One thing to keep in mind about stems – it is not just a question of aromas and flavors. There are various technical considerations, too.
Jim,
I appreciate your comments here from your position both as a winemaker and Burgundy consumer. I’m glad you’re “careful” with your usage of whole clusters, and I like to give winemakers the benefit of the doubt–so I generally assume that they’re all “careful” about it. I definitely appreciate, though, that you look at the nature of the stems in each vintage before including them. I wish DRC was doing that, instead of just dumping in the whole load every year.
As to your assertion that there is disagreement on stems being a source of additional tannins, that’s news to me. Everything I’ve read on the subject, and all the winemakers I’ve talked to so far about this have asserted that the stems do add tannins. Yours is the first assertion I’ve seen about the possibility of stems “absorbing” tannins, and I’d like more info on that if you can point me to any. And I don’t think I asserted that stems “guarantee” a lighter colored wine (not that I am concerned at all about the color, when it comes to Burgundy, or Pinot generally). Most sources, however, indicate that stem inclusion has some impact on lightening color.
I hope you enjoy the '09 Bouchards if you buy some, but I rather doubt it. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Richard,
Just face it,you don’t like stems. That is the long and the short of your argument. Your plea as a consumer advocate is negated by the use of, for starters, "Criminal’ in your subject line.
Hi Richard. I found the link that Nate provided above quite informative on this subject and it includes a quote from at least one winemaker (Ted Lemon of Littorai) who also believes that whole cluster reduces tannins.
Thanks for your blog post, it’s thoughtful and thought-provoking as usual. I don’t have a strong opinion but I’m enjoying the discussion.
Interesting thread. The expression of site does seem to be easily overwhelmed by high levels of stems in weaker terroirs. It also seems that high stem inclusion is more typical of the villages and terroirs that come into play with the “Whole Clusterers” listed above. The idea of Pommard with a high percentage of stems seems kind of weird to me (though I have tasted a couple). In the Grand Crus of Morey or Vosne it seems to make much more sense, it adds something to the wine, and the individual terroirs sing. I’m with Jay, I’m glad that both styles exist.
Very interesting post Richard, and very interesting discussion…thanks!
I agree Rusty’s article is excellent. It’s not obvious from Ted Lemon’s quote, but he was referring to the wine’s perception (the wine appearing tannic), rather than whether tannins are extracted from stems. The quote in question is:
"Some people claim that stems make a wine more tannic. I would argue the other way. Due to the increase in pH and the presence of a partial carbonic maceration, whole cluster wines tend to be softer than de-stemmed wines (depending on the region, vintage and percentage of whole cluster).”
Ted is arguing (my interpretation of his argument, of course) is that adding stems lowers the acidity (via potassium in the stems and, if allowed, carbonic maceration) enough that the wine appears softer, even tho the wine has more tannins. I don’t believe Ted is arguing that stems lower tannin levels tho.
I have more random thoughts that I’ll add later.
Wow. I had the same wines at VVV and did not notice an excess of steminess at all. I am also somewhat skeptical of stem inclusion, and am not a fan of it in Rhys higher-end wines in particular. If it’s something that magically integrates after years of bottle age, count me as bombarded by too many other choices to care. But I can’t say I was offended by these Bouchard wines at all, they were very nice.
Question/comment for those in the know:
I swear I’ve read somewhere that, based on vintage, a CA producer chooses to incorporate more whole clusters within his Pinot, but contingent on the “ripeness” of the stems themselves (Melville, maybe?). So regarding the stems themselves being “ripe,” is there truth to this and, if so, would that be a determining factor in deciding what % to incorporate?
Or am I completely nuts and making stem ripeness up?
Jesse – I’m not quite sure I know what you’re thinking of by “lesser terroirs”, but try the various Bourgognes by A. & P. de Villaine or Bize, the Mercurey by de Villaine, the village Savignys from Bize and Chandon-de-Briailles, or the Bourgogne and village wines from Confuron-Cotétidot, the village wines from Dujac, etc. and let me know if you still agree. Maybe “lesser producers” is a better formulation – and there it can carry all the way to grand cru.
