There are people out there not making 16% alc cabernets with 4.1 pH…like Kapcsandy, whose wines rarely hit 14% alc. Or you have Au Bon Climat, making age worthy pinots since 1982. The Sanford and Benedict vineyard has produced many great wines since 1976 for many wineries.
The To Kalon Vineyard and the vineyards on the Oakville/Rutherford Bench have a great track record. For example, Far Niente has not been mentioned here…I have been ageing their cabernets for some time and they age beautifully.
Simi 1935 was more interesting in how well it survived rather than as wines in its own right. I have had the Cabernet several times going back to the eighties, and always felt that it was at best pleasant. A half bottle of the Zinfandel was a little better. At best around 90 points, though it did fade quickly.
There were a lot of the 1935s released. Does anybody know why they suddenly came on the market, and how sure we are they are indeed from 1935?
I first tasted the older Simi wines in the mid 70s. When Russ Green bought the winery they found a big stash 35s and 37s. Mark is right that these wines are more remarkable for surviving than as pieces of wine genius. I do think Simi cabernets don’t get the credit they deserve. I’ve had the 74, the 78, and lots of older wines made under the Zelma Long era and they have aged beautifully.
Of course, American winemaking is a lot younger than that of Europe. Most early vineyards were planted in warmer areas that favor cabernet over pinot and usually zinfandel over cabernet. Pinot didn’t really take off until the 198os.
But since then many vineyards have shown continued success. eg, Rochioli, Allen, Dehlinger, Hudson, Hyde, S and B, Bien Nacido, Precious Mountain, Summa, and many vineyards in the Dundee Hills of Oregon.
I would ask of Nathan, How many vineyards in France could have produced fine wines on a regular basis w/o chaptalization?? Ditto Germany…How many vineyards and wineries in Italy have a serious track record that predates 1970?? The wines of Barolo and Barbaresco are completely different from what was made in the '60s. When we talk of Spanish wines, aren’t we usually talking of wine companies that make branded wines from a variety of vineyards? This is especially true of wines made before 1990.
Don’t all consumer products have to be made to please the public - or at least a sufficiently significant share of it. I know I only buy wines in styles that please me.
Nathan - There’s no reason for a vineyard soil to get “exhausted” (depleted) other than bad practices. You can replenish (or dramatically improve) the soil by adding organic matter and nurturing the soil web. You can deplete it through indifference or ignorance. You can kill it with toxins. You can maintain a sub par level with a dependence on superficial products. Etc.
I’ve definitely read opinions of Napa sites being “killed” by long-term heavy toxin use. That might be why there are so many $40-60 Napa Cabs that show virtually no site expression, and rely on oak for complexity. At the same time there are plenty of excellent Napa Cabs (and other CA wines) coming from long producing vineyards that obviously haven’t been depleted.
So, if anything, this is a reason to stay away from myopic bean counter wines and look to producers who care about what they’re doing.
What do you mean by “black” vineyards? Pinot Noir? Zinfandel?
I would have thought that Rancho Cucamonga had Pierce’s Disease, being in the far corner of San Bernardino County, abutting Los Angeles County, but the city seal does have some grapes on it:
What are these toxins?? Usually this means pesticides. Of course, here and elsewhere organic farming has become big over the past 25 years. Let’s not forget that products for control of pests and mildew are very popular in Europe too. It is also said that the move from horses to tractors has compacted the soil too much.
But how much does this impact quality?? I don’t see any evidence that the excessive amounts of fertilizer and pesticides put into the ground by people in France hurt quality. Usually the problem is either over cropping or bad weather.
Hardly a one of these great wines was made using bio dynamic or organic farming. And I don’t think the Mays used horses to work their vineyard for Joe Heitz.
A healthy soil web nurtures a plant’s roots. It’s a complex ecosystem that performs all sort of functions including making nutrients available to roots and holding nutrients, so they don’t get flushed out as water passes through.
Perhaps some sites can deliver despite a lot of punishment, but that doesn’t mean they can do that forever. It’s at least speculative by some wine writers that many vineyards have lost much of their terroir due to heavy use of toxins.
On the flip side, there are newer vineyards where the site itself is great, but the soil health wasn’t there (or, even, there wasn’t much in the way of soil at all). A regime including compost adds, intelligent use of cover crops, no toxins, minimal compaction, have transformed resultant the wines. No more problematic (stuck) fermentations. Greatly increased complexity.
Seriously folks, there is a of of speculation by wine writers over a lot of things, but they used to say that vines had to suffer. Now are they calling Amnesty International? What is right? Making the vines suffer so the roots go deep into the soil or lavishing them with rich soil??
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Burgundian who had just moved to Napa about modern winemaking equipment. All the great wines we have discussed (and many outside the bounds of this discussion, like 64 La Tache) made before 1980 were made with what we would now call primitive machinery and old-fashioned notions of winemaking…from vineyards that suffered.
It’s not a contradiction. It’s not adding excessive nutrients, which can cause problems. (Though you might want to address a deficiency.) Plant roots depend on microbes in the soil to break down nutrients and make them available. Kill those microbes and you get sickly vines, not lean, mean, fighting machines.
I’m not talking about rich soil, I’m talking about great sites, Healthy soil doesn’t have to be rich soil.
A lot of what you’re talking about relates to water availability. There are excellent strategies that encourage roots to grow deep. Dry farming, or as close to it as possible, will yield the best grapes, as well as not wasting water.
It was posited that wines and vineyards in the US aren’t as good as they could be because of toxins in the soil. This is something easy to claim and hard to disprove or prove. My point was that the same issues exist in Europe too.
It is said that canopy management mistakes, ie the so-called California sprawl, was responsible for vegetal wines in the latter half of the 70s and the early 80s.
It is also said that the problem with Heitz martha s Vineyard is that the vineyard had to be replanted (it got old) and Joe Heitz died (ditto)…You could say the same thing about Henri Jayer. He died and his nephew is a different person.
Speaking of vines that suffered, these vineyards were planted next to a Dow Chemical plant. When they picked at night, nobody needed to light up the vineyard.
Jay, nothing like a hint of Boraxo in your wine. Ronald Reagan woulda drunk it.
Well… My first response was in reference to great sites becoming depleted. You’re somehow reading me talking about how to keep those marginal site sustainable as some sort of massive conversion to massive fertility.
Dan Berger is one of the writers who talked about large scale damage to Napa terroir due to excessive use of toxins.
Think about vineyard soil like the human digestive system. We can take a lot of punishment and still survive. We can and do eat toxins. We’re designed to process and deal with a certain amount of toxins. But, while we’re okay if our intake isn’t too much, if we do consume too much we can have serious problems. Or, if we gradually consume small amounts of a toxin that doesn’t flush out, it will build up over time until we reach a point of organ failure.
So, you can be proactive and try to avoid toxins as much as possible in the first place. You can deal out punishment to - well, we’re talking about great vineyards here, right? So, you can be lazy and hope the damage you’re doing to the soil web of your great vineyard won’t have any negative impact on your wines. Or, you can recklessly apply toxins that don’t easily flush out and guarantee you’ll have a very serious problem at some time.
Berger might have been speculating that the drastic decline he saw from certain vineyards was from heavy use of toxins over time, but, so? Two decades later there’s more evidence than ever how that can happen. Vineyard managers are smarter than ever. There’s more awareness, so better strategizing.
Making vines suffer is a crude conceptualization, the best one could do in a time of ignorance. So, marginal site? Yes. Minimal fertilizer? Yes. Minimal water use? Yes. Actually making them stressed to the point they’re literally suffering? No. That would lower the quality of the grapes and the life span of the vines.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
