The terroir discussion is almost as exhausting as the natural wine discussions at times…
For me it comes down to a place potential to deliver grapes of a certain quality and with certain traits, because of soil drainage, exposure to sun and wind, temperature variation and all of that.
But yes, from vineyard to bottle there is a million decisions that will also influence the outcome. So for me it would probably be hard to pinpoint a vineyard in a blind tasting. What i could pinpoint is the wines i like better than others blind. And there is a reason why some of the top wines from a producer is better than the entry level bottles. And that is mostly down to the grape quality. If they could get the same result from all grapes through winemaking then why don’t they? And that brings me back to my initial part of my post.
On the macro-regional level terroir seems huge. I have very rarely tasted a Pinot from anywhere in the world that seems like Burgundy. Bordeaux blends from California rarely seem very similar to Bordeaux for me, although occasionally they can be (the uniqueness isn’t quite as striking as with Burgundy).
But at the micro-level it often seems to me that producer swamps vineyard. Bordeaux often transforms out of recognition when a new winemaker or owner comes in. For Burgundy a winemakers stamp seems to speak much more loudly than the specific vineyard.
That isn’t what you said, though. Anyone who drinks burgundy understands that producer is more important than site. That doesn’t mean terroir doesn’t matter.
Proof of the impact of terroir is sufficient from the ability to differentiate when it is the sole variable. It’s not necessary to be able to identify.
Ability to identify comes from practice and experience.
I agree with this. When I buy Burgundy, German wine, or anything else, my first rule is to buy based on producer. Does the producer make wines of a quality and style of wine I like. But, it is really hard to ignore terroir totally. I have been to too many wineries in Burgundy and elsewhere where the winery makes multiple different wines from different plots. The grapes are grown by the same person. The wines are made by the same person in the same way. Yet the wines taste different from each other. In California, the different Ridge Zinfandels taste different from each other - certainly, the Geyserville and Lytton Springs are consistently different. In Bordeaux, Mouton is virtually always better than and different from the Clerc Milon. And, it Burgundy, wines from different parcels made by the same producer taste different from each other. Go to Hudelot-Noellat and taste the village Chambolle-Musigny vs. the Vosne Romanee. The wines taste consistently different from vintage to vintage. Similarly, Richebourg and the Romanee St. Vivant taste consistently different from year to year. This happens in all kinds of wineries from year to year. Reinhold Haart’s Goldtröpfchen is consistently different from his Ohligsberg.
Yes, of course, Hudelot-Noellat’s Richebourg will taste different from the Richebourg of other producers. The idea that each wine from the same terroir will taste the same or terroir does not matter is a red herring and shows a complete and total lack of understanding about wine. Terroir does not completely determine what a wine will taste like. It is one of many components that include farming, weather (vintage), use of oak, harvest dates (picking early or late), other winemaking decisions, etc., etc.
One of the more interesting evidences in terroir was one day I spent in Alsace about a decade ago. That day, I was luck enough to taste wines from the same two plots (Schlossberg and Furstentum) at two different wineries, Paul Blanck and Albert Mann. The wines had distinct differences as the two winemakers made in different styles. But, in both cases the differences between the Schlossberg and Furstentum were consistent. The Furstentum was the richer wine while the Schlossberg was more elegant with higher acidity.
I have a friend who keeps telling me that the golf club doesn’t matter. It is all about the Indian, not the arrow. I tell him then that he should drive using a pitching wedge rather than a driver. If the club does not matter, they should go the same distance. Mikko, if site does not matter, you should just buy the cheapest wine a producer you like makes. The more expensive wines he makes are just hype as the vineyards are all the same. Or, maybe you should just buy Gallo Hearty Burgundy. After all, vineyard does not matter.
I agree with this take, though I will give a small margin of variance for how people what to define micro and macro.
Do I think people can reliably distinguish between Cote de Beaune and Cote de Nuits Pinot? Or perhaps Sonoma Coast vs Willamette Valley? If they are well trained/experienced, perhaps. How about between different villages of the Cote de Nuits or different WV AVAs across the same vintage? I would bet against the taster every time and probably make money.
