Terroir

[Daniel Rogov]

My question is, should winemakers in the New World focus on developing new varieties which better take advantage of their particular terroir? To what extent is this already happening?

←

I can't help but think that there is a proliferation of grape varieties taking place these days, hundreds of wineries planting just about any grape they can get their hands on all in the name of the "what's new this week" phenomenon. In tiny little Israel for example we even have Pinotage these days! And Viognier is being planted in every continent (well, except Antarctica).

I think what should be happening is not the hunt for "more" varieties but the determination of which varieties work where. And if it ain't gonna be new, that's fine......so long as its better, more interesting, more individual.

[Rebel Rose]

Yes, Mallet, to add to Daniel's comment, many wineries working with new plots will plant experimental rows and even work with those rows long after the new land has been planted. After a while, a determination is made regarding the experimental rows. If those rows are highly successful, the vineyard may be re-planted, which is very costly of course, but less costly than continuing with a less successful varietal. If the experimental rows do not seem to be thriving or evidencing any particular character, they will be ripped out and replaced with either new experimental varieties, or grafted over to the main crop.

Small vineyards seldom have the space, money or manpower to conduct these experiments, which of necessity take several years to complete. The larger wineries in our area are very generous with their knowledge and the results of their experiments. In particular we are grateful to Jerry Lohr (J.Lohr) and Ken Volk (the previous owner of Wild Horse) for their generous contributions to our knowledge bank.

[Rebel Rose]

Wow. I thought we had pretty much covered the terroir subject here, but . . .

To over-simplify:

Flavor (including aroma) is a function of variety, soil, topography, climate, viticultural practice, picking date and winemaking technique.

OR

Flavor = X1(Variety)+X2(soil)+X3(topography)+X4(climate)+X5(viticulture)+X6(harvest date)+ X7(winemaking)

Of course, each coefficient X and each determining variable is much more complicated than the above formula. For example, viticulture breaks down into pruning, trellising, leaf-pulling and other decisions, variations of each having different effects on flavor. If you were to break down each variable into the sub-variables that actually determine flavors, you might have: 

Variety – varietal, clone, rootstock

Soil – drainage, composition, microbiology, fertility

Topography – aspect, slope

Climate – temperature, hours of sunshine, variation, rainfall

Viticulture – trellising, pruning, canopy management, inputs (fertilizer, insecticide, fungicide)

Harvest Date – brix/acid/pH levels, flavor, phenolic development, hangtime, length of growing season

Winemaking – fermentation time, crushing method, cap management, yeast employed, barrel regime, etc.

I'm glad they oversimplified.

The full text is available on the "rant" page at Full Glass Research. And yes, it is at least partially tongue-in-cheek.

[Sparkitus]

Somebody should print this thread and publish it. Terroir is so hard to explain to someone who doesn't know much about how wine grapes are grown and the vinification process.

Well, if you really want to get all geeky and geologic about it, I found this really great book called "Great Wine Terroirs" translated from French, by Jacques Franet (spelling?) from UCal Press. Literally dissects the great vineyards and shows how their soils. subsoils and situations evolved over time through the movement of land mass and other forces. It almost makes me want to be a soil geek! Check it out.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Sparkitus (log)

[Mallet]

I just came back from France (visit girfriend's family), and spent a day in Beaujolais, touring the crus and generally getting some sort of education on wine. Apart gaining some respect for Beaujolais (I previously didn't really know or care much about it, probably because the stuff I got in Halifax sucked), the trip further reinforced the seeming voodoo that is terroir for me. I never realized how small winemaking regions can be. From one cru to the next is literally be a stone's throw away, and the wines really do taste different! Magic .

[JohnL]

Terroir is like pornography.

One will have great difficulty defining it but we know it when we see it!

Wine is far too complex a drink and when you toss the human element into the mix --both the wine maker and the myriad choices that are made in making wine and then the palate of the drinker and our sense perceptions along with our experiences and knowledge......

