Nebbiolo Michet Clone

[Guillermo_M]

Kerin O’Keefe quotes oenology professors saying that Michet is “a genetic mutation of Lampia caused by a virus.” That suggests you can’t cure it of the virus and end up with Lampia.

As a footnote, there is also Rose, long thought to be a third, lighter, more fragrant form of nebbiolo, but not recognized as a close relative but genetically distinct. It is allowed under the DOCG rules.

Unless the rules have changed after the 2010 change, as per Kerin’s book (p. 21), Nebbiolo Rosé is allowed only if it was already planted in their vineyards, and then only until the Italian National Registry of Grapevines recognizes it as a separate grape.

I haven’t tried one but I really should.

[John_Morris]

Kerin O’Keefe quotes oenology professors saying that Michet is “a genetic mutation of Lampia caused by a virus.” That suggests you can’t cure it of the virus and end up with Lampia.

As a footnote, there is also Rose, long thought to be a third, lighter, more fragrant form of nebbiolo, but not recognized as a close relative but genetically distinct. It is allowed under the DOCG rules.

Unless the rules have changed after the 2010 change, as per Kerin’s book (p. 21), Nebbiolo Rosé is allowed only if it was already planted in their vineyards, and then only until the Italian National Registry of Grapevines recognizes it as a separate grape.

I haven’t tried one but I really should.

Yes, I should have made clear that rosé was only grandfathered in for vineyards where it already existed.

I’d like to try one, too. As I pointed out above in post #11, there are now some relatively mature bottlings on the market, in addition to Cogno’s. Unfortunately, none of these come cheap!

[Guillermo_M]

…
As I pointed out above in post #11, there are now some relatively mature bottlings on the market, in addition to Cogno’s. Unfortunately, none of these come cheap!

No kidding! Added to the list of bottles one hopes a generous berserker will show up with at a gathering.

[Otto_Forsberg]

Actually Ilkka and I tasted that Cogno’s Nebbiolo Rosé a little while ago. We weren’t particularly impressed, tbh.

TN: Tschida Himmel auf Erden, Cogno Vigna Elena

[TomHill]

Me Bad. The Nebbiolo that FPS peddled for yrs was called Nebbiolo Fino, not Nebbiolo Rose.
What they label as Nebbiolo 01.
Just a brain fart on my part.
Tom


Well, what interests me:
FPS/UCDavis sold for yrs (only one) Nebbiolo that they labeled Nebbiolo Rose. Afore they brought in & cleaned Lampia & Michet.
I wonder if that’s the same clone that they call Nebbiolo Rose in Piemonte??
Only DNA could tell.
Below is what selections of Nebbiolo FPS distributes.
Tom

[Mikael_OB]

Nebbiolo Rosé is not a clone of Nebbiolo. It’s a distinct variety related to Nebbiolo, but actually research shows it’s closer to Muscat or Pinot than to Nebbiolo.

We also had an interesting discussion a year ago and I found a research that has some very detailed information on the phenotypes of Nebbiolo and where they are grown in the larger Piedmont / Lombardy area, including a very nice map: https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3245481#p3245481

While the Lampia clone might’ve originally born as a virus-infected mutation of Michet, it is more distantly related to Michet than any other of the clones (Picoutener, Spanna / Chiavennasca and the other genotypes that don’t appear to have names). Also only very few samples of the Lampia clone were found - and only in the Langhe region - whereas Michet or its unnamed sibling clones appear to be much more widespread.

I’m not sure the comment about rose is correct(?) - as I recall it has a sibling relation with Nebbiolo.

I think the clip Levi shared kind of sorted out what’s what but a very interesting thread.

I think you mixed up Michet/Lampia. Michet is the viruses version of Lampia. Where did you get information it was closer to the others?

Chiavennasca was if I recall from the clip (need to re-watch it) mutated (?) to the point that it like Rose was considered to be different.

I think you’re correct, Mikael.

Which means that [drum roll] Otto made a mistake!

(I fixed the quotes.)

Appreciate the quotes sorting, forever grateful

Thinking if I should edit the post, looks horrible…

[Mikael_OB]

I’m not sure the comment about rose is correct(?) - as I recall it has a sibling relation with Nebbiolo.

