It will produce riper, more fruit driven, and more consistent wines.
If technology were simply the driver of quality, then there would be no need for, or occurrence of, the “natural” wine movement. Because technology delivers as many boring wines or over done wines as it does improved wines. Primarily it allows producers to make more volume of wines safely than they ever used to be able to.
It’s very easy to associate technology with better wine, but at the same time that we were advancing technology, another change was also happening. Technological advances followed it though, not the reverse.
That change is revenue, specifically dollars per bottle.
Lalou Bize-Leroy isn’t known for her technology. She is known for innovative, and very labor intensive farming.
Organic farming isn’t technology based, it’s labor based. Same with biodynamic farming.
The single biggest impact for quality on my wines, is having the revenue to make them in an extraordinarily intensive way…that actually uses less technology, not more.
I can agree that the winemaking today is much better than it was 50-60 years ago, because now you can drink Barolos and Barbarescos upon release, they are wonderfully fruity, brimming with varietal character, can be quite accessible already upon release, yet can age remarkably well too.
Whereas 50-60 years ago it was not only legally required, but instead you actually had to age the wines in large oak casks for years on end just to soften down those tough tannins that were the result of both lesser vintages, in which grapes failed to fully ripen (resulting in very tough tannins) and poor viticulture, which resulted in lower yields, tougher tannins and less reliable ripening. And even then you had to age these bottles for another decade or two before the wine had softened up enough so it would be actually drinkable, not just an academic curiosity. Many classic Barolos and Barbarescos were not made to be drinkable young - that’s why you’d have Barberas, Dolcettos and Freisas!
So I guess winemaking and viticulture are better today than they were back then - we can have wines that can be appreciated closer to the release. However, thanks to this change, I’m still not sure whether these wines will age as gracefully - as the combination of prolonged oxidative aging, ample tannins, higher acidity and lower phenolic ripeness really made these wines some of the most ageworthy dry red wines there are - but also, can these contemporary wines evolve as much and develop as much complexity and depth as these tannic monstrosities from the 1960’s that required multiple decades to make them truly drinkable and enjoyable? What are the criteria that measure the quality of winemaking?
I agree that it would generally diminish the quality of the Normale, but I think there is another specific circumstance to consider. There could be situations where the “better” grapes are also just different and combining them with grapes from the other vineyards diminished both and removed a bit of the sense of place either could have when offered in separate bottlings.
I imagine the most particular of winemakers are adding single vineyards to the lineup specifically because they find a distinct sense of place in that vineyard and allowing that to shine may actually give the normale a more clear identity as well, especially if there is a great deal of likeness to the remainder of the vines used for the normale.
I like this thread. To address the two sub-threads going on here:
I think that single vineyard offerings in particular do not necessarily confer quality on the SVD wine at the expense of other wines in the range. Rather, SVD wines provide something interesting or distinctive that is worth carving out for its difference. But whether or not it’s “better” is often a matter of taste. More expensive wines in a range may also see winemaking differences, especially here in CA - in oak regimen (usually more new) or extraction (usually more) or barrel age (usually more). That will produce a different wine, but whether it’s better or not is definitely a matter of taste.
Another point is that for some medium-sized wineries, the “normale” wine is the way that most people discover or drink them, and a lot of time and thought and good fruit goes into maintaining a high level of quality that ends up being a much better QPR (and sometimes even higher absolute quality) than other lines in the range. I’m sure we can all think of examples of this.
My general opinion is that modern winemaking (last few decades) has raised the floor enormously but has not done much to the ceiling. Some people in some places “figure it out” at various different times, and much of the change at the top seems to a case of stylistic or cultural preferences rather than “quality”. There is less terrible wine and there is more good wine. I’d say that there’s also more great wine, but I think it’s hard to make the argument that the greatest wines are now greater.
Many times the SVDs are pretty low quantity compared to the normale - will those 50-100 cases really affect the normale if production of that is in the thousands?
As stated above - those specific SVDs might also have qualities that might not ‘work’ when combined with the normale. Just because something is good on its own doesn’t mean it works well with a team. You might be losing some great qualities that end up blended out, or conversely you might have several SVDs that clash
Thinking a bit more on this thread, the “technology” that has most improved winemaking is, in my opinion, communication.
Information is shared at a far more rapid rate than it used to be and for almost any problem a winemaker faces there are academic and anecdotal offerings available to research at your fingertips.