No wonder this is a confusing topic.

There are two truths here --I think :-)

One is that terroir is real it exists -let's use Mr Rogov's Italian experiment in support.

and

Two-it can be impossible to detect. Let me use the famous (infamous) tasting of 1976 wherein a panel of tasters (mostly French expert tasters) could not differentiate between wine made in California and wine made in Bordeaux and Burgundy.

There are hundreds of examples supporting both these truth's.

The more knowledge one has about what one is tasting is helpful in differentiating terroir. For example if one is tasting white Burgundy and knows the identity of the wines one can better focus on differences that are "public knowledge" for eg Puligny's tend to be more tightly wound and steely compared to Chassagne's.

Or-- Borrdeaux wines from Graves often do have more pronounced "gravelly mineral' notes compared to St Julien's.

The problem is there are so many exceptions to the "rules" and these identifiers of terroir are often very subtle --that when you take away the "hints" the knowledge if you will-- and taste totally blind it can be near impossible to ascertain terroir.

In most cases terroir, however present in a wine, rarely hits you over the head!

That said terroir is always present--it is in every wine.

It can not always be identified for the reasons above-but--it is often obscured or manipulated by the way in which the wine was made. it can be obliterated completely by the wine making choices selected by the wine maker.

The worst case for terroir is that it is used to market wine and to establish prices.

The Bordeaux classification and the Burgundy vinyard designations and crus are perfect examples.

Terroir (the identification) is far too unreliable.

It is only a factor-sometimes small sometimes larger. If one detects it --it can add to the "interest" a wine may have-- a dimension --if you will to the enjoyment of wine.

I remember reading a quote from a winemaker (possibly Rocchioli):

to paraphrase, he said that everyone is interested in single vinyard designated wines and will pay more for a wine that is from say--the Hirsch vinyard or the Allen vinyard than one will pay for a wine that just says California Pinot Noir. Even if that "california Pinot Noir" is made from a blend of the two vinyards and is a "better wine."--benefitting from a selection of the best grapes from each vinyard.

If we really believe that it all comes down to what is in the glass it is hard to argue.

[jrufusj]

I remember reading a quote from a winemaker (possibly Rocchioli):

to paraphrase, he said that everyone is interested in single vinyard designated wines and will pay more for a wine that is from say--the Hirsch vinyard or the Allen vinyard than one will pay for a wine that just says California Pinot Noir. Even if that "california Pinot Noir" is made from a blend of the two vinyards and is a "better wine."--benefitting from a selection of the best grapes from each vinyard.

If we really believe that it all comes down to what is in the glass it is hard to argue.

←

John:

I snipped a lot from your post. Lots of good thoughts. Agree that some degree of terroir must be in every wine -- it was grown somewhere! Also agree that the winemaker can obscure it and that it can be hard for the taster to find even with transparent winegrowing and making.

I would just take exception with the underlying assumption of the piece quoted above. Certainly, what is in the glass tells the story. But it leaves open the question of what makes the substance in the glass better or worse, more or less exciting.

To keep up the theme of your example above, Phelps used to make three top-line cabs: Insignia, Eisele, and Backus. The first was a blend and was the sexiest, most expensive, and most acclaimed. The other two were single vineyard wines, each of which spoke with amazing clarity of its source. I have always preferred the latter two, specifically because they spoke of whence they came.

What it really comes down to is that I believe part of the "vocation" of wine, at least in its very narrowly defined job of pleasing ME and keeping ME interested, is to transmit something of the place from which it comes. Putting aside considerations of what I'm eating at the time, I'll take a Pepiere Muscadet over an Opus One everyday (even if I don't have to pay).

I'm not suggesting all wines should be made to please me. God forbid! I'm just suggesting that for me (and for many others out there), a sense of place is one of the principal reasons to enjoy a wine.

