So Who Expresses Terroir Most Purely In Calif???

So.... the Euro-centric wine geeks often dismiss the notion that Calif has terroir. This is, of course, nonsense. Calif can express terroir just as well as any other place in the world.
However.....in some cases the winemaking style/technique is overlain on this expression of terroir. For example:
1. Ridge: I think it's easy enough to pick out, blind, the PasoRobles, the DryCreekVlly, the Fiddletown, the HowellMtn Zins. On a good day, maybe even the LyttonSprings vs. the Geyserville Zin. Probably the YorkCreek vs. LyttonSprings PetiteSirahs. The Carignan from the DryCreekVlly Zins may be a bit tougher. The Syrah/Grenache all speak loudly of Ridge winemaking and only whisper their DryCreek origins. Yet across the board, the Ridge reds speak loudly of Ridge. And only with a subtle voice their terroir and, sometimes, their variety.
2. Siduri/Novy: When you taste thru a bunch of Adam's Pinots, I think they are all distinctly different. For his regional blends or vnyd-designate Pinots, I think I could pick out those from StaRitaHills, SantaLuciaHighlands, RRV, maybe SonomaCoast; certainly Oregon. Though I doubt I could pick out blind the Keefer vs. AmberRidge or the Pisoni vs. Garys'. I'm just not that good enough at the terroir thing at that refined a level. But I think they all speak well of their respective terroirs. Yet, overlain on their terroir is that distinctive Siduri winemaking style. That is, I think I could probably pick out an Ojai vs Siduri Pisoni Pinot blind w/o too much trouble. But they're, to me, distinctly Siduri.
3. Carlisle: Things are a bit tougher here w/ Mike's reds. I think Mike's reds have a distinctive stylistic signature to them, though it's not as easily identifiable as some other wineries. They speak, to me, strongly of their varietal character; Zin, Syrah, Petite. I think I could probably pick out the JamesBerry vs. CardiacHill vs. Rosella's Syrah. I'd have a very tough time w/ the CarlisleVnyd vs. Pietro's Zin. Maybe even the MonteRosso Zin I'd have trouble picking out blind. But I think it'd be easy enough to pick out the Carlisle vs. Rosenblum vs. Ravenswood Zin. Not so vs. the Bedrock, though. But I think Mike's reds have a distinctive style that's not too hard to pick out in a blind tasting.

So...these are three examples that come to mind of winemakers whose wines express their terroir, at least on a regional basis, very well; but who's winemaking style is distinctive and shows thru the terroir. I can think of a few others as well. And I can think of a few winemaker's winemaking style can obliterate any expression of terroir in many/some cases. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. And some folks even assert that the winemaker's style is part of a wines terroir. Not sure I buy into that, though.

So....the $64,000 question is: Who/what winemaker has a winemaking style that is so subtle that you can identify the terroir easily enough, but you can't identify who the heck made it? That s to say, what winemaker can mostly purely express the terroir of the grapes, but the winemaking style takes a distinct back-seat to the terroir?? You can say, blind, dang...this is a Hirsch Pinot or a MonteRosso Zin...but danged if I can figure out who made it??
This is, of course, important to those who worship at the altar of terrior. Others worship at the altar of varietal typicity. Others worship at other altars of their choosing.
Tom

Wow, the strawmen are really taking a beating today across the wine boreds.

$64,000 isn't as meaningful or significant as it used to be.

[David M. Bueker]

Not really sure I want to wander into this debate, but I will specifically exclude Ridge from contention. The winemaking stamp is too strong (despite the fact that I love the Ridge style).

Oh, when will be getting our first rant on terroir!

Question. Is Rhys more about wine-making than (stammer) tetete terroir?

I'd venture to say that Easton and other Sierra Foothill Zins have a distinct terroir.

[David M. Bueker]

Question. Is Rhys more about wine-making than (stammer) tetete terroir?

Good question Bob, and one that is close to impossible to answer, as Rhys is using new vineyards where they are the sole proprietor. Thus there is no way to compare and contrast different wines from the same site & parse out the true "terroir" signature.

I think Rhys is about letting the vineyards speak, but I don't know what language the vineyards speak with, so hard to say just yet.

