Seriously, that’s what Steve Heimoff believes. I appreciate Steve’s candor, and I realize that I drink more cool climate wines, and I dig the older school Napa… but I don’t believe for a moment that Napa does not express a sense of place.
Here’s the quote from Heimoff: “I have my doubts. In Napa’s hot climate, whatever inherent differences there are between places tend to get evened out by the heat. If you try to counter that by picking early, you run the risk of unripe fruit. This is an inherent paradox and I don’t see how it gets resolved.”
Again, I read that to say: Oakville is the same as Calistoga, mountain fruit is the same as valley floor fruit.
I’d love to get some feedback from the experienced Napa tasters.
And the dirt is all the same, and the sun shines the same amount of time in each area, and Hi/Low temps are identical in every location, and everybody picks at the same brix on the same day. I see his point.
Steve has obviously been covering California for a long time, and I respect him. I think what he’s saying is that, assuming the same growing techniques, brix at harvest, etc, the temps make it too difficult for the nuances of place to come through.
And what I’m saying is, even as someone who doesn’t go over the moon for Napa Cab: I don’t buy it. I think Napa certainly can show the subtle differences.
Now, does all of the RO make that more difficult? Perhaps, but I still dismiss Steve’s statement.
Again, not to speak for Steve, but I think what he’s saying is: Microclimates can and do exist, but it’s so hot to begin with that there is no difference in the wines that come from different places. Kind of like saying it’s super-hot in the center of the sun, and it’s hot on the edges, but it makes no difference because in the end you’re scorched.
I understand that but there are so many other factors at play than average temperature. It’s very dismissive. I think terroir is grossly exaggerated in Napa and am often surprised for what passes for sacred land up there but there are also enough differences among the areas to make for different wines if made in a style that would enhance it. Frankly, the way 95% of the wines are made up there there is no way to differentiate them as regions but that’s another argument.
This is an argument I find much more sensible. To say that it’s too hot for the places to show their differences is to essentially say that Napa is not a good growing region for grapes. But to say that there is potential for terroir differences, but those differences are obscured by stylistic practices, well, that makes sense to me. But the lure of hedonism is hard to resist; these boards are testament to that.
In my limited experience I have found the Howell Mountain region produces red grapes that are noticealby different in their flavor and aromatic characteristics. On the valley floor, the red wines do seem to have similar characteristics, with the older vines providing the most distinctive differences. There are some isolated areas within the valley that also have distinctive differences from a “stereotypical Napa wine.”
I would imagine there are as many differences here as there are in the growing regions of the old world. I too think the statement is dismissive.
I kind of want to defend Heimoff on this. i think because it is very warm and in good vintages there is not a lot of trouble ripening grapes, growers and winemaker’s error on the side of high brix/ripeness. If he had said, because Napa is so hot and critics want very ripe wine, therefore the terroir of Napa more often then not becomes indistinguishable in many cases partly due to winemaker choices…I would have too agree with him. But, the way he said it is way too much of a blame on Napa climate rather than winemakers preferences for uber ripeness anytime they can get it make it hard to defend. That said, even if Heimoff errors on the side of grade inflation, what makes him get less respect than many others. Jay Miller sux. RP over-rates certain regions in my mind and values ripeness too much. James Laube is unpredictable(gives 78-82 to way too many good wines). i find IWC/Tanzer the most consistent b/c of the tighter ranges.
I’d respectfully disagree. I could agree if he was saying that the individual terroirs are giving way to an overarching flavor profile (which is evinced by a commanlity of style), which in turn is the result of picking decisions (notably later which IMHO has blurred the distictiveness of place). I don’t think it has anything to do with heat- were that the case, there would be no difference between cab from the central valley and napa valley. I think what is being left out of his equation is the very distinct flavor profiles (e.g. Howell Mountin, Diamond Mountain, Stags Leap, Rutherford, etc.) that most certainly existed before the move to pick later and riper began- what happened? did they simply vanish? no. They are lost in the blur that is largely modern cab from napa.