I think site matters in that it determines how “good” the grapes can be. I just don’t think it’s easy to identify consistently in a blind tasting at more than a macro level, and even then I think an experienced taster’s odds of getting it right are only slightly better than chance most of the time.
I think you’re talking about two different things.
Can an experienced taster TELL THE DIFFERENCE between wines from different villages? As in, you have, say, Hudelot VR and Chambolle and they have to say whether they’re the same or different? I think almost all tasters would be able to do that.
Can an experienced taster identify specific wine blind as being from a certain village? I think that would be harder, especially once you get out of the cote de nuits and start throwing in random appellations such as Mercurey vs Rully or something. I still think some people could, with enough experience.
It’s like classical music. The piece of music is the terroir. The symphony orchestra is the producer. A wonderful piece of music comes alive only in the hands of skilled musicians.
Years ago, my wine group did a blind tasting of the wines of Chambolle and the wines of Pommard. Very experienced group of tasters, about as different in terroir as one can imagine within Burgundy. Nobody did that well separing out the wines - we didn’t beat a monkey by much. But, I right away picked out one wine as being from Truchot. There I was correct.
On the other hand, I once was at a big tasting where everyone brought a bottle of white Burgundy or a California Chardonnay. Probably a bit over 20 wines. I was able to identify all but one wine correctly as being from Burgundy or California. My one miss was a Williams Seylem Chardonnay. Over the years, I have been better than a monkey, but not perfect, at telling California Cabs from Bordeaux. Over time, California Cabs tend to retain more fruit flavors and Bordeaux tends to take on more non fruit flavors.
This is pretty much exactly what I was saying. At the macro-regional level of California vs France etc. terroir tends to stick out like a sore thumb. At the more micro level, like between Burgundy vineyards or left bank Medoc appellations or whatever, it’s producer that sticks out like a sore thumb and you have to be both very expert and very lucky to have a shot at nailing the terroir blind.
More knowledgeable people than me can do philosophical twists on this and explain what I’m sure is the continuing significance of terroir at the micro level, but this has been my experience and I’m sure the experience of others as well. I’m definitely not saying terroir isn’t very significant BTW - if it wasn’t then one could broadly replicate the worlds best wine regions and that has not happened despite huge financial incentives.
Unless I missed something upthread, it looks like no one has linked to William Kelley’s recent deep dive into what Bordeaux is today, and how it’s changed, which seems pretty on point: Robert Parker: The Wine Advocate
However, there is one observation in the article which I think is dead on and highly relevant to this thread:
“To my mind, the strength of Bordeaux as a whole is the capacity to combine quality with quantity, and this should be the objective of any large classified growth.”
I agree that Bordeaux combines quality and quantity better than any other region, and would add that the strength of Burgundy is combining quality with perceived scarcity thanks to the terroir classifications. This means that Burgundy will always run ahead of Bordeaux in evoking FOMO and starting speculative spirals in market prices. The question to me is when and whether we will see a point where the market starts refusing to cooperate.
I tend to see things through the eyes of the Champagne region where it is Bordeaux meets Burgundy. This week we had a tasting with a pretty renowned producer, who I wil not name. He was really criticial of the new generation of producers and their single vineyard wines. He really knows the ideosynchratics of the terroirs he owns and says they are always vinified seperately and the blended result is always better than the single expressions.
Burgundy has really profited from the warmer and hotter vintages. One of his arguements is consistency, like Burugndy in the Champagne, hotter vintages make single vineyard production possible. Bur I recall especially with Vouette et Sorbée in mind, some of their champagnes being especially thin and jagged in the colder vintages. Their champagnes have definitely benefitted from the warm vintages
The geek in me loves exploring the single vineyard expressions, but somehow the realist find the sum of all parts better. Krug is definitely the best example of this.
I’m not sure this is true, or maybe if it is true, that it will remain so. While there are certainly parts of Burgundy that get to more optimum ripeness now that things are warmer, I think there’s a concern that it potentially comes with a cost. That is, many sites don’t respond optimally to the heat, and they potentially lose some of what made them so special before.