Soil Chemistry and Wine Flavor

I'm not privy to the inside scoop, but if the industry is knowingly jerking around visitors who think they are being educated then fie on them.

Dan, I think you read Oliver's comment backwards, he said there are not many people in industry who don't believe it. No jerking (as you say, they may be wrong, but they believe), therefore no fie needed.

Sorry if I got it wrong, Oliver.

Hi Oliver,
How did your Vino Vulcanico wine class go?

Salute

Victor,

I think it was a hit. We had 90-odd buyers who came, and those I've talked to first seemed very happy. Plus they actually bought the wines, which makes the crass commercial side of me happy.

We'll be posting a highlights video on our site at some point, I'll come back and announce when it's ready in case anyone's interested.

Oliver,
Good to hear it went well! Looking forward to the highlight video!

Salute

Latest terroir thoughts from Jamie Goode (yup I like to stir the pot).

http://www.wineanorak.com/wineblog/

Latest terroir thoughts from Jamie Goode (yup I like to stir the pot). http://www.wineanorak.com/wineblog/

There's nothing particularly original in that post, but the questions/comments raised are certainly a hot topic in the wine world at the moment.

It's easy to make broad statements about how more "natural/non-interventionist" approaches (in the vineyard and the winery) aid site expression (yielding a sense of place). The near-mantra that winemaking additives (including yeast, MLB and SO2), new oak, fining and filtration are "interventist" is old and only the tip of the intervenionist iceberg in some peoples' minds (particularly those of a "natural wine" persuasion). But broad statements are almost always problematic in viticulture and winemaking.

Before you argue that a wine "better" expresses its site or sense of place, you first have to agree on what the valid expression(s) of that site's fruit is/are. It gets even more complicated and difficult when you get down to the specifics of what can aid or reduce expression (it isn't just about adding SO2 outright, it's about when it's done, how much is added, and to which juice/wine; it's not just about frequency of rackings, it's about oxygenation of the wine and its lees content and quality; managing vine vigour; etc).

Before you argue that a wine "better" expresses its site or sense of place, you first have to agree on what the valid expression(s) of that site's fruit is/are.

Quite. IMO the phrase "having a sense of place" is trotted out far too glibly by most writers. I can understand that if you do not massage your wine into an easily marketable model for how a wine "should be", you get a wider range of styles and more interest. By why should that necessarily imply a "sense of place" or "terroir expression"? Why can it not simply be the result of the chaotic reactions that take place in winemaking?

I would go further - I am not sure I want a "sense of place" or "terroir expression" - just interesting and good wines. Is that so heretical? It would seem so these days.

Before you argue that a wine "better" expresses its site or sense of place, you first have to agree on what the valid expression(s) of that site's fruit is/are.

Quite. IMO the phrase "having a sense of place" is trotted out far too glibly by most writers. I can understand that if you do not massage your wine into an easily marketable model for how a wine "should be", you get a wider range of styles and more interest. By why should that necessarily imply a "sense of place" or "terroir expression"? Why can it not simply be the result of the chaotic reactions that take place in winemaking?

I would go further - I am not sure I want a "sense of place" or "terroir expression" - just interesting and good wines. Is that so heretical? It would seem so these days.

But, Steve, you are just begging the question (in the Aristotlean sense) of what makes a wine "interesting." For many, part of the interest comes from it having a character that's tied to a particular place... or grape... or year... or all of the above. Terry Thiese, the US importer of German and Austrian wines, carries this notion to the extreme by arguing that such wines establish a spiritual connection between the consumer and the producer. As has been pointed out ad nauseam here and elsewhere, the idea of goût de terroir can be either good or bad depending on the nature of the terroir itself. Arguably, those 17% ABV Central Coast Syrahs are showing their terroir, too, for better or for worse.

Personally, I drink wine in part because of the intellectual appeal. I want to know as much as I can about who made it, where it was made and the history of both. To the extent that the wine can help communicate some of that, I'm all for it.

Mark Lipton

You are right, Mark, that I was begging the question about what makes a wine interesting. For me it is mainly in the taste and aromas of the wine itself - they need to be different and stimulating. I would hate for all wine to taste the same, which is the direction a lot of branded wine is taking us. I am also interested in the story behind a wine, but maybe to a lesser extent than you, and I don't need that story to include much about the terroir. I am more into hedonism (also in the more classical/correct sense) rather than intellectual pleasure from drinking wine.

The idea of the spirital connection between the consumer and producer has nothing to do with the wine itself and its "sense of place". If some trickster spins a yarn about the producer, if they had a nice glass of wine in front of them very few people would say "hang on a sec, that does not make sense, this wine is clearly from the vineyard next door. The sense of place is all wrong." So what does it really mean?

IMO the phrase "having a sense of place" is trotted out far too glibly by most writers.... can it not simply be the result of the chaotic reactions that take place in winemaking?

I completely agree. I actually think the role of the winemaker is underplayed by most wine lovers (and many winemakers) who value typicity/terroir/sense of place.

