An interesting article in the World of Fine Wine on extreme sorting in the NapaVlly: WoFW:ExtremeSorting
The usual suspects, winemakers of high-end/expensive Cabs, are, of course, strongly in favor of extreme sorting, especially using optical sorting tables (anyone seen one of these in use?), to insure that only “perfect” berries get into the must. They can eliminate underripe/raisened/rotten berries and MOG. They assure us that this is the best way for their wine to express terroir. One wnry (Kapcsandy) uses a manual sorting, followed by an optical sorting table, followed by another manual sorting table. He (DennisMalbec) argues that this is necessary to give you “purity of your terroir” when you’re operating at the “high-end” and that this is the antidote to the “international style” in wines.
Skeptics (AbeSchoerner/RandyDunn/RicForman) argue against the use of extreme sorting and that their wines, au contraire, have better expressions of terroir. Abe argues that expressing the vagaries of the vintage better represents terroir.
So I pose the following questions:
If you can insure that every berry going into your wine is “perfect” (same Brix/same TA/same phenolic content…that they’re all identical and “perfect”) does that wine better express terroir than a wine that is made just from grapes that that vnyd gives you that year?
Can a wine made w/ extreme sorting (i.e. a wine made only from “perfect grapes”) ever show the complexity of a wine made from grapes that include some that are less than “perfect”?
Is it more important that a wine show terroir or complexity??
This is not a troll and I don’t want any wishy-washy/mealy-mouthed answers!!!
Tom
I think both methods have their ups and down. I like both types of wines and it gives me something different and enjoyable to drink based on the mood I am in or get myself into. Why not be happy that people are trying different things?
Denis Malbec is a consultant and is in the business of selling his services for creating high scoring, expensive wine. I don’t think he’s going to tell his clients “leave the less than perfect stuff in there & let the vineyard/vintage do the talking”. Terroir is a buzzword in this case.
I would imagine that we can get great wine from either camp. Lots of other factors in the complexity creation equation.
Ideally, I would like wine to be complex & interesting. Exile on Main Street is more interesting than Steel Wheels.
I would like to believe that complexity & terroir needn’t be mutually exclusive.
Those optical sorters are unbelievable. For those who haven’t seen them, this video shows it well.
You can see it in real time around the 15 second mark, then up close in slow motion beginning around 1:20.
To answer your questions…
If you can insure that every berry going into your wine is “perfect” (same Brix/same TA/same phenolic content…that they’re all identical and “perfect”) does that wine better express terroir than a wine that is made just from grapes that that vnyd gives you that year?
Better? No. As well? Maybe, maybe not. I think if “perfect” to you means really highly ripe, then no, because it seems to me that super ripe fruit can obscure terroir. I don’t think, though, that this type of selection is necessarily going to obscure terroir. I really don’t think it would improve or increase expression of terroir, but even there, it depends on what would be there otherwise. There could be some sort of rot or mold that would really mess up the wine, and I’m sure removing that could improve expression of place in some cases. Wineries doing this have already been selecting quite well, though, and definitely eliminating any problems like that, so in the real world, I don’t think being as selective as possible is better.
Can a wine made w/ extreme sorting (i.e. a wine made only from “perfect grapes”) ever show the complexity of a wine made from grapes that include some that are less than “perfect”?
yes.
Is it more important that a wine show terroir or complexity??
I see where you’re going with this, but I really don’t believe that’s the choice here. Since you used 3 exclamation marks after demanding no “wishy-washy/mealy-mouthed answers”, I’ll answer anyway and say complexity. The reason is that I can still enjoy a wine with lots of complexity and little to no terroir quite a bit, but a wine that shows great terroir but little or no complexity is still not that interesting.
Given that pretty much any producer using these extreme sorting methods is also picking too ripe, and using too much new oak, IMO it’s really not possible answer the question. Whatever terroir there may be is washed out by ripeness and what little remains is masked by oak.
Bingo…that’s exactly what I would answer, Doug.
I can’t always recognize the terroir of a vnyd…so I’d have to go w/ complexity. As many times as I’ve tasted Lytton/Pagani/Bedrock…I still can identify the terroir w/ any confidence.
Tom
Is there terroir without complexity? Or rather, is there terroir worth caring about without complexity? I’m not sure you can have one (terroir) without the other (complexity). But I’m also not sure that extreme sorting is a negative when it comes to either. I suspect that Dunn et. al. are right, that some “diversity” in the crop adds interest and complexity to a wine; but I also suspect that “good” fruit retains enough diversity across a vineyard to bring out much of whatever complexity there could be in a wine.
Thanks for sharing - and an interesting topic indeed.
I remember taking a trip to Napa during my first year working in the biz, and visited Vineyard 29 nearing the end of harvest. They were bringing in cab I believe and they first had a sorting table for the clusters, then had people continue sorting those that made it through by hand, then destemmed the grapes and had another crew review the berries as they went across a shaker table and discard ones that weren’t ‘ideal’, and had one last crew give another look. They were working at probably 1/2 ton per hour . . .
And I asked the honest question - does this lead to a better wine? The knee jerk answer is, of course, because you are getting the ‘best’ fruit in there to start with.