I think the clip Levi shared kind of sorted out what’s what but a very interesting thread.

I think you mixed up Michet/Lampia. Michet is the viruses version of Lampia. Where did you get information it was closer to the others?

Chiavennasca was if I recall from the clip (need to re-watch it) mutated (?) to the point that it like Rose was considered to be different.

Indeed I accidentally mixed up Michet and Lampia. However, to my understanding both are free of viruses - Michet was just born of a mutation caused by the fanleaf virus, but Michet clones by default are not infected. They of course can be, just as Lampia can be as well, but there are lots of Michet Nebbiolos planted which are completely virus free.

But on to other points; did you read the post I linked there? Or the research paper in question? There were answers to many of your points and questions (including the part that from the point of view of alleles Michet is closer to the other clones and Lampia is quite distinct). However, I can try to answer some of them here as well.

First, yes, Nebbiolo Rosé is related to Nebbiolo - exactly as I said - but as the research shows, the allelic configuration of Nebbiolo Rosé is very different to any other clone of Nebbiolo. Certain alleles in all Nebbiolo clones are A-A, whereas the same alleles in Nebbiolo Rosé’ are A-T, meaning that it has retained the A from its Nebbiolo parent and acquired another allele T from another variety, making it from allelic point of view similar to varieties like Muscat or Pinot (which also are A-T).

This is somewhat analogous to, say, red-haired people, who have two red-haired alleles (say, “R”). However, if a person has an allele for brown (“Br”) or black (“Bl”) hair, they are no longer red-haired. A person with R-R alleles is red-headed, whereas a person with alleles R-Br is similarly brown-haired as a person with alleles Br-Br. When it comes to Nebbiolo Rosé, the DNA from its Nebbiolo parent certainly gives a lot of Nebbiolo characteristics, but there are still lots of other elements that are quite dissimilar.

Here’s a chart that hopefully clarifies things a bit more:

And regarding Chiavennasca / Spanna - no, it isn’t considered to be a different variety like Nebbiolo Rosé. If you just read the research I linked, it shows that Chiavennasca / Spanna is just one of Nebbiolo’s many clones. And you seem to have confused some things, as mutations don’t give rises to new varieties, but new clones. Mutations make changes in alleles, but the genetic makeup of the DNA doesn’t change, so all different clones of one variety seem to have identical DNAs. This means that all clones of Nebbiolo have identical DNAs. However, as Nebbiolo Rosé is a cross of Nebbiolo and some other variety, 50% of Nebbiolo Rosé is similar to Nebbiolo and 50% has come from its other parent, making its DNA distinct from Nebbiolo’s. Here’s the same thing put in different words: What's the difference between a clone and a variety?

But regarding the point on mutation, it seems that both Chiavennasca / Spanna and Michet have mutated from Lampia at some point, and that Picoutener clone (only found in Aosta) is a further mutation of Chiavennasca / Spanna. However, Chiavennasca in Lombardy is completely identical to the Spanna clone grown in Alto Piemonte and Aosta, down even to the alleles, ie. in no way different to what is grown on the Piedmont side.

It’s been a long day on the road, let me digest…

Quick comments.

indeed Michet can be free of virus, sorted out.

I probably skipped or more likely forgot the DNA classes, and maybe I misunderstood you. I read your comment as Rose being genetically closer related to muscat/Pinot (hence my surprise).

As for Chiavennasca I mixed it up with Chiavennaschino (which is Nebbiolo Rose).

[John_Morris]

I can’t vouch for the veracity of any of this, which a Berserker lurker emailed me today, but I thought I’d toss it in here for fun:

Pie Franco and Ca’ Morissio folks got right. The first Monprivato, 1970, was also 100% Michet.

Curiously, there is no known Michet in Barbaresco. Who knows why.

Michet and Lampia are phenotypes. Some of the folks who bought d’Agata’s book should have read it!

Accomasso’s Rocchette Riserva has some Michet in it.

Brovia’s Brea Vigna Ca’ Mia once claimed to be 100% Michet, but today, who knows.

