Uh no. You can identify the vineyard, not the producer. The only difference is terroir as winemaking is the same.
Obviously producer is important too. If you taste the 5 diff CSJ wines there’s clearly a difference.
2 Likes
So same vineyard, different producers, you can tell the vineyard?
I’m just going to say I don’t believe that.
Again, what is the “terroir” if you can have 5 different CSJ and all are different.
1 Like
Of course there are many factors that go into what a wine tastes like. No one is saying winemaking or elevate doesn’t matter. Of course it does.
That said there are many examples of wines that are made exactly the same except for where the grapes come from and they are clearly different.
Terroir is more than simply where the grapes come from, but that is an important component.
1 Like
You can taste 5 CSJs and taste the themes. They taste different from 5 Bezes in some similar ways. It’s a factor.
So just like Napa valley, or Bordeaux, or Loire, or Australia, or any winemaking region in the world?
I still remain unconvinced that anyone can point out a “terroir” other than “Burgundy” blind. Which negates the point of claiming how important it is.
That was my original question. What does “terroir” actually mean?
If you were to open, for example 2019 Rousseau chambertin and 2019 Rousseau beze even a novice drinker could tell they’re different wines. The only difference between then is site.
1 Like
But what if I opened a Jadot Chambertin or Drouhin? Which one shows “terroir” because they would be completely different?
1 Like
They both do.
3 Likes
Terroir to me reflects everything that goes into the grapes, from the people who grew them, the weather, the soil, any and all environmental factors.
1 Like
So it is an entirely subjective concept, and it’s impossible to quantify?
This is a side discussion, but the key point was Leve’s. Just because tasters can’t reliably distinguish terroirs doesn’t mean terroir doesn’t exist. It’s a very valuable concept that takes into account geographic location, soil, weather, etc. collectively as the growing conditions that contribute to the grapes and, ultimately, the wine. It’s so central to fine wine that it’s hard to think of fine wine without it. One can debate how strong an imprint it leaves on a micro level, but at a high level there’s a reason no one has figured out how to make Burgundy outside of Burgundy. Ditto Paulliac. And so on. Terroir, I would argue, is what makes wine unique among spirits and other alcoholic beverages. It’s wine’s linkage to land that makes it special.
3 Likes
What do you mean subjective? I’m sure if you did bc mass spec on the wines they would be chemically different so clearly there’s an objective difference.
3 Likes
But if tasters can’t distinguish terroirs, how can they define what they are? And as such, do they matter?
I understand distinguishing Burgundy from Paulliac, my comments were when talking about crossing a sidewalk within the exact same soil.
But the Burgundy v. Paulliac point is an important one. Beer and Tequila and whatever are almost infinitely scalable because they aren’t tied to specific plots of land. The thing with wine is that it is inextricably linked to the place where the grapes are grown. And that geographic “place” is more than just longitude and lattitude–it’s the soil, weather, elevation, drainage, etc. that make wine great (or less than great) for a particular grape or blend. Denying the importance if terroir in making great wine is silly. The question you’re raising is whether micro-differences in terroir are that significant. I think they are, but even if they’re not it’s not an indictment of the concept as a whole.
3 Likes
I mean if you mass spec the grapes you picked 50m from each other before you do anything to them, I bet they would be identical or close enough not to make any meaningful difference.
Just to restate my point here. When saying there is “terroir” it’s like saying there is “baobab”. The concept of “terroir” is so subjective it really provides no value, and saying a wine shows “terroir” means nothing, because the definition of terroir is 100% subjective.
2 Likes
I mean, any agricultural product has terroir. You can just see it more when it’s from a single source.
For example, if you’re eating Jamison farm lamb the taste is a representation of a specific place. Some random lamb from New Zealand will likely be much more anonymous.
2 Likes
Oh but, tequila is very much tied to specific plots of land, so you chose a wrong example.
Or is it? I think it is, Agave needs to be grown in very specific conditions to produce good results.
Some people would argue the same about hops and as such, beer.
Your definition of “terroir” requires a standard, and I don’t think such standard exists. What/who says “this is the wine that should be produced from this plot”?
That’s what makes is subjective, and in my opinion, somewhat valueless.
2 Likes
Most spirits, besides some brandies, aren’t marketed as such.
An easier way to think about the effect of terroir would be to consider champagne made from a single plot, for example, Krug Clos de mesnil, compared to Krug grand cuvée, which is an amalgamation of different sites and even different vintages. Keep in mind that being from a single site doesn’t necessarily mean something is better, just that it more accurately reflects a sense of place.
1 Like
Btw if you don’t care about terroir and don’t think where a wine comes from make a difference that’s fantastic! Enjoy mass market international wines and save money.
6 Likes