Cutting Pinot with Syrah in CA: Does it happen?

Rob_MacKay · February 16, 2011, 11:08pm

What would qualify as a “fantasy name”? Ol Sparky? The Judge? The Maiden?

Bob_Wood · February 16, 2011, 11:11pm

Canuck, eh?

Rob_MacKay · February 16, 2011, 11:14pm

Canuck isn’t a fantasy name…

Cris_Whetstone · February 16, 2011, 11:23pm

Rick Gregory:

Cris Whetstone:

Rick Gregory:

Where does that leave people who want to blend? Use fantasy names. Ridge does this quite successfully with Lytton Springs, Geyserville, etc.

I assume you mean blend and not fantasy names when calling out the Ridge bottlings?

Both, kind of, though you’re right of course that the vineyard names aren’t fantasy names. But they’ve been very successful in branding Geyserville as a wine even though it’s not legally Zin. People know it’s a Zin dominant blend and like it for what it is. They embrace the disclosure Mitch wants not as a legalistic point but as something they’re proud of - it’s on the FRONT label. People can see it’s mostly Zin, they get across that it’s a blend and they succeed in selling it.

They’re really a model on how to do this. The wine page (http://www.ridgewine.com/wines/Geyserville_Wine.tml) gives a very clear summary of what’s in the wine, a bit about the growing season, the harvest stats and a quick TN from the winemaker. The bottle clearly and cleanly tells the buyer what the wine is made from. When people complain about how hard all of this is, I point to Ridge. They do it. So can anyone else who wants to.

For your last paragraph, I agree 100%. This label did start in a era long ago relative to U.S. wine and its marketing. I love the Ridge labels. To the point and I know what I am getting. Plus some notes on what the wine makers were subject to and did to the wine and what they think of its aging curve.

I’m not sure I buy the branding of Geyserville as successful. I think it is successful because they have made a consistent and trustworthy product for a long time now. Its about quality. Geyserville means Geyserville. We may have gotten caught up in variety labeling in California, but that shouldn’t mean that it should drive the naming of every wine IMO. Monte Bello is the same idea though I believe in the vast majority of vintages it would qualify as ‘Cabernet’. Place naming works very well for these as it has in the tradition of wines of Europe and especially France. The regional label can give you an idea of what is in the bottle but CdP certainly only tells me there is probably a lot of Grenache in just as Geyserville says that bottle has a lot of Zinfandel in it.

Adam_Lee · February 16, 2011, 11:34pm

Rick Gregory:

Cris Whetstone:

Rick Gregory:

Where does that leave people who want to blend? Use fantasy names. Ridge does this quite successfully with Lytton Springs, Geyserville, etc.

I assume you mean blend and not fantasy names when calling out the Ridge bottlings?

Both, kind of, though you’re right of course that the vineyard names aren’t fantasy names. But they’ve been very successful in branding Geyserville as a wine even though it’s not legally Zin. People know it’s a Zin dominant blend and like it for what it is. They embrace the disclosure Mitch wants not as a legalistic point but as something they’re proud of - it’s on the FRONT label. People can see it’s mostly Zin, they get across that it’s a blend and they succeed in selling it.

They’re really a model on how to do this. The wine page (http://www.ridgewine.com/wines/Geyserville_Wine.tml) gives a very clear summary of what’s in the wine, a bit about the growing season, the harvest stats and a quick TN from the winemaker. The bottle clearly and cleanly tells the buyer what the wine is made from. When people complain about how hard all of this is, I point to Ridge. They do it. So can anyone else who wants to.

When people complain about how hard all of this is you should point to Ridge, and to the 08 Geyserville picture – and mention that the label shows and say 6% Petite Sirah, but the wine note (contained here: http://www.ridgewine.com/acrobat/08ZGYbg.pdf) shows 18% Petite Sirah, making 112% of a wine.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

Chris_Seiber · February 16, 2011, 11:36pm

I pretty much dismiss the “they are blending syrah in to the pinot!!” allegations as just another device for certain AFWE extremist types to use in bashing pinot that is too ripe or fruity or Californian for their tastes. Winemaking isn’t such a closely guarded secrecy thing everywhere, such that there wouldn’t be credible testimony and evidence of it out there in the public domain if it were indeed a widespread practice among premium producers. But all there ever are is allegations, and never any evidence.