Thanks,

Jim

[JohnL]

Jim,

I couldn't agree more. (with a few reservations though)

Your Phelps example is a great one.

I think where one gets into trouble with wine is trying to establish absolutes.

There are instances where, say, Opus One is a more "interesting wine" than a wine from a specific vinyard--that is Opus One can express plenty of complexity and earthiness where a wine from single sourced grapes can be less complex and more monolithic.

I have seen far too many tasting situations where very sophisticated palates can not identify that "place" --for eg. chardonnay tastings where examples from Burgundy were tasted against California chards or Bordeaux vs Cal Cabs and meritage.

Speaking of Burgundy--this is where terroir should be easily identified. It isn't. There are too many instances of Village designated wines that are more interesting and expressive of terroir than primier cru and too many primier cru wines that 'speak" of the land and place more loudly than Grand Cru wines.

So I believe that terroir is important --it does add to a wine's complexity and interest

I also believe that it can be expressed in wines that are not made from grapes grown in one singular piece of land--it is always present in every wine.

You are right--all grapes are grown someplace!

Wines that display elements of the place(s) where their grapes were grown--soil, minerals, herbs,spices, the sun, etc are more interesting.

I just believe that being able to identify (and label) the specific place or places is at best a difficult endeavor and at worst is really not that important to the wine lover beyond adding some lore.

In the end--it comes down to what is in the glass.

[Rebel Rose]

On the Dr. Vino website, an essay by importer Terry Thiese, Why does place-specificity matter?

Once upon a time I sat on a panel discussing spirit-of-place, and a Native American woman to my left said something that lodged on my heart and has not moved since. . .

[JohnL]

Thanks Mary!

The Thiese piece was fun to read. (i like the Dr Vino site as well).

I think this debate can be parsed into the "Romanticists" and the "Pragmatists."

Interestingly, I do not think there is a real debate here as the two sides are basically in agreement. It is really a matter of how each side frames things.

Also complicating things is the elusive nature of terroir. Even the terroirists/romanticists have trouble identifying it--though they can elaborate on it (Mr Thiese's Indian story).

The pragmatists are not anti-terroir (or romance for that matter), they understand its importance but they just have a different perspective on it. That is there are far too many instances where a taster can simply not identify it (correctly anyway) in the glass--one can identify the end results from terroir but not the terroir itself with any specificity (or accuracy). Therefore the pragmatist would say terroir is important--it exists--but it is not as important as how the wine ultimately tastes.

I also believe that the romanticists position have been abused. Historically, winemakers, negociants, retailers, etc etc. have used "terroir" or the romance to sell wines of poor quality. "why this wine is from a tiny parcel of grapes on a lush mountainside tended by a blind hermit..." The story and place behind the wine being more important than the fact that the wine is not very good.

The pragmatist view has also been co-opted: "why this wine was made by so and so--the greatest winemaker of his/her time."

In the end though, I think the terroirists are becoming a tad too frantic. The reason is

they perceive the vast number of emerging wine drinkers as "not caring" about terroir. This is natural because in reality, most people are more pragmatic than romantic when it comes to wine--they just want something that tastes good.

They don't have the desire to wrestle with vintages and weather and place.

I do believe that there will always be a market for wines that do reflect a sense of place--but pragmatically speaking--a good wine is a good wine and a bad wine is a bad wine regardless of where it was made or who made it.

Now I also realize that there will always be a debate as to what good and bad are--taste is taste--but the argument over terroir has been, I think, overblown!

It shouldn't be a debate--the two sides are not really diametrically opposed, they are probably in agreement on more points than not--rather it should always be a point of discussion.

[Rebel Rose]

I'd like to report that the search for definable North American terroir has now gained momentum with the launch of Appellation America. So far, the site has sponsored professional blind tastings of several regions and varieties, with interesting results. As a regional editor, I am in charge of organizing tastings and creating content for the Paso Robles region, beginning with an overview of the region's physical characteristics. A Roundtable Discussion is open, which is moderated in much the same manner as our Spotlight guest appearances, and I invite everyone to join in.

