Good evening.
When you discuss a vineyard that you personally view as ‘great’, what details make up this opinion for you personally? As a bonus, how much credit do you give to those that come into contact with the wine when giving ‘credit’?
Is a great vineyard more than just a pleasurable combination of effort, skill and dirt or is there something else to it for you when considering the greatness of a site?
Ray…I’m confused…a “great vineyard” to me is just that…a “vineyard”, ie., site that can or does create “great” wine…so…a “vineyard” isn’t a combination of “effort” or “skill”…it’s “dirt”, combined with exposition, etc. etc…
Not to be a pain, but what is the question you’re asking in the above part of your query? ![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
Defining a great vineyard certainly needs to start with the “dirt” and any other environmental factors that never or only very slowly change (e.g. exposure). It’s what that dirt has to be able to do that makes the difference for me. In an interview with the Grape radio guys, Terry Theise said something that rings true with me. He said that the wines from two adjacent sites, Erdener Treppchen and Urziger Wurzgarten always taste different from each other, and always in the same way. Combine that with the fact that competent, solid winemaking produces very good wine (at a minimum) from both, and in my assessment you have a great vineyard.
If a vineyard produces a wine that tastes like it could have come from some other place or places then I am not so enamored. Of course winemaking can take that great vineyard and make it generic as well. It’s very hard to separate things in some cases.
Hey Stuart,
thanks for the response. I posed the question in this manner because it is quite difficult for someone to know how a vineyard is without tasting the wine. By nature, the wine would have been in contact with the producer. So, with these things considered, I am interested in what things are considered when saying a vineyard is great.
We can of course speak about the vineyard without wine being in the discussion but this is much more of an empty discussion in my opinion.
I believe a great site still can be messed up by lousy vineyard work and the wine can suffer in any number of ways. However, it seems as though many form an opinion of a vineyard’s greatness because certain producers align well with particular vineyards. This would be the thought that produces the common statement of ‘in the hands of ________, x vineyard can be magical’ …or something similar. And regarding efforts, I would say that effort is a strong variable when addressing vineyard management. The Mosel comes to mind…
Are we now on the same page? 
A great vineyard would have to provide great fruit. You could have a terrible producer make crap wine from great fruit, but that isn’t a reflection on the vineyard. For me, for wine to be truly great, it has to start with great fruit. Even if you’re the greatest winemaker ever, if you start with mediocre fruit, you’ll only have a mediocre wine.
To get great fruit, the vineyard has to be planted to varieties, clones, and root-stock that are site-appropriate for the variables that every site has, including dirt composition, elevation, exposure, typical degree days, air flow, etc. Usually, the site-appropriateness are achieved after some trial and error and testing different scenarios, and so great vineyards are usually going to be older and more established.
Ray, I understand your question now…so we’re on the same page, sort of. 
I think this issue has to do with a related discussion of “transparency of terroir”, which I consider to be a meaningless term, as no one really knows what a terroir is because it is always seen through the palette of other variables…and who’s to say which is the “terroir”.
To me a “great” vineyard is a historical issue. (Not that history might not crown some undeserving vineyards “great” and vice versa.) Since we’re not drinking /experiencing the dirt, per se, a “great vineyard” has to , in my definition, have historically produced great wines, with some consistency…and has to be a vineyard where a particular producer’s efforts aren’t confused with the vineyard. (So, for example, I don’t consider the Cros Parantoux to be a “great vineyard”, as I have no idea of the “chicken and egg” issue of whether the great wines produced are the result of Henri Jayer and his disciples…or the vineyard itself. In my view, judgment reserved…maybe for future generations…when Emmanuel Rouget’s great-great grandsons (or dauhters) are making the wine.)
Certainly, a “great vineyard” has to be capable of making “great” wines…at whatever level of a the hierarchy…in whatever region. But, that some people make great wines does not mean the vineyard is “great”.
To sum up my rambling: a great vineyard, IMO, is all about potential…whether realized or not. And, overperformers (due to reputation or to certain producers’ examples) have to be culled out of the analysis.
Enuff…
I agree with every single word of the above. Well stated Stuart!
So, less than great wine can come from a great vineyard, but great wine will never come from a less than great vineyard, right?
I think it means a vineyard that, when you are standing in it, you are under the influence. That is how the Great Wall of China got its name in English. “Whoa! This is a great wall!”
Ray, what are you looking for here? I have tasted some wonderful wines from mediocre vineyards - Bourgogne Rouge, Passtoutsgrain, etc. But, rarely are these great wines. For great wines, generally one needs a good to great vineyard, a good to great farmer, good to great weather and a good to great winemaker.
So, Chambertain, plus someone doing a great job farming it, plus 2010, plus Ray Walker equals something terrific.
A great vineyard to me is a piece of a puzzle.
A “great vineyard” is probably something I cannot afford to buy the produce of.
Just what is demanded of ‘greatness’?
There are certain Gattinara sites which are most excellent, Clos Rougeard seems to be a special place, Coulee de Serrant seems unique as well as Monts Damnes. There are quite a few places which are “great” to me: unique, expressive places that reflect terroir but then also the hand of them that make the wine as well.
Hey Howard, I appreciate that. I guess the question has thrown a few people off. There isn’t a right answer or something I am looking for in particular. I was just curious how people defined great vineyards and while figuring some may include how a wine may project this I thought it would be interesting to see how this element was considered (if at all) in the equation.
I certainly don’t believe the second part of your suggestion is accurate. I think many vineyards can produce great wines, and that all vineyards can produce poor wines. They just might be poor wines with character.
I think a great vineyard is a vineyard that expresses both a sense of place and allows the production of consistently excellent wines. I agree with what Stuart said about Crox, and that his thesis can be applied elsewhere. For a Napa example, look at the To Kalon vineyard. That vineyard has produced classic Napa cabernet sauvignon for a half dozen decades across many producers, year-in-year-out. A great vineyard provides the raw material for true and consistent excellence. Good-poor vineyards may hit a weather jackpot and allow for the production of great wines once in a blue moon. Great wines should be expected from great vineyards.
Great is a word that is used very casually these days. When very good would be more accurate, enthusiasm will sometimes entice one to say great. So genuine greatness is rare. With vineyards, I would think the number of truly great ones is relatively small. And I think the saying about “being greater than the sum of its parts” is applicable. All it’s attributes can be itemized, but there will always be that alchemical unknown, that makes a place so much more special, than its neighbor next door or across he street.
A site which produces grapes which can, when handled with sensitivity, speak of the site.
Stuart (or Ray, or anyone else),
How would you judge the potential of such a vineyard? As you mentioned, the potential of the vineyard can never be measured by itself, but through the “palette of other variables”.
Thanks,
Robin
There is a reason why DRC is DRC and no one else is DRC.
Without great dirt, you have nothing. There are many sites that have great dirt and great wines are not made from those places. Vineyard decisions from variety/rootstock/spacing/training/trellising/cropload/irrigation timing/canopy management/sugar sampling/harvest timing might have some bearing on if a vineyard could be called great.
Agree.
Great dirt/terroir & climate
Great varietals and root stock
Great farming
And then to have it made into great wine by a great winemaker, exposing the greatness of the vineyard.
I am a fan of the James Berry vineyard in Paso Robles. I have followed their grapes to a dozen wineries and winemakers. With a wide variety of results. But the quality and character of the vineyard comes thru, in all the wines.
A vineyard that has established itself over at least a couple of decades for repeatedly producing great wine.