It just seems to be assumed that any wine made pre phylloxera is magical and special. I know the 45 DRC just set a record and a believe there are a few small walled vineyards ( Champagne ) that were not changed out.
IS there any science to these pre phylloxera wines being better ? i would have thought that a modern wine in 2016 is far better than the same vineyard historically, assuming of course the same growing conditions. ie the same fruit today makes better wine than 100 years ago just because techniques are better
It seems almost certain that the answer to your question, as phrased, is “no,” based upon the unlikelihood of finding scientific support for a qualitative determination. That said, many seem to prefer the wines. I don’t know why you would assume that a “modern wine in 2016” is better though. Technique is irrelevant since the same techniques can be applied to the old vine as the new. Much of what I have read, here and elsewhere, suggests that modern vines are producing more and more sugars. So if you want sugars and alcohol I suppose that’s better. If you want complexity or freshness maybe not.
Until about ten years ago there were several Loire producers making pre-phylloxera cuvees, usually from vineyards on sandier soils IIRC, and therefore resistant to louse infestation. Most have since succumb, or perhaps the vines became so unproductive as to require replacement. In any case, from my limited sampling the wines are certainly different; fresher and somehow more vibrant. I’m not sure who is making these anymore. Maybe Breton? Someone else that is a favorite here but is slipping my mind.
Well, I don’t think the rootstocks used in modern winemaking necessarily makes better wine. It just lets you make any wine at all, since the vine won’t die to phylloxera. I don’t think there’s evidence that wine made from pre-phylloxera vines is intrinsically and always better (ignoring phylloxera susceptibility).
In the case of the wines that you reference, it might just be pure coincidence that the wines from these specific pre-phylloxera vines are really really awesome, but in reality the fact that they’re pre-phylloxera has nothing to do with it. Or, there could still be an indirect relationship between pre-phylloxera and great wine. For example, maybe certain soils that are phylloxera resistant are also resistant against other pests, so the vines that are grown there happen to be exceptionally healthy and produce great wine.
Since changes in wine can be so site specific, it’s a tough possibility to scientifically rule out.
I’ve enjoyed the handful of wines that are “pre-phylloxera,” (so not a lot of experience with them), but to me, it just speaks to the hardiness of the vines (they’re survivors!) and just part of the wine’s story. For me, that adds a bit of enjoyment to the wine, even if scientifically it doesn’t do a darn thing.
I assume you mean wines from ungrafted vines, not actually pre-phylloxera wines. Phylloxera had wiped out most of the vines in France by 1900.
True pre-phylloxera Bordeaux wine was different in other ways – namely the blend of grapes. There was was a lot of carmenere grown, but it didn’t graft well and was vulnerable to odium mold, so it was replace by merlot and other grapes post-phylloxera.
I believe most vines in Chile are ungrafted, because it was geographically isolated. By contrast, I think most vines in Argentina are grafted.
Phylloxera can’t live in sandy soils, so even in areas with widespread viniculture (i.e., not isolated), there are old ungrafted vines. Jouget had some in Chinon in the Loire (though I recall these eventually became infested). Luis Pato in Bairrada in Portugal planted own-rooted vines in sandy soil. Marcarini produces a wonderful dolcetto from ungrafted vines, and Cappellano makes a famous Barolo from ungrafted vines. As I recall, there were some old ungrafted red vines on sandy soil around the Sacramento Delta in California.
In some cases, like Pato’s, the ungrafted plants yield much less fruit – something like 50% as much as his grafted vines, as I recall. That has to have some impact on the fruit, though I don’t know whether that’s positive or negative. In his case, the Pe Franco is excellent.
That points to a complicating factor: There are lots of different rootstocks used for grafting, and some boost yields, which may reduce quality. So it’s not as simple as grafted versus ungrafted.
Not to hijack the thread (oh, who am I kidding), but do people find the Pie Franco better than the Rupestris? I’ve bad much less of the Pie Franco (for obvious reasons), but don’t generally think it’s the better wine.
An interesting comparison, but only a data point of one, was the Joguet Les Varennes du Grand Clos, which up through the 2007 vintage, had both a grafted and an ungrafted version. Evidently part of the vineyard was in sandy soils, but eventually it it succumbed to the louse as well. The Franc de Pied version was always much better to me, in fact the 2005 is one of my favorite Loire Cab Francs ever. Greater transparency of materials, texture and intensity and depth of fruit. Baudry has a Franc de Pied through 2011. Breton and Plouzeau still have Franc de Pied. As does Domaine de Roche Nueves.
Colares has fantastic wines, and I think some of the vineyards are original root stock, pre-phylloxera. Jaugueyron in Margaux supposedly has a small section of pre-phylloxera vineyard. That winery produces wines that captures for me what earlier Bordeaux was probably like.
I’ve had more than a handful of wines from ungrafted vines, either high elevation (Belluard, FdSG Serpico Taurasi) or from super sandy soils (Evanghelo), and while many (but not all) are great, I never felt any magical difference to them, though I fully acknowledge the futility of judging such a subjective experience.
Probably worth distinguishing between two separate things. There are ungrafted vines like those planted by lots of producers in the Loire (Huet, Baudry, Plouzeau), Charlopin in burgundy, as well as others that people can list. These are essentially suicide missions where you plant ungrafted rootstocks knowing that the phylloxera will sooner or later strike and kill the vines, which will then have to be grubbed up. I have in my mind that getting 15 years out of these is pretty good but I can’t remember the source for it. For me, these wines are really neat, and often show different than their non-grafted counterparts. I read an article once where Peter Liem talked about the difference being mainly textural (mouthfeel), and I think I agree that the ungrafted versions come off in the mouth as weightier and denser, more filling.
Then there are the true pre-phylloxera vines in places like Germany and the Canary Islands (and maybe in Portugal as well), where you are talking about vines that are not only own-rooted but very, very old and for one reason or another have escaped the louse.
I am not sure about the numbers concerned so your statement might well be true, but in Chile they use grafted vines for protection against nematodes - a particular problem with irrigated vineyards.
![[thankyou.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/df165fe9c1593d19166ae7e1ffe5e272089cc07b.gif "thankyou"){kind=small}