Varietal Reflections Of Terroir

So take winemaking out of the picture. If one only tastes the grapes and not the wine does the premise that PN, Neb, and Ries most reflect the terroir hold up?

Brian: interesting approach, but I don't think it would satisfy anyone. These are WINE people you're talking to, and they're monomaniacal.

No, what might work though is having a 'controlled test' situation, where you have one winemaker making wine from the same grape but from several different "terroir-specific" locations, so you eliminate as many variables as possible.

I've actually seen this numerous times, and tasted the results, primarily in Burgundy, but also right here in Oregon and California. One of the most instructive for me was a single-vineyard single-vintage tasting of the St. Innocent Pinot Noirs from the Willamette Valley. And even though I was already a believe, it made an even more confirmed believer out of me that Pinot Noir most definitely reflects terroir, and quite specifically at that. (Of course, I've also had the ability to taste some of those same single-vineyard PNs over different vintages to see that they continue to be terroir reflective.).

Trouble is, in Burgundy, I've seen exactly the same terroir specificity attained by a winemaker working with different single vineyard Chardonnays...so where does that put us, back to zero?

Actually where I was going is Tom asked why those three grapes. So my first question is, if you believe the premise, can you taste the terroir in the grapes or only the wine and is it most appreant in the three cited. If its the grape you can eliminate a lot of variables related to winemaking. If its only the wine then it should be possible to eliminate a lot of differnt variables.

What you descirbe could come next but would have to included more than one grape so one could theoretically determine if the terroir is more apparent in the wine from one grape than aother. I think its all hooey since I have no idea as to how one determines a standard for what a wine should taste like from any given terroir. With no true standard, how does one measure best relection of terroir. We may all agree that wine A taste more different than wing B when made from different sites but how does that answer the question if wine A is more reflective of the terroir.

The differences in barrel regime and winemaking in Bordeaux actually proves my point, if you can actually taste the similarities in the wines coming out of specific communes.

Question: do you think the choice of barrel regimen is terroir?

From: http://www.terroir-france.com/theclub/meaning.htm

A " terroir " is a group of vineyards (or even vines) from the same region, belonging to a specific appellation, and sharing the same type of soil, weather conditions, grapes and wine making savoir-faire, which contribute to give its specific personality to the wine.

Terroir = Region + Appellation + Grapes + Wine making

Since barrel regimen is part of wine making, then, according to this definition, it is part of the terroir.

Including winemaking makes a nonsense of the whole idea of terroir, in my mind.

Pretty much agree w/ you on that, Oliver. Though there are some who argue that the "traditional" methods of winemaking
for that area are part & parcel of the terroir. It seems a bit of a stretch to me, however.
So where does that leave Gravner/Radikon?? Do their wines reflect terroir?? Or do their winemaking obliterate the terroir?
Or what about the dry/table wines coming out of the Douro??
Gives those who worship at the altar of terroir one more thing to bicker about, I suppose.
Tom

Gives those who worship at the altar of terroir one more thing to bicker about, I suppose.

Thus keeping wine forums churning.

I'm with you and Oliver on the terroir thing. I keep coming back to my old schtick of talking about The Variety---The Terroir---The Winemaker being the three elements that make a wine what it is.

I suppose that there are obvious exceptions to my point, such as, well, any fortified wine, any 'flor' wine, any passito wine...in those cases the winemaking is a very obvious part of the wine...

Winemaking is certainly not part of terroir unless it obviously is part of terroir? Hmmm....

Wouldn’t every site where grapes can survive and thrive posses “terroir”? Surely we should be able to discuss terroir in terms of being “site-specific and “regional”.

Take a site that is believed to be suitable for Cabernet Sauvignon where the vintage year can be varied. Cabernet Sauvignon if grown in a year that is “hot” and produced into a “single variety” wine can produce a wine that is “concentrated and big”, and can favor things like “jammy” maybe even with some hints of slightly “cooked red and black fruits”. In a season that is “cold” the wine produced might not be as “concentrated and big” and may favor things like “bell peppers” and/ or a slight “veggie” component. Is one wine a “less reflection of terroir” than the other? Or is it when the vintage year is “cool” does the Cabernet Sauvignon only “reflect terroir”?