Much as I love to drub that valley, I do so out of affection, misguided tho it may be. Napa holds a special place in my heart because it is a very special place. Sadly, it has become harder and harder (no, not impossible) to find the cabs that really expressthose spots in that place, as opposed to cabs expressing the current style that is all the rage.
I’m sure those with better palates could prove me wrong, but the days of my being able to spot a wine from any specific place there has long since passed. But I can sure as hell spot a wine picked super ripe, with plenty of alcohol, and a black fruit profile that is simply monolithic, I can spot it as being from Napa, I just can’t begin to say where.
Steve follows up to say: “I have generally found that the best wines are not because they have a sense of place, but because the owners have enough money to buy perfect viticulture and impeccable winemaking technique. Perhaps a sense of place can only be realized when lots of money is spent perfecting it.”
I regularly read Steve Heimoff’s blog and one thing is certain. He occasionally likes to stir the pot by saying something over the top. I think this is one of those cases. Say what you will about his scoring (yes, it runs high), I tend to find his tasting notes are usually on the mark. Usually his statements are well-founded.
I posted a link to a plot of temperatures in different wine regions on Rhys Vineyards’ website in the discussion there. If you look at the mean temperature, St. Helena is hotter than Bordeaux, typically, though the Diurnal Flux (hot days, cold nights) compensates to some extent. I don’t think that alone justifies 16% ABV wines, but the heat summation should be greater, leading to higher Brix on average. At the very least, I’d expect wines grown in a warmer region with large temperature swings will be different than those grown in the ocean moderated continental climate of Bordeaux.
I haven’t tasted enough Napa wines to know the difference between a Rutherford and a Yountville. But in the price range I frequent, it sure is hard to differentiate Napa Cab S from Cab F from Merlot from plain old Meritage. Ripeness is part of it, though winemaking style is also a factor. When you get up towards 15% ABV with a chunk of new oak, usually wines are more similar than different across varietals and regions. I think that’s what Steve Heimoff is commenting on, though attributing similarity purely to climate is rather curious. Almost as if intended to be a debatable statement . . . .
John, I’ve only had your wines on one occasion and I really appreciated its elegance(pinot happy being pinot). And I largely agree with what you said. I ask whether critics constantly make this worse. I’ve had more memorable wines from the more lowly rated cooler Napa 2005 vintage than i ever did from the more hightly critic rated uber-ripe 2002.
There is some truth in that. Bordeaux was a swamp (how much of that is today’s prime vineyard land, I do not know). Then it was drained–that must have been expensive–and now there is terroir. Magic! Same for mountain vineyards in Napa that were bulldozed and dynamited to reveal an apparently hidden sense of place. Then when it comes to the winemaking, it takes expertise and investment to express the fruit transparently (or also to mess it up with oak, micro-ox and acid addition). It does seem to be the case that wines that express place are often rather expensive, at least in part due to the cost required to produce them. (Though it seems there are quite a few delicious Chinons that expression their terroir without costing too much, but that is another topic . . . .)
Exactly- you get those numbers (and candidly, I have had many Napa cabs that are well north of 16%) even in cooler places if you choose to hang fruit longer. And that is, to me, what it comes down to- choice. The grower’s choice to hang it longer, and the choice of many consumers to buy those wines, and frankly to love the heck out of them. Just as it is my choice to not indulge in those tastes.
I know I am a bit of a voice in the wilderness- hell, I’m probably on my way to crumodgeon status, but that’s just how I see it.
To paraphrase William Munney (Clint Eastwood) just before he killed Little Bill (Gene Hackman) in “Unforgiven”, “Heats [deserves] got nothing to with it”.
I don’t blame anyone- consumers drive the market and they apparently love this style of wine. But I have found a lot of wine joy in so-called “lesser” vinatges, and am frequently surprised that for my palate “epic” vintages can be found wanting. Could be I just have no clue whatsoever, but I find solace in the fact that since the dawn of time noone has ever been wrong about what they like.
