Given this group’s knowledge of wine, I was curious how often (if at all) you think about different Pinot clones when choosing a wine or a producer, especially if it is unfamiliar to you.
Most of my experience with Pinot Noir is from California and often times when I ask about a wine I enjoy, I’ll find out that it includes some combination of the Dijon clones 115, 667, or 777, which for one reason or another help deliver a flavor profile I enjoy. One of my favorite everyday Pinot’s is the Wrath 115/667 Pinot from SLH, which i think overdelivers at the price.
I know Cali can be a mixed bag in terms of what is planted where, but I was curious in places like Burgundy if there were any traditions or guidelines on what types of Pinot is planted where. To take an obvious example, are wines from Pommard based mainly on the Pommard clone? Do certain producers or negociants favor certain clones based on the wine they are hoping to create?
I’m wondering if this could help narrow down which areas or producers I might like in addition to other characteristics including terroir and winemaker style. And if you know any great 115/667 based wines - would love to hear any recommendations!
Hi. We planted 115, 667, 777 and Pommard 4. We also sold about 75% of our grapes by section. We made wine from all four clones. Over the 20 years about two dozen or so folks made wine from our grapes. This resulted in some wines being all from one or two clones. Each time we did a vertical or horizontal tasting the wines from the Pommard clone or mostly Pommard scored best. The 115 scored well and was consistent but not great. The 777 was too big for me though we had some producers who loved it. We planted an acre of 777 for Brian Loring who wanted more. The 667 I liked second to the Pommard though some producers like it best. We will have to replant in the next ten years. If I am still around and have any say, I would replant it all in Pommard.
I grow Pommard, Wadenswil, 114, 115, 667, 777, 828, and Mariafeld on Lia’s Vineyard in the Chehalem Mountains at the north end of Oregon’s Willamette Valley.
I can spot some differences in most of the clones. The 828 (Archery Summit “Upright Clone”) and the Mariafeld are most different - both are producers that are relatively disease resistant and easy to farm with loose clusters and they make bigger wines. The Wadenswil is a tough clone to farm because it is first to rot if it rains and first to shrivel if there is heat post veraison - it produces the prettiest (but least consistently reliable) wine, followed by the pretty and floral 114 which I love. I have the 114 planted next to the 828 and it is striking how differently the vines grow on the same soil (the 114 is very unruly and takes about twice as much effort to shoot position). My 115 is solid as are the 667 and Pommard - and the 777 is really nice on my site with good fruit and a nice texture, if a bit monolithic. For these vines (115, Pommard, 777, 667 and to a lesser degree the 114) it is difficult to tell the difference in the vineyard and I farm them the same.
My 828 is on both 101-14 and SO4 rootstock and planted beside each other. The SO4 rootstock consistently has a better set and seems happier in this soil (sedimentary), but I hesitate to say that the rootstock affects the resulting wine.
When it comes to the wines, I would say the 828 and Mariafeld are most distinctive and are less reflective of site whereas for the other clones site trumps cultivar and they are easily identifiable as being from my vineyard. That said, I love the 828 wines. The Mariafeld (of which I have very little) is a handy component for blending, though it can be a bit gamey solo. To date I’ve bottled 828, 115 and Wadenswil as solo bottlings, while I’ve always found the others to benefit from blending with other clones. But I hope to do a bottle of the 114 someday.
Discussions of Pinot Noir clones were all the rage there for awhile. And while I think they are very important, they don’t trump site or farming. I would far rather take a clone that I like well enough but isn’t my favorite and put it in a great place and have it grown by a great farmer than the reverse. – And, not to take issue with my good friend Stephen Pepe, but I hope that Clos Pepe isn’t replanted to all Pommard 4. I love Pommard there and have worked with it for many years, but have often found the best wines I’ve made from Clos Pepe to be a combination of clones. That was true at Siduri and is true now at Beau Marchais (my new winery with Philippe Cambie). Specifically, I don’t think Pommard would be the right choice at Clos Pepe down by the road (one of the coldest sites in all of the Sta. Rita Hills) but I’d be thrilled to see some 667 down there. Less 115 on the east side of the vineyard (a bit wind protected) but perhaps some 943 would be great there. Clos Pepe is a great example because it doesn’t all have one exposure and site, in my opinion, trumps clone – but the two in combination are most important.
