Terroir: Has its meaning changed over the years?

If you really think about it “traditional styles” were created by nature (natural wild yeast, ambient temperatures, etc- Champagne was not invented nor created but discovered). IMO in this respect “style” becomes “identity”.

Darn, and there I was agreeing with you and everything.

Champagne, as we know it today, was definitely invented and created, not "discovered".

Champagne is a construct, pure and simple. It's one of the prime examples I use when ever anyone decries winemaker manipulation and winemaker intervention as being evil. Champagne is totally a process of intervention and manipulation, and the current form was arrived at through a long process of very conscious decisions by a series of key people. Champagne is the least "natural" of wines.

Now the 'style becoming identity' thing, that I can agree with.

An interesting question indeed Though I am an avowed terroirist (I'll be banned entry to the US for writing that, LOL!!) I'm finding the term so difficult that I'm not using it much anymore. Here's the reasons why:

Previous posts have given the prescriptive definition of the word; here are my thoughts on the descriptive definitions: The semantic range of the word seems to be very large. Some use it to mean just aspect, climate, etc. while others simply mean that it is typical to the area. The problem with the definitions is that yeasts and probably other things involved in wine making will affect the aromas (cf. all posts of Brettanomyces, LOL!!). So how can it be decided that a certain scent in a wine comes from a piece of land rather than a winemaking technique or a strain of yeast? Considering how many variables there are in a wine all of which produce aromas, I am very wary of accepting that one scent is inevitably a scent deriving from the parcel of land.

It would to me seem that with all these variables, we cannot talk of terroir at all - only typicity. We all know that Bordeaux left bank tastes like Bx left bank, but I don't think we can say this is due to the terroir (whichever way defined) or to the grapes, but due to the whole influence of grapes, soil, climate, yeasts, human intervention, etc. ad inf.

But what I wonder about is why we should care about this! What I like about typicity is that it gives diversity to the world of wine, yet makes it a comprehensible whole with a unifiying theme in a certain area. Whether the similarities in an area are caused by the land or generally used techniques of native yeasts is irrelevant IMO - it serves no real purpose as long as what is in the glass seems typical to the area. How the typicity of an area is defined is of course an interesting question, but one which, if I've thought this out correctly, just cannot be answered.

Otto,

I don't worry too much about terroir either. My biggest concern is a wine's style - modern, traditional, barrique or botte aged, etc. To me that is of much more importance. I already accept that a wine's personality will be a product of so many factors, being it soil, climate, manipulation by the wine maker, vintage, etc.

So how can it be decided that a certain scent in a wine comes from a piece of land rather than a winemaking technique or a strain of yeast?

Oh, that can be decided, Otto. Not easily, but it can be determined by some careful testing. Simplest would be to take the same grapes as fermented by several different strains of yeasts and assessing the aromatic variations. People at UC Davis, and the U of Bordeaux and Montpellier do this all the time. Heck, individual wineries and winemakers and testing labs do this all the time.

Considering how many variables there are in a wine all of which produce aromas, I am very wary of accepting that one scent is inevitably a scent deriving from the parcel of land.

There you go. No problem agreeing with that.

It would to me seem that with all these variables, we cannot talk of terroir at all - only typicity. We all know that Bordeaux left bank tastes like Bx left bank, but I don't think we can say this is due to the terroir (whichever way defined) or to the grapes, but due to the whole influence of grapes, soil, climate, yeasts, human intervention, etc. ad inf.

Yep. Pretty much my view all along, and oft expressed: each wine can be assessed with the consideration of the three elements of variety, sense of place (since you don't care for terroir), and the winemaker's influence (or style). It's like a pie chart, with the movable sections adjusting to the variable influences of the three elements. An oaky, buttery Chardonnay, for instance, would likely have much more of the pie going toward the winemaker's influence. A Chablis would likely have much more leaning toward the sense of place and the varietal tipicity. Changes with every wine---the only thing of any importance to me is considering the three elements and how they interrelate, not precisely defining where the dividing lines are---that's a foolish chase.

But what I wonder about is why we should care about this! What I like about typicity is that it gives diversity to the world of wine, yet makes it a comprehensible whole with a unifiying theme in a certain area. Whether the similarities in an area are caused by the land or generally used techniques of native yeasts is irrelevant IMO - it serves no real purpose as long as what is in the glass seems typical to the area. How the typicity of an area is defined is of course an interesting question, but one which, if I've thought this out correctly, just cannot be answered.

Bite your tongue, you bad boy! People that hang around this place probably like talking about (or talking about talking about) wine as much (more?) than they do actually drinking the wine. Are you trying to deprive these good people (and I include you and me in that group) one of their key forms of amusement???

