Not irreversible, but some of the chemical farming did long standing damage.
3 Likes
Ric Forman would be another. Started Forman Vineyards two years after Patterson took over at Mount Eden.
And before that he was at Sterling, Newton, and Duckhorn. Some of the greatest California Cabernets in the 1970’s were made by Forman at Sterling.
2 Likes
I would put the first vintage of Mount Eden as 1946, when it was Martin Ray’s name for his vineyard. Jeffrey respected that heritage and didn’t change the winemaking. He did his work in the vineyard, really dialing it in to eliminate poor vintages and fine-tune quality. Austin is amazing, and also won’t stray from the heritage.
2 Likes
Indeed, there was pretty massive replanting in Northern California in the 80s and 90s because of phylloxera, and new rootstocks and vine material were used. So it’s kind of silly to say “the dirt is the dirt” when everything else changed.
Moreover, in some vineyards in Rutherford and Yountville, the dirt itself changed in the 1986 floods, which inundated many vineyards and spread phylloxera:
The substructure didn’t really change. Yeah the topsoils got completely tossed around/mixed, but unless the floods tore away feet of earth the underlying dirt was still the same.
One of the things that I heard a long time ago when Terry Theise was talking on a podcast (I doubt he originated the thought, but it’s who I heard it from) is that “terroir” is the part that doesn’t really change, which is the soil makeup/structure, which influences its water holding capacity and how the vines can grow into the ground to obtain nutrients and water. Everything else (weather, vine types/clones, winemaker, barrels, etc.) is a variable in that equation. The soil is a constant.
3 Likes
True. I was being a little facetious.
The flooding did spread phylloxera in Napa, though, which resulted in a lot of subsequent replanting. I was living in SF at the time and remember what a consequential event that was, even though it didn’t kill many vines at the time because they were dormant.
If you read down the thread you saw I meant it was about the dirt not the vines per se but rather that c the vines grow in the same dirt and terroir. I stand by that and that was what defines a great wine and is immutable
And what the rest of us are saying is that that’s too simplistic a way of looking at classification, particularly in California, where there has historically been an enormous amount of experimentation, replanting and grafting. What made a wine great may not just have been the locale but the plant matter, so the status of a vineyard is not immutable.
For example, Roy Piper once posted that the rise in alcohols was not just due to warmer vintages and picking later, but was also attributable to the rootstocks chosen when vines were replanted post-phylloxera. If that’s the case (and I’m not sure that’s established), perhaps the vineyards that were once viewed as ideal are not. There has certainly been a shift to cooler vineyards for chardonnay and pinot – along and closer to the Sonoma coast, for example – partly due to experience with the varieties over time, but also because of warmer vintages.
Likewise, in France, higher elevation and less south-facing vineyards are showing much greater potential after a couple of decades of warm vintages.
It’s worth noting, too, that the 1855 Bordeaux classification has proved imperfect over time.
Every classification will be imperfect. The biggest issue with classifying sites in California is time. The “modern” California wine industry has only really been around since the 1960s. 60 years is not enough time to really know which sites are best and what they are best for!
3 Likes
Not only is 60 years not a lot of time it also is how much change has occurred in that time with regard to vineyards changing hands, replanting, different winemakers, etc. The post I made above regarding Bella Oaks vineyard and how (at least according to the article) the property was “a shell of its former self.” when bought in 2010.
Granted estates in Bordeaux do the same thing - get reinvigorated - new winery - Pontet Canet, Cos, Lynch Bages are a few that come to mind (Lynch is the only one I have visited and I will attest that it needed an overhaul.) Granted, people will complain about it too - Rolland comes in as a consultant - the wines are too modern - etc.
Another vineyard is the Ecotone - I admit I am not even sure where those grapes are going but you get my drift - just a lot more moving parts in Napa whereas Bordeaux has centuries of history where things have been much more stable.
Perhaps unpopular opinion but I really enjoy Jordan mostly because of their extensive library. I’ve been able to pick up more enjoyable birth year wines than I’ve had luck with Heitz.
Of course there is no perfect solution but what would you suggest would be better? If you don’t have a better way than you’re just standing on ceremony. Don’t let the Perfect be the enemy of the good.
Totally gree. I’ve never had McDonald and likely never will. I’ve had a sip of Screagle at a big tasting, have never had Bond, have never had Te Kalon, I have had Schrader. But I have tasted all of the first through fourth growths though. I have had Martha’s Vineyard as well.
If you have had Schrader there is a good chance it was from To-Kalon although not necessarily (GIII and LPV are some other vineyards they have traditionally sourced.)
Correct most of the Schrader wines were from to kalon. Now I think they pretty much all are
wine quality>vineyard site. The only thing that makes sense is a Bordeaux-style classification of the wines.
In Burgundy, where moisture retention is (was?) so much more of a significant player in wine dilution, and therefore quality, I get it. Napa, or really any other dry sunny site where one can irrigate, less so. As much as one wants to describe owned parcels as microclimates across the Napa valley floor, I just don’t buy it. Not at the scale that would allow a classification system for vineyard sites.
Wappo Hill one exception.
1 Like
I’m curious how much time you’ve spent in Napa walking Vineyards and going to various wineries up and down the 30 miles of length and 5 miles or so of width. I’ve been doing it for 30 years and no I haven’t even scratched the surface. I’m always amazed how different sites are throughout the valley. Have you spent a lot of time there?
1 Like
I’ve spent much less than you to be sure. that said, I have spent more time in Burgundy than in Napa, and the two have little in common.
One could say that Napa’s subtle site difference mirror those of many other places. Additionally, the qualitative difference of ripening and dilution (not the stylistic difference between winemakers or growing/harvesting technique) seems limited in comparison to places where Grand Cru status is conferred by site.
1 Like