It’s funny, but I would suggest that a producer bottling individual white wine ferments will have a greater likelihood to have significant differences of ferment than a producer who blends multiple vessels for a site oriented release. Regardless of the winemakers possibly repetitive choices, individual ferments have their own signature as well. And those signaturea tend to be more apparent in white wines than red(IMO).
1 Like
Take a single producer that uses a consistent process across multiple sites or parcels. Merkelbach Rielsings at the same pradikat level from the Wurzgarten, the Treppchen and the Rosenberg vineyards are clearly different, despite using the same techniques. Perhaps the Selbach-Oster Kabinett from Zeltinger Sonnenuhr and Zeltinger Schlossberg - same process, and notably different wines.
I could see Chardonnay and Pinot Noir both being at the same level as Riesling, but then so often the oak barrels get involved. Maybe I’ll do a side by side of some Louis Michel Chablis from 2 different sites this summer just to play around with wines that don’t see the oak.
I’m considering that perhaps it isn’t the variety that best expresses terroir, but climate/ latitude. Maybe it is at the fringes of suitable growing conditions where the terroir reflects individuality best. Could the reasoning behind Pinot, chard & riesling reflecting terroir best because these are 3 of the “noble” varieties that are grown in the coolest spots, whereas Cab (not Franc), Merlot, etc. need more heat and longer seasons?
To David’s point above as an example, would you expect to see more detailed individual expressions from various Chablis vineyards than from a similar sized geographical area in a warmer growing location on earth?
There are lots of producers using oak barrels that still leave terroir in plain site. Even with Riesling there are Donnhoff and Molitor. While I enjoy many producers of Riesling, and plenty of the wines done in stainless, I still think it limits the expression of the wines. For producers who view winemaking as an art form more intricate than clubbing a seal, there shouldn’t be an issue examining terroir even if elevage is in oak. And the breathable nature of a barrel/foudre/puncheon/hogshead/fuillette/piece/etc. offers an opportunity for a far more interesting expression of the non fruit elements of terroir in a wine than a basic ferment in an oversized can.
2 Likes
I don’t have any objection to the oak, but it adds a variable, at least when it’s new. I was just putting a potential experiment out there that held as many things constant as possible. It’s the scientist in me. Merkelbach is all these old fuders, and a consistent process.
1 Like
Merkelbach occurred to me as well. I like a lot of German Rieslings, but a pretty high percentage of my favorite and most expressive German producers all use wood.
I hate to say it, but I have come to believe that the empirical urge of science backgrounds often works backwards, as good winemaking defies simplification.
Also, you are assuming that stainless is not adding a variable? To me the impact of stainless on ferments is a bigger impact than neutral wood, and I could pretty easily argue that while it may lack the singular flavor impact of a new oak vessel, it’s impact on the wine is at least as heavy.
Where new oak can be an obvious and unintegrated flavor, like a splash of metallic paint on a work otherwise done in natural colors, a stainless elevage can be like a work done in natural colors that is limited to only base colors without any ability to have shading or blending of those colors.
If we think of terroir as the “culture” of the vineyard, I feel it’s more likely that terroir will find expression in a complex and evolved fermentrather than a rudimentary one. Stainless ferments are almost always expressed through freshness of fruit and sometimes, but nowhere near always, by precision.
I’m biased for sure but I started off with stainless ferments, and experimented with a few other options, but ferment all whites in some form of round wooden vessel now.
1 Like
I think we are not talking about the same thing. I am just trying to find an example where essentially all the variables except site/picking date are held mostly constant in order to show the “terroir effect.” I am not making any judgements regarding what is a better, worse, complex, simple, existential, or metaphysical process. No other judgement at all.
I am being contrarian, but my point is that I think you’ll be able to hold the variable of vessel constant by looking at neutral wood ferments and get a better look at the aspects of terroir in the wines than you will with stainless. Not better wines, but a clearer understanding of what is different between sites or blocks. Stainless ferments are more foursquare and also more reductive than barrels. I’m well aware that I produce wines with varying levels of reduction in wood. Dealing with it in barrel is easier than tank.
It’s also likely that you would be better served by neutral wood as the vessels are smaller than most tanks. Ferments are highly individualized, even with producers that dominate the ferments through choices like yeast strain and temperature control. Selecting a wine that is comprised of a higher number of ferments is really the only way that I can think of to minimize that variable.