The idea of Pommard with a high percentage of stems seems kind of weird to me (though I have tasted a couple).
Hmm, how familiar are you with the Pommards of de Courcel and de Montille? They rank pretty high on most lists of Pommard producers. Leroy’s Pommard, Vignots has a lot of fans, too.
This is a fascinating thread. Just Googling around I found several California winemakers extolling the use of stems, in part because it can reduce harsh, stemmy elements while adding aromatics and tannin:
Rowland Cellars favors whole cluster fermentation because destemming can break the stems, releasing more nasty stuff: “Never put clusters through a crusher, pump, or destemmer, that will twist, scrape, tear, or break the stems releasing juice from the stems in to the wine. A good stem is whole, undamaged, and mature.”
Tablas Creek went with whole cluster fermentation in 2008 because the stems were particularly ripe relative to the sugar levels. Jason Haas there wrote: “Whole-cluster fermentation tends to be gentler on the berries, and gives a more floral character and a little more juiciness to the wine. This brightness tends to be balanced by somewhat finer tannins than when the fruit is de-stemmed and more broken berries, skins and stems are put into the fermenting juice.”
Crush Pad has a video explaining why you might want to include stems with pinot, zin and syrah.
It seems that no good deed goes unpunished.
Of all years of recent memory 2009 was the year to include the stems.
As previously mentioned by Jim, stems were fully lignified in 2009 across most of the Cote.
It seems that no good deed goes unpunished.
Of all years of recent memory 2009 was the year to include the stems.
As previously mentioned by Jim, stems were fully lignified in 2009 across most of the Cote.
So does lignified mean the same in wine-making as it does in science, woodenlike?
This is a good point. One thing that stems do in a warm year is ameliorate some of the flavors brought about by increased heat. I think they provide a “lift” by giving some more elegant aromas and flavors and providing structure where some might be lacking. Stems are a complicated issue and anyone using them is certainly giving it a lot of thought in regards to how they work with certain terroirs and how the character changes with vintage conditions. It’s something we are constantly discussing. Constantly.
I think that’s true in the short term, but do you think that lasts? I’m not convinced. I’ve tasted that effect esp in Cal whole cluster pinots (not Rhys), where they waited until the fruit was quite ripe, and used stems to ‘pull things in’. But as they age, the very ripe fruit asserts itself. The effect, for me, is the wine goes from being fairly balanced young, but (somewhat unexpectedly, unless you know the wine/producer quite well) it becomes sloppy as it gets older. That’s my observation so far anyways.
’
2009 was an exceptional year, maybe, superior to 2005, despite the critics.
Maybe Bouchard had it right, for the long term.
The mantra so far is that 2009 was as good as 2005, when young, but does not have the power or stamina of 05.
My guess is as good as yours, but I have not problems drinking the stemmed 2009 in a couple of decades.
I, however, may not feel the same way about those who did not.
Rick,
I didn’t address Sylvain Pitiot’s reasons for whole stem inclusion, but those were pretty much what people have been saying above: he does it to enhance the quality and complexity of the wine through the maturation process to the type of expression of the vinyard that he prefers. Not just for its own sake.
Nigel
That’s a naked assertion. What do you have to support it?
Richard-
This is a topic that has confounded many more than myself. If you read through this thread there is a great bit of information you might find instructive.
https://wineimport.discoursehosting.net/t/cali-pinot-and-stem-inclusion/43712/1
I do not, without qualification, consider stems to be separate from the vinification process. Depending on the diligence with which grapes are crushed, stems certainly could be considered more a natural component, even when unintended, than say the oak barrels they are aged in? A valid point I think.
There is also a paucity of science here much like the rest of the discipline it regards. But I find the input from producers very interesting as it runs the gamut. Point being that I think it has been proven beneficial, the question remains as to when, why, and where?
Yes. lignified stems are brown. Unripe stems are green. Lignification.