Adam Lee
Clarice Wine Company & Beau Marchais Winery
In the right situations clones are an aspect of terroir. Like any facet of a whole there are stronger, weaker, better, worse, more capable, less capable, more interesting and boring examples.
Most of the vineyards I work with are older (planted 1990 or before) and there were few clones in Oregon beyond Pommard and Wadensvil. Pommard works a broad range of other vineyard factors and can be a stand alone clone within a wine. Wadensvil is similar in that regard but tends to work better in certain situations and can be much later ripening and persnickety than Pommard. The wines that come from Wadensvil planted in the right situations can be incredibly beautiful and the 3 acres we have planted at the Estate I think represent the greatest upside potential of any block. Dijon 115 is the one Dijon clone I have worked with the most and have a lot of belief in. We get it from Tod Hansen’s site (Lia) and it’s 50-60% of our Lia Vineyard bottling. We get it from a few other sites and bottle it as a single clone from Freedom Hill. We also get small amounts of 114 (from our own site), Mariafeld (a weird and not particularly interesting clone but one that does have blending merit), 667 (for the first time last year and I sort of f-ed it up), Coury (huge fan), Erath (the first ever attempt planted in 1978 and it’s pretty amazing) and will be getting some Mt. Eden (our 2002 Hirsch was from the Mt. Eden block) and Calera this coming year.
In the whole concept of terroir clone is a submissive aspect. I would liken it to a Manhattan in it being, at most, the Vermouth part. It can enhance the experience but if you’re starting with shit Bourbon or Rye it probably doesn’t matter if you have the perfect Manhattan Vermouth. We bottle single clone stuff because, at Freedom Hill, I feel like we can show the terroir of the site through the lens of the clone and give people interesting experiences that are beautiful stand alone wines that are unique.
Good points made. Adam and Jim touched on suitability of a clone to a site. Just because you like how a clone performs at one site, doesn’t mean it will do very well at another. A friend did a lot of research before planting on his place up in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which included talking to all the top producers about clones. Many of them noted how, with such a range in elevation, climate and soils and so forth, with the most general advise focused on elevation, that some clones that did well elsewhere in the AVA wouldn’t likely do well at his site.
My first hand dramatic example would be we got Corvina from a site that produced thin skins, so full extraction produced a pink wine. We liked that, and it was a quick sell out. Instead of just making more of that wine, we went for contrast. Conventional wisdom said one of our growers’ mountain sites would produce much thicker skins. So, we took cuttings from our one site and grafted it into the other. Yes - thicker skins.
Burgundy is propagated by replanting what grows and performs well. There are countless unidentified clones. Most of the clones we know and use were isolated from there as a crude reach for quality. Most of the best Burgs just have a larger range of genetic material contributing to the complexity of the wines. Some of the best growers here have gone far in that direction.
It’s important to note “clone” is a crude category. There’s still mutation within a clone. It’s a range. Some of the clones that have been here long enough diverge enough that it’s important to note where they come from, because those versions aren’t the same. Some have been split to avoid confusion. It’s messy.
Note the blending comments and what does well in what part of a vineyard. Some clones can do great as 100% at some sites. Some great clones never make a good wine on their own (or would be an extreme challenge to do so), but contribute amazing characteristics as a portion of a wine.
Some producers have made horizontal bottlings, so you can compare how different clones perform with all else being equal from that site. You might get a good view if you can get an opportunity to barrel taste a range of clones.
Not a huge amount to add. I generally think that in the totem pole of terroir, the clone would be the lowest face on the totem pole. It’s part of the conversation but rarely dominant.