I am pretty sure I agree with everything you have said. I’m just not debating those points. 
Syrah.
But really, I don’t know that there’s any single grape. A lot of grapes haven’t been planted widely enough to discuss. Also, as others said, you have to distinguish wine maker intent from the terroir.
With Riesling, people make completely different wines from the same vineyard by picking at different times. But Riesling pretty much always tastes like Riesling. The nose gives it away. And Pinot Noir always tastes like Pinot Noir. So I don’t get how they “transmit” terroir so much more than any other grapes would. You can walk through many vineyards of many grape varieties and see that certain plots are ripening faster or slower than others, so simply vinifying them separately you can get a different take on the wine.
Syrah however, can taste like it’s a completely different grape depending on where you grow it. Halcon, Alban, Henschke Hill of Grace, and Rust en Vrede Single Vineyard Syrah don’t even taste like they are made from the same grape. Seems to me that is a much better transmittal of terroir than a grape that always tastes like itself.
Chardonnay is very interesting, mostly because it’s so manipulated. Fermented in barrel or steel or stone, aged in barrel or steel or stone, how long on the lees, bâtonnage or no, ML or no, etc. It can make wonderful wines but it seems like the wine maker choices make the difference as much as anything else.
3 Likes
Interesting post and appreciated.
I’m not sure that the fact that Chardonnay can be pushed around so easily by winemakers is the grapes fault, or that it means that Chardonnay doesn’t transmit terroir very well. It may be a quiet speaker, but for those listening to the grape, it’s extraordinary.
Sauvignon Blanc
Chenin Blanc
I don’t understand your point about Riesling always tasting like Riesling or Pinot Noir like Pinot Noir. Isn’t that the whole point of making wines from a specific variety?
And of course Syrah tastes like a different grape depending on where you grow it - virtually all grape varieties do! That is not “transmitting terroir” because there’s not just a change of terroir, but whole climate! They are transmitting climate differences. Just like a Chardonnay does in cooler vintages of Champagne vs. hotter vintages of California or Pinot Noir from Mosel vs. Pinot Noir from South Australia. Probably Mourvèdre would show similar kinds of differences as well if it would grow in cooler climates, but it doesn’t.
Terroir difference means that you can make two noticeably different wines from two vineyards in an identical climate where the grapes ripen virtually at the same time: you can pick the grapes the same day at identical degree of Brix and vinify the same way and, year after year, the wines turn out different from each other. That’s terroir difference - and not grape varieties manage to do that. Some make bland wines where there is no terroir difference, the wines are identical. Some varieties can make impressive, concentrated wines - but still identical to each other. And some varieties - like we’ve seen Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Chenin Blanc, Riesling and Nebbiolo to do - can make significantly different wines from two, virtually identical, neighboring vineyards where the difference might be only in the soil, or how into which direction the slope points to, or if the other one is protected by a neighboring forest, or whatever.
It seems like Syrah is one of the more manipulated grapes. Both out of necessity and capability.
Any grape can show terroir. Some have components that mask it. Some are great at framing it. Some demand or reward styles/practices/techniques that don’t show it well. Many don’t see their potential because they aren’t planted in better sites or aren’t given the attention needed. A lot of times that’s a rational decision. Then again, sometimes you come across some oddball “second-rate” grape planted at a great site and given the love by the winemaker, where it does excel and show the site well.
I think this is one of the most important points.
While I do think there are some truly grape varieties that excel in fields many others don’t, I also think that there are tons of grape varieties that could be made into remarkable wines only if they were given the love and attention they require. For example it is hard for Aligoté to compete with Chardonnay in Burgundy or any other red varieties in Barolo or Barbaresco with Nebbiolo, because the best sites are given to the “best” variety around. However, I do think that the “lesser” varieties could be made into exceptional wines if there weren’t any Chardonnay or Nebbiolo around to reserve all the best sites and the growers just had to make the most of what they had.
I wager it’s quite unlikely Aligoté or the “lesser” varieties could make wines as good as the best Burgundy Chardonnay or Barolo or Barbaresco, but I’m fully certain they could be made into much greater wines than what they are made into now.
I don’t think that is actually the way everyone uses the terms. First of all, two vineyards in an identical climate don’t necessarily ripen grapes virtually at the same time. As I mentioned, if you walk through many vineyards, you can see that different parts ripen at different times, not virtually identical times.