Tenuta Carretta made a “Vecchio Michet Riserva” in 1958 and 1961, and perhaps other vintages. Their Riserve from that time probably contained Michet as well.

There is a bunch of Michet in the sprawling Bussia vineyard. Aldo Conterno’s Vigna Colonnello is dominantly Michet, which means that Gran Bussia contains Michet as well.

Fenocchio’s Bussia normale was a Lampia-Michet blend, but the blend is now not disclosed. Its Bussia Riserva and Cannubi are 100% Michet, although earlier Cannubis were probably Michet/Nebbiolo Rosè blends. Its 2008 and 2010 Bussia Riserva 90 Di were 100% Michet, with the blend now Michet, Lampia and Nebbiolo Rosè. Its Villero is also a blend of the three. Its Castellero is a Michet/Lampia blend.

Attilo Ghisolfi’s Fantini Riserva is 100% Nebbiolo Rosè.

Scavino’s Cannubi was said to be 100% Michet.

Vajra’s Ravera is 50% Nebbiolo Rosè.

And in the “if it woulda been a snake, it woulda bit ya” department, check this out:

Vietti’s Briacca was 100% Nebbiolo Rosè.

Its Brunate is 25% Michet/75% Lampia.

Its Lazzarito is said to be 75% Michet/25% Lampia, but formerly contained 20% Nebbiolo Rosè.

Its beloved Ravera is 40% Michet, 30% Lampia and 30% Nebbiolo Rosè.

Its Rocche is 75% Michet, 20% Lampia and 5% Nebbiolo Rosè.

And kiss my fat ass, WB Michet thread, its Villero is 100% Michet!

Voerzio’s wines remain 100% cherry cola, regardless of vineyard.

[Otto_Forsberg]

I can’t vouch for the veracity of any of this, which a Berserker lurker emailed me today, but I thought I’d toss it in here for fun:

Curiously, there is no known Michet in Barbaresco. Who knows why.

This sounds a bit odd to me, seeing how the research paper I linked earlier (published in Dec 2017) shows how the researchers collected 98 Nebbiolo samples (of which 58 were from vineyards at least 70 yo to predate any purposeful clonal selection) and they found multiple samples of genotype G aka. CVT 71 aka. Nebbiolo clone Michet in Barbaresco (figure 7; the map of sample locations). If they actually collected just random samples all over Piedmont and Lombardy and still managed to acquire a relatively even distribution of genotypes D, E (Lampia) and G (Michet) - with an odd, lonely sample of B (Spanna/Chiavennasca) - from Barbaresco, I’d be pushed to say that there definitely must be more vineyards planted to Michet clone there. I highly doubt that just by random selection they’ve managed to find the only ones there are!

Here’s the link once again to those who are interested: Whole-genome sequencing and SNV genotyping of ‘Nebbiolo’ (Vitis vinifera L.) clones | Scientific Reports

[Otto_Forsberg]

Other than that, that’s a very informative and interesting list! Great stuff.

[Ken_V]

John, say hi to Bill for me.

[John_Morris]

John, say hi to Bill for me.

Construe the evidence as you like. I never reveal my sources.

[John_Morris]

I can’t vouch for the veracity of any of this, which a Berserker lurker emailed me today, but I thought I’d toss it in here for fun:

Curiously, there is no known Michet in Barbaresco. Who knows why.

This sounds a bit odd to me, seeing how the research paper I linked earlier (published in Dec 2017) shows how the researchers collected 98 Nebbiolo samples (of which 58 were from vineyards at least 70 yo to predate any purposeful clonal selection) and they found multiple samples of genotype G aka. CVT 71 aka. Nebbiolo clone Michet in Barbaresco (figure 7; the map of sample locations). If they actually collected just random samples all over Piedmont and Lombardy and still managed to acquire a relatively even distribution of genotypes D, E (Lampia) and G (Michet) - with an odd, lonely sample of B (Spanna/Chiavennasca) - from Barbaresco, I’d be pushed to say that there definitely must be more vineyards planted to Michet clone there. I highly doubt that just by random selection they’ve managed to find the only ones there are!

