Can blends express terroir

[Charles Smith]

A fellow egulleteer asked me recently if blended wines could express terroir. My immediate response was, of course, Bordeaux expresses terroir, so blended wines must express it. OK, fine, but upon further inspection, is that right?

To me, Burgundy and Barolo (I’m excluding regions for the sakes of length) are the most significant terroir driven wines, and each have very strict definitions for vineyard, and therefore, terroir definition. Each has distinct terroir yards apart. Bordeaux (and other blends) have vineyards a lot further apart- I’m sure that each varietal in a blend can express terroir, but what happens once it’s blended? Does one predominate?

I’m at a loss for a good explanation.

Thanks!

Cheers,

Charles

[Fat Guy]

By any definition of terroir, I think the answer is yes, sure, there's no reason to distinguish between varietals and blends. If you're talking about expression of soil characteristics -- the most basic definition -- what difference does it make? If you're talking more about a local style of winemaking overlayed on the raw material that nature produces, I don't think it makes a difference either. What about the concept of terroir do you think doesn't allow for a blend?

[Steve Plotnicki]

The simplest way to understand blending is to go visit a Chateauneuf producer and have him step you through the varietals they use. This is a good exercize at Beaucastel where they will have you taste barrel samples of as many as a half dozen varietals they use in the wine (I believe they use 9 or 10 out of a possible 13 there.) But it's like anything else, certain varietals dominate others in various aspects of the wine. As to whether belnded wines are better/worse then non-blended, it depends doesn't it. Aldo Conterno Gran Bussia is his top wine and sells for 50% more then his single vineyard Barolos. But Sandrone La Vigne which is also a cuvee is slightly cheaper then his single vineyard Canubbi Boschis. And usually once they are released on the market, supply and demand pushes the price of the Canubbi relatively higher then the La Vigne. And blening in Burgundy can ruin a wine. So it depends doesn't it?

[Charles Smith]

Those were exactly my first thoughts, but, almost by definition, the varietals in a blend come from different terroirs. So, how does the finished wine express terroir?

[Fat Guy]

Why are you assuming the varieties in a blend come from different terroirs? There are plenty of single-vineyard blended wines. Or are you talking about something else?

[Toby]

I asked Charles this question -- I'm ignorant about winemaking, but it just seemed to me that the individual "taste of the soil" would be muddied (sorry) in a blend.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Because they are all grown at the same location. Beaucastel grows all their varietals on the Beaucastel estate. And Chateau Latour grows their cabernet sauvignon, their merlot and their petite verdot etc. on the Latour estate so all of the varietals experience the same terroir.

[Charles Smith]

Why are you assuming the varieties in a blend come from different terroirs? There are plenty of single-vineyard blended wines. Or are you talking about something else?

Single Vineyard, or field blends absolutely, no question. I think the question more relates to block plantings- In Steve P's example of Latour, I'm not sure how many acres Latour has, but I'm pretty sure the same acreage in Burgundy would constitute 2-3 different terroir.

Beaucastel and other CDP's are interesting, because a number of them are field blends-

Cheers,

Charles

[Fat Guy]

So your contention -- or at least the hypothesis you want to explore -- is that the broader the geographic distribution of the grapes that go into a bottle, the less terroir will be expressed. This seems to be a question independent of blending. For example, you can have a varietal Cabernet Sauvignon with grapes from ten different growers. Or you can have a single-vineyard blend of 18 different grape varieties. As for the underlying question, well, I don't know the answer. The whole terroir concept is still tough for me to embrace as anything more than an indication of predictability in a given style within the context of a region.

[Toby]

There was a fascinating article on growing grapes biodynamically and the relationship to terroir in The Art of Eating, #62.

[Charles Smith]

So your contention -- or at least the hypothesis you want to explore -- is that the broader the geographic distribution of the grapes that go into a bottle, the less terroir will be expressed.

actually, I think that's pretty clear. The question is how terroir is expressed through blended wines, which in many cases come from distinct terroir.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I'm a little confused here. A properly blended wine will allow the taster to realize all the various varietals and terroirs that are present in the wine. That is the goal of proper winemkaing as far as I understand. To make it seemless, yet transparent as to the terroir. So as to Charles original question, when you drink a bottle of Beaucastel, if you had enough tasting experience with the wines, you would be able to parse the varietals and their individual terroirs out of the blend. An easy example of this are people who can taste a cote rotie and tell you what percentage of the blend might be condrieu.

[Really Nice!]

A little background.

A guiding principle behind the European is the concept that wines should be named after their place names. The name of the place connotes which grapes were used to make the wine (which is dictated by law). The place influences the character of those grapes in its own unique way. Therefore, the most accurate name that a wine can have is the name of the place where its grapes were grown, not the name of its grapes.

Terroir is a French word that has no direct English translation. It comes from the word terre which means soil. It is closely related to microclimate, but it means more than that. It includes people, culture, and lifestyle.

Terroir is not limited to wine production. Take cheese production, or example. The natural feed for cows is grass. Grass is different at different elevations even if that difference is only 100 yards apart. This is the same with wine. Given drainage conditions, grass may grow one way at one elevation and clover might grow predominately at another location on the same farm.

There's a book that's called, Terroir that can offer some information. Unfortunately, it mostly discusses the geographical side of terroir. Oh, and ignore the fact that Hugh Johnson is a co-author. He only wrote the forward.

[Adam Balic]

So your contention -- or at least the hypothesis you want to explore -- is that the broader the geographic distribution of the grapes that go into a bottle, the less terroir will be expressed.

actually, I think that's pretty clear. The question is how terroir is expressed through blended wines, which in many cases come from distinct terroir.

