I’m not one much to worship at the altar of terroir. I am, of course, not able to distinguish a Richebourg from a LaTache blind, nor a LaSerra from a Monforte blind. I rely on Monktown attourneys for that sort of perspicacity when it comes to terroir. Heck, I couldn’t even tell MtEden Cab from MonteBello Cab blind.
But I do have some sort of sense of terroir in a gross sense. I can often identify the terroir of Lodi or SantaLuciaHighlands or ShenandoahVlly or UkiahVlly or RRV or far SonomaCoast. But probably not blind. I seriously doubt I can identify terroir down to the granularity of a vnyd by vnyd level. Given a Hudson & a LasMadres Syrah, I doubt very much I could identify which one was which blind. I just can’t measure up to the big guys who can do that.
But I was thinking the other day (well…maybe just an hour ago) that I don’t recall there being any white wines that I could identify any of the above-mentioned terroirs in. I can often pick up some of the Lodi terroir in a Calif Zin or Cab. But I have never picked up anything that I would call the Lodi terroir in a Calif Chard. Is it just me…or are there people who can do that??
So…I’m going to state, ex cathedra, that red wines display terroir much more than white wines.
So…for all you experts on terroir…right or wrong?? Not a troll…just a sincere question that inquiring minds would like to know. If you agree w/ that statement, any idea why that would be so??
Maybe a lot of what creates terroir in the final product is locked in the skins (and/or stems) and since white is rarely fermented on its skins it’s tougher to place.
I’d also imagine Lodi might be a bit hot for Chardonnay, if a grape is picked too ripe how much terroir will it display, red or white?
Definitely wrong, IMO. In fact, I might argue that white wines tend to be even more transparent to their terroir, because they are often much less subject to the choices made by the winemaker (such as higher levels of oak, tannin and color extraction, etc.). I think I can often find elements of white wines that I expect from certain vineyards (particularly those areas I drink more from, like Burgundy, Germany, and Austria).
Alan, my second statement made me feel like maybe whites display more terroir when they are grown in cool climates…but is that just the flavor of white wine grown in a cool climate?
Nolan, I was taking my time typing, so actually didn’t see your thoughts before posting mine. The truth is, it’s all a crap shoot, I was just giving one opinion I could be convinced of your argument as well, though I do think that red wines (in particular Cabernet-based wines from Bordeaux and California) tend to a higher “winemaking” factor that might compete with terroir - certainly there are exceptions.
But I absolutely agree with your thought that high ripeness levels destroy the essence of terroir - I think that is indisputable (though many will dispute)
I think that certain varieties can still produce wines of distinction in hot climates (Zinfandel, Southern Italian varieties, many Spanish varieties) but I agree that generally a hot climate or overripe grapes don’t help.
FWIW in a recent writers tasting in SF the whites of the Petaluma Gap showed more of a unified terroir then the reds. This was a pleasant surprise to me.
First, it really does depend on how much you taste a particular type of wine.
The whites I know best are German rieslings, and the differences between the subzones of the Middle Mosel and the Saar and Ruwer are pretty marked if you drink a lot of the wines. Not to mention the bigger differences between that are and the Nahe or areas right along the Rhine.
My reaction is that terroir can be as important for white wines as reds. In Burgundy the characteristics of (say) Meursault v Chassagne v Puligny v Corton-Charlemagne etc are reasonably well defined (although that doesn’t stop experienced tasters getting these wrong blind quite regularly but then saying (something like) ‘oh then that’s a very Meursault-like Puligny’). To me that’s equivalent to the characteristics of (say) Gevrey v MSD v Corton etc for Pinot Noir. And that’s without getting into Chablis, which is even more terroir-driven.
I think it gets harder in the New World, but in terms of NZ Chardonnay I could have a reasonable crack at the terroir of a bigger, riper Hawkes Bay Chardonnay v a cooler climate Martinborough, say.
I don’t see it as limited to Chardonnay. For example in Alsatian varities Hengst v Brand is often quite an interesting comparison.
Tom - I’m with John on this. I think how much you can distinguish terroir depends on how much you’ve tasted wine from a specific area, and what grape you’ve become familiar with from that area.
In a gross sense, I think you can pick up some things - I can often tell a wine from Rioja vs from Toro, but not down to the vineyard and if they used a grape other than Tempranillo, I’d be lost because I have no familiarity at all with anything else.
I’m sure that people who are really familiar with various places in Piedmont or elsewhere can make clear distinctions - I’ve seen people pick out specific vineyards in Sonoma when tasting blind, and pick out specific vineyards in parts of Hungary.
Whether the grapes are red or white doesn’t seem to matter. What matters in all the cases is familiarity. But a winemaker with a really different approach can make life much harder.
Tom, I think whites can show terroir just as well, if not better, that reds, at least on a regional/ village-identification level. Riesling may show this better than any grape I’ve tried. To a certain extent it comes down to the level at which you’re trying to perceive terroir and for what purpose.
I think that even in the New world, the terroir is evident in white wines, but as GregT says, you have to have the often need familiarity with the region to perceive it. I certainly agree that Riesling shows it. Since I am Australian, the example I first think of is Clare valley Riesling, and in particular the difference between the Polish River and Watervale sub regions. There are several makers that make wines from both so it makes for an interesting comparison.
I tend to agree that red varieties display more terrior than the whites. Maybe this is because the wine making technique seem to shine through white wines more easily than the reds.
I am always amazed by how the terroir differences that seem so real when tasting two wines side by side go away when I am tasting the two wines blind. So, I am very humble when I am discussing terroir and, based on the tastings I have been to, most of us should be also.
That being said, I tend to agree with Alan but not totally. New oak, malolactic fermentation (or not), etc., can mask terroir distinctions as much with whites as techniques can with red. Thus, while I agree on German wines, between white and red Burgundies I would say - depends on the producer.
Tom, I know that you are a fan of Ridge Zins. Have you ever tried tasting them blind against each other? Have you been able to pick out the wines. I would think if any California Zins show differences in terroir, it would be these.
Absolutely agree. Didn’t mean to imply that I could tell nearly as much blind as when tasting side by side. But in side-by-side tasting, I often seem to be able to pick up more of what I interpret as “terroir” in whites than in reds, at least for the types of wines I tend to drink, so I was responding to Tom’s OP in that sense.
I could be convinced of your argument as well, though I do think that red wines (in particular Cabernet-based wines from Bordeaux and California) tend to a higher “winemaking” factor that might compete with terroir - certainly there are exceptions.