Interestingly, the couple of wines I’ve tried that were labeled as being pinot-syrah blends, the Cakebread Rubaiyat and the Domaine Alfred DA Red, they were both pretty good and interesting wines relative to their price points. I wouldn’t consider it a bad thing if quality winemakers experimented or innovated with that as a small side project.

Chris_Seiber · February 16, 2011, 11:38pm

When people complain about how hard all of this is you should point to Ridge, and to the 08 Geyserville picture – and mention that the label shows and say 6% Petite Sirah, but the wine note (contained here: > http://www.ridgewine.com/acrobat/08ZGYbg.pdf> ) shows 18% Petite Sirah, making 112% of a wine.

That should be their next marketing slogan: “At Ridge, we put 112% into every bottle of wine.”

Taylor_Senatore · February 17, 2011, 12:04am

Ken Zinns:

It certainly happens on some lower-end Pinots, but as Kevin noted, it’s got to be pretty rare in the higher-end California Pinots that most of us here care about. I can’t say that it never happens, although I have not heard a believable case of it being done with higher-end Pinot. As several have already noted here, it’s not tough to get darker color in Pinot Noir here.

Yet there continue to be people who are utterly convinced that blending Syrah into higher-end Pinots in California is common practice. And of course, they offer no actual evidence of that. I’ve argued with people about this subject on other wine boards before - there was one person who posted some hearsay from an anonymous Syrah grower that they apparently thought was the “smoking gun” but which in reality sounded so far-fetched that it was laughable. And that was about as close to substantiating these rumors as I’ve ever seen or heard.

+1

Rick_Wolfe · February 17, 2011, 12:45am

Taylor Senatore:

Ken Zinns:

It certainly happens on some lower-end Pinots, but as Kevin noted, it’s got to be pretty rare in the higher-end California Pinots that most of us here care about. I can’t say that it never happens, although I have not heard a believable case of it being done with higher-end Pinot. As several have already noted here, it’s not tough to get darker color in Pinot Noir here.

Yet there continue to be people who are utterly convinced that blending Syrah into higher-end Pinots in California is common practice. And of course, they offer no actual evidence of that. I’ve argued with people about this subject on other wine boards before - there was one person who posted some hearsay from an anonymous Syrah grower that they apparently thought was the “smoking gun” but which in reality sounded so far-fetched that it was laughable. And that was about as close to substantiating these rumors as I’ve ever seen or heard.

+1

Agree, and that thread was the one I was eluding to. Quality producers have no need or desire to add syrah to their pinot - period!

C_Grimm · February 17, 2011, 12:57am

If good producers aren’t adding Syrah, is there any reason they would object to putting “100% Pinot noir” in small type on the back label?

Jim_Salvito · February 17, 2011, 1:02am

I believe that’s cat pee…er, Sauvignon Blanc…

Rick_Gregory · February 17, 2011, 1:23am

Cris Whetstone:

Rick Gregory:

Cris Whetstone:

I assume you mean blend and not fantasy names when calling out the Ridge bottlings?

Both, kind of, though you’re right of course that the vineyard names aren’t fantasy names. But they’ve been very successful in branding Geyserville as a wine even though it’s not legally Zin. People know it’s a Zin dominant blend and like it for what it is. They embrace the disclosure Mitch wants not as a legalistic point but as something they’re proud of - it’s on the FRONT label. People can see it’s mostly Zin, they get across that it’s a blend and they succeed in selling it.

They’re really a model on how to do this. The wine page (http://www.ridgewine.com/wines/Geyserville_Wine.tml) gives a very clear summary of what’s in the wine, a bit about the growing season, the harvest stats and a quick TN from the winemaker. The bottle clearly and cleanly tells the buyer what the wine is made from. When people complain about how hard all of this is, I point to Ridge. They do it. So can anyone else who wants to.

For your last paragraph, I agree 100%. This label did start in a era long ago relative to U.S. wine and its marketing. I love the Ridge labels. To the point and I know what I am getting. Plus some notes on what the wine makers were subject to and did to the wine and what they think of its aging curve.