More importantly, if you have any thoughts regarding the definability of New World terroir vs. Old World terroir, I'd love to hear your opinion here. If you think it's a silly effort, please feel free to say so. Bring it on!

[JohnL]

Mary--

what the heck is "Old World Terroir" and "New world Terroir"???

or at least what are they supposed to be?

[Rebel Rose]

According to an earlier poster, French wines will always be superior to Californian because they're, well, French.

Post # 9

(To review the orginal questions, I give you Post #1)

And from Post #15

you can only produce Chateau Latour at Chateau Latour, even more specifically from the wines in the Grand Enclos otherwise it's Les Forts de Latour. This does not mean that good, even excellent wine cannot be made elsewhere, it's just that it doesn't reflect its origins as closely.

Why or why not?

[JohnL]

According to an earlier poster, French wines will always be superior to Californian because they're, well, French.

Post # 9

(To review the orginal questions, I give you Post #1)

And from Post #15

you can only produce Chateau Latour at Chateau Latour, even more specifically from the wines in the Grand Enclos otherwise it's Les Forts de Latour. This does not mean that good, even excellent wine cannot be made elsewhere, it's just that it doesn't reflect its origins as closely.

Why or why not?

←

Thanks--I had to reread a lot of the thread.

It is all coming back to me now--so is the headache I got reading this stuff the first time!

I would point out that the issue of terroir is covered nicely in the Oxford Companion to Wine.

As well as numerous other places.

This thread is loaded with misperceptions and faulty reasoning. The "old world" vs "new world" stuff is an example.

interestingly--there has been some recent significant research (by the French) that indicates "geology" has less to do with quality than once thought and that soil drainage may be a more prominent factor in "terroir."

I have read a lot, listened to a lot of "experts" from professional tasters to wine makers and grape growers and tasted quite a bit of wine.

I have tasted it but I still hold that it is more often than not-so elusive as to be more of an academic subject for debate.

To those who deny it-I would offer the wines of Zind Humbrecht from differing vinyards.

To those who extol it (beyond reason) I offer the numerous tastings where everyone was/is fooled.

(Take the 1976 Paris tasting for an example).

The subject has become so confused and confusing that I have learned to ask--what is the purpose of the discussion? every time the term comes up.

Edited March 27, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[Rebel Rose]

Alan Goldfarb reports on the outcome of last week's Terroir Conference at UC Davis.

The idea of “nature versus nurture” always seems to be the duality that gets in the way of coming to grips with this notion of terroir. What nature gives us is often augmented, enhanced, or ameliorated by man or woman. But John Buechsenstein, who makes wine for Sauvignon Republic Cellars, in his talk, “Terroir Flavor Effects in Wine,” said he can live with the clash of forces if nature and man can come together to “equal” terroir.

“Terroir may be more easily recognized than described,” he said, “but describing it would destroy the magic and the mystery … We must not step through the mirror (but) we have to talk about it. We can’t just chalk it up to magic … So I say, let’s deconstruct it and communicate it.

[JohnL]

Alan Goldfarb reports on the outcome of last week's Terroir Conference at UC Davis.

The idea of “nature versus nurture” always seems to be the duality that gets in the way of coming to grips with this notion of terroir. What nature gives us is often augmented, enhanced, or ameliorated by man or woman. But John Buechsenstein, who makes wine for Sauvignon Republic Cellars, in his talk, “Terroir Flavor Effects in Wine,” said he can live with the clash of forces if nature and man can come together to “equal” terroir.

“Terroir may be more easily recognized than described,” he said, “but describing it would destroy the magic and the mystery … We must not step through the mirror (but) we have to talk about it. We can’t just chalk it up to magic … So I say, let’s deconstruct it and communicate it.

←

Thanks Mary.

