Berry, I completely agree with your premise that still pink wine is almost never great. I started a thread on that a while back. Some people agreed, others did not. Having had some (not all) of the wines suggested by the dissenters, I still agree with that premise. I was never able to reconcile that with the fact that there is truly great pink sparkling wine. Maybe your theory makes sense. The truly great examples I can think of all have significant amounts of Chardonnay in them. I can’t think of any 100% black grape Champagnes that are even close to the level of Krug Rose or some of the Tete de Cuvee Roses I’ve had. Also, the one still rose I’ve had that I do think is outstanding is the d’Esclans Garrus, and that has a significant amount of Vermentino in it, which fits with your theory.
Like I said I believe a wine can surprise after elevage but (sadly) I think the writing is on the wall with this one. I’d be delighted to end up being wrong because there was serious opportunity cost in using these grapes for a rose instead of a red.
Berry,
Would love to taste yours at some time - and at your stage of your ‘winemaking career’, I honestly would not look at this as ‘serious opportunity cost’ . . . I would like at it as attempting to do something you wanted to try and were not certain of the results 
And just like with everything else winemaking wise, do not assume that your results will be the same next year - you can do the exact same process and end up with a spectacular rose next year! Tis the ‘uncertainty’ that continues to drive me to keep challenging myself year and year, harvest after harvest . . .
Cheers
To me, it’s plenty close to white wine for comparison to that, and none of the vintages of Tempier that I’ve had have the level of complexity of even mid-upper tier whites, let alone the really great ones.
I think my rose plan for next year is a white grape base with some red wine blended in. I’ll probably go with viognier because so much of it is grown near me.
Berry,
That’s certainly one way to go, but if I were you, I would really consider looking at some other red varieties that are prominent in the Foothills, for instance. Perhaps consider some Spanish varieties that have naturally high acidity, or perhaps Italian ones . . .
Keep exploring, my friend!!!
Of course.
I cant disagree with that. To be clear though, I didn’t make this thread to bitch about my disappointment that its likely to be just another decent rose, its not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things at all. I more interested in the idea that red wine grapes are likely just fundamentally unable to produce a great wine because of which traits they have been selected for as cuttings/crosses. I just kind of had a geeky epiphany and curious about what other people thought about it.
Is it that the rose is not mind bending, or that your mind does not bend in that way? I know people who fall all over themselves for dry rose, and not just Tempier. I enjoy it, but it rarely moves me. Sometimes I get very surprised, and end up saying wow! Most recently I had moments like that with 2013 Matthiasson and 2012 Cowan rose.
After trying out Rosés for about three summers I went back to buying virtually none this past summer as in years past. I honestly enjoy reds and whites much much more.
Have had very few roses in my life. I look forward to trying some of the above mentioned ones
Berry, I love the amount of thought you give to things. I’m that way at times. Even if your selection theory is wrong it is very interesting.
Interesting. Can someone explain why this is the case/theory?
Its subjective really. Most people like white and rose wines picked at a lower ripeness level than red wines. You get more “minerality” and vibrancy. You can tell when roses were really just a bleed (saignee) of a red wine fermentation because they are kind of cloying and dull (IMHO). I suspect a lot of saignee roses in the new world end up needing acid additions.
Several Negroamaro based “Wow!” Rosati are made in Puglia…
It’s because you want much higher acidity for pink wine than you would for red. Therefore grapes intentionally harvested for rosé would be picked earlier than grapes intentionally harvested for red wine.
Saignee is indeed what deems most rosé to mediocrity - it’s not an intentionally made pink wine, but a byproduct of a strategy to increase extraction on red wine. That said, I agree with Berry that even intentionally made rosé never rises to the heights of the best whites, reds, or even rosé Champers.
I have theories on this, but the idea of blending great white wine with great red wine is an interesting one that I hadn’t considered.
I always thought it was related to economics and the quality of the grapes - one of the really excellent pre-prohibition mixed black vineyards could fetch $25-$45 as a bottle of red wine, and $10-$20 as a bottle of rosé. Therefore the market demands excellent grapes don’t get made into rosé. But, would you say that about Tempier? Or even some of the grapes going into Ode to Lulu? There are a lot of people making quality rosé nowadays out of passion more so than economics. Maybe what Berry says is right, that the grapes simply were not selected over the millennia for their ability to make pink wine.
An interesting counter-point is the Under the Wire sparkling zinfandel from Bedrock vineyard. This wine has more complexity than any rosé I’ve ever had, and these grapes would never have gone into a still pink wine I think, due to economics. It’s worth a try Berry if you get the chance.
That said, I’d be interested to try your red/white blend rosé experiment.
To me, the concept that a ‘saignee’ is not quite as good or ‘complex’ as an ‘intentional’ rose continues to be a ‘conventional wisdom’ that I simply do not agree with.
Yes, if and when you saignee, you’ll need to usually add water and acid to bring down the potential alcohol and bring up the acid levels and lower the pH. Yes, you need to ‘manipulate’ the juice pre-fermentation . . .
But I can almost GUARANTEE that there are roses out there that nearly everyone has had in the past decade on this board and enjoyed that were bleeds - but you never knew that was the case. This continues to beg the question of what’s more important about wine - the final product or how you get there?!?!?
I now purchase my grapes specifically for rose, but for the first number of years, I did not - and I and my customers really dug my roses. Yep, I added water and acid and, egads, YEAST, but the final product was quite enjoyable.
Something to think about, perhaps?!?!?
