Modern vs Tradition Style Zin

I was wondering what exactly I can expect in terms of good quality zin when it’s made in a more modern style vs a traditional style. I am not talking about the cheap swill that tastes like watered down blackberry jam. I am sure that there are people who prefer one style, but then again when a wine is well made, I am thinking that there are merits to both the modern and traditional styles.

I don’t think there ever was one traditional style. For example, going back to the 70s, there were Ridge’s wines, big Amador County zins and Dry Creek zins – all different.

What about older italian primitivos? Is that just trying to compare apples and oranges?

I think so and I agree with John M. Just too many different styles to call one “traditional”.

JD

Gotta go to Croatia for the traditional style

I think it’s hard to compare older Italian primitivos because, until relatively recently, there was a lot of poor winemaking in the poor areas in Southern Italy where it was cultivated. Certainly today there are primitivos that would fit in a flight of California zins.

Going back to your original question… Where is Tom Hill when we need him?

The traditional style of Zin in California was a field blend of 6-25 varieties. That’s how the Italians planted the vineyards. Zinfandel for the fruit, Alicante Bouschet for color, Petite Sirah for structure, Carignane for acid. With enough varieties they were assured of a good wine every year regardless of vintage variation. The specific regions dictated how the wines would show moreso than the vinification.

I be here, John. Just not quite sure how to answer that question.
The dichotomy of Modern vs. Tradition is somewhat easy to identify in Cab. In Zinfandel…not so easy.

For a “traditional” Zin, it would be (by & Large) a Zin fermented in open-top redwood or concrete fermenters, raised to maturity in large old oak or redwood ovals,
and below 13% alcohol. I’m thinking back to the '70’s: Perdoncelli/Parducci/Pedrezetti/HopKiln/Mirrassou/Nichelini/EdmundsStJohn/Martini/SutterHome/Kenwood/
JosephSwan/Navarro/Eberle/d’Agostini/Pesenti/Fetzer/Mastantuono…are a few that come to mind off the top of my head.

But when you talk about other specific wineries, it becomes a bit more dicey. There are new/modern wineries who, more or less, follow traditional winemaking technique.
I’m not sure that I can think of many Zin producers I would label as “modern”.

Ridge??? I’d go with “traditional”.
Carlisle?? Probably “traditional”
Bedrock?? Not sure.
Once&Future?? Probably traditional.
Turley?? Probably modern.
DryCreekVnyds?? Probably traditional.

All of these could be debated as to modern or traditional.
See…it not so easy to pigeon-hole a Zinfandel producer.

As for Puglia Primitivos…whole nuther question. Ten yrs ago, there were a lot of brett-laden Primitivos, marred by poor winemaking.
I guess you’d you’d have to call those “traditional”. But a lot of the soft/soupy/jammy Italian Primitivos…I’d go w/ modern there.

So…to answer the original question…I’d just say I don’t have a clear answer. Clueless, as usual…story of my life, I guess.
Tom

I’d say Bedrock, Biale and Carlisle straddle the definition. Turley has shifted from strictly modern towards traditional (although still modern). Nalle, Scherrer and Rafanelli lean traditional.

Yup…forgot those three, Mike.
Tom

Wow… thanks! I’ve tried Ridge, Carlisle, Bedrock, and Turley. I can say that I see a clear difference in style between them. It’s strange in that though you say Carlisle and Ridge are more traditional while Turley is more modern; though I haven’t drunk that many zin my palate has Turley and Ridge more similar while Bedrock seems to lie closer to Carlisle in style Yet I seem to enjoy Bedrock and Ridge more than Turley for sure, and the jury is still out on Carlisle for me as I have not had a sound bottle yet so far.

I have seen Rafanelli around but never thought about them because of their somewhat “funky” label. Perhaps I will give them a try to see which producers I prefer.

For me modern would mean more fruit forward, ripe and jammy. Traditional would be less so. To that end I would put Turley and Carlisle in the modern camp and Zins like Ridge, Ravenswood and Rafanelli in the traditional camp. Then there are outliers that sort of straddle the two camps. Outpost and Biale come to mind. Great question by the way.

Tom

If that’s the case, I really have not had a sound bottle of Carlisle yet. The last word I would use to describe any of the ones I drank would be ripe. Thanks a bunch for your input.

Jerome - I’ll add my two cents.

There’s no such thing as either.

As Brian pointed out, the old Italians planted a bunch of grapes to make sure that some of them were ripe every vintage. That’s the way most wine was made around the world. The fetish for single cultivars, and single clones, has happened in your lifetime. So if “traditional” is what they did when you were six and “modern” is what they did when you were twenty six, then I guess there’s such a thing, but really there isn’t.

Ridge is the winery that as much, if not more than any, helped establish Zin as a “serious” grape. But their best wines were and are blends.

As far as Croatia or Puglia, you can’t compare them to CA. It was only in the 1990s that people confirmed that Zin and Primitivo are the same and at that time, the wine making in those European places was light years behind what they had in California. If you want crappy, brett-infested, VA-ridden, bacteria contaminated wine, then I guess that would be “traditional”. But that’s not fair to the grape or to the winemakers in any country today.

I second the idea that modern vs traditional when it comes to Zinfandel is not a useful construct. Some believed that back in the 1970’s consumers were perplexed because you never knew what you were getting in terms of alcohol. That lead to White Zinfandel which ironically was the savior of many of the old vineyards.

I agree that there are so many different styles of Zin that traditional vs modern is a tough argument to make and the different styles have gone in and out of fashion multiple times. It wasn’t only Italian immigrants that planted Zin heavy vineyards, many of the Contra Costa/Antioch/Oakley vineyards were planted and maintained by Portuguese families.

I find Carlisles a bit ripe when young, but age them at least 4 years, preferably 5-7 and they become quite elegant. The ripeness softens and many other wonderful nuances appear.

It wasn’t only Italian immigrants that planted Zin heavy vineyards, many of the Contra Costa/Antioch/Oakley vineyards were planted and maintained by Portuguese families.

That’s kind of interesting too. Clearly I was over simplifying but regardless, there were a lot of Portuguese in California and they’re not really talked about all that much. The first European to set foot in what’s now California was a Portuguese sailor who landed at what’s now San Diego. He was working for the Spanish because both Spain and England hired Portuguese navigators. Supposedly they had found North America long before Columbus by following cod migrations.

After the gold rush a lot of them settled around central CA and the bay area after the gold rush, particularly in Alameda County. There were many of them here before the great Italian immigration started in the late 1800s. I wonder why there aren’t more old vineyards from Portuguese grapes in CA.

the more modern styles have big fruit and higher alcohol-such as a Rombauer zin.

Hm… Is there such a thing as typicity for American Zin then?