I’m sorry, but what’s tedious is how a certain few people seem to consistently misunderstand the topic, which in this case was simply a good faith attempt to elicit opinions about the appropriate use of this winemaking tool.
You may have preconceived notions and a political agenda; I do not. Instead of whining, how 'bout we hear what you think on the actual topic in front of us? If you don’t want to pitch in, great. But don’t denigrate those who do. Thanks.
What possible political agenda could I have? if you pay any attention to my notes at all, you will know that I lean significantly to the AFWE end of the spectrum. But I consider that purely personal taste, and have no interest at all in telling anyone what they should and should not drink, or how a winemaker should and should not make wine. What’s crystal clear to me is that there are no absolutes in wine, with the one exception being that there are some people who think there are.
Here’s what I think on the topic at hand: zilch. I don’t care, I don’t think it’s in the least important. If a winemaker wants to bleed some juice for whatever reason he chooses, that’s fine with me. I only care about the end product. If that makes a wine I like, I’ll happily drink it. If not, I won’t. Pretty simple. My own personal opinion is that if you routinely have to bleed off significant volumes of juice to make a wine at the final concentration or alcohol level you want, it’s probably not going to be great wine year in and year out. But there are surely some great wines made which employ the practice.
Cheers
After all that, an opinion! Thank you!
I think saignee, per se, is generally one of the milder interventions in a winery. You have to bleed quite a lot of juice to really amp it up. As Dan mentioned, a common reason for saignee is to lower the brix, ie bleed off juice and add acidulated water to keep solids to liquid ratio roughly the same. The resulting wine may well seem spoofy, but it’s caused by the overripe grapes not the saignee.
-Al
Interesting point. In that case the saignee is just one cog in the spoof machine, and that probably reflects how it’s used in California; in Bordeaux I think the intention is exactly the opposite - they bleed the tanks precisely to raise the solid-to-liquid ratio.
One item that has not been commented on is the quality of the Rose produced by Saignee. I have found such wines ponderous and undistinguished. The reason is the juice that is bled off came from grapes whose brix was 24-28 and the Saignee Rose has an alcohol around 13.0-14.5 and a high Ph. Of course this can be watered back and acid adjusted. To my taste Saignee Rose does not have the flavor, character and crispness of a Rose made as a Rose, from grapes picked at 20-22 brix. We made a Pinot Rose picked at 22 brix and around 11% ABV. When I would propose to pour it at consumer tastings, I often received the response I do not like Rose. When asked why, the usual response was they are boring. If I could persuade the consumer to try our Rose, the response often was, Gee this does not taste like Rose. Sadly, it did not make economic sense to use Pinot grapes in a $20 bottle of Rose instead of a $45 bottle of Pinot.
Stephen,
Interesting perspective for sure. I would find it nearly impossible for most wine drinkers, including experienced ones, to pick out the roses that are made via saignee vs. those made by picking at lower brix as you’ve said that you’ve done in the past at Clos Pepe. In fact, AFAIK, the highest rated domestic rose year in and year out, from Tablas Creek, is made via saignee, something I didn’[t realize until I did a little investigation on their website last night.
When I do consumer tastings, the reason I hear more often than not about why people don’t like roses is that they are generally too sweet (think white zin here) or too simple (think poor winemaking here or the use of the wrong varietites).
Just another viewpoing . . . . carry on.
Cheers!
Anybody know how Tempier does theirs?
Eggsactly, Steve. Many of the saignee roses I like because of their strong aromatics. But the roses I like to drink are roses that are made from grapes
specifically harvested to make a rose. Like SteveEdmunds BoneJolly I had Mon night. You just wantta sit there and drink & talk & eat & talk until,
all of a sudden…the friggin’ btl is drained.
Good point, Steve.
Tom
Great to see Wes at FamilyWinemakers in Pasadena. Been way too long.
Well, not really. I didn’t express an opinion on the question “Is saignee interventionist,” I only expressed my personal opinion that if a winemaker believes it to be an important aspect of his winemaking in most years, then the vineyard may not be well suited to making a wine of the type and quality I tend to prefer. Others may love the resulting wine, which is fine as well. The opinion I did express, and I’ll expand it a bit more, is that I don’t think there is anything wrong with wine growers and makers doing whatever they see fit to make the wine they want to make. I don’t care if they’re organic or biodynamic (though I personally think BD is nutty, and I would prefer that growers lean toward organic as much as they feel is possible for their vineyard and vintage); I don’t care if they pick, press, rack, or bottle on flower or root days, new or full moon, naked or clothed; I don’t care if they machine crush or foot trod the grapes (now there’s a discussion to be had about native vs wild yeasts); I don’t care if they use native/wild yeast or innoculate; Let’s see, what other controversies are there I can express no opinion on? Guess I’ve run out. To summarize: if the wine comes from a vineyard and producer I consider to be capable of producing quality wine of the type and style I like to drink, I don’t really care what they did to get the end result.
