Chris,
In fact food labels do allow a certain percentage variance – nowhere near the 25% varience allowed by the TTB – but there is some varience. I think going with 100% would be silly as it truly could open up a winery to potential regulation problems because of a few vines in the middle of the vineyard.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Sort of. The percentages for Geyserville and Lytton vary quite widely from year to year. It’s not like all the grapes just end up in a hopper and out pops the same ratio each vintage.
A brilliant regurgitation of the obvious David, although I’m not sure how you define “quite widely.”
Here are some Geyserville component percentages from recent vintages:
08: 72% Zin, 20% Carignane, 6% Petite …
06: 70% Zin, 18% Carignane, 10% Petite …
04: 75% Zin, 18% Carignane, 7% Petite …
03: 76% Zin, 18% Carignane, 6% Petite …
Which is my point. Nobody is talking about vineyards with a few stray plantings. I’d say 98% could probably be reasonable to make a claim of 100%.
Ridge does it with their Zins. Off of the top of my head, Mount Veeder Reserve is a wine that puts percentages on the label. A quick glance at their website (and these do vary wildly)…
2004: 53% Cabernet Sauvignon; 44% Merlot; 3% Malbec.
2003: 97% Cabernet Sauvignon; 2% Merlot; 1% Petite Verdot.
2002: 93% Cabernet Sauvignon; 4% Cabernet Franc; 2% Malbec; 1% Merlot.
It doesn’t appear to have been an undue burden to have noted percentages as small as 1%.
Is it only Pinot noir makers who don’t have the grasp of mathematics that allows them to note percentages on labels?
Let me be clear - I don’t care if someone spikes their Pinot noir with Syrah or not. It’s their business. But the resistance to tell the consumer what is in the bottle seems suspect to me.
If, as the other Chris says, claims of percentages open a winery to lawsuits - a notion I find preposterous - why do Ridge, Mount Veeder, et. al. do it?
Obviously, the honest Burgundian tradition of Pinot noir is varietal purity. The argument from some seems to be “that’s the tradition, so no matter what we do, we’ll say Pinot noir.” If someone wants to spike their wine, they should say. If they are giving the consumer 100% Pinot noir, they should have no qualms about saying so.
Is the point against identifying the input (asking broadly - not pointing this at you, Adam) that if there is a thin vintage of Pinot noir in which the addition of, say, 20% Syrah will make for a better beverage, a winery shouldn’t need to say so? Why should they be afraid to say so? If the 80/20 blend is less saleable, then the message I am getting is “we will be dishonest with consumers so we can sell wine.” Even though some will gladly purchase, understanding the inherent weaknesses of the hypothetical thin vintage which benefits from the help. Others will want varietal purity even in the thin vintage (all of those 2007 Oregon PN advocates - and I say that with a genuine inflection).
Transparency is a good thing for consumers - that is inarguable, IMHO.
1998 Geyserville: 74% Zin, 15% Petite, 10% Carignan
1996 Geyserville: 75% Zin, 17% Carignan, 6% Petite
Don’t have a bottle of the 1997 handy. So the zin doesn’t move much but the other two swing around a lot.
Lytton varies more, especially back into the '90s.
Oh, and thanks for insulting me. It’s always a great way to start the weekend. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Snort yourself! Sort of and quite alot, thank you! ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
Perhaps. But if you don’t grasp the fact that the Carignan and Petite percentages in Geyserville (and Lytton) make a huge difference is each year’s wine then you have no real understanding of the wines.
Not sure what AFWE means.
As a fan of lower octane CA Pinots, the use of Syrah has nothing to do with my concerns.
I don’t believe it happens much at all from the better producers.
CA PN does not need any help when it comes to color, alcohol or fruitiness.
Just pick at 26-30 Brix, add additives, press, add water and BINGO…
TTT
You need to check the AOC laws. Unless it has been changed, the addition of a fairly hefty percentage (15%) of chardonnay and/or pinot blanc is allowed in red wines in Burgundy. This might have been done because pinot, in its various forms, is subject to mutation or it might have been because it allowed them to make better wine (according to the fashion of the time). I think it was Clive Coates that mentioned that at one time you only found Musgigny Blanc in great vintages because in other years it was needed in the red wines.
