And here is the key point! Admittedly, comparatively few regional sites are really great spots for viticulture (and with Bourgogne La Chapître becoming part of Marsannay, as was just announced, we just lost one of them), but plenty of communal sites are. And when they are really pushed to the max in terms of farming and vine genetics, they can definitely sustain the same kind of vinification and élevage as grands crus. The differences between Leroy’s Chambolle Fremières, Chambolle 1er Cru Charmes and Musigny Grand Cru, which are farmed and vinified the same way, are very far from being the sort of flagrant differences in body, depth, concentration and alcoholic degree that you often find ascending the hierarchy at other producers. Not that the Musigny doesn’t dominate, blind or seen: but it does so because it has more nuance and layers, and even qualities that are quite hard to verbalize, as opposed to simply more body, color and tannin. So as I have said before, the differences between sites are real and fascinating, but at most addresses the hierarchy is as much reinforced, at every stage of the process, as it is revealed.
A lot of contributors to this thread have drawn on various analogies to describe winemaking vs “terroir”: playing musical instruments etc. While those can be quite intuitive, I think they don’t do justice to the complexity of the process, or the decisiveness of the link between the two, which is viticulture. The biggest advantage of the historically most celebrated terroirs is that for reasons of soil hydrology, exposition and mesoclimate, it is there that one can most reliably ripen grapes. With attentive viticulture, and in vintages where you can increasingly ripen grapes anywhere at all in Burgundy almost every year, many of those advantages can be effaced. What you are left with are the ineffable nuances of site-derived character, which are probably unsusceptible to any sort of rigorous analytical study, but no less demonstrable in the glass for all that. But the point is that these days dilute, weedy communal wines are that way because they were made that way, and there is no longer an excuse for that.
As an aside, it’s interesting to look into the history of the hierarchy of appellations - which is much more recent that the identification and naming of the lieux-dits. People might want to read up in particular on how the premiers crus came into being in 1943 and the reasons for it. Christophe Lucand’s book “Hitler’s Vineyards” is worth a look in this regard. In short, appellation is history, but it need not be destiny!
Clos de la Roche is great terroir. It is amazing that a producer as great as Rousseau has not over the years produced consistently top examples of this wine given how great the vineyard is for producers like Truchot, etc.
Marc, one doesn’t need a hard core proof to make a conclusion. One can collect data points to see if the theory holds true or not.
For instance, God, as many assume, is all powerful and all good. However when you see natural calamities like COVID-19, Tsunami; its simple to conclude either “god” is not all good or not all powerful; which violates the earlier assumption.
If the terroir concept is BS, its very easy to invalidate by tasting across different wines from the same producer, keeping constant the vintage and wine-making style. And we can repeat this experiment across vintages and winemakers to collect enough data which points to the role terroir plays in wine.
Feel free to question all you’d like and make assumptions about my tasting experience. It’s my opinion that the idea of a “sense of place” is like spirituality. I agree that different plots/vineyards create different wines, but sense of place?
Good winemaking and good vineyard work can make pretty good wine from bad terroir.
Bad winemaking can make horrible wine from vines that were well cared for and that sit on good terroir.
The best wines tend to combine good winemaking, good vineyard practices, and good terroir.
It is a combination of all things that makes for a truly great wine. I believe, all things being equal that if everyone followed the same winemaking practices and the same vineyard practices, terroir (and its heirarchy) would clearly show through. That doesn’t happen though and winemaking + vineyard practices are clearly the path for a producer to express their ‘vision’ of a particular plot of land or terroir. As the last large step in the process, winemaking can clearly make or break a wine.
You can argue this topic endlessly and there is no right answer, it depends on which direction you approach it from. To me they are both variables that are part of a larger equation. You can argue endlessly over which variable is larger or more important than the other.
But no one has noted the key to terroir - optical sorters, of course.
Fascinating discussion indeed, and though I’m not well versed I Burgundy, the same thoughts should be applied to any great region - or renowned vineyard.
How similar are the various wines produced from the To Kalon Vineyard? Is there a 'marker’in the wines that ine can point to and say ‘ah, there it is’? Or can this concept only be applied to Burgundy or Pinot? Just curious.
I am certainly of the belief that ‘winemaker intent’ plays an ever-important role in this debate, and with the $$$ at stake these days, this role will increase in importance.
Some have talked about viticulture and of course this is important - but also a 'manipulation’of terroir, no? Which clones to plant or replant, which rootstocks to use, how ma y vines per acre, how aggressive shoot thinning and leaf pulling occur, etc. all help ‘change’ the potential final product.
First, my experience with Rousseau is that many times the wines are not that exciting young, but for some reason they explode later on. I have no explanation. This is an area where I wish I had more experience.
Second, if we really want to examine winemaking vs terroir we should look at Bordeaux, where Henri Martin turned Ch Gloria into a well-regarded wine. This started an avalanche of chateaux going from also-ran to big hits. I’m thinking of Branaire DuCru, Pontet-Canet, Phelan Segur and many others.
Nobody will ever win this argument. As I saw in Oregon, everyone found evidence in the study to support what they already believed. And maybe everyone was right.
I don’t think the concept of terroir is BS, but there is a lot of BS in the way people employ the term.
My experience in Burgundy says that the producers who are ‘on it’ and care do the best. Vineyards needs spraying?? Some guys get on it and others wait too long. Some people do triage and some don’t.
Are you saying someone can’t be familiar with key site derived signatures in a wine, then out of a continuum of double-blind tasting correctly identify a wine as being from that area, despite the wine being from a producer the taster is unfamiliar with?
This is one of those relapsing bullshit arguments where people feel compelled to choose a side when the answer is “both.”
Can you tell the difference between a cabernet made in the same manner by the same vintner in the same vintage, but from two different vineyards? I hope so!
Can you tell the difference between cabs made from the same vineyard in the same vintage by different winemakers? I hope so!
Or, try a Rutherford Bench cab and see if the green pepper, or whatever sense of place people notice is real, or not.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
![[soap.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7ea1fffd3ef237e8f19d17a83270ad8452218ca.gif "soap"){kind=small}