Wine writers often note how fruit from different vineyards were "vinified exactly the same way" yet tasted quite different, and conclude this is because of difference in terroir. Well, I have tasted plenty of wines that were made with fruit from the same site, were vinified in "exactly the same way", and tasted quite different! I am not arguing that terroir is insignificant, just that vinification effects can be much more significant than many give notice/credit to (and that vinifying batches identically is questionable).

I am not sure I want a "sense of place" or "terroir expression" - just interesting and good wines. Is that so heretical? It would seem so these days.

Like Mark, I value wine characters that relate to particular places - it's one of the features of wine that makes it so interesting - but I think there is (and should be) place in the world for wines of/from many different philosophical approaches. There are many who also argue that "interesting" wines tend to be those that exhibit a sense of place.

Wine writers often note how fruit from different vineyards were "vinified exactly the same way" yet tasted quite different, and conclude this is because of difference in terroir. Well, I have tasted plenty of wines that were made with fruit from the same site, were vinified in "exactly the same way", and tasted quite different!

I will go a step further. Last year I made 15 gallons of a red blend from my own grapes. Seperated that into 3, 5 gallon carboys to age and the difference between carboys was so radically different that when I asked my wife to taste (double check me) before blending into 2, gallon carboys that all still tasted fine. She thought that one of the carboys tasted so different as to be a completely different wine. Her exact words were as she pointed to the carboy in question "what is that and why are you blending it in to the other wine. Its taste good as it is. Leave it alone."

Further thoughts on this subject....>

http://www.wineanorak.com/wineblog/unca ... r#comments

I suppose winemakers also say that there are consistent differences between vineyards from year to year. If that is true (and I am prepared to accept that it is), choas cannot explain all the differences.

But whether the differences are due to terroir depends as much on definition of terroir as anything else. I simply don't believe that the vines and grapes from different vineyards are treated identically. Why should they be if they are in different places with different exposure to the sun etc? I would hope they are treated appropriately differently. And were the vines planted at the same time? And from the same clone? But if your definition of terroir includes all these factors, then fine, it is terroir that produces the differences.

For it to be meaningfully called terrior as far as I am concerned, I would require a lot more reason than wines of single producer tasting different in a consistent way from year to year. I would want evidence from blind tastings showing that there is some commonality of taste within a vineyard, and differences between nearby vineyards, irrespective of producer.

OK, I do not have the monopoly on the definition of terroir, but part of the problem it that nobody does. So its importance is justified under one definition, and then it gets used in another sense.

Why can’t the “issues” of terrior exist on various geographical and climatic scales, from the very broad and general (regional) to the very local (site-specific)?

Salute

Why can’t the “issues” of terrior exist on various geographical and climatic scales, from the very broad and general (regional) to the very local (site-specific)?

OK, so what is the terroir of South East Australia, compared to Bordeaux for example? Would we not finish up talking about climate? Call it terroir if you want, but I don't see the point.

I suppose winemakers also say that there are consistent differences between vineyards from year to year. If that is true (and I am prepared to accept that it is), choas cannot explain all the differences.

But whether the differences are due to terroir depends as much on definition of terroir as anything else. I simply don't believe that the vines and grapes from different vineyards are treated identically. Why should they be if they are in different places with different exposure to the sun etc? I would hope they are treated appropriately differently. And were the vines planted at the same time? And from the same clone? But if your definition of terroir includes all these factors, then fine, it is terroir that produces the differences.

For it to be meaningfully called terrior as far as I am concerned, I would require a lot more reason than wines of single producer tasting different in a consistent way from year to year. I would want evidence from blind tastings showing that there is some commonality of taste within a vineyard, and differences between nearby vineyards, irrespective of producer.

OK, I do not have the monopoly on the definition of terroir, but part of the problem it that nobody does. So its importance is justified under one definition, and then it gets used in another sense.

Steve,
I am genuinely confused. Have you never encountered someone who proclaims that a particular wine tastes like a (fill in the blank: Pomerol, Pauillac, Chambolle-Musigny, Morgon, Wehlener Sonnenuhr, etc.)? Or do you simply discredit that line of thinking? Many of us have been to blind tastings where certain tasters are well above random chance at identifying the region where a wine comes from and, at times, even a particular vineyard. To me, that's a function of terroir. YMMV, of course.

Mark Lipton

For my test I would be thinking of using competent tasters, but not experts of the region. Their mission would be to identify commonalities in aroma and taste, not to name the vineyard. I seriously don't think they would do better than chance given 20 or fewer wines.

I think you keep better tasting company than me, Mark. I have come across no one who can consistently nail a wine down to vineyard/village level, but if the options are sufficiently restricted to an area of expertise I dare say it is possible. Better than chance at getting the region right? Well yes, maybe if the experiment is large enough, but that is hardly a great achievement. Often I think context is the key to success at this game - who is providing the wine, what is the likely quality, etc. "Blind" rarely means wines selected at random from around the world.

But it is not just the company I keep. I also know many experienced tasters completely mess up in getting the region right. Remember the udgement of Paris? Remember the Harry Waugh quote? Remember the difficulty experienced tasters have in telling red wine from white even?