Here’s the link once again to those who are interested: Whole-genome sequencing and SNV genotyping of ‘Nebbiolo’ (Vitis vinifera L.) clones | Scientific Reports

So, in a single thread both you and the anonymous lurker made mistakes?

I think this thread now qualifies for the Berserker Hall of Fame!

[john_stimson]

I do also miss Bill’s fat ass, although he too can make mistakes, as can the rest of us. I personally find it a little confusing to be discussing Michet and at the same time be discussing Rose, which is a little like apples and persimmons. FWIW, the Rose dominant wines that I’ve had have mostly been wonderful.

[john_stimson]

I would also add that, not to stick it to Bill, the Marchesy di Gresy Martinegra Barbaresco has a substantial amount of Rose in it.

[john_stimson]

Martinenga. (s0me of us make mistakes).

[Mikael_OB]

I search long and hard Otto to get to the free version of the article you referred to. That was a whole now (while the WB site was being updated) and remember I never came back with some thoughts after reading it. And I will admit, I started fast read through some parts

First thing I was reminded of is that in these type of academic papers it means the world to have followed the academia around the topic for a balanced critical opinion. I read it more out of interest and have for mentioned reasons not that much to add, though I will post something shortly after this reply that might get your pants on fire (in the sense of rush to read more).

One thing I wanted to comment though is that I both see and don’t see the relevance with the chart and how much meaning it has. The reason I don’t see much meaning is the group of grapes it visually appears to be closer to - I doubt Rose taste anything like those varieties. If it doesn’t then I am not sure it actually says that much of value to us as laymen.

[Mikael_OB]

To make things more interesting here’s a recent article from Ian D’Agata about Cogno’s Vigna Elena with a vertical tasting going back to 1997; in addition to the estate history and information he also elaborate on Nebbiolo rose:

Vertical Tasting Report: Cogno Barolo Ravera Riserva Vigna Elena 1997-2016 –...

More will come in an upcoming book (Barolo: Crus People Places - mentioned to be released within shortly) but Ian shares quite a bit of his conclusions in this article already:

“… today’s level of scientific knowledge allows to consider Nebbiolo Lampia as the original Nebbiolo, Nebbiolo Michet as a virus-affected biotype of Nebbiolo Lampia, and Nebbiolo Rosé as a distinct variety, and in fact Nebbiolo Lampia’s closest relative. However, it is not so cut and dried: at some point we all have to be pragmatic. Let’s face it, for all intents and purposes, Nebbiolo Rosé is essentially a Nebbiolo Lampia with truly minimal genetic (DNA) differences: yes, those DNA differences mean that by definition it is a different species from Nebbiolo Lampia, but in practice differences between Lampia and Rosé are so minimal that the two have to be viewed as the same grape that gives slightly different wines, each with its merits and flaws (again, I analyse this at length and in extreme detail, as has never been done before, in the upcoming book Barolo: Crus People Places). It follows that for practical purposes, if perhaps not entirely correct from a scientific perspective, both Nebbiolo Rosé and Nebbiolo Michet can be considered to be biotypes of Nebbiolo Lampia that present slightly different characteristics (and so do their wines). Furthermore, recent thinking (however accurate it may or may not be) has also postulated that the lone Nebbiolo Rosé clone we know of, Nebbiolo clone CN 111, may in reality be a Nebbiolo Lampia that looks and behaves as a Nebbiolo Rosé. Whether you believe that or not, in ultimate analysis Nebbiolo Rosé is still very much a Nebbiolo in looks, in behaviour, where it lives and in the wines it gives. More perfumed and paler-coloured wines, but recognizably Nebbiolo. In fact, when Nebbiolo Rosé is hit by fan leaf virus, it morphs into a grape that looks very much like Nebbiolo Michet, or like a cross of Nebbiolo Lampia and Michet would look like.”

Another interesting take away is that “Nebbiolo Rosé is much more drought and heat resistant than Nebbiolo Lampia”.

It’s very much worth the read and there’s tasting notes for the vertical tasting notes and scores.

[Mikael_OB]

Btw, think Ian shares a lot of interesting articles through his new project