At the 12th Annual World Of Pinot Noir Seminar, March 2-3 2012, there was a seminar discussing technique vs terroir. I direct you to the web site: princeofpinot.com for the discussion. This involved three winemakers and their vineyards : one from Oregon, one from Napa,and one from Santa Barbara; with 9 wines from three vintages ( thus the "Cube Project").The three wineries picked 6 tons from a blockof Pommard Clone Pinot Noir, dividing it into thirds,with each winemaker fermenting 2 tons of fruit. Each winemaker was responsible for picking decisions at their own winery and grapes were picked on the same day. In this way, each of the three wines made from that particular lot started equal. Each winemaker crafted the wine from the two other vineyards in the same fashion as the wine from their own vineyard. The regimen would be repeated for the three vintages,2010,11,12. The overwhelming consensus of the seminar attendees(over 100 people) was that at this stage in a wines evolution,the signature of the winemaker was much more evident than the terroir.. It has been a frequent discussion among oenophiles,esp.in the U.S., that many of the Pinots crafted today reflect the signature of the winemaker more than the uniqueness of the vineyard.The question was than posed to the winemakers at the seminar whether it is more important for a wine to reflect its place of origin or to taste good.It seemed that taste takes precedence over place of origin.The fact that many attendees could not clearly distinguish terroir in the wines from a single source made by three different winemakers would seem to reinforce the importance of taste over terroir. I know this may "rub" some of you Burgundy lovers the wrong way. But can this experiment transfer over to Burgundy? It would be interesting for example, to take Les Amoureuses Chambolle- Musigny Premier Cru, made by different producers from the same vintage, and compare taste. Would the taste be so different as to detect the hand of the winemaker vs the terroir? Most of you are more experienced with Burgundy than myself. I would like your thoughts.
Mark Goldberg
Technique vs. Terroir : The Cube Project
(13 posts) (5 voices)
-
Mark Goldberg
MemberPosted 1 year ago # -
Rick Dalia
MemberMark,
Well of course over-ripe grapes subject to excessive oak, wood chips, over-extraction, and hidden additives will all taste similar.Actually, all joking aside, It seems a leap of faith to make such a conclusion based on this "experiment." You can't generalize the findings to Burgundy. The terrior, and winemaking is different. I'm curious as to how similar were the wines. I would hope that one was able to distinguish between wines from different regions (ie: Oregon vs Napa). If there was no obvious distinction, I'd disregard these results completely, concluding that the winemaking is too interventionist.
The inherent question asked of terrior vs technique is all wrong. It's both, of course. Why would it not be? A Michel Gros will always taste different to me than a Robert Arnoux, regardless of terrior.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mark Goldberg
MemberRick, Great response. After reading your post, I thought again about the "experiment". I would pose the question to the seminar: did all wines from the same vineyard taste the same made by different winemakers or were they different? If so, how different. Also, taking each terroir as a collective group: did each group taste different regardless of winemaker? Oregon should have tasted significantly different than Napa or Santa Barbara? In the U.S.,there is such a diversity in winemaking styles,especially with Pinot Noir. To me, it's interesting and educational to taste different Pinots from different terroirs, especially in the U.S. and develop your own taste and style that you enjoy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Joachim
MemberAh, interesting discussion – even if I agree with Rick that the question is wrong. Of course you can learn a lot about the winemaker in such a set-up. But can you really decide about the “importance” of Terroir? Imagine three different artists, painting the exact same landscape. I’m sure the three pictures would be completely different. But what says that about the landscape? Or another metaphor: Imagine Metallica, Keith Jarrett and Sir Simon Rattle performing a piece of Johann Sebastian Bach. Of course, the three versions would be completely different as well… But would you say the interpreter is more important then Bach?
In fact, we did this experiment with Burgundy wines. Recently, me and some friends tasted different NStG 1er Les Pruliers from the same vintage (2004) from three different growers: Lechenaut, Gouges and Chevillon. Of course, the wines were totally different, as you can imagine. We learned a lot about the winemaking style – but not so much about the Terroir. For this subject, we opened Chevillon NStG Perierre from 2004 for comparison – and here we found the very subtle differences in Terrroir, which was really enlightning. Also, the comparison with the Chevillon Prulier 2006 was very interesting.
I think you have to be careful with the setup, before you can come to conclusions about terroir, vintage or winemakers. But its an interesting experiment, anyway.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Nice discussion.
My Burgundian perspective two cents: Before a 20 year level of maturity when how the wines present (regardless of producer) will start to converge there are often very clear winemaking signatures. In youth, the important thing is not how two amoureuses compare to eath other (IMHO), rather how an amoureuses compares to a bonnes mares in each cellar i.e. not comparing the two domaines rather the two wines in each domaine separately.
My experience to-date (conditioned?) suggests that the relative difference between the two wines is similar in each cellar, even if the same wines are different in the two cellars.