The Goldfarb "report" was well done and illuminating.

I have begun to believe (in agreement with Goldfarb and others) that terroir is well and easily defined. The problem lies in its manifestation in finished wine.

Science has not been able to fully and completely, quantify what drinkers taste. In the Oxford encyclopedia, Jancis Robinson notes that some studies have been done that indicate a widely held belief that the "geology" of a site is a very important contributor to the quality of a wine may be of much less import.

I also have found that the use of terroir is politically charged. That is people use it to make a political point. It has, for example, become a "football" in the debate over new world vs old world wine styles.

Everyone seems to admit that terroir is important, at its basic level there is little dispute that where grapes are grown is a contributing factor to a wine's taste and quality.

The problems come to the fore when terroir is used to "explain" its relevance to a wine's flavor.

It is not enough for many folks to simply note what they are tasting in a wine--the real trick is to identify the source of those flavors right down to the specific vinyard. This is an incredibly difficult

task even under ideal conditions. It is a guessing game with formidable odds.

Take Burgundy for example. We are told in countless tomes not only about differences in wines produced form commune to commune and grand cru to village wines but how wines should taste from vinyard to vinyard.

"Nuits St Georges Vaucrains tastes of...."

The problem here is a result of a not perfect world. For example given that wine styles and fashions change--just where and when were those flavor profiles for Nuits St George established?

Basically what exactly is "textbook Nuits?" Who wrote that book and when?

Secondly, with so many producers (winemakers) of Nuits it is clear that there are many styles of Nuits--which one is "correct?"

That's just the beginning.

The point is there are differences from commune to commune and from vinyard to vinyard. There are also differences in winemaking styles from producer to producer.

In a broad sense we can taste these differences--they are there in the wine. However there are so many variables at play, many of which are vaguely manifested.

There are too many instances where experienced tasters stumble. The Paris tasting of 1976 is a good example--the tasters "couldn't tell the difference between French white Burgundy and Californian Chardonnay."

So much for "old world" vs "new world terroir."

Does this mean terroir doesn't exist?--not at all.

Should the French classification system be thrown out?--No.

What it does mean is that we need to be careful how we apply the term (terroir) and how much importance we give it to that end.

romance is a good thing but the romanticists and the scientists need to find a middle ground where things make at least a little sense!

[Rebel Rose]

Not to be outdone by Alan Goldfarb and Dan Berger, the editors of Appellation America asked me for my opinion, and here it is:

Are We Not Good Enough to Own Terroir?

“You can only produce Chateau Latour at Chateau Latour… This does not mean that good, even excellent wine cannot be made elsewhere, it's just that it doesn't reflect its origins as closely.”

This statement was posted online by a sommelier in a discussion comparing terroir character in the wines of France versus North America. To me, it is remarkable because it reflects a belief that North America is not good enough to lay claim to the concept of terroir. That somehow we are upstarts who have usurped classic European varieties and are trying to grow them in imitation of our betters, and that because we do not own the origin of the term terroir, we will never own the reality.

[JohnL]

Not to be outdone by Alan Goldfarb and Dan Berger, the editors of Appellation America asked me for my opinion, and here it is:

Are We Not Good Enough to Own Terroir?

“You can only produce Chateau Latour at Chateau Latour… This does not mean that good, even excellent wine cannot be made elsewhere, it's just that it doesn't reflect its origins as closely.”

This statement was posted online by a sommelier in a discussion comparing terroir character in the wines of France versus North America. To me, it is remarkable because it reflects a belief that North America is not good enough to lay claim to the concept of terroir. That somehow we are upstarts who have usurped classic European varieties and are trying to grow them in imitation of our betters, and that because we do not own the origin of the term terroir, we will never own the reality.

←

Mary

Wonderful piece.

I agree with most everything you say and you said it well.

First--that stuff about Latour--the original post with that statement is misguided and as confusing as the issue it tries to make sense of can be.