Interesting. Between this and blending with Algerian or Rhone wines by negociants, it would seem the true Burgundian tradition prior to modern viticulture was to adulterate wines when convenient. Maybe the best vinyards/producers were immune assuming they bottled at their estates. But how common was that until the mid to late 20th century? Weren’t negociants the norm until relatively recently?
It seems to be more of a California/New World notion to produce vartietal wines. Whether those wines are varietally expressive is a different story, but the New World has not had the same history of negociants adulterating wine that Burgundy has. All these courtiers, negociants and such hearken back to a time of oligarchies, monarchies and associated bureaucracy (which perhaps isn’t too different from today).
I’m slow, but I try! ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Since none of us add any other variety to our Pinots, it really doesn’t matter to producers like Adam and me what the allowable limits are. And given how open Adam and I are about everything we do, we’d be the first ones explaining why adding another variety to Pinot is a good thing - but it’s simply not done.
As Adam points out, there are potential legal issues with saying 100% due to all kinds of things - including vines other than Pinot in a vineyard block, stray grapes/skins left in presses between press runs, filling of barrels previously used for another variety, etc. Granted, non of these is a big deal, and making it 98% would probably be more than fine. And I don’t think any high end Pinot producer would have any issue with that. I certainly wouldn’t.
But the fact is the TTB won’t make variety specific laws. I know, I know - they could. But that’s simply not realistic. And we’re never going to get around the issue of the TTB having to approve labels before you get them printed - which means people who do blend (like Bordeaux and Rhone varietal producers) need some leeway since label approval happens months before bottling. That’s the reality that the wine industry has to live with.
This doesn’t mean that a winery, like Ridge, can’t list actual percentages (within some range because there will be some errors as listed above, and even the potential of spillage). But what it DOES mean is that they’re locked into that percentage about 4 months before bottling. Personally, I’d rather allow the winemaker the ability to modify a blend, or add some Syrah to his Grenache, right up to bottling to insure the best wine possible.
And where’s the uproar about no information on Bordeaux and Rhone labels? I don’t remember seeing any % breakdown on any of those labels. How’s a consumer to know what he’s getting? Or is the only issue Cali Pinot because the urban myth of added Syrah just won’t die?
We were fishing in the same pond. I spent a fair amount of time in Moscow in the 99-01 range, and Georgian restaurants were often among the better bets (and in any restaurant, given a choice between Mondavi Woodbridge at $100 and some completely unknown Georgian wine, I’d roll the dice without hesitation - not that the Mondavi is bad for what it is, but why overpay for the merely correct when you can have an adventure?). I don’t have Russian, though, and frequently wasn’t ordering, so I had lmited visibility into what I was getting. The off-dry versions actually weren’t terrible, surprisingly, but I don’t recall having anything that was interesting rather than drinkable.
Penner Ash sells a blend of Pinot Noir and Syrah called Rubeo. It’s marketed as a blend and sells for around $20. I’ve never tried it, but I expect it’s not a dead ringer for a pure PN, although it’s reputed to be quite tasty. Touring with the Grape-nutz group, we ran across one California producer who had blended several percent of both Mourvedre and Merlot into his Pinot one year. I don’t recall whether it was mentioned on the label or his marketing material, but he was quite upfront about it. I didn’t think it smelled or tasted very much like Pinot. This wine sold for around $22 and the winery isn’t known as a Pinot producer.
It’s easy to experiment at home. Take a Pinot, especially a somewhat lighter one, and start blending Syrah and see at what percentage the Syrah becomes noticeable. I think you’ll find that it has a large effect long before you get to 20%. I also think you’ll conclude that blending with a darker Pinot would have been a better choice.
-Al
I was in Russia more in the 1993-1998 time frame. Early on, shortly after the Soviet Union broke up, the off-dry wines I tried were not very good. Later, when there was some investment by Western countries in the wine industry in Georgia and Moldova and when the producers had some time to recover from the economic upheaval, the wines became much better. I agree that when in Moscow, it’s more interesting to drink what the locals drink.
FWIW, on my first visit in early 1993, I stumbled across Wente wines in a hard currency store. They were actively trying to establish themselves in international markets with newly emerging middle class & wealthy people on the theory that it would be easier to capture market share in those markets than in the US (they were even the in-flight wine on Aeroflot for a while).
-Al
Thanks for your comment, Brian. (As an aside I have thoroughly enjoyed both your and Adam’s wines - clearly (to me) the conversation is a philosophical one, not a personal one. I think that is obvious, but worth reiterating.)