A decision made in the vineyard (canopy management technique, leaf thinning, green harvesting, “tying off” the clusters, etc) or cellar (how to prepare the must prior to fermentation (full crush, partial crush, whole berries, whole cluster, no stems or partial stems), maceration times (skin contact post (cold soak) and pre fermentation), adding oak powder to the must, type of fermentation (“hot or cool”), adding a “desired” naturally selected yeast strain and nutrients (if necessary) so that fermentation does not become “sluggish” instead it continues at a “steady and timely” pace to “completion” etc) can help “steer the pendulum” back towards the center (“cool”). Is this “total manipulation” and a bad thing?

Salute

Wouldn’t every site where grapes can survive and thrive posses “terroir”? Surely we should be able to discuss terroir in terms of being “site-specific and “regional”.

Take a site that is believed to be suitable for Cabernet Sauvignon where the vintage year can be varied. Cabernet Sauvignon if grown in a year that is “hot” and produced into a “single variety” wine can produce a wine that is “concentrated and big”, and can favor things like “jammy” maybe even with some hints of slightly “cooked red and black fruits”. In a season that is “cold” the wine produced might not be as “concentrated and big” and may favor things like “bell peppers” and/ or a slight “veggie” component. Is one wine a “less reflection of terroir” than the other? Or is it when the vintage year is “cool” does the Cabernet Sauvignon only “reflect terroir”?

A decision made in the vineyard (canopy management technique, leaf thinning, green harvesting, “tying off” the clusters, etc) or cellar (how to prepare the must prior to fermentation (full crush, partial crush, whole berries, whole cluster, no stems or partial stems), maceration times (skin contact post (cold soak) and pre fermentation), adding oak powder to the must, type of fermentation (“hot or cool”), adding a “desired” naturally selected yeast strain and nutrients (if necessary) so that fermentation does not become “sluggish” instead it continues at a “steady and timely” pace to “completion” etc) can help “steer the pendulum” back towards the center (“cool”). Is this “total manipulation” and a bad thing?

Salute

Yes.

Absolutely.

I never said manipulation was (necessarily) a bad thing.

Thanks Hoke!

Salute

perhaps i should modify my prior remarks slightly. while there are cooler and warmer climates per se - champagne vs. languedoc lets say; for individual varietes there can be warmer and cooler places to grow them. that is, even for grenache, there can be places that are cool for that variety - places where they might be challenged to reach optimal ripeness(however defined) every year. in such cooler places for any particular variety, they will be able to express terroir better than that same variety grown in a warmer place where optimal ripeness is guaranteed every year. i didn't want to be thought to say that there can't be terroir in warmer climate wines. but i do think that terroir in say the southern rhone IS better expressed in vintages such as 2008 than it is in say 2007.

perhaps i should modify my prior remarks slightly. while there are cooler and warmer climates per se - champagne vs. languedoc lets say; for individual varietes there can be warmer and cooler places to grow them. that is, even for grenache, there can be places that are cool for that variety - places where they might be challenged to reach optimal ripeness(however defined) every year. in such cooler places for any particular variety, they will be able to express terroir better than that same variety grown in a warmer place where optimal ripeness is guaranteed every year. i didn't want to be thought to say that there can't be terroir in warmer climate wines. but i do think that terroir in say the southern rhone IS better expressed in vintages such as 2008 than it is in say 2007.

This is tricky because susceptibility to weather/heat is clearly part of terroir. So your claim is that variation across plots is clearer in a cool year than in a warm year? I'm not so sure about that. I don't know about the Southern Rhone but in the regions I am familiar with the cool vintages often leave their distinctive mark on the wines as well, across plots. Even if I like those wines better than the hot years.

Why is PinotNoir (or Nebbiolo or Riesling) more sensitive to its terroir than any other grape variety???

