Rumblings on wine part 4987243: California

[David M. Bueker]

California is a very big place. It’s about 65% the size of France on its own as a single state. The wine regions of California are separated by both large and small distances, some like Napa and Sonoma are neighbors. The Santa Rita Hills are just a distant relative by comparison, being hundreds of miles south of Napa, the popular epicenter of California wine.

The wine regions of California are separated by more than distance. The climate, soils and marine exposures vary dramatically, even with an individual region or sub-region. The Sonoma Coast AVA approaches the size of the state of Rhode Island, and has wildly different growing conditions, depending on where a vineyard is located in the AVA.

Given the realities of California as a place to grow grapes, and make wine, why is it so often treated as a single entity? Wine enthusiasts of even moderate knowledge cringe at the idea of treating France as a single entity. Why then is everything in California so often lumped into a single description of “California wine” as if Napa Cabernet is being blended with Santa Barbara Pinot Noir?

Is it alcohol levels? Sonoma Coast Pinot Noir and Syrah regularly come in under 13% abv, versus the caricature that is drawn of “California wines” all being monsters of 15% alcohol. How about overripe fruit flavors. Yes, some expensive Napa wines, and definitely some cheap California-level wines trade in that style. Yet it’s no longer the sole signature of the state, as many wineries have learned how to manage the vines to obtain ripeness without raisining, leaving the jammy and roasted elements to wines at the extremes.

This all reads as a bit of a rant, and while there is an aspect of that, I have also become fascinated with the wide range of soils, climates and resulting wines that come from the far-reaching viticultural areas of California. There is Pinot Noir grown in limestone soils (e.g. Antle Vineyard in the Chalone AVA of Monterey County). It makes a significantly different style of wine than Pinot grown in the loamy soils in some other regions. That’s a single example, but indicative of the diversity of California’s wine regions, and a reason why California is not just one wine region.

Let’s change the conversation about California. Let’s recognize it as a collection of distinctive and varied wine regions, rather than as some vinous monolith.

This all reads as a bit of a rant,

Rant away, let's have more like this well argued one.

Let’s change the conversation about California. Let’s recognize it as a collection of distinctive and varied wine regions, rather than as some vinous monolith.

Agree with you. But reasons are probably that it's a new wine producing region. Really only dates back to the late 60s (?) and few the wineries have a long track record.

And because it's new people are not familiar with the different regions, as you are.

One still hears people talking of 'French' wines, and while wine enthusiasts may talk about French regions, Italy tends to be lumped together, Spain gets Rioja and ? and South Africa ??

even within AVAs, there are generalizations that can't be reconciled; when the infamous "degree days" calculations were made, no allowances for elevation, slope, exposure, soil differences, etc., were considered, of course, so a place like "the foothills" just became, in nearly everyone's minds: HOT! I've made Syrah, as age-worthy as anything we've ever bottled, from grapes near Placerville, that weighs in under 12%. Something about marketing, or editorial decisions (not enough space for all those words!) has taken over the imaginations of great swaths of us!

Thanks for that, David. Having spent three weeks driving round California a few years ago gave me a glimpse of the incredible diversity of the state. However, appreciation of the diversity of its wine terroirs is not helped for me by poor availability of this side of the Atlantic and by the emphasis on grape variety rather than place.

By contrast, in Europe, all but down market wines are identified primarily by place names and the winelover, particular those in the country concerned, usually has a fair idea what to expect from each place, including the grape varieties being used where they are not mentioned on the labels.

Someone here (was it Peter?) poked fun at the owner of Domaine du Closel for insisting that she made Savennières and not Chenin. I know exactly what she means and feel that a bit of that attitude in California might help recognition the individuality of the terroirs there.

Someone here (was it Peter?) poked fun at the owner of Domaine du Closel for insisting that she made Savennières and not Chenin. I know exactly what she means and feel that a bit of that attitude in California might help recognition the individuality of the terroirs there.

It was I that recounted it, but I don't think I was poking fun.

[David M. Bueker]

Lots to unpack in this thread. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

California has made some huge strides in the last 50 years or so. There have been some blind alleys, but the recognition of various terroirs in recent years has been important to altering the monolithic appearance of “Cal Cab.”