Hope that makes some sense ;-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
jacob said:
I also have thought about this subject and I think I agree with you. Would in not even be so, that the wine grower is part of the 'terroir' as it is meant by the French? So the grower's style is primary and the difference in origin would secundary?Hi Jacob
I think the winemaker is an integral part of 'terroir', but has two influences:
1. How the vineyard is managed, eventually affecting the quality of the fruit
2. How he/she then translates the fruit into bottled wineI still think number 1 is primary for all producers above a certain threshold, because even the winemaking choices of Guy Accad, (now after 20 years) have anecdotally begun to show their terroirs - it was perhaps a 'only' a question of time.
I still have dishwater wines from the early 1990s (allegedly GC) from producers that clearly didn't respect their land - they have no obvious flaws, but will always remain weak and uninteresting I think...
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is from the website of Blair Pethel = very well put into words. I like it very much!
Burgundy wines hold a unique place in the world. There is no other wine-making region where the grape variety serves simply as the vehicle for the most important element in the bottle: Burgundy's land, or terroir. Thus, when you open a bottle of Burgundy, you don't drink a chardonnay or a pinot noir; you drink a specific place, with its topsoil, subsoil, weather, sunshine, geographical orientation.
It's the winegrower’s job -- my job -- to assure that all my wines respect and represent their birthplace, in order to give the consumer the impression of being there: in the vines, with the sun on his shoulders. After all, in Burgundy the grape is simply the blank canvas on which the soil paints its colours.Posted 1 year ago # -
Joachim
MemberI'm not sure about this Blair Pethel quote. Of course, it sounds good and pretty romantic, but it counts out the role of the winemaker pretty much. It sounds like the winegrower (instead of "winemaker") just has to serve the land - which means, there is a kind of ideal taste of a Nuit St. Georges Perriere, which is representing the soil perfectly. But regarding teh tasting experience I described above, I have to disagree. Both winemakers, Chevillon and Gouges (I'm not so sure of Lechenaut, actually) are defintetely respecting their land, and still their wines taste completely different. I think, terroir is a sum of all this parts: winegrower/winemaker - soil - climate aso. And its very hard to tell which is the most important factor.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mark Goldberg
MemberThese posts have really made me think! It,s interesting to get a winemakers view,especially one in Burgundy,regarding the role of terroir and winemaker in crafting a wine. Jacob, I find your quote " the grape is simply the blank canvas on which the soil paints its colors", intriguing,thought-provoking,and classical Burgundian. Matt Kramer in his book "Making Sense of Burgundy", states "great wines are not made, they are found". This may be simplistic by negating the role of the winemaker. In defense of Jacob, Burgundy should taste like Burgundy. In the US the role of winemaker overshadows the role of terroir, in my opinion. Most Pinot Noir made in the US tastes like what the winemaker thinks it should taste like, rather than what the land gives it. It is "brand over land". Although, there are winemakers in Calif. and Oregon who truly respect the land and craft beautiful wine. This is so much more apparent with California Cabs( a totally different discussion). I have been tasting Pinots ,esp.from Calif. and Oregon with the paradigm of evaluating it's parts: alcohol, fruit,oak ,tannin,sugar rather than looking at some common thread of terroir. Tasting now will take on a whole different structure. it's not only about its elements but also about a sense of place, with the winemaker as interpreter.
MarkPosted 1 year ago # -
Philippe Prost said last week:
"As soon as you have a varietal expression in Burgundy, it already means that you have lost the terroir expression."Just writing up my notes for publication in a couple of weeks...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Joachim
MemberBill recommended a great book which deals with this matter as well: "Bordeaux-Burgundy, a vintage rivalry" by Jean-Robert Pitte. He is President of Sorbonne University, and he shows in a very precise and enlightening way that a wine style, the idea of terroir aso. is more or less the result of a sociocultural process and not something natural given.
I'm just reading his book and I'm really impressed. For example, he shows how terroir is manipulated by man since beginning of wine cultivation. Following him, it would be very difficult to agree with Blair Pethel. Pitte describes how a wine style is shaped by many, many factors. Of course, nature plays an important role, but the role of the winemaker (and the impact of society, history and market on the winemaker) can't be overrated, if you believe Pitte.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mark Goldberg
MemberJacob, I had the opportunity to drink Domaine Dublere Volnay 1er Crue Les Pitures 2007 by Blair Plethel. It was with family this past weekend. In addition to drinking some other wonderful Burgundy's we drink a few California Pinots rated very high. All I can say is what a difference. The Calif. Pinots were good but magnified in all aspects: fruit, tannin, acid Etoh. The Burgundy's were soft, well balanced, smooth with finesse. As my daughter said they were "simplistically complex ' with all parts in harmony. The Blair Plethel was beautiful having a taste of "somewhere". I am definitely looking to taste more of his wines.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