Terroir is simple--the accepted definition is fine. IMOP we do not need to create a different definition.

It is not the definition that is causing so much grief and debate. It is how it is perceived in wine by tasters. And its use by people who have an agenda and are using it to make a point.

All grapes are grown somewhere.

That's terroir--the where. It can be defined and measured scientifically--soil construct content, drainage, sunlight etc etc etc.

Beyond this how the terroir is manifested in wine and further--how tasters perceive it are where things become murky.

It has been used to sell wine.

It has been used to score political points.

This is where most of the confusion and hullabaloo have arisen.

You are right on target when you note the "envy" of things European and the inferiority complex Americans have long had. These are thankfully going away--gradually.

Winemakers and grape growers should grow grapes in locations beneficial to the making of good wine no matter where they are--Europe, Australia, US, Canada --wherever.

They should try to make the best wine they can in a style that suits them and their customers.

That's it!

The terroir as manifested in the wine itself is a subject for geeks and intellectuals--if they are honest--then they will have some important things to say --the discussion and debate will be honest.

You have approached the issue honestly!

Edited April 7, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[ctgm]

This bit about Old World vs New World terroir and who has the best is utter rubbish. Terroir doesn't automatically make a good wine, the winemaker does that by utilising what is available to him. Sure if the soil is badly suited to a particular variety it probably will never make a fantastic wine but there is so much more to it than simply terroir

I think that the French like to go on and on about their terroir being "better" than anyone else, partly through arrogance that they are the only country in the world that can make good wine (although this is slowly changing) and partly because they are so restricted with what grape varieties can be planted. Perhaps Bordeaux has the most perfect terroir for Syrah, who knows. the Bordelais will say that it is the best terroir in the world for Cab Sauv/Franc, Merlot, Petit Verdot etc. because that is what they are allowed to grow.

Anyway diversing a bit, I ship in a Loire producer (Gitton Pere et Fils) who generally bottles each parcel of vines by themselves (ie does not blend them). He has vineyards on silex and calcaire and the difference between his Sancerre's on these soils is so obvious to see. The vineyards are all of similar age, aspect, plant density etc etc that the difference between the wines can be easily attributed to the soil type. If anyone ever tries to tell you that terroir does not play a part then you should try and get some of Gitton's Sancerre's. As for which is better, Gitton doesn't pass judgement, he justs makes the best wine that he can from each different terroir.

I am not sure that there is any magic or mystery about it and can never understand why wine makers and others in the trade seem to make it sound so complex. Choosing what grows best on any particular soil is commonplace throughout all agriculture and while it differs from grape growing (where flavour seems to be the main goal as opposed to yields) the soil's abilities are always taken into account.

[Mallet]

[...]

I think that the French like to go on and on about their terroir being "better" than anyone else, partly through arrogance that they are the only country in the world that can make good wine (although this is slowly changing) and partly because they are so restricted with what grape varieties can be planted.

[...]

←

Slowly changing? It's here, baby!

[JohnL]

This bit about Old World vs New World terroir and who has the best is utter rubbish. Terroir doesn't automatically make a good wine, the winemaker does that by utilizing what is available to him. Sure if the soil is badly suited to a particular variety it probably will never make a fantastic wine but there is so much more to it than simply terroir

I think that the French like to go on and on about their terroir being "better" than anyone else, partly through arrogance that they are the only country in the world that can make good wine (although this is slowly changing) and partly because they are so restricted with what grape varieties can be planted. Perhaps Bordeaux has the most perfect terroir for Syrah, who knows. the Bordelais will say that it is the best terroir in the world for Cab Sauv/Franc, Merlot, Petit Verdot etc. because that is what they are allowed to grow.