I don't think I believe that premise (it is certainly shared by many wine writers - which doesn't necessarily lend it any credence based on evidence), but I suspect part of the reason people come to that conclusion is because of the way those varieties are generally grown and made into wine (i.e., often from single sites, and often without the scope of winemaking modifiers that other varieties experience). (Syrah/Shiraz seems to have quite different expressions in different sites and climates, yet it seems to rarely be considered in the same sense as the above three. Presumably, it isn't considered to show "as much" difference - which is debatable.)




Some perhaps more penetrating (hopefully) thoughts and questions on terroir (not meaning to drift too much, but it does bear on the original post):

there can be places that are cool for that variety [Grenache] - places where they might be challenged to reach optimal ripeness(however defined) every year. in such cooler places for any particular variety, they will be able to express terroir better than that same variety grown in a warmer place where optimal ripeness is guaranteed every year... but i do think that terroir in say the southern rhone IS better expressed in vintages such as 2008 than it is in say 2007.

Can you give an example of how you think terroir, in terms of specific flavour profile in the wine(s), is "better" expressed in an equivalent cooler site relative to a warmer site?
When you talk about a "better" expression of terroir, do you mean that a site's terroir is more accurately expressed in the wine, or that it is a preferred expression (in the sense of it literally tasting better to many people). If the former, how would we even know what the most accurate expression was?

In a similar vein:

a single-vineyard single-vintage tasting of the St. Innocent Pinot Noirs from the Willamette Valley... it made an even more confirmed believer out of me that Pinot Noir most definitely reflects terroir... Trouble is, in Burgundy, I've seen exactly the same terroir specificity attained by a winemaker working with different single vineyard Chardonnays...

In what sense (being specific about the flavour profile) was the "same terroir specificity attained"?



I'd argue (from experience) that wines made from the same block of fruit can never really be made in exactly the same way, which throws doubt on the idea that the differences seen in single-vineyard single-vintage wines from the same vineyard can be solely explained by terroir influences - I certainly believe the terroir differences plays a role, I just question whether the relative influence of that role is quite as significant as many make it out to be.

Every site has unique terroir, it's just that some are more individual (and some are more highly valued) than others. The idea of terroir "expression" (let alone the validity of a particular expression) is a tenuous (though legitimate) one. And, of course, for wine, terroir is never isolated from terroir expression.

If we define terroir as devoid of winemaking influence, it's very difficult to talk about terroir expression in any way that isn't generic. If we define terroir as including winemaking (typicity seems a more appropriate term), then the concept of a site lending unique characteristics to a wine ends up being confounded by those characters imparted by winemaking influence. It's tricky, which is probably just another reason why these "terroir debates/discussions" abound.

[David M. Bueker]

...for individual varietes there can be warmer and cooler places to grow them. that is, even for grenache, there can be places that are cool for that variety - places where they might be challenged to reach optimal ripeness(however defined) every year. in such cooler places for any particular variety, they will be able to express terroir better than that same variety grown in a warmer place where optimal ripeness is guaranteed every year.i didn't want to be thought to say that there can't be terroir in warmer climate wines. but i do think that terroir in say the southern rhone IS better expressed in vintages such as 2008 than it is in say 2007.

In order to remain polite I will say that I respectfully disagree.

Isolating temperature in a given region and temperature variation from year to year takes out a crucial element of the growing condition for a given region and vintage. It's certainly fine to say that one prefers a given grape grown in a normally cooler location, but to say that terroir expression is better in that type of area is to define terroir by the output you seek, rather than what the site gives. I have read it all too many time - Pinot Noir grown in the Santa Rita Hills does not express terroir. It all tastes like Syrah. No, it tastes like Pinot Nir grown in the Santa Rita Hills. Some people may not like that expression of Pinot Noir, but that does not mean that the wine does not show its terroir. It just happens ot be a terroir that gives very ripe fruit flavors when the seeds and skins are ripe.

And this isan't just about California. There have been discussions recently regarding Burgundy vintages 2001 and 2002, and which one shows terroir better than the other. I suppose if we want to isolate terroir down to just the dirt then a year like 2001 might take the prize, but temperature, rainfall, etc are all part of how the grapes grew, so to me, what 2002 gave was just as valid expression of the terroir as 2001.

The whole problem with this recurring debate is that it ultimately comes down to a a wine that expresses terroir is a wine that tastes the way I want it to discussion. Ultimately it's not all that different from the natural wine debate.