So.... the Euro-centric wine geeks often dismiss the notion that Calif has terroir. This is, of course, nonsense. Calif can express terroir just as well as any other place in the world.
However.....in some cases the winemaking style/technique is overlain on this expression of terroir. For example:

Tom

Yes, it seems pretty obvious to this euro-centric consumer that there is no inherent reason why Californian wine cannot express terroir as well as anywhere else and that wine-making style can be just as significant an overlay over here in Europe as on the West Coast. I'm sure that it would be similarly easy to quote examples of the terroir/variety/wine-maker interface in, say, Burgundy, Mosel and Langhe.

What is a bit different over here is the rhetoric about terroir. Sites are graded in many regions and producers vie with each other in claims about the truest expression of terroir.

It reminds me a bit about performers of classical music and their arguments about the best expression of the composer's intentions. Modern advocates of "authentic" performance deplore the "old-fashioned" re-creative interpretations of Beethoven by Wilhelm Furtwängler. Yet I find them overwhelmingly moving musical experiences whereas the "authentic" performances of, say, Norrington and van Immerseel leave me cold.

Boy do I disagree on Ridge. I feel exactly the same as David B. Ridge's style is what sets it apart not terroir in a European sense.

Boy do I disagree on Ridge. I feel exactly the same as David B. Ridge's style is what sets it apart not terroir in a European sense.

But, Tom.....if you worship at the altar of terroir...if the highest calling a wine can express is the origin of its grapes...
then Ridge is obviously nolo-contender.
Tom

Let me see if I unerstand the question. For this question, it is assumed that the expression of terrori is a reflection of the grapes in the vineyard and that all vineyard practices are part of terroir. It is also assumed that any winemaking practices that mask or change what those grapes would become if left to ferment naturally would be something other than a pure expression of terroir. If the above is correct, it does not matter at what Brix level the grapes are picked or if there is irragation used, leave pulling to manipulate sunlight on the grapes is acceptable as is green harvests to change the leave to fruit ratio of the vine. This is all still part of terroir as its outside of winemaking.

So winemaking practices that might obscure this could be
watering back
additions of sugar, acid, enzymes, tannins, and other products
cold soaks and/or extended post fermentation macerations
temperature control
new oak, old oak, stainless steel, or concrete eggs
fining
filtering
sulfites
cultured yeast (not sure I agree with this one but may do so...)

This yields a logical answer to your question being those who do the least of my list above. I don't know enough about the actual winemaking practices of any of the CA wineries to know who may fit this description.

[David M. Bueker]

And of course we can debate for eternity the extent to which vineyard practices are actually part of terroir. Using the broadest definition the application of chemical fertilizers would be part of (crappy) terroir becuase it's just a vineyard practice. Somehow I don't thik you meant to include such an acitvity (except as a talking point).

Sure chemical fertilizers, cover crops, rootstocks, biodynamic preps, herbicides, persticides, vinespacing, spur or cane prunned, divided canopy or not, etc. That is exactly my point, with everything that happens in the vineyard, how can one look at the winemaking side and determine if its allows for a pure expression of terroir. How is one to know what a pure expression of terroir is? Is there a standard against which I can judge a wine from SCM, SRH, RRV, or anywhere else.

Calling one set of decisions representative of the terroir and another set as not representative of the terroir seems to be arbitrary.

I would (somewhat timidly) suggest the Pinot Noirs of A.P. Vin. I've had Pinots here from four or five different vineyards in the same vintage and they are remarkably different.

[David M. Bueker]

How is one to know what a pure expression of terroir is? Is there a standard against which I can judge a wine from SCM, SRH, RRV, or anywhere else.

There lies the rub, but also where a place like Burgundy has such an advantage. With hundreds of years and multiple producers making wine from nearly all of the great sites we can get a picture of not only what Clos St Jacques (to name an example) is like, but also who allows the vineyard to speak versus their winemaking style overshadowing the vineyard.

There are a number of vineyard sites in California (and other places) where multiple producers make wine from the same site which can help in gaining the kinds of insights we might seek. Of course then we get into the debate regarding what really is terroir. Is a lush, fruity wine a legitimate expression of terroir or not?

This is of course a complete rabbit hole.

Boy do I disagree on Ridge. I feel exactly the same as David B. Ridge's style is what sets it apart not terroir in a European sense.