Regarding varietal primacy, I struggle with that perception, if only because the labels also include the region, and for many of the better wines, more closely delimited AVAs and often single vineyards. There is no doubt that St. Julien is better known to European wine enthusiasts than are the sub-regions Stags Leap and Spring Mountain in Napa Valley, but the more closely defined places are on the label for a reason. Cabernet Sauvignon from those specific places is different from other areas of Napa, such as Oakville.

Regarding Steve’s comments on delineations within AVAs, it’s clear that there is more to do in understanding how to “map” Californian terroir, but we are at least now having the discussions. It’s also not just for a California. There analysis is happening in Oregon as well, as this podcast interview by Levi Dalton of Ehren Jordan illustrates: https://illdrinktothatpod.com/post/1792 ... ren-jordan

[David M. Bueker]

On a somewhat related note, here’s an article by Meg Maker that is worth perusing. She discusses using a different way to talk about where and how a wine was made.

https://terroirreview.com/2018/03/19/to ... ican-wine/

[Robin Garr]

Fascinating topic (and an interesting article by Meg). I agree that lumping all California wines into one style basket doesn't serve us well, but on the other side of that coin, it's tempting to assert that an awful lot of California wine tends toward the high-alcohol/big fruit model. Not all of it, but a lot of it, and if I were being lazy, I might lump those wines under the California label and say I don't want them.

As for the ones I do like, I think being conscious of the AVA, the variety, and the wine maker narrows it down sufficiently for me. But Meg's farmstead/artisan/cooperative/industrial levels - along with AVA as she suggests - would add another level of nuance. A question about that, though: If Gallo buys an artisanal producer and allows it to continue to produce from its own vines, is that producer still artisanal, or does it become industrial? Or do we have to wait and sample the product to decide?

[David M. Bueker]

I think the product is still artisanal. The grapes don’t know they are owned by Gallo, nor do the tanks/barrels. If the winemaker is left alone to make the wines as they always have, I cannot taste who got the profit.

[Robin Garr]

I'd like to think so, but sometimes the heavy hand of the bean-counters shows in the wine even if they didn't physically touch the wine. Louis M. Martini?

[David M. Bueker]

Well first of all, Martini fell down a deep hole before they were purchased.

[Robin Garr]

Well first of all, Martini fell down a deep hole before they were purchased.

Maybe I had stars in my eyes, but I was a fan pretty much until the sale. Certainly in terms of QPR.

[David M. Bueker]

There have been a few QPR stars from them since. They had a Sonoma Cab that was a steal at $20 a couple of years ago.

[Robin Garr]

I guess I'll put them back on my to-try list, then.

I do have a soft spot in my heart for Martini. It was my very first Napa Valley winery visit, a long time ago.

Does the carpenter who uses an INCA Dovetail fixture, hand router, and carbide router bit produce
a product less artisanal?

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

Does the carpenter who uses an INCA Dovetail fixture, hand router, and carbide router bit produce
a product less artisanal?

Salute

Nope, but it might be a bit more affordable!

Thanks for this and also for Meg's article. The trouble with her proposed classification isn't that it doesn't make sense, but that it'll never be adopted, as long as it labels the bulk of the product of the largest and most powerful corporations in the business with a word ("industrial") that they'll see as an insult, no matter how accurate it is.

[David M. Bueker]

I don’t think she has any illusions about official adoption.

Robin wrote:

I guess I'll put them back on my to-try list, then.

I do have a soft spot in my heart for Martini. It was my very first Napa Valley winery visit, a long time ago.

According to their website an original Martini Winery building was renovated. Just a museum or small volume production facility?

Salute

I do have a soft spot in my heart for Martini. It was my very first Napa Valley winery visit, a long time ago.

Me too. We were staying in St Helena. Martini showed us open tanks full of fermenting Zinfandel...

We had Louis Martini wines every night at Copper Chimney (?) restaurant in St Helena during our stay there.

For me it's helpful to look at an even bigger region: America. I would make an argument, admittedly a statistical and commercial one, that it's accurate to say that American wine is made in California. As someone who enjoys Oregon and New York wine, and has a soft spot for the misift varieties, like Catawba from Ohio, I'm aware that this is not entirely accurate. But according to the Wine Institute, as recently as 2000, over 90% of all wine in the U.S. (by volume) came from California. Interestingly, the fraction coming from other states has doubled since then, so perhaps one day this argument won't make sense. But for now, there's California and a relatively small "other" category. And if you look at wine exports, this is even more true, with California producing 97% (by value) even in 2017, again according to the Wine Institute. The other regions barely warrant an asterisk. California == America.