And it’s news to me that climate has nothing to do with terroir.
Finally, not all grape varieties taste like different varieties depending on where you grow them. Grow Riesling anywhere and nine times out of ten, in a blind tasting, you can identify it as Riesling. Same with Pinot Noir. Some grapes just have dominant characteristics, some are more like chameleons.
I guess I don’t understand your entire point Otto - are you saying that “transmitting terroir” means that you must have as many variables as possible identical? I would disagree. If you end up with an entirely different wine because you’ve moved a grape into an entirely different region, that would be transmitting terroir. If the wine tastes the same as it does anywhere else, that’s less about transmitting terroir then it is about varietal specificity transmitting itself in spite of terroir.
coming from someone who hasn’t yet gotten the chance to go to Burgundy (shakes fist angrily at COVID), but has seen vineyards in Oregon like, say, Patricia Green Estate vineyard, how does the size compare? I’ve always wondered if US vineyard blocks like Pump house block or Bonshaw are actually closer in size to lieu-dits or if the scale of a vineyard like Musigny is actually closer to the size of Whistling Ridge and PG Estate as a whole.
I’m not saying that changing climate or a whole continent is not part of terroir, because it most certainly is. My point is that if you change the part of the world and the climate the grape is grown in, most certainly it will taste different, because the whole ripening process will be entirely different, resulting in a completely different wine. That isn’t particularly informative if we’re to talk about grape varieties that can express even the most minute differences in terroir, like Pinot Noir, Riesling, Chardonnay, etc.
And I’m well aware how grapes in two neighboring vineyards can ripen at remarkably different paces. My point was to point out that in such case the difference would be chalked up only to the difference in the ripening process (which would be only a smaller-scale version of changing just the climate. Instead if you have two vineyards in which the grapes ripen at the same pace the wines can still be different due to the other differences in terroir, including but not limited to soil pH, soil microbiome, sun exposure, diurnal temperature shifts, soil water retention capability, soil thermal capacity.
Some grape varieties don’t necessarily produce wines of noticeable difference despite these changes in terroir, whereas some grape varieties are noticeably more sensitive to changes in these parameters, making wines in which these differences are most obvious. My key point is that if you change the terroir enough, any grape variety can transmit terroir differences, but these very sensitive grape varieties are the ones best suited to transmitting terroir.
Finally, not all grape varieties taste like different varieties depending on where you grow them. Grow Riesling anywhere and nine times out of ten, in a blind tasting, you can identify it as Riesling. Same with Pinot Noir. Some grapes just have dominant characteristics, some are more like chameleons.
Now I don’t understand your point.
To me, Syrah tastes like Syrah, no matter where it is grown. Northern Rhône Syrah tastes like cooler-climate Syrah while an Australian Shiraz can taste like a hot-climate Syrah - just like a steely, lemony Riesling from Rheingau is very different from a tropical, petrolly, lower-acidity Chilean Riesling or a lean, tart and light-bodied Pinot Noir from Champagne is noticeably different from a lush, full-bodied and jammy Californian Pinot Noir. I think no grape variety tastes like different grape variety, they just can be noticeably different depending on where they are grown. To me, the difference between a cool-climate Syrah and a hot-climate Syrah is as big as a cool-climate Pinot Noir and a hot-climate Pinot Noir - and I can identify them at least nine times out of ten as Syrah and Pinot Noir, respectively.
If you end up with an entirely different wine because you’ve moved a grape into an entirely different region, that would be transmitting terroir.
I’m perfectly in agreement with this.
If the wine tastes the same as it does anywhere else, that’s less about transmitting terroir then it is about varietal specificity transmitting itself in spite of terroir.
Fully agreed. If a grape variety tastes the same when it’s grown in Poland and Argentina, then it is very lousy at transmitting terroir. Or then it can be that it really doesn’t have varietal specificity that would change perceptibly even when the terroir changes noticeably.
But if I can taste noticeable differences between two different Burgundy Crus from just one comune and you say Pinot Noir from Burgundy and New Zealand taste the same, I don’t know if there is point to discuss the matter any further. ![[dontknow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/2/259bbc27e64baab255bbf586025626180d3e97e8.gif "dontknow"){kind=small}
Christoffel ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
We’ve done the L Michel horizontal at the domaine, and also with our local blind tasting group. Wonderful differences.
I might have said Christoffel (J. J.) in the past, but things have gone off the rails there IMO.