I’m not sure I buy the branding of Geyserville as successful. I think it is successful because they have made a consistent and trustworthy product for a long time now. Its about quality. Geyserville means Geyserville. We may have gotten caught up in variety labeling in California, but that shouldn’t mean that it should drive the naming of every wine IMO. Monte Bello is the same idea though I believe in the vast majority of vintages it would qualify as ‘Cabernet’. Place naming works very well for these as it has in the tradition of wines of Europe and especially France. The regional label can give you an idea of what is in the bottle but CdP certainly only tells me there is probably a lot of Grenache in just as Geyserville says that bottle has a lot of Zinfandel in it.

I don’t see a contradiction between successfully branding Geyserville and making a good product for a period of time. My point is that a lot of people don’t ask for Ridge Geyserville Zinfandel, they ask for Ridge Geyserville. There’s no reason you couldn’t do the same for a made-up fantasy name if you don’t have a vineyard name to attach to a wine. IN fact I know winemakers who do both - they use a vineyard name and where they do a blend they use a fantasy name.

Adam - Awesome! You’ve never made a mistake. I’m so impressed!!

Paul_L_i_n · February 17, 2011, 1:42am

Here’s a Chalone Pinot that has been cut with a bit of Petite Sirah. Has anyone tried it?

http://www.hitimewine.net/istar.asp?a=6&id=209980!0

Chris_Seiber · February 17, 2011, 1:44am

Yes. It would open them up to being sued if it turned out a couple of vines in the middle of the vineyard are not pinot noir, which may be a vineyard they don’t even own or control, or if there was some minor error in the grapes they purchased or in the winery. The AVA rules are designed to allow some leeway in such situations.

On a more practical level, why should they have to say it? What is it about new world pinot noir, of all wine made around the world, that should require every producer to swear that it’s 100% of the variety? If that’s a crucial distinction to you, just buy from those satisfy you about the 100 percentness of their pinot.

G_D_y_e_r · February 17, 2011, 2:02am

Yes–that’s one I mentioned back in the beginning of the thread. It is terrible. It had zero Pinot character. It was only after I wrote the note below that I discovered it was adulterated to make it darker and more like bad Merlot than thin Pinot. I guess when the bad Merlot crowd jumped over to Pinot, industrial producers figured it was best to keep color and flavor profile similar to avoid cognitive dissonance.

2007 Chalone Vineyard Pinot Noir Monterey County - USA, California, Central Coast, Monterey County (6/20/2009)
Candy cherry nose. Surprisingly dark, is this really 100% Pinot Noir? A bit of a cheap Merlot play going on, I think. Tastes OK, but no real structure, lots of cherry cola. No complexity and not much varietal expression at all. Meh. (76 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

Adam_Lee · February 17, 2011, 2:17am

[quote="Rick Gregory]
Adam - Awesome! You’ve never made a mistake. I’m so impressed!![/quote]

Oh, Rick. C’mon its funny. The example showing that something is easy has a mistake in it – hinting that it might not be all that easy.

I’ve made tons of mistakes – every day. But that’s beside the point. Laugh a little.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

Adam_Lee · February 17, 2011, 2:22am

That’s a great question. I have no idea if that would be legal or not. For some reason, I think the TTB has an issue with it, though I can’t imagine why they would.

I can say that I think that the idea of relying on the government to enforce any label claims is pretty silly. We’ve recently been going through some trials with our 2010 Novy Blanc de Pinot Noir. Two years ago we were told that the “Blanc de Pinot Noir” label was rejected unless we agreed to also put the phrase “White Wine” on it – as Pinot Noir is a red grape and apparently “white wine” needed to be on the label so folks wouldn’t get the “Blanc” confused with something other than white wine. — This year, two years later, same wine – we are being told that the label is rejected, unless we agree to take the phrase “White Wine” off the label as Pinot Noir is a red grape and so we can’t have the words “white wine” on the label.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines & Novy Family Winery

M_Dildine · February 17, 2011, 2:30am

Not to quibble, but the “blending” in Geyserville reflects the composition of a planting from a historic site.

I don’t think of Geyserville so much as a “brand”, as I do a “place.”

Rick_Gregory · February 17, 2011, 4:14am

Yes Mike, but 1) what does the buying public think of it as and 2) The Geyserville is just one example of how to do this. Let’s not get hung up on it specifically.

Colin_Haggerty · February 17, 2011, 4:16am

I have no idea what you are talking about…focused on your avatar.

…My bad.

Colin