So it's this with this perspective that I look at California. As a resident I've been lucky enough to enjoy wines from many of its distinctive regions, from Temecula in the south to Mendocino and goodness knows how many AVAs in between. I've spent at least one tasting day in maybe a dozen California wine regions. And honestly it doesn't bother me to say that there's a similarity between many California wines, enough to say that there's a style. It's basically your bordeaux varieties plus your burgundy varieties, rendered in a very ripe way, with barely perceptible, if any, tannins, bitterness, or acidity. A fruit bomb, if you can apply that to whites. There are numerous exceptions, clearly, even among the commercial wines, and some regions, especially the ones with coastal and elevation influences are brimming with exceptions. But the style that sells, the one that my non-geek friends consistently serve me, whether they are drinking $3 or $30, is the smooth one. I had a French colleague live here for a year, and he asked me where the wines like Burgundy were. I had to tell him that there really weren't any, unless he wanted to mail order or drive to the higher elevation / coastal areas. Interestingly, he got used to the style here and when he went home it was a real shock. I really feel like the exceptions prove the rule here. Us geeks can get together and talk about the intense regionality (or even vineyard orientation) of California wine because we seek it out, but that level of detail just doesn't come through on a shelf talker, and most people don't even read that when grabbing a few bottles at Costco.

France has an entirely different situation, because regional differences are cherished, ala the difficulty of governing a country with 200 kinds of cheese. Maybe not to the degree of German hyper-differentiation, but to a great extent. I remember having my first Montlouis sur Loire and thinking, this tastes like an incredible Vouvray! Imagine my surprise when I looked up the appellation in Hugh Johnson's World Atlas of Wine and found that while it's Loire chenin blanc, it's not Vouvray. That's the French for you. For various reasons they have the political will to make these types of distinctions, not perfectly, but at least an attempt. For example, I feel confident that France would never allow the mass-produced "artisinal" sandwiches sold by McDonalds to be given that name. Since the regional distinctions are so well known there, and given the greatly reduced prominence of varietals, you get a marketplace that is far more segmented. At least from my perspective, there is no "French" style, though as a whole the wines are more food-friendly.

Thanks everyone for useful conversation.
I agree with the absurdity of talking of CA as a monolithic region. One factor is of course that unlike French AOCs, there are not restricted grapes. While Santa Barbara grows more PN/Chard, there are lots of other grapes grown- same with Mendocino, Napa, Santa Cruz and most other regions. It makes it harder for me to think I have even a little handle on terroir.
The New Lexicon article was thought provoking but not practical. Notice it doesn't work in France either for wine. Closest for wine would be the Champagne NM/RM/CM/RM codes.

[David M. Bueker]

Interesting thoughts Walt, though it hews rather closely to industrial wine defining American wine. That's pretty depressing, and I hope we're moving past that, albeit very slowly, versus some seismic event.

Looking towards Washington and Oregon, there are large producers (e.g. Chateau Ste. Michelle), but the focus is not the same as say the Central Valley box wine production in California.

Interesting thoughts Walt, though it hews rather closely to industrial wine defining American wine. That's pretty depressing, and I hope we're moving past that, albeit very slowly, versus some seismic event.

Looking towards Washington and Oregon, there are large producers (e.g. Chateau Ste. Michelle), but the focus is not the same as say the Central Valley box wine production in California.

I do have hope for the future in U.S. wine, it's just going to take a while. The cultural winner-take-all focus on the "best" varietal wines is always going to have significant homogenzing effect. But the diversity of soil and climate you cite in the first post is, I think and hope, going to result in the eventual diversification of variety and style in the commercial market. California is still young, and Prohibition wiped out a lot of the diversity there was, but I think it will come back. Even ten years ago it wasn't a guarantee that a bar would have any beers that weren't American-style lagers. And it's way easier to switch from brewing rice and corn to real toasted barley than it is to switch from ruby cabernet to counoise. But I think it will happen.