Steve Heimoff: pinot soil doesn't matter

http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2016/01/18/soil-versus-climate-the-old-pinot-noir-question/

He starts by casting a false dichotomy and just rolls on downhill from there…

“Someone who’s a wine professional and knows a lot about wine recently told me that Oregonians believe that soil and rocks play the dominant role in Pinot Noir while Californians think it’s weather and climate. I guess by that standard you can call me a Californian.”

I think it’s both and it’s not just Pinot Noir. Same thing happens in Germany and in Hungary with completely unrelated grapes - the hills in Tokaj are close together and get pretty much similar weather but the soils vary widely within a few yards of each other and they turn out different wine. Same in Burgundy and same in CA or OR if people tried to emphasize those differences.

It doesn’t have to be a single variety - the same principle holds with blends otherwise we wouldn’t distinguish between Lytton Springs and Geyserville from Ridge.

Steve has to write something that’s not too involved so he makes some huge generalizations that aren’t clarified. If he’s talking about Meiomi, that comes from all over and it’s not related to any ground in any way. But if he’s talking about say Hirsch, it’s obvious that his comments regarding CA vs OR are simplistic.

Oh brother… His response to the first comment is even better.

Pinot soil: Steve Heimoff doesn’t matter.

I am going with the dirt on this one…

That response is pretty poorly written. At first, he seems to suggest that the differences in flavor profile just don’t matter, they’re all good. There’s a bit of redemption in his concluding sentences: “Even in Burgundy there are huge differences between various pinot noirs. We seem to like them all. I see pinot noir like people: each one is different.” but it’s still a curious comment from a wine writer who you would expect to celebrate those “minor” differences.

But back to the premise of the article: It’s not an “either/or” proposition. Climate is important, and soil is important. The bigger question (for me) is which is more important? A lot of knowledgeable, experienced wine growers will tell you it’s the soil. My own view is that climate is paramount - the top of the “necessary” characteristics of a vineyard. There are lots of vineyards planted in excellent soil, but where the climate is too warm.

In my opinion, soil is necessary, but not sufficient. Without the proper climate, soil matters not.

However, the closing sentences of the blog retrench from an absolutist opinion one way or the other when he says:

But I think the notion that the Oregonians present themselves as soil-ists while the Californians present themselves as climate-ists is correct. Fortunately, the rest of us don’t have to take sides. We can enjoy the wines from both states!

That is a terribly written and conceived blog post. His response to the first comment is nonsense. I’m glad I don’t usually read his stuff.

+1

Is this who Hosemaster is writing about in his latest blog post?

Does writing the a severe hangover and a deadline matter?