I think the answer (if there is one) is a bit circular. Most producers these days put focus on vineyard designated wines (because that’s what their customers expect/demand, and that’s where they can charge higher prices), so that there is less blending across vineyards, and what blended wines are made come from the lesser “dregs” of the individual vineyards. So, in a way, it’s kind of self-fulfilling that single vineyard wines are “better” from most producers. There are few counter examples (like Kosta Brown’s 4-Barrel, really the only one I can think of off the top of my head).
Would some producers create “better” wines by blending the best of multiple vineyards? Maybe, but we don’t often get the chance to find out. It would be fascinating to taste a blended wine from the top Rhys sites (for example). Would a blend of Musigny and Bonnes Mares be better than the individuals? Might be dynamite, though I kind of doubt many people have every tried that
Not a make it or break it thing for me, but I really do like producers that own multiple vineyards and make SVDs that are distinct to that parcel’s terroir. Always fun to taste them across the spectrum.
Here is a great example:
Charles Joguet and Domaine Roches Neuves as well, check it out.
I like a single vineyard wine. They are fine to get more of that sense of place but great wines, for me, are usually blends. Plus blends are usually less expensive so…
There was a NYT article from last year titled “The Wrath of Grapes” about the In Pursuit of Balance movement where sommelier / winemaker Rajat Parr had a quote that illustrates the point I was originally trying to get at. From the article (emphasis added): “As we hiked past stick-figure vines, their leaves shivering in the gusts, Parr explained that he wanted the specifics of the place — the shale in the soil, that cutting Pacific wind — to be evident in the taste of the wine itself. He hates the idea of blending top-quality grapes from different vineyards into the same bottle, which many producers do. Those wines might taste good, he admitted, but they lack depth and intrigue. ‘I don’t believe in the ‘best’ — that the best grapes from different areas come together and create the ‘best’ wine,’ he said. ‘I think there’s more to wine than that.’”
I admit to often getting wrapped up in the romantic ideal of having an amazing wine that comes from one particular micro-site of land. I think the idea that has been propagated around “wine being made in the vineyard” and that the vineyard is more important than the winemaker goes to further this ideal. This is especially true of vineyards I have personally visited where I can say I’ve literally seen the exact single plot of dirt this wine came from.
However, logically it seems to me that if you really took the best of what a vineyard can produce and blend it with the best of what another great vineyard can produce it can create something even better than the sum of the parts. I know there are at least a few examples of these “uber blends” that sit “above” a winery’s single vineyard offerings (e.g. Realm’s The Absurd). I wonder though if the lack of a single place to tie these wines to somehow makes them less special in some people’s eyes.
As stated above, it probably depends on the vineyard holdings and how they blend. Great source should equate to great wine, correct? But blending…for claret wines, aren’t most Bdx properties non-contiguous, and the wines are blends? In napa, Beringer offers some pretty fine SVs, but is the PR blend their best wine? Even for properties producing a SV, is it not true that blocks/ lots are isolated and blended?
If you like it, drink it!
The To Kalon plot has shrunk since the early days before Mondavi was even in business. It wasn’t called To Kalon then but to answer your query they haven’t added anything that wasn’t already there. Have yet to see a bottle that says To Kalon on the label where the fruit did not originate from the Oakville site. That would be misleading and likely illegal.
I’m in this camp (Camp David! Ha! Okay, that was a poor stab at humor.). Maybe this is neophyte thinking, but wouldn’t a blend be better suited to minimizing faults? Say you had grapes from 3 vineyards, where vineyard A was very acidic, vineyard B was very ripe, and vineyard C was very tannic. Wouldn’t it make sense to blend these to make a product that suits your winery’s style?
From a broad sweeping branding perspective, origin is important to consumers. They want to know the grape from the vine from the block from the vineyard and will pay for that. If you want to get a premium from a blend you have to brand it(usually naming it a trademarkable name). If it is just an AVA blend it will be difficult to push beyond the cost of the former two as it seems like it is a blend that didn’t make it into the SVD or AVA special named blend. This my or may not have anything to do with the quality comparisons of the wines. It all comes down to story and can you show the premium value through the branding. Kinda talking in circles but it is getting late after a long day of pressing.
He hates the idea of blending top-quality grapes from different vineyards into the same bottle, which many producers do. > Those wines might taste good, he admitted, but they lack depth and intrigue. > ‘I don’t believe in the ‘best’ — that the best grapes from different areas come together and create the ‘best’ wine,’ he said. ‘I think there’s more to wine than that.’"
Uh, right.
That kind of stuff is what makes so many people think wine talk is mostly BS. It is, if they’re referring to lines like that.
The only reason you’d prefer a single-vineyard wine is because the vineyard itself produces a unique expression, and you want to geek out over that.
That said, SVD wines are often the highest quality wines made by a producer, because lesser barrels are kept out of the SVD bottling and blended into AVA wines, so often there is a real reason for SVD to be higher quality.