It is another question as to whether an above-chance regional identification is due to terrior or not. Largely a question of definition I think. But it is nothing to do with soil, drainage and vineyard aspect, as they vary so much within most regions. Climate and wine-making style, maybe. But if it is due those factors I prefer to use those precise words rather than "terroir". Seems a lot more straightforward.

Incidentally, if you have Jasper Morris' book "Inside Burgundy", there is an interesting bit in the Clos Vougoet section. He describes a tasting designed to indicate differences within that large vineyard, but none emerged. I can see how that result can be interpreted in different ways (and you can probably guess my interpretation ) but I thought it is interesting and relevant to this dicussion.

Incidentally, if you have Jasper Morris' book "Inside Burgundy", there is an interesting bit in the Clos Vougoet section. He describes a tasting designed to indicate differences within that large vineyard, but none emerged. I can see how that result can be interpreted in different ways (and you can probably guess my interpretation ) but I thought it is interesting and relevant to this dicussion.

Well, in the case of Clos (de) Vougeot, there's the distinction between the Good and the Bad wines, Steve

Mark Lipton

For my test I would be thinking of using competent tasters, but not experts of the region. Their mission would be to identify commonalities in aroma and taste, not to name the vineyard. I seriously don't think they would do better than chance given 20 or fewer wines.

Get a collection of 10 Echezeaux and 10 Savigny-les-Beaune. I'd wager that a panel of competent tasters will do a lot better than chance in identifying which wines belong to which commune.

I think you keep better tasting company than me, Mark. I have come across no one who can consistently nail a wine down to vineyard/village level, but if the options are sufficiently restricted to an area of expertise I dare say it is possible. Better than chance at getting the region right? Well yes, maybe if the experiment is large enough, but that is hardly a great achievement. Often I think context is the key to success at this game - who is providing the wine, what is the likely quality, etc. "Blind" rarely means wines selected at random from around the world.

Consistency is the question, innit, Steve? Few people have the breadth of experience (and the palate) to succeed in identifying wines on a routine basis, but I'm really talking about something different, which is finding elements of commonality that link wines from a particular place, be that region, commune, vineyard or lieu dit. When people routinely talk about the "iron" found in wines from Musigny, one has to conclude that either there's something in the wines that gives that impression, or that we're suffering from a case of the power of suggestion (most likely, both are applicable).

But it is not just the company I keep. I also know many experienced tasters completely mess up in getting the region right. Remember the udgement of Paris? Remember the Harry Waugh quote? Remember the difficulty experienced tasters have in telling red wine from white even?

But Harry Waugh is also the person who, after a car accident that cost him his sense of smell, correctly identified a particular vintage of Lafite from nothing more than its mouth feel.

It is another question as to whether an above-chance regional identification is due to terrior or not. Largely a question of definition I think. But it is nothing to do with soil, drainage and vineyard aspect, as they vary so much within most regions. Climate and wine-making style, maybe. But if it is due those factors I prefer to use those precise words rather than "terroir". Seems a lot more straightforward.

What underlies the concept of terroir is thorny indeed. A case in point is the area of Côte-Rôtie in the N Rhône. Yes, the grapes grow on a very rocky, steep slope and yes, they are at higher latitude than other Syrah-growing regions, but also the traditional grapes grown there were Serine, which many feel was a particular strain of Syrah that gave rise to more perfumed and mannered wines. Exposure, as you say, varies greatly within Côte-Rôtie, but that's recognized in the different character exhibited by the Côte Brune and the Côte Blonde. Of course, they have different soils, too. It's important to recognize that these distinctions were recognized in many cases by monks in the 13th and 14th Centuries, so weren't colored by modern notions of terroir.

Mark Lipton

Get a collection of 10 Echezeaux and 10 Savigny-les-Beaune. I'd wager that a panel of competent tasters will do a lot better than chance in identifying which wines belong to which commune

I was rather thinking of having wines of similar price in my test. I don't deny some places are better than others for wine.

Incidentally, if you have Jasper Morris' book "Inside Burgundy", there is an interesting bit in the Clos Vougoet section. He describes a tasting designed to indicate differences within that large vineyard, but none emerged. I can see how that result can be interpreted in different ways (and you can probably guess my interpretation ) but I thought it is interesting and relevant to this dicussion.

Well, in the case of Clos (de) Vougeot, there's the distinction between the Good and the Bad wines, Steve

And isn't the usual story that the lower part of the vineyard is worse than the upper part? But apparently this was not borne out by the tasting.

Getting into the “heads” of early man is a very difficult task indeed. But surly even in earlier times, “primitive” man familiar with say the Rhine River Valley would year after year might take notice and observe certain things (like the snow disappearing from a certain outcrop of the River’s hilly banks). After awhile they might even “investigate”. After investigating they might have found things that they could easily gather and eat. So in a sense at a fairly early time these outcrops or sections of the River’s hill banks became “choice” or “special” to man.

Salute

Surely this whole debate about terroir comes down to 'is it possible to reliably discern where a wine is grown,' and the answer is yes, it is possible. It's not easy, but it's possible. At an extreme level, if it weren't possible there would be no such thing as the MW tasting exam.