I’m sticking with my apple tree theory. And the idea that the phrase was coined in the old days, and retains phrasing and color from back then.
So;
Ever seen a horse in an apple orchard, trying to eat apples that are still in the tree?
I have. They’ll stand on their hind legs and s-t-re-t-c-h as far as they can. Biting at the fruit. And they don’t give up easily. Horses love apples.
Those folks that sanclem mentions likely observed this behavior in their horses. People commonly liken human behavior to that of animals.
Except, the expression, so far as I can find, is “second bite of/at the cherry” in 1850, and apples don’t show up 'til 50 years later.
19th Century? Um, we did that at home when I was a younger Celyn. Oh boy, I feel old and depressed now.
byw - I see that mangetout mentioned the “two bites at the cherry” thing, which, to be honest, is what I have heard as opposed to two bites at an apple. (But I am a foreigner and might therefore be odd.) 
The problem with this theory mangeorge, is that it doesn’t address the question of why the second bite at the apple is BAD!
The horse stretches up and eats an apple. It doesn’t get it all the first time. It reaches again. So the horse was trying to get a second bite at the apple. Why is this a bad thing? If the farmer comes over and says, “Thief! Stop that horse! It’s trying to get a second bite at the apple!” I think you would just have to laugh, because the implication is that the first bite was OK; it’s this second bite that’s the problem.
I doubt that the horses cared what year it was. 
By the way, ]samclem, I was referring to your reply #17. Something in there about apples, anyway.
One of your questions, jgroub, was what is the origin of the phrase. That’s the one I tried to address. As to why lawyers wish to give the phrase a bad connotation, who know’s? They’re lawyers fer cryin’ out loud!
The apple question has been answered. feel free to discuss the cherry question among yourselves.
Has anyone asked Cecil, knower of all things worthy?
This site suggests that a second bite at the cherry is merely an additional and unexpected opportunity, but that doesn’t actually make much sense (not that I’m insisting it must - this is just popular idiom, after all).
However, a cherry is a small fruit usually consumed in a single bite; to take two bites at a cherry (as far as I’m concerned) makes much more sense understood as To divide something too small to be worth dividing.
You are correct, sir. My apologies.
But that just begs the question: why is the second bite at the apple, cherry, dunghill, whatever, bad?
It’s possible that this derived from (or resonated with) the hoary Englsh expression “two bites of a cherry” [meaning taking two bites where one should suffice] Quite a few English proverbs [and Biblical Proverbs in English translation] that now say “apple” were originally stated as “cherry”.
From the etymology in definition 1.1B of “cherry” in the Oxford English Dictionary [2002 Electronic Edition]:
"… 1708 Motteux Rabelais v. xxviii, By Jingo, I believe he wou’d make three bits [1737 bites] of a cherry. 1869 in Hazlitt Eng. Prov. 39 *A woman and a cherry are painted for their own harm. Prov. It is no use making two bites of a cherry. *
Cherries were commonly used in proverbs because, apples (and pears) don’t grow true from seed (fruit-bearing branches have to be grafted onto locally thriving rootstock), and therefore were not as widespread as directly edible food as they are today. In fact, until the Prohibition movement in the early 20th century, the primary use of apples in the US wasn’t pie, but alcoholic beverages.
Yes, much of what you learned about apples in school was a lie. For example, see the informative SD Staff Report on "Johnny Appleseed for more facts on apple cultivation. – and “An apple a Day keeps the Docotr away”? It was a cynical marketing jingle, invented from whole cloth by the apple growers board when Prohibition killed their primary market.
Apples actually aren’t particularly nutritious, as fruits go, and weren’t valued (perhaps partly because of the Eden association). That is partly why you’ll often see Depression-era cartoons of beggars selling apples and used pencils (i.e. nearly worthless cast-offs), and why it was used in slightly derisive terms like “wolf-apples” (tomatoes, back when they were believed to be poisonous), horse apples, and even pommes de terre (Fr. “apples of the earth” or potatoes)
There’s talking out your ass, and there’s talking out your ass with cites. I thought GQ was for the latter. If not, maybe I should put my pants back on.
Note to self – read the whole thread before making a wiseass reply. And check the dates. (My apologies, I thought this was a recently created thread, and that I was at or near the end, when I dashed off the the OED to confirm my sudden theory, which, it turns out, the inestimable omleteer mangeorge beat me to.
I do believe you’ve done it Magoo! 
A most awesome display of etymology. I am humbled and express many thanks.
About that talking out your ass business, I was having a little fun with mangeorge. I definitely don’t think you are now that you’ve brought the venerable OED into it. Therefore, no re-pantsing necessary. Thanks again, and to everyone. Including mangeorge.
Since we’re into cites, I have to pick a nit with Dex’s column linked to above.