Since we’ve narrowed it down to Barolo, I’ll stick to that. Here’s my view. The question presumes that the single vineyard bottlings are “stealing” from the normale; and not just from today’s normale but from what would have gone to make the normale of yesteryear. I think it’s not true, at least in general.
Let’s skip the whole question of what a single vineyard is in terms of terroir and if huge vineyards are inherently blends, but you can imagine the consequences it has on the topic at hand.
Let’s use the example of Giacomo Conterno. Until 1974, they didn’t own any vineyards. They bought all the grapes they used to make the Barolo normale and the Monfortino Riserva from growers in Serralunga d’Alba and/or Monforte d’Alba. That means the sources probably changed year to year. But, perhaps more importantly, it means that today’s sources may not even include those sources they stopped buying from starting with the 1978 vintage, when they moved all their production to the grapes of their own vineyard Cascina Francia, in Serralunga d’Alba, which they had bought four years prior. Notice that that means that, from the 1978 vintage on, the Monfortino Riserva which used to have Monforte grapes at least some of the time before then, has been made exclusively with Serralunga grapes (exclusively from Cascina Francia up until the 2015 vintage when they started including Arione, also from Serralunga). Giacomo Conterno bought the Cerretta vineyard, also in Serralunga, in 2008 and bottles a single vineyard from there too (it doesn’t go into the riserva). So, yeah, the fruit in their Barolo normale is different from the 1960’s, but it’s not because the single vineyards are stealing from the normale.
Now let’s turn to F. Alessandria. The only wine that F. Alessandria makes from the Monvigliero vineyard is the Barolo Monvigliero, as they’ve done since 1978. There’s no (or at least they don’t admit to any) sorting or declassification to send Monvigliero juice into the Barolo normale, which no longer exists by the way. Now the equivalent to their normale is called Barolo del Comune di Verduno and includes grapes from 5 vineyards: Pisapola, Riva Rocca, Campasso, Rocche dell’Olmo and Boscatto, none of which has single-vineyard designate Barolos to compete with the blend. They also make two other single-vineyard Barolos: San Lorenzo di Verduno and Gramolere (which is in Monforte). Up to the 2016 vintage, there was declassified Gramolere fruit going into the F. Alessandria Barolo normale. No longer. Some younger Pisapola Nebbiolo gets declassified into the Langhe Nebbiolo Prinsiòt, which also gets fruit from the Neirane and Sotto Orti vineyards which do not contribute to any Barolo. So, there’s certainly no stealing from the “normale” going on here in terms of declassification. You could argue that the vineyards have changed (I don’t know when they acquired each of their vineyards or what they used them for) but that’s why I started with the example of Giacomo Conterno as a negociant until the 1978 vintage.
Other Barolo producers will vary in their own ways but it’s probably fair to say that they’ll be substantively similar as to the conclusion.
Others addressed this well already. If you really want that higher quality wine that requires decades, that takes you far into the realm of outlier producers. There are just so many economic incentives against that. Surely, consistency of quality is way up and there’s a lot more understanding and capability. There are trends, metrics, practices of convenience, over-corrections and bad guesses that interfere. I’d put uniform ripeness dead center. It’s an over-correction in a move to quality, and it’s also much easier to farm. But, you lose complexity. A well-managed broader range of ripeness from a great site should be capable of making better wines, more consistently than the old days. Perhaps (I would think) that can be done, with winemaking choices to that end, while also being wines that show better young. I’m confident some producers are doing that, but only time will tell.
To respond to you and Marcus, I wasn’t claiming that modern technology assures better wines. We’ve seen too often how that is not true, in Bordeaux and California, for instance.
I’ve had my share of very old Barolos that were surprisingly – even shockingly – good. But I’ve also had a lot that were dead on arrival (dominated by coffee aromas and tastes, lots of VA). I think it’s easy to remember the highs and forget that it was poor area, the wines didn’t command good prices, and lot of people had dirty old botte and probably left their wines too long in cask. It was hard to be selective, as producers today can afford to be.
On the other hand, as you said, they weren’t afraid to pick less ripe – or were forced by cooler vintages and poor vineyard management. With hindsight, up to a point, that could be a blessing.
I’m sure many nebbiolos since ~1990 won’t turn out as many wines of the 60s and 70s. But I am not at all sure that the ratio of good to bad will be any worse than it was then. We can only wait and see.
Yes. it depends on what people mean by “technology” as if it’s an all-encompassing word. Part of it is better data management and communication, as others have noted. There’s more understanding of viticulture - things like leaf-pulling, based on research. There is temperature-controlled fermentation, there’s better storage, cleaner wine making, better transportation, better corks. Technology doesn’t always mean that fruit is picked over-ripe and sugar and color are adjusted.