Why is PinotNoir (or Nebbiolo or Riesling) more sensitive to its terroir than any other grape variety???

I don't think I believe that premise (it is certainly shared by many wine writers - which doesn't necessarily lend it any credence based on evidence), but I suspect part of the reason people come to that conclusion is because of the way those varieties are generally grown and made into wine (i.e., often from single sites, and often without the scope of winemaking modifiers that other varieties experience). (Syrah/Shiraz seems to have quite different expressions in different sites and climates, yet it seems to rarely be considered in the same sense as the above three. Presumably, it isn't considered to show "as much" difference - which is debatable.)
Some perhaps more penetrating (hopefully) thoughts and questions on terroir (not meaning to drift too much, but it does bear on the original post):

there can be places that are cool for that variety [Grenache] - places where they might be challenged to reach optimal ripeness(however defined) every year. in such cooler places for any particular variety, they will be able to express terroir better than that same variety grown in a warmer place where optimal ripeness is guaranteed every year... but i do think that terroir in say the southern rhone IS better expressed in vintages such as 2008 than it is in say 2007.

Can you give an example of how you think terroir, in terms of specific flavour profile in the wine(s), is "better" expressed in an equivalent cooler site relative to a warmer site?
When you talk about a "better" expression of terroir, do you mean that a site's terroir is more accurately expressed in the wine, or that it is a preferred expression (in the sense of it literally tasting better to many people). If the former, how would we even know what the most accurate expression was?

In a similar vein:

a single-vineyard single-vintage tasting of the St. Innocent Pinot Noirs from the Willamette Valley... it made an even more confirmed believer out of me that Pinot Noir most definitely reflects terroir... Trouble is, in Burgundy, I've seen exactly the same terroir specificity attained by a winemaker working with different single vineyard Chardonnays...

In what sense (being specific about the flavour profile) was the "same terroir specificity attained"?

I'd argue (from experience) that wines made from the same block of fruit can never really be made in exactly the same way, which throws doubt on the idea that the differences seen in single-vineyard single-vintage wines from the same vineyard can be solely explained by terroir influences - I certainly believe the terroir differences plays a role, I just question whether the relative influence of that role is quite as significant as many make it out to be.
Every site has unique terroir, it's just that some are more individual (and some are more highly valued) than others. The idea of terroir "expression" (let alone the validity of a particular expression) is a tenuous (though legitimate) one. And, of course, for wine, terroir is never isolated from terroir expression.
If we define terroir as devoid of winemaking influence, it's very difficult to talk about terroir expression in any way that isn't generic. If we define terroir as including winemaking (typicity seems a more appropriate term), then the concept of a site lending unique characteristics to a wine ends up being confounded by those characters imparted by winemaking influence. It's tricky, which is probably just another reason why these "terroir debates/discussions" abound.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Ben.

I'm beginning to suspect that my original premise (that such&such reflects terrior more than any other variety) may not be quite correct. But I've heard that statement made sufficiently often
by wine "authorities" that I just wished to raise the question. Maybe it's just not so. OTOH, maybe the converse is true...that some varieties reflect terroir less than other varieties. I see a lot
more uniformity in aroma/taste in Cabernet across a variety of terroirs than any variety that I can think of, save Muscat. Probably why I don't much like Cabernet...it's so boring.
Your last comment is dead on...probably why these discussions become so tedious and never seem to resolve anything. But it gives us something to bicker about, though.
Tom

In what sense (being specific about the flavour profile) was the "same terroir specificity attained"?

Re St. Innocent, in the sense that the same variety (although there were likely some clonal variations involved, but I don't know precisely), by the same winemaker, in the same year showed entirely different faces. And in the sense that this stayed true over a span of at least three vintages, both vertically and horizontally.

Freedom Hill Vineyard was recognizable among the other vineyards, and it was recognizable as Freedom Hill in each vintage.

While I fully realize that you could easily tear this apart analytically, claiming that the winemaker might be exhibiting such manipulation as to satisfy his expectations of the outcome for each vineyard in each vintage, I wouldn't buy that---I tasted the wines; I know the winemaker; I taste the wines with the winemaker.