The rootstock, rarely mentioned, that the scion clone is grafted to will also make a huge difference.
That said, if you find yourself repeatedly drawn to the same clonal choices then it makes sense to look to see if producers you would like to explore make wines from those clones.
Although I am not a grower or winemaker I have been quite fascinated by Pinot clones, and wrongheaded though I may be I certainly have an opinion.
Among the numbered Dijon clones I have found 115 to be the “Swiss Army knife” clone. That may sound demeaning, but I think 115 does a great job as a standalone clone and matches up nicely with my Pinot preferences. I have found this to be true in barrel tastings and listed clonal information from a number of producers. 113 seems quite structured and useful for adding some backbone while 114 is quite pretty and aromatic.
667 and 777 seem to be used quite a bit throughout California’s Central Coast. 667 is … fine, but as a primary component is a little more large-scaled and dark-fruited than I prefer. For me 777 is just over the top. I remember when a buddy of mine was doing custom crush and we were tasting for blends. He had a barrel of a very nice 115, and the crush folks offered up some 777 for blending. We tried 3%(!) 777 and it utterly dominated the blend, not in a good way.
I also have an abiding love for the clone that tends to be called Wadenswil in Oregon but the literature also seems to indicate is called 2A and is found under that name in California wines. I hear Wadenswil is notoriously finicky and requires the right combination of terroir and grower skill but when it’s on it’s a beautiful thing. I never heard about those difficulties in the California 2A wines but again I have consistently liked them when I try them. Interesting thing I found out while doing some research for this post - there is a claim out there that some amount of vines claimed as 2A in the Central Coast area are actually misidentified Talley Rosemary’s.
Pommard clone seems to work very well in Oregon. I can’t say I remember trying a whole lot of Pommard-dominated Pinots in California except for Swan clones which are reputedly from Pommard, which I do enjoy. I also happen to like Pommards from Burgundy, so there’s that.
Pisoni clone works great for that vineyard - I find it less successful from other sites.
I can’t say much about 828 with no significant barrel tasting or monoclonal experience that I know of.
I see some indications above that some see clones as significantly less influential than terror, but I think there’s a lot more clonal influence than people assume.
Looking forward to further discussion from people who know lots more than I do.
I’ve only been growing Pinot for 10 years.
I grow 115, 667, 777, 2A, 91, 943, Martini, Jackson, 31, 32, 23 and Beaujolais.
Some of these fields are used in sparkling and Rose’ while others are used as still wines. Personally I’ve made a barrel of 667, Jackson, Martini and 91. My current favorite drinker is my '17 Jackson but I’m down to 10 bottles left. My '19 is clone 91 ( which I’m told is a cleaned up Pommard clone) which as picked quite ripe but I’m liking how it’s looking.
Many of my clients like to blend 115 & 667 but not coferment. This year I hope to make a barrel of either 943 or from the 1975 Beaujolais clone vines.
I would also add that Anderson Valley is such an awesome Pinot growing area, that it’s hard to NOT grow good fruit if you at least paying attention.
Thanks for all the good notes on this thread. I’ll have to try a Pinot from all the wineries mentioned, especially the single clone ones. (Some I already have . Over time I’ve learned that I personally am drawn to specific clones and vine age.
For the clones’ you mentioned (115/667), I really enjoy the Peay Pinot Noir, one in particular would be very similar to what you mentioned esp this year’s 2018 release. All are great so I don’t want to bias your approach to which to try. Good luck in your journey. For Burgundy, like yourself, its a bit more challenging to have a compass so it’s been just try and taste.
Another thought is focus on wineries in an area or AVA, as opposed to focusing on clone(s).
Not sure of why but I seem to like Pinot Noir from the Green Valley of the Russian River Valley. I’m not saying I can identify one if I was tasting it blind (no way could I), but I just seem to like Pinot Noir’s from that region .
. Over time I’ve learned that I personally am drawn to specific clones and vine age.