All that said, SVD is often a scam, because wineries know a single-vineyard bottling can fetch more money, so they designate vineyards that are in no way unique or special. There’s a lot of that going on. Younger vineyards which haven’t been around long enough to establish a track record for themselves are particularly suspect, but that doesn’t mean some of those vineyards won’t eventually be legendary.
Generally not every single vineyard produces better wine than a cuveé …
(I´m talking about European producers only …)
… BUT the producers now their vineyards and qualities … so when one does bottle a vineyard seperately there IS a reason (better mean terroir, older vines, distinctive character etc. -
only a fool would bottle a weak vineyard seperately)
For me a single vineyard - most of the times, but there are exceptions - shows more personality and character - and usually has also more potential, ageability etc. - it is also possible to select fruit from older vines or riper grapes for the special cuvee … and declassify the rest into the general bottling …
A few producers refuse to make SV bottlings - Chave is one example, but he only bottles between 30 and 70% of the complete harvest under his own label - and regularily sells off the rest anyway …
so for him the cuvee is a complete expression of the whole hermitage hill …
I´ve often tasted through his portfolio of casks from SVs before blending … one can argue if (e.g.) the Bessards alone is more powerful and intense … but the final blend is definitely more elegent and balanced …
Great points Mel. I would add to the ABC reference that Isabelle and Knox differ from vintage to vintage probably even more so than if they were to SVs. Ive tasted many of both from multiple vintages on the same occasion and enjoyed the contrasts. I love them all, some just more than others such as the 99 Knox which is really drinking well these days.
My first thought when I read the initial post was to think of my friend, Burt Williams who made SVDs so incredibly popular and yet just recently, I had the 97 Sonoma Coast which was 70% Summa Vineyard and 30% Coastlands Vineyard and it was the bomb!! My fav of all time is the 1997 Williams Selyem Rochioli with 92 and 95` a very close 2nd and 3rd.
All wines are technically “blends”. Different picking times, barrels, parts of the pressing, yeasts even. Maybe somebody will come out with a micro lot wine: one row of the vineyard, one barrel, one part of the pressing…
If you call it already a “blend” when the grapes are from different vines … or the must is filled into different barrels …
Seriously - there is a reason why a vineyard has a certain designation - usually certain qualities are the same over the whole (or a special part of the) vineyard - and different from other vineyards (I´m talking about France in particular).
Granted, large vineyards can differ from one part to another - and there can be vines of different ages … or riper and less ripe grapes … e.g. in Clos Vougeot some producers own 2 or 3 parcels in different expositions - on top, in the middle or low down the hill … then we can talk about a cuvee if they make ONE wine out of it -
but (e.g.) La Romanee has only 0.85 ha, it´s harvested in less than a half day, and fermented in one single vat … so what …
Faiveley´s Musigny (until 2015) was made from 0.0338 ha and yielded a half barrel … a cuvée?
Yes, this is generally my thought. My belief is that a winemaker secures grapes from a well regarded vineyard, and probably pays a bit more for the grapes than a lesser regarded vineyard. Therefore the winemaker decides to feature that vineyard on the label (as a SVD) to increase demand and get a good price for the wine. When the winemaker gets the grapes, the best ones go into the SVD wine, and the good grapes that don’t make the cut are blended into a multi-vineyard blend, like an appellation wine.
So, is the SV wine better than the MV wine because of the singularity of the vineyard, or because the best grapes went into that bottling? What if you took the very best grapes from 4 highly regarded vineyards? Maybe it will be even better that the 4 individual wines, but then you can’t really market it very well, unless you put all 4 vineyards on the bottle - which could be wordy.
But then again, maybe aspects of the 4 different vineyards will clash with each other, then you’ve blended the beauty out of the wine. So, you had better know what you are doing with the blending process. Maybe it’s just easier to stick with the SVD wine.
Expression of distinct sites (oodles of examples from all around the world, most famously Burgundy, but just as true in California pinots or German riesling).
Paul Draper believes you can only produce great wine from a single site; that blending inherently washes out the character of a wine.
In blending, there is probably a temptation (not always succumbed to) to mix in some lesser grapes to increase the volume, while with single-vineyard bottlings the best lots are isolated while lesser lots are sold separately.
In our time, SVD has great marketing cachet.
Cons:
Many classified growth Bordeaux chateaux have non-contiguous vineyards.
Penfolds Grange is a blend, from rather distant fruit sources, as I recall.
Some old-time Barolo makers like Bartolo Mascarello believed/believe that blending complementary vineyards yields the best final product.
Edmunds St. John’s Wylie-Fenaughty syrahs – to my mind some of the best syrahs California has ever produced – were a blend of two vineyards some distance apart.
Some people believe blended Scotch is at least the equal of single malts.
My conclusion: It all depends, on the wine and what you’re looking for.
German producer Selbach-Oster does several wines where they pick the vineyard, all at once, and put the results into a single wine that is the result of that pick. No blending, no selection. It’s what came from the site in that vintage.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}