Cheers,
Alan
But you say that as if one thing has nothing to do with another. In reality, what a producer does to get to the end result has a lot to do with whether the resulting wine is a quality wine of the type and style you like to drink. Yeah, if they could make a wine that tastes like 1971 La Tache by using every spoof trick under the sun I would happily buy the stuff. But they don’t, because they can’t. So it’s silly to respond to a question soliciting opinions on various winemaking techniques by saying you think winemakers should do whatever they want to do. Duh, that much goes without saying. The real question is, do you or don’t you think that the techniques in question are conducive to making quality wine. You don’t have to have an opinion on such questions if you don’t want to, but they’re not illegitimate questions for a wine drinker to have opinions about.
Interesting point. In that case the saignee is just one cog in the spoof machine, and that probably reflects how it’s used in California; in Bordeaux I think the intention is exactly the opposite - they bleed the tanks precisely to raise the solid-to-liquid ratio.
The same is also done in California, it’s not just used as part of lowering Brix. The purpose of the saignee is essentially the same in either case, raising the solid-to-liquid ratio from what it otherwise would be.
-Al
Of course the original question was formed as one that should be answered yes or no. It’s all personal opinion as to whether the “intervention” is positive or negative (or if it is intervention at all).
Unfortunately these discussions generally digress into the mudslinging version of “I don’t like your opinion.”
Saignée is a technique that can be used in the making of fine wine (e.g. rosé, rosé Champagne). It can be used to correct flaws as well. It can also be mis-used. Where that line is drawn is purely up to the individual. What that does not change is that saignée is just a technique, and one that requires no fancy pants machinery (e.g. reverse osmosis) or chicanery on the part of the winemaker in its simplest form.
Great post. Depending on the % saignee, it can be among the least interventionist of interventions. I feel like its a pretty natural and time honored technique that has become overused and blown out of proportion either in pursuit of scores or because winemakers want to feel like they’re earning their keep.
I make a rose that is, depending on the year, roughly half saignee (grenache, tempranillo, malbec, cab franc) and half early-picked pressed (syrah). I feel this gives me the best of both worlds – great aromatics, and the nimble palate and dry finish – and allows me to bring elements of other grapes into the wine. I typically vary my use of the technique year to year, but I rarely, if ever, use it on smaller berried varieties. I think it can be deftly used to bring larger berried varieties back into balance. It’s also useful on some younger vines (<20 years), which, in my experience, produce larger berries. Our top cuvees come from blocks where, in the majority of years, saignee would draw the wine out of balance.
Ian
I may be stealing Keith’s thunder, but I don’t believe ultimately that the results of undue intervention are subject to personal opinion. In the end, spoofalated wines provide little but ephemeral, if intense, pleasure.
Jim, I sort of agree, but do you really define Ian Brand’s process in the post just above as spoofed? I don’t.
The question as stated asked for a “yes” and “no” answer—really a “yes”—but actually wanted to stir discussion as to whether the “yes” was a good or bad one, after leading people to their respective corners. If you just want thoughtful candid responses, leading questions aren’t your girl.
The “picking the grapes is interventionist” responses were something, though I’d go with sarcasm over filibustering. Either way the objection is to the creation of “interventionist” as a term of art that draws a line through a continuum of winemaking activities, implying that anything on the interventionist side of that line is bad, maybe evil, and could give you, your kids and your grandkids cancer. Italics used to denote lighthearted sarcasm.
IMO, saignee falls in the not-optimal-but-I-really-don’t-care list.
In any case, let’s not do “Can judgments about wine be objective?” again.
This is an interesting and timely discussion. We are about to release our first estate Rosé made by draining off. But, it was not because the sugars were high and we needed to water back or the vineyard was over-cropped. We wanted to experiment on clones with greater cluster and berry size (2A, Pommard, 23) to see if we could garner greater depth and complexity by slightly increasing the skin to juice ratio. We picked around 23 brix and yields were 1.7 - 2.3 tons/acre. After filling the open-tops, we soaked for around 12-24 hours and drained off 2% - 5% of the juice to 3yr used barrels for fermentation. Fermented with native yeast, malo blocked, etc…. Some tanks were whole cluster and some were destemmed. If you think about it, this is no different than taking the free run out of a press. It’s actually a very gentle process. Interventionist or not, I believe it greatly benefited these clones in most cases against the control. The resulting Rosé is elegant and interesting in my opinion showing our vineyards mineral and seashell characters. The finished ABV is 13.4%.
Do I broadly think this is a practice that will make better wines in all scenarios? No, absolutely not. Grafting over to more appropriate clones in these areas and continuing to fine-tune our Viticulture practices is a better long-term solution. But, in the interim we look to these practices in hopes that the resulting wine will be a more interesting and complex representation of the vineyard. So being who I am, I do struggle with the interventionist vs. non-interventionist language and appreciate hearing everyone’s thoughts on the subject. Thank you for the great discussion.
Agree. I don’t think Ian’s process as spoofed either. It seems to me a legitimate use of the tool.