If is a case that the broader the geographic distribution of the grape, the less terrior expressed, then why would it be any differences in if the grapes were from single variety or not? For that matter many single variety wines contain multi-clones of particular grape, so does this mean that Burgundy isn't a good wine for expressing terrior?

[Fat Guy]

Therefore, the most accurate name that a wine can have is the name of the place where its grapes were grown, not the name of its grapes.

The most accurate name would involve grapes, place, winemaker, and all other relevant information. If one of those has to be chosen, the grape seems to me to be the most significant. For example, varietal wines made from Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir grown on the same piece of land are going to taste a lot more different than two Pinot Noirs grown on neighboring pieces of land, all other things being roughly equal. Then again, many French place names imply or require a grape or grape parameters.

[Really Nice!]

The most accurate name would involve grapes, place, winemaker, and all other relevant information. If one of those has to be chosen, the grape seems to me to be the most significant.

Agreed. I wrote that from the old world perspective that when you drink a wine, you drink the place. With new world, when you drink the wine, you drink the grape. By law, they're only allowed to plant certain grapes in certain regions. Heck, they can't even begin harvest until the law says they can.

Sometime back I had a friend who was dating a Frenchman and he once told me, "French customers have no clue as to what varieties of grapes the wine maker uses and we don't give a hoot about it. What matters to us is the "appellation" or where the wine is produced. Also note that the best French wines were always blends anyway. These silly "cabernet sauvigon" and other "merlot" markings you see here in the states are strictly for tourists and you should stay carefully away from any French bottle that indicates the grape variety as this indicates a lesser wine meant for you un-cultured Americans."

[Adam Balic]

Oh so I shouldn't drink Alsacian wine then, otherwise I am a tourist?

Actually, in terms of terroir is there a best time to drink wine at on its aging curve. Eg. Drinking hypothetical wine X at five years out tells you nothing about terroir, but at 15 it is the perfect expression of its terroir.

[Charles Smith]

Now we're getting somewhere- Terroir is such an abstract concept, "derived with a sense of place" is my preferred definition. So using Steve's example, as well as some thoughts from elsewhere, the terroir dictates the blend of the wine- Beaucastel's typically mouvedre driven since that's the varietal within their terroir that performs the best. Merlot grows better in Pomerol, etc.

As for Adam's ?, I didn't begin to think about clones, and I'm able to discern terroir better in Burgundy than anywhere else, so that makes sense.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Beaucastel, if I recall what Mike Riijkin told me, is typically 40% grenache and 40% mouvedre with the rest of the blend the other varietals. That is an unusually high percentage of mouvedre but there is something about the Beaucastel terroir (on the outskirts of the appelation) that makes for great mouvedre. And if you taste it from barrel there, it is so plump and juicy that you won't believe you are drinking the same stiff that is hard as nails when it is grown in Bandol.

A classic excersice to learn about terroir would be to taste barrel samples from the various vineyards in Cote Rotie. There are dozens of them and unless you buy a single vineyard wine like La Landonne, all Cote Rotie bottlings are blends of the same varietal (syrah) grown in different locations in the same appelation. Some vineyards, like Lancemont, turn out to taste like pure bacon fat while other vineyards make peppery wine. But that's a food example of a place where the listed terroir (Cote Rotie) is really an aggragation of multple terroirs that reside within the appelation.

[Robin Meredith]

I don't think it's a coincidence that specific vineyard designations are most commonly used in regions where varietal wines dominate (Burgundy, Piedmont, Germany, Alsace, parts of California like Santa Barbara County and the Russian River). Virtually all wines express terroir at some level (even if we're talking about a hideously overripe Central Valley Chardonnay), but it seems to me that terroir differences come through much more clearly when you're tasting up and down the villages of the Cote D'Or than when you're comparing various Bordeaux or southern Rhone estates.

Maybe it's not so much a question of whether blended wines express terroir (clearly they do), but whether terroir differences can be perceived as clearly in areas where blended wines dominate. To me, the answer to that question is probably no.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Maybe it's not so much a question of whether blended wines express terroir (clearly they do), but whether terroir differences can be perceived as clearly in areas where blended wines dominate. To me, the answer to that question is probably no.

This is an excellent point though I'm not sure it applies equally in every region. I have never met anyone who could describe which specific location of Chateauneuf the wine they were tasting came from. But I do know people who can tell which Cote Rotie vineyards a blend has come from. And then there are people who seem to be able to tell exactly which row of the vineyard certain Burgundys come from.

[mogsob]

Terrior -- I know it when I taste/smell it. Of course, varietal wines from Burgundy, Barolo, and the Mosel have it. The vast majority of Napa wines do not, mostly because very little Napa wine is actually made from grapes grown in Napa. However, even a recent tour through the Russian River tasting exclusively estate bottled pinot left me at a loss -- no distinctive terrior to be found.

A clear example of terroir is, unfortunately, found in Long Island wines. I say unfortunately because the terrior in question tastes of nothing so much as burnt tar. It clear, distinctive, and disgusting. It is found in better crafted red wines of the North Fork regardless of varietal and regardless of blend. It's in Lenz's estate bottled Merlots just as clearly as in Bedell's blended wines.

A better example of terrior being expressed through blends are in St. Julien. Taste a few well-aged bottles of Gruaud Larose, Leoville Barton, or even a Beycheville or Talbot to see for yourself.

As Steve P. notes above, even some of the best examples of terrior from Barolo are in blends. A more reasonable example than those listed above is Manzone's Quatre Nas.