Anyway diversing a bit, I ship in a Loire producer (Gitton Pere et Fils) who generally bottles each parcel of vines by themselves (ie does not blend them). He has vineyards on silex and calcaire and the difference between his Sancerre's on these soils is so obvious to see. The vineyards are all of similar age, aspect, plant density etc etc that the difference between the wines can be easily attributed to the soil type. If anyone ever tries to tell you that terroir does not play a part then you should try and get some of Gitton's Sancerre's. As for which is better, Gitton doesn't pass judgement, he justs makes the best wine that he can from each different terroir.

I am not sure that there is any magic or mystery about it and can never understand why wine makers and others in the trade seem to make it sound so complex. Choosing what grows best on any particular soil is commonplace throughout all agriculture and while it differs from grape growing (where flavour seems to be the main goal as opposed to yields) the soil's abilities are always taken into account.

←

I agree generally with what you are saying.

However, the French (and others in Europe) created most of their laws with the goal being the production of the best wines possible.

Ie-regulating what grapes should be planted where.

Use of chaptalization etc. Many of these laws have the intent of ensuring a level of quality.

This is decidedly a good thing--witness the many truly fine wines produced there.

In the New World things are driven more by the market with more freedom to experiment.

While the government is king (literally) in France-- here independence is king.

Thus only recently have US growers and wine makers begun to discover that certain grapes do better in certain terrors.

In both cases the goal is a noble one--good wine.

As I noted earlier--I believe that terroir has been used in error--sometimes to sell poorly made wine or to justify high prices etc. It has been used/misused in ridiculous arguments to support beliefs about "old world" and "new world" or "our wine is better than your wine."

It has also been wrongly used to support a certain --IMOP--snobbism revolving around identifying wines--sort of a parlor game for wine snobs and geeks who prattle on about "text book" this or that.

It is also worth noting that the scientific discussion is fascinating and evolving. It is now believed by many that the most important aspect of terroir is climate and drainage and not so much actual soil composition--mineral etc.

In the end--only a fool would say that terroir has no bearing on a wine's quality or flavor profile. --this is easily disproved empirically and scientifically.--wine is an expression of place to a greater or lesser degree.

Beyond this, , the discussion can be interesting, fascinating and--- inconclusive. It can be a lot of fun though.

[Busboy]

Randal Graham weighs in with a long piece on terroir, originally delivered as a lecture at UC Berkely (maybe Davis wouldn't have him , or vice vera).

Terroir, for the as yet uninitiated, is one of the most beautiful

notions derived from the Gallic sensibility–that singular and extraordinary fusion of the highly analytical and highly sensual.

Gout de terroir is sometimes mistranslated as the “taste of the earth” or “earthiness.” It is something like that but rather much more. Terroir is the quality found in some wines that transcends the winemaker’s personal style or aesthetic and somehow captures and renders transparent the distinctiveness and individuality, the unique fingerprint, of a particular vineyard site.

Terroir’s differentiating signal somehow shines through the

nontrivial level of noise of climatic variation that occurs from one vintage year to the next in the Old World, at least. You could possibly argue that the absence of significant climatic variation, such as we experience for the most part in the New World, precludes an expression of terroir. For the other part of the equation is the skill of the winemaker not only in rendering

Clos de Vougeotness, but also in capturing the positive qualities of the vintage itself–its 2001ness. This notion is somewhat anathema to American sensibilities. We are happiest of course when every year behaves more or less the same, ideally a “great” vintage, of course. Perhaps this is because as recently-come-to-the-party wine connoisseurs we behave a lot like small children; we never tire of hearing the same song played over again and again.

Quite an interesting -- to this tyro -- dicussion.

In here, beginning page 23, following the lengthy parody of Dante's Inferno (called "Vinferno," natch).

[JohnL]

Randal Graham weighs in with a long piece on terroir, originally delivered as a lecture at UC Berkely (maybe Davis wouldn't have him , or vice vera). 

Terroir, for the as yet uninitiated, is one of the most beautiful

notions derived from the Gallic sensibility–that singular and extraordinary fusion of the highly analytical and highly sensual.

