I found it interesting that Bucklin does two passes at harvest - the first for zin, the second, for everything else. From the winemaking section of their website, it looks like elevage for the zin and “everything else” remains separate until blending right before bottling. I assume they’ve learned that this is the best way to make wine from this site.
Are any CNdP vineyards inter-planted this way, or are they typically blocked out by variety?
I love that map too! I talk to a lot of winemakers who harvest from mixed black vineyards, and they vary considerably. Biale harvests block-by-block, meaning everything in a given block is harvested at once and cofermented, but blocks within a vineyard which have different aspects, exposures, or whatever could be harvested as much as a couple weeks apart.
The CdP question is an interesting one. I don’t recall Harry Karis talking about this in his book, but I’ll give it a skim this weekend to refresh my memory.
The Mixed Blacks at Old Hill have been picked out separately because there are so many of them that Ravenswood worries about not qualifying for the 75% Zinfandel cut-off. It used to be all picked together and cofermented- resulting in some of the most ageworthy California wines made. The 1986, 1988 and 1990 are all singing right now.
And yes, there are a number of old vineyards in CDP that are still interplanted. Few houses still use all 14 permitted varieties though Chateau La Nerthe is an exception. I will be there in a few weeks and will certainly be asking questions about it. Also, going to Corsica where the stunning field-blends, both red and white, made by Abbatucci are located. Traditionally vineyards in Chianti were also interplanted.
Z - I would have bought it regardless just because of all the flack I took from my wife several years ago for calling a field blend theme for our tasting group with some of her friends, who aren’t all that wine-geeky. She thought it ventured too far into geekdom, but now this helps me look like a visionary
While this co-opting of terms for marketing purposes may be irksome to a few knowledgeable souls here, it’s really inconsequential in the larger scheme. The people who know or care won’t buy it, and the people who buy it won’t know or care!
Co-opting would seem to imply there is some sort of mutual benefit to this semantic broadening action. The wineries that have done the heavy lifting, to further the evolvement of this mostly forgotten winemaking approach, are getting the short end of the stick. There are consequences here. Granted, it’s a small group of people that even care enough to notice, but nevertheless, the marketers actions are the first step in linguistic pejortation; a process by which the meaning of a word becomes negative or less elevated over a period of time. That is not to say such changes can’t be undone, as Gallo’s Hearty Burgundy reminds us.
I do agree with your larger point. Most people (outside of places like this forum) have little interest in delving much beyond knowing what’s in the glass sitting in front of them. But we aren’t that group and some of us are customers of Mike and Morgan that have followed their journey and understand the dedication and passion that has driven their collective efforts. For their troubles, there is validation of the value of their contributions to the world of wine, by virtue of having created enough interest in ‘field blends’, to have an idea worth stealing. It’s an easy bet that ‘mixed blacks’ hasn’t escaped the marketer’s notice either.
Co-opt: usually used to mean to appropriate or take control of something for one’s own purposes, often in an illegitimate manner.
In any case, I agree with your comments, and I need to retroactively preface (is that possible?) my comments with a caveat: I am a consumer and lover of wine, but it is not my business. Were I a wine maker, especially one who cared passionately about the craft, or elsewise in the industry, it would bother me.
So Larry, at $9 do you think it’s a good one to have on hand? I am slowly building my cellar and have come to the realization that it’s a good plan (for me at least) to have a few bottles on hand for gatherings that don’t necessarily center on wine. My dog training club meets at our place once a month for a potluck and I like to bring a red and a white to add to the mix and realized last time that I didn’t have anything that I wanted to open in that setting. Not that I want to give them plonk, but just know that everyone is focused on other happenings at these gatherings, the solo cups get put down and forgotten during the craziness and pouring out some of my better selections would make me nuts!
Annette, for a couple dollars more, I would look for the Marietta Old Vine Lot wines, made by Berserkers Chris and Scot Bilbro. I know that Total Wine carries it. Peachy Canyon’s Incredible Red tends to be pretty good as well, and is also at Total.
It’s not uncommon in CdP. Theres a photo at Beaucastel, or used to be, from the early 20th century I think, showing grapes harvested from a single field prior to being vinified, in which you can see a few white grapes gleaming among the reds (Beaucastel also uses all varieties, including white ones, in its blend). And I have seen more than one parcel with two or three different varieties planted side by side, which were vinified together prior to being added to the final blend–if they were blended with wine from other parcels.
Annette - If you can find it for $9 it doesn’t hurt to buy it and give it a try, but I have to agree with Mike. We don’t buy much in this price range, but like you we do keep a stash for non-wine parties and weeknights there are things more interesting for a few dollars more, or even less if smartly purchased from clearance sales.
Our current stash of inexpensive reds includes Sherman & Hookers Shebang (which is a non-vintage blend from Bedrock in the $12-$13 range), some 2010 Guigal Cotes du Rhòne purchased from Premier Cru for $9.99, and a bunch of pretty nice 2010 Vidal Fleury CdR from the BevMo 5 cent sale which IIRC worked out to something like $6.50/bottle.
That said, this probably isn’t a bad bottle for $9, but the marketing aspect is enough of a turnoff for me that it had never occurred to me to back for more.
First, has anyone tried the Ravenswood “Besieged” red blend? Is it drinkable for ~$12/btl?
Also, in regards to the Matt Cline’s Three Wine Company “Field Blend” red wine, each component grape may come from a separate vineyard, but each vineyard is, of itself, a field blend. Does that count?
Last, if a “Field Blend” is made of grapes picked at the same time and cofermented, does that make the wine more authentic?
What if the fruit is picked in different passes over time, then cofermented?
Would an interplanted vineyard that has each variety picked, fermented, and then blended be less authentic than one where everything is lumped together for cofermentation?
FWIW, I simply enjoy the final product aesthetically.
I have had a few nice chats about field blends with a few winemakers from Portuguese wineries, where it’s common. We had one in February that was a field blend of 47 grapes. It just means that the persons who planted the vines and those that replaced vines that needed to be replanted threw in whatever they had available to make the vineyard from whoever they bought the vines from, and whatever grew was turned into wine. I also discussed it with Mike Officer, who buys grapes from some old vine zin vineyards that have a smattering of miscellaneous vines mixed it. It is my sense that they tend to be older vineyards where the science of propagation, or the record keeping, or the economics, or all of the above, did not allow for precise mono-clone vineyards. I think it flunks as a buzz word marketing tool because 0.05% of all wine drinkers MIGHT know what it means.
![[grin.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/5/53ba06e9b6e4b370ae7e3d7b3702ad1bda0a2d8e.gif "grin"){kind=small}