Terroir and that word 'agree". I remember a terroir discussion over on the other place late last year where knives were drawn and sabbles rattled!! I wonder if this thread will be just as interesting!!

In his recent Riesling catalogue, Terry Theise mentions the other-place terroir discussionl, in which terroirists and anti-terroirists formed two armed camps and battled for several weeks. Being a terroirist himself, Theise takes delight in quoting a woman poster who eventually summarized the war as leaving her undecided but finding the terroirists' armuments decidedly more "civilized."

To respond to Bob's question - actually an exclamation - this (Winelovers)thread is not just as "interesting" as the other-place one but more interesting, yet so far not bloody, one reason for that being that here we are trying mutually to define or trace the change of a definition, not demolish each other's positions on the importance or insignificance of terroir itself.

I agree, Dale; the term 'terroir' is almost always used in the comprehensive context, unless being used casually by someone who does not know much about wine. "Gout de terroir" is not a synonym for terroir and does not include the taste of sun angle, etc. It pretty much limits its reference to earth alone.

Think a bump up in order as the "T" word is being waved around on Wine Focus/Shiraz this month!! So there, LOL.

'In his 1983 "New Encyclopedia of Wine," Hugh Johnson devotes a couple of pages to a quick overview of soils and microclimates without ever using the T word at all.'

How clever of him, in retrospect, since the use of the word tends to ask more questions than it answers.

'Things start to get interesting in Alexis Bespaloff's 1988 revision of the 1975 "New Frank Schoonmaker Encyclopedia of Wine." As I recall, this was a true revision, incorporating a lot of rewriting, changes and updates. The section on terroir, still brief, really reads as if Bespaloff read Schoonmaker's old definition, left it in place, but then tacked on the evolving new understanding. (I wish I still had my old first edition so I could confirm this.)

"Terroir (tair-wah'r) French for 'soil' or 'earth,' used in a very special sense in the phrase goût de terroir, or 'taste of the soil.' Certain wines produced on heavy soils have a characteristic, persistent, and sometimes unpleasant earthy flavor; the German equivalent is Bodenton or Bodengeschmack. The word terroir is also used in an extended sense to describe the soil together with the associated climatic conditions of a district or a vineyard; the English equivalent might be microclimate." '

The fact that Bespaloff doesn't know what the word 'microclimate' means doesn't inspire confidence.

'In his 1983 "New Encyclopedia of Wine," Hugh Johnson devotes a couple of pages to a quick overview of soils and microclimates without ever using the T word at all.'

How clever of him, in retrospect, since the use of the word tends to ask more questions than it answers.

Could it be that the keen interest in and controversy about terroir as a concept is of relatively recent origin, although perhaps previously taken for granted, at least in Europe? There are four wine books of the encyclopedia sort in my library and here is what they have to say about "terroir."

Alexis Lichine's Encyclopedia of Wines and Spirits, First Edition, 1967. Terroir is not listed in the index.

Alexis Lichine's New Encyclopedia of Wines and Spirits, published 1974. Terroir is not listed in the index.

Wine Appreciation: A Comprehensive User's Guide to the World's Wines and Vineyards by Richard P. Vine, Ph.D., published 1988. Terroir is not listed in the index.

The Oxford Companion to Wine edited by Jancis Robinson, published 1994. Two small type pages devoted entirely to terroir. It commences, aptly enough, "...much discussed term for the total natural environment of any viticultural site***Opinions have differed greatly on the reality and, if real, the importnce of terroir in determining wine qualities. Major regional classifications of European vineyards have been largely based on the concepts of terroir. New World viticulturists and researchers...have tended to dismiss it as a product of mysticism and established commercial interest."

that Bespaloff doesn't know what the word 'microclimate' means doesn't inspire confidence.

I wouldn't read too much into that, he may just have been trying. As people do when they try to translate other words ("Gemütlichkeit") into a language without good equivalent. And, though it may be unimportant, I recall Bespaloff as not originally an English-speaker. Also "microclimate" itself is used more in the US now than in 1988.

In the 1980s a merchant in what was then my (and is currently Oliver's) California location did regular word-play on the word terroir in a commercial newsletter, I think it was Kermit Lynch or Bill Easton. I may have it on file. (Not to be confused with the different, mostly later, word-play by Randall Grahm of Bonny Doon.)

Mainly though, this specialized word has become popular in US wine circles lately. Keep in mind two common effects of new word popularity: distortion and novelty. Novelty, like those new absinthe hobbyists who now post comments like "We know much more about it than we did five years ago" (meaning: I know much more than five years ago).* Distortion, as with specialized terms that move out into mainstream and change their meaning as a side effect.**

* Ongoing interest in absinthe over the last century publicized by the 1940s basically all factual information new hobbyists have discovered and republished, and some that they haven't.