And Alan made a good point. If you’re going to bulk off the wine, that’s one thing but you may have very good wine that you want to use to show the single vineyards, but also to show the blend, that you think may be better. That’s traditionally been the practice in places like Rioja. And I believe that’s what Conterno’s Gran Bussia was about.
Hi John, apologies if it seemed as if I was responding to you. I didn’t see your post as a claim, and was just putting my own thoughts out there in response to Max’s question in his post.
I would respond to you though that in terms of not being afraid/being forced to picking decisions on under ripe fruit is more than balanced(by a factor of 1000) by modern winemakers being afraid of picking fruit that isn’t over ripe, or forced into it by hotter vintages and bad vineyard management(that the winemakers probably asked for).
Far, far, far more often in current times picks are being made that require enormous rectification, like 20-30% water adds, than vignerons of of yesteryear were forced into green picks.
Great post Wes, though I am not sure that wines that will age the way that classic 20th century old world wines(Burgundy, Bordeaux, Piemonte) do will be able to show well.
IMO, the amazing tertiary flavors of these regions are a result of bitter and astringent components evolving into more palatable compounds. I’ve never seen a wine drink well young, and evolve the same type of complex nature.
Lot of great stuff here. My only quibble is the assumption that someone buying fruit would change sources regularly. Perhaps this was the case, but it could easily be the opposite as well.
I think that presupposes cleaner cellars, better transportation, better temperature and humidity control, various machines allowing easier work on higher slopes (having just been to Chablis!), more ability to source preferred barrels, etc, which Barolo producers of the 60s would mostly not have had.
Not sure if I’m understanding this correctly - if a wine drinks well young it can’t age well? It has to start off balance to eventually balance out, or something that starts off balanced has to change over time and becomes unbalanced?
I like the Bordeaux model where they typically keep the Grand Vin the Grand Vin and instead create 2nd and 3rd wines to place their 2nd- and 3rd-tier grapes, in the process elevating their Grand Vin while getting more of a premium from the 2nd and 3rd wines than they would from bulking it out. As opposed to ever-more finely dividing their vineyard holdings to express terroir or whatever (bit of a shibboleth imo)
I read that Xavier Gerard was obliged to create his La Landonne cuvee because he needed to justify a retail price point in the $200+ range because that was the only way the market would take his overall brand seriously. Well it seems to have worked as he is now proliferating his cuvees, but I can’t help but think the regular Cote Rotie will have suffered as a result of having a more limited palette of grapes to choose from when blending it. I realize he must respect the market forces at play, and in any case I and many others here am privileged enough to have access to his smaller cuvees, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it
And the same, somewhat regrettably, is happening to Jamet with their new Landonne cuvee in addition to the long-standing Cote Brune (The oldest vines! In one of their most respected vineyards! Made in the best years only! Available for a reasonable price of $600+ per bottle! Get in now before it inflates to the moon!)
Of course you’d be right by the standards of today. But Giacomo Conterno’s Barolo normale and Barolo Monfortino riserva were made with purchased grapes from 1934 to 1977. That is, starting at the height of Mussolini’s power, through WWII, and beyond.
As Kerin O’Keefe tells it in her book, the fascists discouraged grape production, prioritizing wheat. For other reasons, Fontanafredda went into bankruptcy in 1930 leaving many long time farming partners in the lurch (and likely teaching them not to put all their eggs in one basket though she doesn’t say that). WWII brought most production to a halt and when it ended the vineyards were in ruins. Demand for Dolcetto and Barbera was far more than for Barolo and prices were basically equal. There was almost no Barbaresco produced from the late 1920s to the late 50s. From the time the war ended to the 70s, everyone was abandoning rural Piedmont for the urban factories. The rebirth of demand in the 70s is precisely what led Conterno to buy its first vineyard, Cascina Francia, in 1974, before it got hard for them to get their pick of grapes.
Kerin tells the story of the relationships between farmers and negociants in the 1960s and most of the 1970s here. Notice the last paragraph of the first page addresses the point almost directly.
That’s definitely an informative and interesting post. As much as we’ve commented on technology in todays wines and it’s relationship to quality, political stability is a luxury that Is easy to take for granted. I certainly have.
Of course, the irony is that, in the official classification. all of Bussia is now treated one vineyard, so the Gran Bussia is now a single-vineyard bottling!