But, Tom.....if you worship at the altar of terroir...if the highest calling a wine can express is the origin of its grapes...
then Ridge is obviously nolo-contender.
Tom

Tom,

If you served me 12 Zins blind I could tell easily which 2 were from Ridge but if you served me 12 Ridge Zins blind I would not do very well guessing which were Lytton, which were Geyservile, which were Pagani, which were ATP, etc. When I taste a Ridge Zin I don't taste the subtle differences between the Geyserville and Lytton vineyards/locations I taste the strong Ridge winemaking style.

On the other hand, I think certain wines from Pauillac, Meursault and Corton Charlemagne, for example, show very strong terroir.

Maybe I'm nuts.

I don't think anyone says that ALL vineyard and winemaking practices are part of terroir. It is only the practices that are TRADITIONAL in the region.

Fair enough in some ways - bush vines and carbonic maceration in Beaujolais, but not in Bordeaux for example. But I am not sure how you would always draw the line. Does the traditional blending that goes on in Champagne represent terroir?

And you will notice also how the use of the word traditional plays in the hands of the French and other well-established wine making countries. How can johnny-come-lately New World countries have terroir if they don't have tradition?

Don't ask me to answer the questions. I would much prefer a very narrow definition that pretty much equates to soil and meso climate. And even then I think it gets too much attention.

There lies the rub, but also where a place like Burgundy has such an advantage. With hundreds of years and multiple producers making wine from nearly all of the great sites we can get a picture of not only what Clos St Jacques (to name an example) is like, but also who allows the vineyard to speak versus their winemaking style overshadowing the vineyard.

I don't really know much about Burgundy.

Are the vine spacings, orientation, trellising, and most of the training practices relatively consistent or is the variation among producers? I thought that the way the vineyards changed hands and the very fractional ownership that these were somewhat consistent. All the pictures I see makes it look like dense plantings of small vines which don't resemble the vines I saw in the SRH which looked to be taller and have wider rows so that each vine has much more wood and leaf area as well as more room for root structure without competition. If this is the case, I wonder if bigger california trained vines would show the same characteristics in the glass as the trandition burgundy trained vines.

Is there much variation in rootstock? I know that there is supposedly clonal variation but what are the vines planted on and is it essentially consistent?

Has Burgundy changed over time or are the characteristics that define a specific vineyard essentially the same in the glass as it was 50 or 100 years prior. I read comments about the ripe 2009s. Do they show the same terroir as the 1969s or the 1909s?

In my few trips to California, there does not appear to be the same standardization in grape growing that I am assuming takes place in Burgundy. The rootstock of the day seems to be constantly changing, trellising is also a changing issue with more head trained vines coming back as well as more california sprawl. VSP is still significant but not sure if cane pruning or spur pruning is now more common. Leaf pulling also seems to have changed again with fewer folks completely clearing the fruiting zone and more leaving some leaves on the west side.

This may be a rabbit hole but I don't understand how people can state that something does or does not show terroir because it taste different than some type of internal standard they have without understanding why it taste different. If it taste different becasue the grapes were treated differently in the field in the way they were farmed, is that not still reflective of the terroir of those grapes?

Question. Is Rhys more about wine-making than (stammer) tetete terroir?

Good question Bob, and one that is close to impossible to answer, as Rhys is using new vineyards where they are the sole proprietor. Thus there is no way to compare and contrast different wines from the same site & parse out the true "terroir" signature.

I think Rhys is about letting the vineyards speak, but I don't know what language the vineyards speak with, so hard to say just yet.

Thanks David. Wondering about your quote here...."no way to compare and contrast different wines from the same site". Surely we might have a chance to do that with German wines that come from the same vineyard/parcels of land but with different owners of the said land? Example could be Erdener Treppchen for instance.

I think it's easy enough to pick out, blind, the PasoRobles, the DryCreekVlly, the Fiddletown, the HowellMtn Zins... I think I could pick out those from StaRitaHills, SantaLuciaHighlands, RRV, maybe SonomaCoast; certainly Oregon... I think I could probably pick out the JamesBerry vs. CardiacHill vs. Rosella's Syrah... I think it'd be easy enough to pick out the Carlisle vs. Rosenblum vs. Ravenswood Zin.

Tom, I'd be very interested to know what your impressions of those terroir characteristics are for the above regions that make them so identifiable as unique to their region. Could you describe a few of those characteristics for some of the above regions? Out of interest, have you tasted some of the above blind and successfully identified the region(s)? More contentiously, how can you tell that the winemaking style is showing through rather than the terroir - can you give an example? Thanks.