The saying “An apple a day keeps the doctor away” was NOT invented as a marketing jingle just before Prohibition. It’s first cited in that exact phrase in 1900 thusly “An old saying has it that an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” This from a Montana newspaper.
Also, from the good folks over at the American Dialect Society Mailing List, we find:
While idioms must, by their very nature, be taken with a grain of salt, I’m going to have to chew on KP’s explanation for a while. That cherries to apples explanation will require a leap of faith for me to accept.
Does anyone happen to have a copy of Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Idioms handy? It would nice to a direct etymology, and a phrase as popular as the “apple” thing is surely listed somewhere.
samclem and I are discussing the “apple a day” phrase… we may wind up amending the Staff Report…
I was only being semi-serious about that theory. My “ass” remark was meant to indicate that, but I was having a humor impaired day.
KP, your statement that you can’t grow an apple tree from seed didn’t ring true with me, so I googled “how to grow apples”. I got plenty of hits, most of which didn’t address growing from seed. But the first on the list said that you can, indeed, grow apples from seed, but didn’t advise it.
Since this information is totally germain to the OP, please elaborate on your statement. I’m curious, not challenging. I suspect it has something to do with cross-breeding varieties of apple.
And don’t you ever cast doubt on Jonny Appleseed again.
I see that I phrased it badly. My original statement was:
“…apples (and pears) don’t grow true from seed (fruit-bearing branches have to be grafted onto locally thriving rootstock), and therefore were not as widespread as directly edible food as they are today.” (emphasis added)
To “grow true” is an agricultural term meaning “to have offspring with the same characteristics as the parents”. Many plant varietals, especially hybrids, hand pollinated varieties or grafts will don’t breed true. (Though it’s not the best strict botanical example: there ain’t no way a seedless orange is a-gonna grow true!
One classic example can be found in Mendel’s classic experiments with peas. If you breed plants with two pure traits at the same gene [e.g. smooth vs rough, short vs tall, white vs red blossoms), the F1 hybrids will usually have some intermediate trait (e.g. wavy seeds, medium height, or pink blossoms). However they will not “grow true” completely. Breed a hundred red blossomed plants, and all the offspring will have red blossoms. Breed 100 pink blossomed F1 plants, and 25% of the F2 offspring will be white, 25% red, and 50% pink.
[Recent analyses suggest that Mendel fudged his numbers – or was unreasonably lucky – but his principles stand]
In the case of apples, the seeds of a juicy apple will almost never yield a tree with juicy apples, unless you just plain strike it lucky. Apple trees will grow from seed but the offspring will usually give almost inedible fruit. What Johnny appleseed (and modern growers) typically do is find a hardy rootstock – a variety of tree that grows very well in the local conditions – and graft branches from a variety that will produce luscious fruit if it is amply supplied with the resources of a thriving tree.
The seeds ONLY represent the genome of the fruit-bearing branch, so if you plant them in your backyard, it won’t thrive to the degree necessary to produce that kind of fruit. It might trive only on some hilltop in Poland – or, since experimental grafting has been used to produce commercial fruit stock for centuries, it may not thrive anywhere: the branch genome smay simply have terribly rootstock that wouldn’t support a large tree [which may be why ist fruit over-develop when placed on bountiful rootstock). The grafters wouldn’t care, since they’d be planning on discarding its roots and keeping only the branches anyway.
There are other qualities that make for a good producer, like sparse, thick, well-placed branches for machine or hand-picking, This can be ‘tailored’ at the time of grafting. It’s faster than waiting many years per generation to breed those traits into a line. After all, a graft can take hold in a matter of weeks, and once it does, you’ll get fruit for decades [and you can lop off the bad graft and try again isoon). That beats the heck out of waiting years to see if a tree “is a producer”.
If you’ve been to an apple orchard, you’ve probably noticed that the size, age and grid of the trees is very consistent. There aren’t too many “oddballs” that bore bad fruit and had to be cut down [and possibly replaced with a younger tree]. Grafting allows a high degree of man-made consistency.
I’m not saying that there are no varieties that can produce acceptable fruit and breed true in a wide range of climates and habitats, but any such fruit would be uncommon in the marketplace. Grafting consistently creates the exceptional producers required for the commercial market, where even a 10% advantage quickly rules. Combining the best traits from 2-3 proven mature plant lines simply has too many advantages over “breeding, planting seeds and hoping”
The next time you hear someone disparaging “Frankenfruit”, remember that apple and pear orchards are veritable armies of true Franken-fruit, pieced together from the parts of different individuals! Even in “organic” orchards!
Fascinating. Really. I love “Gala” apples, as a matter of fact.
But that’s not what’s meant by “frankenfruit”.
Adding a mouse gene to corn is what’s meant by that term. Many who object to frankenfruit are farmers who really appreciate what you describe.