If I can identify, without knowing the vineyard, that particular vineyard over a span of years as distinct from other vineyards the winemaker makes (and I confess I'm not very good at playing "Guess That Wine!"), then it is sufficiently proven to me, until sufficiently proven to me otherwise, that is the case. Maybe not to you; but to me, it is.

My refrain, again, is not on revealing variety OR terroir OR the winemaker: it is that the three elements that determine a wine worth talking about or drinking are the grape, the place and the winemaker, and that these shift according to a variety of factors, but are always present---even if we don't have enough information to determine in every case what those elements are. It's part and parcel of what makes wine so intriguing a topic that we discuss it to death---then start all over again the next day.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Ben.... I've heard that statement made sufficiently often by wine "authorities" that I just wished to raise the question.

Well, thanks for raising an interesting topic, Tom. I certainly think it's worth questioning much standard wine lore - plenty of it (particularly that espoused by popular wine writers) seems more based in myth than fact.

In what sense (being specific about the flavour profile) was the "same terroir specificity attained"?

Re St. Innocent, in the sense that the same variety (although there were likely some clonal variations involved, but I don't know precisely), by the same winemaker, in the same year showed entirely different faces.

Thanks for the response, but my question wasn't in relation to your comment re St Innocent. My question in relation to your comment that in Burgundy you saw "exactly the same terroir specificity attained by a winemaker working with different single vineyard Chardonnays". I was asking, for a response that specifically referenced flavour profile ("the smell of lilac" would be an utterly basic example), in what sense was the "same terroir specificity" attained by the winemaker that was working with different single vineyard Chardonnays?

(I certainly agree that

it is that the three elements that determine a wine worth talking about or drinking are the grape, the place and the winemaker, and that these shift according to a variety of factors, but are always present.

I also don't have a problem with "sufficient proof" being constituted by consistent distinct characters of a particular vineyard as evidence of terroir expression/identity (when factors of winemaking and vintage variation are also considered).)

Thanks for the response, but my question wasn't in relation to your comment re St Innocent. My question in relation to your comment that in Burgundy you saw "exactly the same terroir specificity attained by a winemaker working with different single vineyard Chardonnays". I was asking, for a response that specifically referenced flavour profile ("the smell of lilac" would be an utterly basic example), in what sense was the "same terroir specificity" attained by the winemaker that was working with different single vineyard Chardonnays?

Ben: Sorry. Misread or mis-interpreted what you were asking for there.

Re Chardonnay/Burgundy. For sake of brevity (something I'm obvious not very good at), at a tasting of Montrachet/Chassagne-Montrachet-St.-Aubin Premier Cru wines, all made by the same winemaker, we were tasting the individual wines while walking the vineyards. That year in particular he had strived specifically to make all the wines at the same time and in the same way, as an experiment (Small batch, of course.)

Without knowing this, the small group agreed that the wines were different, some markedly so. In one dramatic case two vineyards were only about ten yards from each other, but with significant taste differences. The winemaker cited different wind flow, different levels of limestone/marl, and different humidity because of the angle and direction of the slope. One had more marked floral characteristics, with a softer mouthfeel and (seemingly) less acidity and structure; the other had more distinct green apple fruit, was more tart, and seemed more tightly structured with acidity.

In another instance, while tasting with one of the Bouchards through the Domaine Bouchard line-up, we discussed why one of the wines, a Beaune, had a highly distinctive, recognizable and consistent style (extreme perfume of white flowers, to cite one example), whereas other wines from different areas nearby in the Meursault showed an entirely different and more generally Meursault style. What M. Bouchard essentially said was "this is because the site in the Beaune, which goes back to the monks, has always shown these characteristics, and we can see them every single year in some degree." What made it seem even more impressive was that this vineyard in the Beaune is entirely surrounded by a vast carpet of Pinot Noir vineyards almost exclusively.

Based on those examples primarily, I decided I could not but agree to what these two people were telling me, while I was experiencing it. (Of course, I've a highly suggestible nature too, but I'm okay in this instance. )