And oh, by the way, where in ‘nature’ do they have sorting table to ensure that only the ‘perfect’ berries are made into wine?!?!? ![[soap.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7ea1fffd3ef237e8f19d17a83270ad8452218ca.gif "soap"){kind=small}
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
Cheers!
Larry, my guess in either case is that your customers were treating your (or anyone’s) rosé as a casual quaffer, and not taking it too seriously.
Larry, as you know I like your rose. I think you pulled it off way better than most saignee roses I’ve tried which I think is a testament to your technical proficiency as a winemaker. You have to admit though that saignee rose juice makes something more fun and fruity than mineral and nuanced.
Rose is not an easy wine to make. I think some varietals and sites obviously are more suited to it than others. Being a PN person I look to blanc de noir/blanc de noir rose as inspiration for the Vin Gris of PN that I produced in 2011 as well as the bubbles we plan on making in 2015. I generally do not prefer saignee roses and can almost always identify them by tasting. Often I also find that the resulting red wine that had the skin to juice ratio increased becomes overtly concentrated, though not as often with PN’s.
I generally don’t prefer bubbles rose that has red base added to it either, I prefer skin contact in the press. Though you have to remember that the way the red used is made is very different than how you would make regular red wine for bottling on its own. Shorter time of skins, fewer punchdowns, lower peak temperatures, free run only or basket press cuts to really dial it in, would all be things I would be doing if I were trying to make a red to be back blended for rose production. I have also tasted some really good whites that were aged in neural red barrels.
If your looking at varietals and blocks with your “red wine” glasses on and you just pick earlier that may not be the best bet. I would generally be looking for a larger crop, larger berries, and thinner skins for a rose block/vineyard, also all things I would be looking at for bubbles. A lower skin to juice ratio is what I would prefer. I also think press cuts are very important to the process which is why I prefer a basket press.
Lastly Berry, don’t over think it. I know its hard but trust your instincts and dirt and let the super young wine have some time to calm down and develop. I try to taste young wine as little as is necessary, one day it may be the best you have ever had and the next you’ll think you wonder what you did. The best rose I have had has been from rhone varietals, so if your looking at the many of the producers mentioned in the thread as inspiration maybe thats a better place to start. As far as the opportunity cost issue thats why so little whole cluster pressed rose exists. Don’t let the dollars and cents get in the way of pursuing what you believe to be the best wine possible.
Are there notable still roses out there made in this fashion? I remember Cargasacchi had a second label called Point Conception than had a rose that was a blend of red and white, but I’m not sure of other ones.
As far as serious roses, I am a big fan of Tempier. People always gripe about it costing $35-40, but I think it’s significantly better than most $35-40 red and white wines you can buy. However, it doesn’t compare with the best red and white wines out there, irrespective of cost.
Another serious rose is Musar. I don’t know how it’s made, but it’s actually more intense and powerful than their white or red, and it’s a long aging wine (I think it can go many decades). Fairly dark colored for a rose, with significant tannin to it.
To me, the concept that a ‘saignee’ is not quite as good or ‘complex’ as an ‘intentional’ rose continues to be a ‘conventional wisdom’ that I simply do not agree with.
Yes, if and when you saignee, you’ll need to usually add water and acid to bring down the potential alcohol and bring up the acid levels and lower the pH. Yes, you need to ‘manipulate’ the juice pre-fermentation . . .
But I can almost GUARANTEE that there are roses out there that nearly everyone has had in the past decade on this board and enjoyed that were bleeds - but you never knew that was the case. This continues to beg the question of what’s more important about wine - the final product or how you get there?!?!?
I now purchase my grapes specifically for rose, but for the first number of years, I did not - and I and my customers really dug my roses. Yep, I added water and acid and, egads, YEAST, but the final product was quite enjoyable.
![/quote]
Larry,
I have to call BS on this. There may be a small number outliers, but the great majority of roses made by saignee are junk – just too simple, no verve – and I just can’t get behind selling a byproduct for the prices commanded in the market. Sell it in growlers out your front door. Full disclosure: We do typically blend a little saignee rose (ten percent or so, less some years) into our rose because it does lend some life on the nose and approachability.
Having worked a lot with roses in the last few years, and made roses from saignee and intentional methods from the same site (which provides the basis for my mourvedre rose) and from several other sites I’ve found out a lot of things. There are varieties that work for rose, for me Mourvedre is prime, Grenache and Cinsault are good, my assisistant winemaker Ryan Kobza has a beautiful one made from old vine Mourtaou in puncheon and stainless. I also have Tinta Cao rose in house. Pinot can make good rose, but you need a good vineyard to make good rose, and I don’t see how the cost model lines up on a shy yielding grape. I avoid syrah in rose at all costs, it dominates. Zinfandel I’ve never tried, but I try to avoid bringing in Zinfandel. All in all, we pressed eight lots for rose in house this year, making five different roses, plus a bundle of saignee that we bulk off to less stringent wineries (usually about 4 lots or so we blend together).
There are sites that work for rose. Like with (non- ‘Cali-style’) whites, there’s nowhere to hide with rose, so clean expression of a great site is the only horse there is to ride. Rocky, limestones, etc. you know the drill. Amador county, as much as I’ve seen of it, doesn’t offer that. Maybe higher up in the Sierras? Oftentimes, these are sites that work well for reds, too. So the call to make rose is difficult.
My subjective 2 cents. With rose blowing up in California, there’s all kinds of crap on the market fetching good money. Gets me all riled up, but likely none of my business. What’s new?
Ian