I don't think anyone says that ALL vineyard and winemaking practices are part of terroir. It is only the practices that are TRADITIONAL in the region... bush vines and carbonic maceration in Beaujolais, but not in Bordeaux

Even with quite a broad definition of terroir, surely carbonic maceration cannot be part of it?! Typicity would be a more appropriate term, I think, but not terroir (as CM has absolutely nothing intrinsically to do with site).

[David M. Bueker]

Question. Is Rhys more about wine-making than (stammer) tetete terroir?

Good question Bob, and one that is close to impossible to answer, as Rhys is using new vineyards where they are the sole proprietor. Thus there is no way to compare and contrast different wines from the same site & parse out the true "terroir" signature.

I think Rhys is about letting the vineyards speak, but I don't know what language the vineyards speak with, so hard to say just yet.

Thanks David. Wondering about your quote here...."no way to compare and contrast different wines from the same site". Surely we might have a chance to do that with German wines that come from the same vineyard/parcels of land but with different owners of the said land? Example could be Erdener Treppchen for instance.

OF course Bob, but I was referring specifically to the Rhys sites which are estate vineyards and thus nobody else makes wine from them.

Surely we might have a chance to do that with German wines that come from the same vineyard/parcels of land but with different owners of the said land? Example could be Erdener Treppchen for instance.

We do have a chance if we choose a homogeneous Lage such as the Badstube, but it would be absolutely meaningless to compare a Wehlener Sonnenuhr from Prüm´s superb part with, say, Ernie Loosen´s sorry lot, comprised of more than a hundred small parcels, the smallest being no more than a couple of vines.

Greetings from Sweden / Fredrik L

I think it's easy enough to pick out, blind, the PasoRobles, the DryCreekVlly, the Fiddletown, the HowellMtn Zins... I think I could pick out those from StaRitaHills, SantaLuciaHighlands, RRV, maybe SonomaCoast; certainly Oregon... I think I could probably pick out the JamesBerry vs. CardiacHill vs. Rosella's Syrah... I think it'd be easy enough to pick out the Carlisle vs. Rosenblum vs. Ravenswood Zin.

Tom, I'd be very interested to know what your impressions of those terroir characteristics are for the above regions that make them so identifiable as unique to their region. Could you describe a few of those characteristics for some of the above regions? Out of interest, have you tasted some of the above blind and successfully identified the region(s)? More contentiously, how can you tell that the winemaking style is showing through rather than the terroir - can you give an example? Thanks.

Well, Ben...tough question...but I'll give it a shot.
Terroir characteristics are a bit like pornography or beauty....easy enough to recognize by damnably difficult to define.
If...given a tableau of Ridge Zins...say all the Ridge '08 Zins...I'm very confident that I could pick out the PasoRobles. They have a distinct jammy/boysenberry jammy/Smuckers
blackberry jam character and a softness that usually shows thru. The LyttonSprings and Geyserville have the spicy raspberry character that speaks of DryCreekVlly. The Lytton
generally has a more high-toned/brighter character than Geyserville, where the Carignane & Petite gives it a more earthy/less high-toned/more bass-notes character. The Pagani Zin,
because of the Mourvedre, tends to have more funky/bass-notes/dusty/old-vine/plummy/riper character. They don't make HowellMtn Zin anymore, but those showed much
lower fruit levels, more earthy/mushroomy; more rugged tannins annd in need of more age. The Fiddletown (again..no longer made) as more of the ripe/briary/blackberry character
but great structure that speaks of Fiddletown.
If...given a tableau of young Zins...I think I could probably pick out those four as being distinctively Ridge from the DraperPerfume....but maybe not. Never done that actual test.
I seldom taste blind. When I'm tasting Ridge Zins, they're usually non-blind and I know exactly what they are. I have in the past, picked out the Ridge PasoRobles blind.
It was distinctly a PasoZin and, as I went thru my Rolodex of Paso Zins...I knew it had to be a Ridge because of the oak treatment. But that's about it.
Tom

Very interesting and great to see we have no fisticuffs here!
Going back to my point above, about trying say three different wines from the same plot (same vintage) from three different producers...that would be of real interest!