Most all of us worship at the altar of old-vines (some even worship at the altar of “terroir” or “varietal typicity”). We “know” that old-vines give superior wine to young-vines. We’ve tasted so many stunning wines, particularly Zin, that were made from old-vines. We know that old-vines have very deep root systems that allows them to bring moisture to the vines in dry yrs. These deep root systems search out sub-surface materials to feed the vines. Because of their age, old-vines naturally have smaller yields and we “know” that wine quality varies inversely to the yield. These are all beliefs that I can go along with.
So, my question of the day is: What makes old-vines old-vines?? What makes them so special?? Is it strictly because of the old-vine root system or the entire old-vine package itself?? If it’s the latter, why is that??
There is a reason for my query…it’s not just the sign of an idle mind on a Fri morning.
DeRoseWnry in the CienegaVlly advertises its Viognier as coming from 100+ yr old vines. Say whot?? Viognier didn’t come to Calif until the early-'80’s time frame. So how could this be??
Turns out, they top-grafted a small block of their certifiable old-vine Zinfandel over to Viognier some 10-15 yrs ago.
So…is this really old-vine Viognier because it is attached to an old-vine root system?? Or is it not??
You will, of course, be graded on your answer at the end of this thread and those folks w/ a correct answer will be amply rewarded.
I have asked that same question at wineries in a couple of different countries and have never received a consistent answer. No one seemed to think it was a regulated term, so anyone can decide if old rootstock qualifies the wine as old-vine, even if the scions are young. And what about the vice versa? And at what age is either the rootstock or scion old? I guess one needs to ask, wine by wine, but it would be nice to know details on a back label if the front label says old-vine.
So you are basically asked if the vigor comes from the root stock or the budwood. My SWAG would be the rootstock calls the shots and the budwood follows suit. Not sure if it would make grafted Viognier any more special I guess someone would have to compare to the donor vines.
No regulation on the use of old vines though. Guess you just have to know/trust your producer.
I think different producers use the term by their own definition. I think below is the clearest explanation I’ve found for a vineyard which I know is a basis for an “old vines” label. Mike Dildine could probably chime in here with a pretty good explanation.
There are several possible explanations. Firstly, vines that produce lousy wines are more likely to be abandoned or replaced - so an old vine is more likely to be he right variety n the right location. Secondly, some varieties like Zinfandel tend to overcrop when young, but produce fewer more concentrated berries when older.
i get this question a lot in the tasting room as we are currently pouring our Bedrock Vineyard Zinfandel.
as it was explained to me, there isn’t a legal definition (at least by TTB standards) to the term “Old Vine” (or "Ancient Vine, “Century Vine,” etc.) as it pertains to age of the vines.
i usually tell guests that my personal definition is that if the vines went in the ground before Prohibition, then they’re Old Vines.
Not to divert the discussion, but I’ve always wondered: if low yields are good for wine grapes, shouldn’t they be good for all other kinds of fruits and vegetables? Are we missing out on the best tomatoes by not thinning most of the crop on each plant? Or peaches, apples, squash, etc.?
Alan - We grow dry-farmed tomatoes commercially just North of Santa Cruz. Lower yields, takes longer to mature, but you can definitely taste the difference. Somewhere out in cyber-space there is even an old Tom Hill tasting note for them from the WCWL site.
OK! How do I get some of these? I haven’t been able to find a tomato anywhere in California as good as what I can remember from eating a ton of them on the French Mediterranean back in 1995. Even the “heirlooms” are weak. I grew three small varieties in pots in my backyard this summer, but the vegetation looked like hell, though two of them produced some nice fruit.
Alan - more complicated than I have time to get into at the moment but your question is just as relevant as Tom’s and deserves another thread.
As to the reason old vines are “better” - I am not aware of any science supporting that. The great mass of the rootstock is always in the top six feet of soil. The fact that some roots may go deeper doesn’t change the fact that whether young or old, the main part of the root system is where nutrients will be, i.e. near the top where organic matter accumulates and breaks down. After a certain age, the root mass stays relatively constant.
The top of the vine of course has been cut down and pruned since it was planted, except in the cases of those old “bush vines” that exist here and there in the world. And those vines seem to be able to self-regulate, so people love to get their fruit. If a vine is pruned to a couple of canes or spurs each year, and tipped and trained to grow on wires, it’s perhaps a bit like chickens that are raised in pens and that never see the outdoors. Those aren’t necessarily healthy conditions for chickens and i don’t think it’s healthy for vines to be pruned away each year. Woody plants store carbohydrates in their woody parts and in their roots - that is what sustains them in the spring until photosynthesis can begin.
It’s not clear that there’s anything magical at all about the older vines and perhaps a better term would be “mature” vines. Much of a vine can and is regenerated each year, including roots, so a lot of what happens is that the vine reaches fully-functioning capacity when it’s mature and from that point, I have never read anything that explains why it would be better in each successive year. In fact, the people who have done a lot of research on this very subject, in Priorat for example, are convinced that there’s nothing inherently better about something that is old vs something much younger.
But it’s still kind of cool to have vines that were planted 100 years ago.
To put the discussion above in context, by and large, the oldest living Pinot Noir vineyards in California were planted in the 1970s (there are exceptions, Hanzell was planted in the early 50s). California’s truly ancient vineyards are predominately Zinfandel and mixed-black field blends containing Zinfandel, where living vines date back to the late 1880s.
So they are defining old as anything 35+ years as being old (having just turned 40 myself, I’m reluctant to think of anything younger than me as old).
Personally, I don’t give too much credence to the old vines make better wines theory. Some of the better wines for me locally tend to only have a portion of fruit from old vines mixed with fruit from much younger vines
Also, as a port fan, I am acutely aware that the port that many consider to be the best ever made (the 1931 Noval Nacional) was made from fruit where the vines were just 6 years old.
Yup…I’ve followed Ian’s tomatoes from the very start!!!
“Heirlooms” are no guarantee of flavor. It’s always puzzled me to see “heirlooms” from Canada off-season at WholeFoods
off-season. They do look ugly like “heirlooms” are supposed to…but woefully lacking in flavor.
Tom
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}