** "Hacker" and "Web" are both popularly used now differently from their meanings in their original communities. "Parameters" is a whole topic unto itself.

Max,

It's true that this misuse of 'microclimate' is as common as misuse of the word 'varietal' in general wine discussion, which is to say more common than correct usage, but it's pretty bad in a text-book.

I've just finished this thread and I sense a simple innocent mix-up. (The sort I make all the time, so I know what I'm talking about! )

The idiom <b><i>goût de terroir</i></b> is distracting and confusing to the separate topic of terroir. Like Robin, I've seen goût de terroir in US wine writing as long as I've been reading it (30+ years), often to connote earthy taste. For much of that time I've separately heard vignerons, especially in Burgundy, use terroir in exactly the way I still hear them use it now, when I talk to them. That hasn't changed at all in 20 years, I assure you. That was the sense I meant in previous (and all other) postings here where I mentioned terroir.

Robinson in her first edition of the Oxford Companion (1994) already sharply distinguished the terms: goût de terroir in the sense above "has no connection with the concept of terroir."

Keeping these parallel and potentially confusing usages in mind, the reference sources quoted in this thread all fall into place. The two meanings were there all along.

the meaning - and perhaps the importance - of "terroir" in wine-geek terms has changed dramatically and significantly over the past 20 years ...

[Editing repeatedly to remove ambiguities]

I'm just embarrassed to say I got to my own comments before I realized this was a year+ old thread.

[Robin Garr]

though it may be unimportant, I recall Bespaloff as not originally an English-speaker.

I think it's probably not relevant. According to this obituary upon his death last year, Bespaloff was indeed born in Romania, but it appears that he came to the US as a child and was educated here, and spent his life as a professional writer working at the level of <I>The New Yorker</i>.

[Robin Garr]

Alexis Bespaloff's 1988 revision of the 1975 "New Frank Schoonmaker Encyclopedia of Wine." As I recall, this was a true revision, incorporating a lot of rewriting, changes and updates.

I was the wine columnist for <I>The Louisville Times</i> then, and wrote an awfully negative review of the revision based on a side-by-side comparison: The new version used larger print with no more pages, so lost quite a bit of content even without allowing for the new copy, and - although I can't remember specifics at this late date - was easy pickin' for a review because of some fairly egregious examples of "dumbing down."

[Robin Garr]

I'm just embarrassed to say I got to my own comments before I realized this was a year+ old thread.

Don't worry about it, Dale. We replay golden oldies on occasion.

I'm just embarrassed to say I got to my own comments before I realized this was a year+ old thread.

Don't worry about it, Dale. We replay golden oldies on occasion.

Yeah, I am the archive revival king here!! Where is Bob Ross, sure he will keep this thread running at least another week! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,wake him up.

The thing I find interesting and amusing in all these discussions about definitions is that folks lose sight of the fact that we're dealing with a word, an invented concatenation of sounds which when grunted to the your neighboring Neanderthal designates some object or concept or the other, a symbol of something symbolized.

Thanks to our enlarged brains, we think we are allowed to convene and select our symbols and, believe it or not, those things which we feel should be symbolized in words. "Terroir," "terrier," and "Terry Hatcher" can mean whatever we please them to mean. Be ye a realist or a nominalist, it don't make no difference, bro'! Whatever we agree on is what a word means. The French got a whole academy to take these decisions out of the hands of the nation which must humbly accede to their wishes. In the U.S.A., we have stand-up comics making our choices for us. I think the Italians throw Scrabble tiles like the Teutons did runes.

All seriousness aside, we seem to get too hung on on what a word "really" means and which guru has defined it in some book somewhere. Instead, we'd probably be better off just looking at how different folks use the term. If we find a usage we like, we can (try to) agree that that's how we'd like to use that word. I mean it is indeed handy for everyone to be reading from the same sheet of paper.

Despite my upbringing as a Roman Catholic, I have to agree with Martin Luther when he says, "Man muss dem Volk aufs Maul schauen."

Amen.

Wow - I have just read through all of that and whilst I realized quite early that it was initially an old thread I think I would enjoy reading that again in another year!

As for my piece (which I may have said I'd hold onto until this came up again) I'd just be repeating what others have said, so I'll continue to hold onto it until I get some more experience, speak to some more wine people, read some more wine books and most importantly drink some more wine!!

"Yeah, I am the archive revival king here!! Where is Bob Ross, sure he will keep this thread running at least another week! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,wake him up."

I'm back from Springsteen and a craft fair at Wheaton Village -- so so and outstanding, respectively.

Only a week, Bob. Surely you jest!

I just checked Google for terroir and wine -- 1,250,000 hits.

