I used to blend vineyards and best barrels to make the “best” wine. It was a lovely, and ultimately boring wine…IMO.
I don’t really see blending vs individual site as a less than or greater than situation. Some of the very best CdP back in the day was blending many grapes from many sites together, and produced some phenomenal wines. While Pinot Noir shows site, vintage, climate, and region in a special way, ultimately I believe the best wines come from great vineyard(s) farmed by experienced, intuitive farmers and cellar practices that focus first and foremost on the basics (wax on, wax off) and explore techniques/possibilities in the ferments as tools to be used in appropriate situations. Whether you blend sites or keep them separate is really just a personal choice for the producer.
The only exception to that, IMO, would be in an emerging region where there is simply a lack of awareness of the sites and wines. While blending Whistling Ridge, Fir Crest, and Durant might marry the best of both places, if no one has an awareness of how good the two sites are and what their individual characteristics, then there’s no awareness of what makes those places special. And no protection for the farmers if I choose to sell to Constellation and they opt for buying fruit from anywhere they can to make the Goodfellow WV blend a 25,000 case production from the 800-1,000 we normally make.
Edited due to an inability to finish the post on the first attempt due to 6 year old.
I love a great vineyard, call it a terroir if you will.
Crush the grapes,ferment them, barrel down and some day you bottle greatness.
On the other hand, sometimes two or more things can add up to something great. A friend made a zin from Templeton that he blended with Livermore petite syrah. Fantastic…it sold well in the UK. There are so many examples of this.
Sean Thackrey made blends that were hugely loved. He used to mock terroir, pointing out that the Champenois benefitted from serious work done by Dom Perignon, the widow Clicquot, and others. They fermented a wine twice and aged it in a bottle sur lies…Then they prattled on about terroir.
I read a study in the Journal of Wine Economics that pointed out how the price of a wine increased with specificity. In other words:
California Red…$8
North Coast Red…$12
Napa: $100
Single Vineyard Napa: $200
One time I started to sell small oak fermenters–and I mean small–one, two and three ton–as if there were no tomorrow. II didn’t understand why until somebody pointed out the winery would have more special wines to sell.
I think much of the florid nature of the article is explained by the writer’s interest in creating a story from what would otherwise be a visit to a winery. The author (whose work I’m tangentially familiar with) isn’t a wine professional - he’s looking to write something interesting by way of a visit to an interesting wine estate where an interesting person makes wine. It’s a well written article even if, to those of us who are more interested in the more prosaic detailed about the wine rather than what it says about life or Nabokov*, all the metaphors and philosophy probably isn’t what we’re interested in. I don’t think the author meant it as any kind of advertorial for the winery - the wine wasn’t the point.
I would add, I don’t think the distinction she draws between terroir and winemaker is really all that controversial, even in Burgundy. All one has to do is look at the prices of Arnoux-Lachaux’s Suchots and the Suchots made by, say, Lamarche. I don’t think anyone is arguing that terroir is sufficient to make great wine.
*The author is a Soviet emigre; the Nabokov reference isn’t too surprising!
LOL. I thought about him and almost mentioned him. Obviously, of course, his crime was not in using his apparently considerable blending skills to make wines that reportedly tasted better than their components, but in using those skills and his forgery skills to deceive people about what he was selling.
The concept of blending isn’t new or controversial whatsoever - the question is whether the end justifies the means to you personally.
This board is an interesting collection of folks for sure - and many that seem to care as much if not more about ‘the story’ than the finished product.
On the other hand, there certainly are many on this board that are ‘purists’ and to them, the concept of blending from multiple regions, for instance, seems like an abomination.
I have not had any of her Pinots but have had Lillian on a few occasions as well as her Roussanne from the Stolpman Vineyard in my neck of the woods. Though not my style personally, they are very well made and I understand their appeal.
Looking forward to seeing what more OR folks have to say . . .
Marcus,
I guess it gets down to the definition of what terroir is. That’s a fun rabbit hole.
It’s too early in the am for that!
Can one make great wine w/o terroir?? My answer is that the winemaking can unlock the terroir, if you will.
Clendenen and I made chardonnay from the Dennison vineyard in the Anderson Valley. Raj bought most of it for his restaurants. Twenty plus years later the wine is still singing.
Why weren’t the wines made by previous winemaking teams great?? Was it the wrong approach??
Sadly the chardonnay vineyard died and we moved on.
As I recall, the IMW definition of terroir includes traditional winemaking practices. But I read in --gasp-- the NY Times about a group of folks in Sherry country that they are making wines w/o flor…because they have great terroir!!
Oh, of course! You need both, there’s no question. When in the article she states that “terroir is a myth”, I read that to mean she doesn’t necessarily need specific expressions of certain vineyards to make great wines, not that she doesn’t need great sites. Which goes back to discussions regarding blending in general, which she clearly believes in. I don’t read it as a suggestion that she can take any fruit and make great wine.
Back when I attended wine industry events, like World of Pinot Noir, the IPNC, etc., Bruno d Alfonso used to entertain everyone when he was on a panel. Most of these panels are pretty tame, as there seems to be an understanding not to tell a fellow panelist he is a moron,but to be polite no matter what. . 'Well, Bob thinks puking into a barrel brings out the terroir, but I haven’t tried it…" Bruno might have said, I could pee into your fermenter and that might help.
He did often say that vineyard owners like to promote terroir because it gave them a unique sales proposition.
He would say, Give me your grapes and I will make great wine.
I don’t go that far. But I do think that understanding your soil and climate is crucial to determining what to plant and how to plant, and then how to make the wine.Once you do that,you have great terroir.
Bruno is very much a believer that great wine is made in the lab and at the winery - and though this outspoken view may seem controversial, many a ‘sought after’ wine is certainly far from ‘transparent enough to show off site’…
I’ve never been dazzled by Maggie’s wines. Certainly not typical of the Oregon characteristics that most interest me. That said, she’s developed an avid following and I’ve never tasted one that I thought was flawed or poorly made. I’m inclined to believe that her fame and popularity are an overall positive for the region.
The article is almost ridiculously pretentious…“The wine comes from a strange little vineyard a short drive from the winery, a rocky hillside watched over by circling turkey vultures.”. What happens when the vultures aren’t watching or circling? Do they add to the terroir?
Maggie deserves acknowledgement for her successes. I hope it continues. Not my thing…but more power to her and her customers.
Perhaps he would say, “give me your grapes and I will make great wine” because it gave him a unique sales position? Or maybe not exactly unique but one a lot of winemakers use to leverage their skills as something special…
The terroir vs talent debate is a bit circular as it takes both to make great wines (as Greg noted). And a great terroir can easily languish until it falls into the right hands…or disappear completely simply because there is a lack of recognition for how good the wines are.
If vineyards and winemakers achievements were actually recognized based solely on merit, media pieces like the one in the OP would be extraneous, no?
What vineyard, or other property, in the Willamette Valley isn’t watched over by circling turkey vultures? It’s like saying it’s a little vineyard a short drive from the winery where it rains every year from Novemeber to May.