Huge (and, to me, obvious) differences with BDX and Rhone (setting aside that they operate under a different system). Chateau Margaux isn’t labeled “Cabernet Sauvignon,” for instance. Both regions produce blends and sell the site as much as the grape (kinda like Ridge does). If Margaux was labeled as Cab, even though its only three-quarters Cab, one could have the same gripe.
It’s an issue with Cali Pinot because the labels say “Pinot noir.” If someone is bottling a Chard in which they are blending Gris, I’d like to know that, too, if the label says “Chard.”
The (general - not your personal) aversion to clarity on labels truly perplexes me given how easy it seems to be for others who bottle other varietals (and blends) to identify percentages when they so choose. You (let’s call that a “royal you”) want my money, I want to know what I’m drinking. I don’t understand how my request is remotely out of line.
David, OK - against my better judgement I’m resurrecting this two-way conversation. My points were:
Not sure if your point was that since the bottle compositons vary a little bit year-to-year they don’t meet the above criteria?
Regardless, it sounds as if you, also, are a fan of these great wines. We have that in common!
It’s not really philosophical vs. personal (nor do I see it as personal), it’s philosophical vs realistic. Within the limitations of not being able to guarantee 100% given the things Adam and I have mentioned, tightening percentages would be fine with me. That is potentially realistic. And I’d applaud it.
The problem isn’t so much the listing of components in a blend. That can be done, with the limitation I said before. It’s saying that a wine is 100% of anything. As I understand it, I can’t make the claim per the TTB, nor can I in absolute certainty as Adam and I have outlined above. I know the response is “1 or 2% due to vines or whatever is no big deal” - but it is to TTB. Trust me, they care. And I’m not going to put “at least 98% Pinot Noir”… nor would the TTB would allow that either.
The bottom line is it’s not our adversion at all. It’s due to the TTB’s labelling laws. Blaming us isn’t fair. Nor is blaming us for not getting the TTB to change their rules. That’s the reality of the situation. We simply can’t do what seems philosophically correct and easy.
Indeed it appears we were mostly speaking past each other. I do agree that the wines speak of place more than brand. The blends certainly reflect the fact that Zin, PS, Carignan and some Mataro are planted in those sites as well. My engineer/pedant gets the best of me when I look back at vintages of say Lytton with 80% or more Zin and very little Petite versus vintages with 70% or so & quite a lot of Petite and perhaps close to zero Carignan. I consider that wide variation, but then I have to work on processes with a Cpk of 1.33 or better, so a 1% change is huge variation.
For the heck of it, here’s the make up of some Lytton Springs I tasted recently:
'87 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(82% Zinfandel, 13% Carignane, 5% Grenache)
1990 Ridge “Lytton Springs”, Dry Creek Valley
(80% Zin, 10% Petite Sirah, 6% Carignane, 4% Grenache)
1991 Ridge “Lytton Springs”, Dry Creek Valley
(80% Zin, 12% Petite Sirah, 5% Grenache, 3% Carignane)
'92 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(88% Zinfandel, 8% Petite Sirah, 4% Grenache)
'93 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(85% Zinfandel, 3% Carignane, 2% Alicante, 2% Grenache)
1994 Ridge “Lytton Springs”, Dry Creek Valley
(80% Zin, 13% Petite Sirah, 4% Carignane, 2% Grenache, 1% Alicante Bouchet)
1995 Ridge “Lytton Springs”, Dry Creek Valley
(84% Zin, 14% Petite Sirah, 2% Carignane)
'96 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(78% Zinfandel, 19% Petite Sirah, 2% Carignane, 1% Grenache)
'99 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(70% Zinfandel, 17% Petite Sirah, 10% Carignane, 3% Mataro)
'01 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(76% Zinfandel, 17% Petite Sirah, 7% Carignane)
'02 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(75% Zinfandel, 20% Petite Sirah, 5% Carignane)
'03 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(76% Zinfandel, 18% Petite Sirah, 6% Carignane)
'05 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(77% Zinfandel, 17% Petite Sirah, 6% Carignane)
'07 Lytton Springs (Dry Creek Valley)
(71% Zinfandel, 22% Petite Sirah, 7% Carignane)
There is a pretty good variation there, which you can taste. But they do seem to have stabilized the blend more recently.