Gout de terroir is sometimes mistranslated as the “taste of the earth” or “earthiness.” It is something like that but rather much more. Terroir is the quality found in some wines that transcends the winemaker’s personal style or aesthetic and somehow captures and renders transparent the distinctiveness and individuality, the unique fingerprint, of a particular vineyard site.

Terroir’s differentiating signal somehow shines through the

nontrivial level of noise of climatic variation that occurs from one vintage year to the next in the Old World, at least. You could possibly argue that the absence of significant climatic variation, such as we experience for the most part in the New World, precludes an expression of terroir. For the other part of the equation is the skill of the winemaker not only in rendering

Clos de Vougeotness, but also in capturing the positive qualities of the vintage itself–its 2001ness. This notion is somewhat anathema to American sensibilities. We are happiest of course when every year behaves more or less the same, ideally a “great” vintage, of course. Perhaps this is because as recently-come-to-the-party wine connoisseurs we behave a lot like small children; we never tire of hearing the same song played over again and again.

Quite an interesting -- to this tyro -- dicussion.

In here, beginning page 23, following the lengthy parody of Dante's Inferno (called "Vinferno," natch).

←

O'l Randal has put rocks in his wines--- now clear evidence he has rocks in his head!

[russ parsons]

i'm coming to this late, so forgive me. but i just did a piece a month or so ago that danced around the idea of terroir in california. i took one vineyard that sells its grapes to many winemakers, talked to the winemakers and tasted their wines and then tried to find commonalities and differences. it was quite interesting. in most cases, you could find them, although sometimes you had to look hard (and in some cases, it was only in apposition to the other wines from the same winemakers).

but doing a lot of deep thinking about it (hey, i had to make multiple trips up to buellton and back), it occurred to me that terroir in wine really depends on several factors: 1) commonality of place (this is pretty obvious: there must be climate and soil factors in common, whether it's medoc or rutherford bench; 2) commonality of technology (this is not so obvious: winemaking signature can obscure even the most forceful of terroir characteristics); and, maybe even most elusive, 3) commonality of aesthetic (the wines must be intended for similar purposes: this was particularly true in the central coast, where there is a real collision between old-style burgundy heads and the new-style showcase wine guys).

running this past some folks who know a whole lot more about the subject than i do, i was surprised that they agreed so readily, and pointed out that once were fairly monolithic terroirs in france are no longer that way, as wineries adopt new technologies and winemakers feel freer to "express themselves" (for better or worse).

Edited April 18, 2006 by russ parsons (log)

[Don Giovanni]

Finally I think I can explain Terroir thru blending ?

I have come to think this one out to put it into words. This thought was inspired by an article that was reading about blending that I posted. So I will give it a shot, I am sure this can be explained many ways and this is just one of them.

You can make a wine from the grape Tempranillo from Rioja, if this was estate grown then you will not have a taste of the taste of Rioja, of northern Spain area. Especially if it was vineyard specific. Now go and do a traditional blending and the taste will reflect the region Rioja provided you used grapes from very different vineyards.

The French call blending assemblage. This would seem just right if you would blend grapes from different soils and growing conditions in the region. Then you will have a taste of Terroir of the region.

So can you taste Terroir, yes, can it be vineyard specific, yes. Does this mean you will have a flavor of the region, no....only that specific vineyard.

The last level of true Terroir is to include the winemaker, yes the winemaker and the spirit of the grower, climate, moisture, minerals, and all that comes into contact with the wine for each vintage.

So blending seems to create a more uniform wine of a region rather than the specifics of a single varietal, so in my opinion to truly get a taste of a region you must taste a blend. To get a taste of a single vineyard then taste a blend from the estate or a single varietal from the vineyard.

So now you have it Terroir within a Terroir seems to be at the mercy of the winemaker. Thus to me this is the most important aspect of Terroir ( not the only) it is how the winemaker made the wine and where the grapes came from in that region.