Well, I then asked, whether they ever did lots where they used the aforementioned system on most of the grapes, but then did less sorting on others and compared/contrasted the lots during and post fermentation. The answer? No, we don’t need to because we know our system is ‘better’ . . .
Look, I think we can all agree that taking care to get the best quality fruit in the fermentor should be the goal for every winemaker (how ever you want to defined ‘best’). But until someone does a series of ferments with the same lot of grapes using multiple systems over multiple years, why should anyone say ‘with certainty’ that one system is ‘better’ than another?
Just my $.02 . . . and heck, what do I know - I still keep some LEAVES in with my ferments from time to time
An interesting topic, Tom.
I’ve always thought that an obsession with perfect ripeness is one of the primary causes of the internationalized style of wine at the top end. It’s an extension of the “vineyard as factory” outlook that began gaining ground in the 80s and bore full flower around the turn of the century.
I think the best wines of the past had a little bit of slightly green fruit and a small percentage that was flirting with sur maturite… in the altogether that manifested itself as a wine of complexity, balance, and terroir. Making wine in the way you describe here leads to more monilithic wines (normal caveats re: exceptions, etc apply).
Terroir. Wine is not about whether I like it or can recognize it. It’s about an identity, a story, and a culture of the place. It should go on for generations, not be about any persons single experience-no matter how much that person may love the wine. I don’t travel to see the most complex places, I go to see the history and the culture of that place. I drink wine the same way.
#2: sorting removes flavors, some not good, some maybe not so bad, some maybe we would miss if we knew they had been sorted out.
#1: to me the heavy sorters are akin to a rancher trying to breed the perfect bull. It’s a slow, skilled process to raise the perfect beast and wines in this style often are as impressive and amazing.
Leaving things that fall into the less than optimal in the wine seems akin to being a wildlife photographer. The goal is to show people a place as it is.
I am openly a light sorter, I use the sorting table only to remove diseased fruit and seconds(green clusters that set well after the main clusters). If there’s a rogue Chardonnay vine in a Pinot Noir block we pick it and process it. It’s part of the place, it was farmed with the same care. If I have a few translucent berries we leave them, ditto slightly overripe fruit. To me, this is the formation of both terroir and complex nature in wines.
Denis and Abe are both producing sideshow wines(IMHO)…they’re charismatic and execute what they’re doing well, but go to the extreme in order to stand out. I prefer terroir here again as well. I think the quiet culture of a great vineyard has a far more interesting story, especially over time, than the flamboyant parlor tricks of the extreme cellar.
I am far from an expert (as I guess most trying to answer this question) but I’ll throw my opinion out. I don’t think it’s a function of terroir as it is freshness and Tanin for longevity.
One of the best examples with concerns to Napa cabs to me recently has been abreu thorevilos. To me a lot of expensive Napa cab is getting too thick and only interesting from the amount of flavor you taste than the spectrum of flavor. In talking to the winemaker brad I feel like I learned a big lesson. Thorevilos is a big wine but to me there is an airy freshness to it that is unlike many of the others I taste. The reason I believe this is is because abreu picks the cab, franc, and the Merlot at the same time in an almost field blend method. That by definition means some is more ripe than the others. I believe this creates the freshness. I can easily be way off but that is my opinion.
My bet is most places that perform the draconian processes from the article tend to pick on the riper side, probably very ripe. My guess is having a greater bell curve in the ripeness of the fruit allows for a more interesting spectrum of what is tasted. And more fruit Tanin that helps it age. Fruit tannin makes a ton of sense for aging and personally to me wood tannin just does not make inherent sense.
Of course the actual mean of the bell curve is the key question and what is actually picked comes down to the vision of the winemaker, and I do agree that getting the crap out too far from the mean on either side makes sense. I think for most fruit like apples peaches strawberries etc picking in an optical sorting method makes sense however for some reason I feel with grapes alcohol and wine having a greater spectrum of ripeness assists in the long term drinking pleasure.
That’s very romantic, but I’m sorry, as a consumer, wine is all about whether I like it. I can appreciate the craft in a wine that I don’t like, but I still don’t like it. In my opinion, expressing “terroir” is more BS than anything else. Just read all the threads arguing what “terroir” is in the first place.
Larry’s analysis and core question is more interesting. Until someone does one barrel each way with randomly selected clusters from each vine, we don’t really know which is better. We only know which is more expensive.
AND someone suggested that the first growth Bordeaux use extreme sorting. I guess we can throw out the argument that they are the traditionalist upholders of the faith over generations.
Risking seeming “wishy-washy” but I honestly believe that some of it has to do with being used to a particular system of sorting (winemaking, etc.). I heard a tale of a Zin producer that trialed an optical sorting system that sorted out dehydrated berries. They were used to a certain soak-up on their wines and picking accordingly. The resulting soak-up was far less than anticipated and the Zin wasn’t what they were wanting/expected. Needless to say, they chose not to purchase the system in question.
Soak up is the difference between what the sugars arrive at the winery at and the sugars that you end up with. Depending on a number of factors, that can be nothing up to 4 or 5 brix.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