Live Search shows 918,344 results.

Here's my plan -- I'll read and post a brief summary of 100 hits from both Google and Live Search once a day. I figure that will take me 55 years. Hope Robin can keep WLDG going that long.

In any event, stay tuned for the popular views, and to get a classical background, let's take a look at the OED. [Note: the second definition is a working draft, and the OED is very grateful for any advice winelovers want to contribute to enhancing the draft entry.]

Terroir: a. = TERRITORY

b. Soil.
1483 CAXTON Gold. Leg. 18/2 For to berye it in the terroir of the cyte of Losane.

1660 Charac. Italy 83 Italy is the Garden of Europe, the Terroir being gentle and copious.

[Do you suppose Parker got "copious" from OED?]

Now for the fireworks:

DRAFT ADDITIONS SEPTEMBER 2006

terroir, n.

* Winemaking. The growing conditions in a particular region, viewed as contributing distinctive flavours to the grapes, and hence the wines, produced there; (also) = GOÛT DE TERROIR n.

In early use this sense tends to refer to the soil only (cf. sense b); in later use other factors such as climate, hours of sunlight, landscape, etc., are encompassed; cf. quot. 1983.

1968 E. KRESSMANN Wonder of Wine ii. 36 The soil (or 'terroir'), from which the vine draws its sap and its essence, plays a decisive part.

1971 N.Y. Times 4 Apr. X. 31/6 We had a delightful Malvasier... It is light-red and has the characteristic taste of the terroir, as all South Tyrolean wines.

1983 N.Y. Times 1 June C13/4 Mr. Prats spoke of ‘terroir’ as being not just the soil but a combination of factors that are out of man's hands, the coming together of the soil and climate.

1991 Wine & Spirits June 61/2 A wine with more detail and depth than the Brunate, the Prapo shows a distinctive terroir even at this early stage in its development.

2005 Whisky Mag. Oct. 24/3 The South Australian wine industry..have educated the consumer to understand that terroir is less important than grape variety.

I, for one, am totally educated by the South Australian wine industry on the relative importance of terroir and grape varieties.

Regards, Bob

No, the meaning of terroir has not changed at all, but the way it is discussed in English speaking media has.

Five years ago in discussion forums in USA it was debated if it existed. Now many seek a definition.

Terroir is not a well defined logical formula or a pointer to certain tastes or qualities.

It is a description of a type of product. It is used on all agricultural product, not just wine and its opposite are industrial made products.

All it mean is that the local conditions have shaped the taste and quality of the product. As these wary from location to location terroir can not be defined it must be sensed and understood from the local conditions.

This, it has always meant and in France - and most of mainland Europe - nothing has changed in this meaning the last 1000 years.

If you want to come to term with terroir you must stop making up definitions of it. As anyone making a definition has not understood that it describe varying local conditions not exact influences, and in France it will always mean this and nothing else.

Very best hello to all old and new friends
Fredrik Svensson, Luxembourg.

Incidentally, here's the entry for goût du terroir:

[< French goût de terroir (1549 as goust du terroir), lit. ‘taste of the land’ < goût GOÛT n.3 + de DE prep. + terroir TERROIR n.]

The distinctive taste of a wine or brandy, viewed as deriving from the growing conditions in the region from which the grapes originate. Also in extended use. Cf. TERROIR n.

1893 Temple Bar July 408 Yes, indeed, that was a wine worth drinking... What a bouquet! What a fine goût du terroir!

1909 Mod. Lang. Notes 24 25/2 The Spaniards, whose greatest weakness, perhaps, is their strong local color, the goût du terroir, which renders them so hard for foreigners..to appreciate.

1962 Times 7 May 13/2 This is due partly to the soil of the vineyards and partly to the vines planted, and the resulting ‘goût du terroir’ is quite unique.

1987 A. DANTO Kimura/Berlinart in Encounters & Reflections (1991) 109 Connoisseurship consisted in part in the power to make nuanced discriminations of whatever it is in art that corresponds to vintage and the goût de terroir of authentic wines.

2003 N. GORDON Death by Glass 215 That means you can get a sense of goût de terroir, just like with vintage estate wine.

I will never be able to match Bob R`s search technique but I have come across this article. Hope it has not been linked before?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/style ... tdirt.html

I find terroir a very interesting subject and just thought I should check Jamie Goode`s book, Science of Wine. However I found this piece on his website....

http://www.wineanorak.com/terroir.htm

I found this statement quite relevant..... Indeed, this is the primary difficulty I have encountered whenever I’ve raised the rather thorny issue of terroir with wine lovers. And so, before we begin to look at the notion in detail, let’s first establish that we’re at least discussing the same subject.

Agreed!