Good Kramer Rant...For a Change

I usually dismiss Kramer's rants as the rants from a know-it-all tilting at straw-men that he sets up. But his most recent one:
KramerTerroirRant

is dead-on, I think.
I'm in the process of reading Matthew's "Terroir Myth" book and much of what Kramer states I find rings true. For example, Matthews cast his scorn on the idea that Chablis tastes the way it does ("chalky") because of a direct transport to the chalky minerals from the soil thru the roots and vine and into the grapes. Indeed, there used to be some (British) writers who felt this to be true...but that was long ago. No modern-day writer (that I know of) would suggest that a direct transmission minerals from the soils into the grapes and thence into the taste of the wine. I've tasted plenty of chalk in my day (I used to put a stick of chalk in my mouth like a cigarette to gross out the girls in ole lady Rickey's 5'th grade class...behavior like smoking a cigarette...or pointing a finger at someone & saying "bang" now gets you suspended from school for a month) and can swear that chalk tastes nothing like the "chalky" in Chablis.
I'm curious how Matthews would (if he does in his book but I've not yet got to it) address the taste of eucalyptus in wines (or chamisa/sage in the case of Deming wines) as coming from nearby eucalyptus trees. I suspect he would cast scorn on the idea.
It's been interesting to me to watch the evolution of the term "terroir" over the yrs. When I first started learning about wine back then (by crackey), the term "gout de terroir" (the taste of the soil) was a slightly pejorative term. It referred to the slightly earthy/loamy taste you would get in some Bdx wines (a taste that has now been driven from Bdx, replaced by "gobs of hedonistic fruit", to garner high scores in the Republic of Monktown.
Nowadays, you seldom see a TN that uses "gout de terroir" (in the old sense), but the whole concept of "terroir" has been hoisted upon this pedestal to be worshiped from afar, "worshiping at the altar of terroir" as I put it.

As someone who has his foot in the scientific community, but also the other foot in the fine-wine community, it has long struck me as to how little scientists in the enology/viticulture community listen or talk to those in the fine-wine community. Of course, much of the babble in the fine-wine community is absolute BS (just read any writing by SweetAlice), so you can understand their scorn for our writing. But that was not always the case. I've drunk wines w/ MaynardAmerine & VernSingleton and know the great pleasure they derived from drinking great wines.

I would be very much interested in CaroleMeredith's take on Matthew's book, a lady who is equally at home (I think) in the scientific community and the fine-wine community.

Anyway, for once, Kramer's rant rings true. A good read.
Tom

Umm..

France gave out is grape varieties for free (modern vines have grape breeders rights and a fee paid for each vine) and anyone can and does grow Chardonnay... But what France does uniquely (or cynically) have is 'terroir', so you can grow Chardonnay but you can't grow Chablis because only Chablis has that unique terroir.

I've been with winemakers in the Cape tasting Sauvignon Blancs and Pinotage blind and they have managed to correctly identify which region in a fairly small area the wine has come from, e.eg 'that has the Constantia flavour', or 'unmistakeably Bottelary Hills). It's very impressive.

If Chablis has a certain taste that some wine writers call chalky it may just be that that's the term they use for wines from that area, such as there are those that say a sauvignon blanc taste of gooseberry while they have themselves never tasted a gooseberry, but they are using a term commonly used to describe the taste of that grape and so when they encounter a grape with the same taste thats the word which describes it. (not sure if I'm making sense here)

Umm..

France gave out is grape varieties for free (modern vines have grape breeders rights and a fee paid for each vine) and anyone can and does grow Chardonnay... But what France does uniquely (or cynically) have is 'terroir', so you can grow Chardonnay but you can't grow Chablis because only Chablis has that unique terroir.

I've been with winemakers in the Cape tasting Sauvignon Blancs and Pinotage blind and they have managed to correctly identify which region in a fairly small area the wine has come from, e.eg 'that has the Constantia flavour', or 'unmistakeably Bottelary Hills). It's very impressive.

If Chablis has a certain taste that some wine writers call chalky it may just be that that's the term they use for wines from that area, such as there are those that say a sauvignon blanc taste of gooseberry while they have themselves never tasted a gooseberry, but they are using a term commonly used to describe the taste of that grape and so when they encounter a grape with the same taste thats the word which describes it. (not sure if I'm making sense here)

Yup, Peter...you are making perfectly good sense here. The taste in Chablis is not the taste of chalk (as I know it from ole lady Rickey's 5'th grade class) but the taste of "chalk" that you & I (and others) associate w/ that unique/specific taste of Chablis.

I get a raft of $hit from one of my tasters when I use the descriptor "phenolic" in the character of skin-contact whites, because he doesn't know what "phenolic" means nor has tastesd/smelled phenol in those wines. Though he definitely recognizes that unique smell/taste found in skin-contact whites...he just won't use the term "phenolic" to describe it. Just the opposite of my/his use of the term "botrytis" in a wine...though he has never actually tasted/smelled botrytis. I have..and "botrytis" as used as a descriptor does not resemble botryis in any shape & form.

As for France giving out varieties for "free"...just because it grows the greatest Chards in the World (which may be debated some)...doesn't give it any claim to proprietary rights of Chard. It was a variety that evolved "naturally" and they have no claim to "developing" it...other than it just happened on their soil. Now proprietary rights to Dijon or ENTAV clones...that's a whole nuther story. But they "gave" those away, too, I believe. Or maybe they did collect a fee for their transmission to Calif...I don't know.
Tom

I thought that a lot of the great clones were SMUGGLED into, for instance, the United States. Not really "given away" per se?

As for France giving out varieties for "free"...just because it grows the greatest Chards in the World (which may be debated some)...doesn't give it any claim to proprietary rights of Chard. It was a variety that evolved "naturally" and they have no claim to "developing" it.

Tom I think you're over-reading that comment, meant in context of terroir, intended humorously as my interpretation of why the French are so keen on terroir

But. for the sake of argument IMO there's little real difference in introducing pollen from one vine to another to get a new variety to selecting and nuturing a promising natural cross and proving its worth. Anyone can do the first, its the proving of the varieties worth that is the difficult process I think

Thanks for posting the article, Tom.

The “concept” of the modern term “terroir” goes way back, before the phrase "goût de terroir" and the 20th century French appellation system. The Ancients stamped vintage year, vineyard, and winemaker on clay amphorae. If nothing else, we can say the ancients thought some wines were worth distinguishing from others.

Salute

Will read this later as I am 2 days away from my birding festival. Locations have great terroir .

Thanks for posting the article, Tom.

The “concept” of the modern term “terroir” goes way back, before the phrase "goût de terroir" and the 20th century French appellation system. The Ancients stamped vintage year, vineyard, and winemaker on clay amphorae. If nothing else, we can say the ancients thought some wines were worth distinguishing from others.

Salute

Quite so!

Like most of us, I guess, I have tasted side by side wines of different vineyards from the same grape, vintage and producer, thus limiting those variables, and the place differences seem self evident.

Recently I saw on another site a post by Steve Slatcher, who sometimes comes here, about an experiment putting some science into the perception of terroir differences. Let us hope that he shows up in this thread.

Matt Kramer and his rant about Matthews' scientism reminds me of a video clip of Richard Dawkins addressing a man who claimed to have had a dialogue with the Virgin Mary with the words "I respect your sincerity, Sir, but you were hallucinating." I guess that Matthews may likewise say that people like me are hallucinating on terroir and that we are sincere but gullible victims of marketing hype started by the Ancients with their markings on amphorae .