The thread about Matt Kramer’s criticism of US Pinot makers relying too heavily on a few clones got me thinking…
Why is it that the “clone” discussion almost always involves Pinot Noir? Chardonnay clones are mentioned sometimes, but I never really hear it mentioned in regards to Cabernet, Syrah, Sauv Blanc, or anything else! I’m sure that, like any other fruit, wine grapes can have many different “clones,” strains, cultivars, or what have you, but why is it only fussed about when it comes to Pinot?
Is it that Pinot Noir is a more “transparent” grape–picking up nuances from the terroir and clone to a greater extent than Syrah or Cabernet Sauvignon?
Gotta focus on something in order to differentiate yourself, I suppose.
All the varieties you mentioned have clones…but Pinot mutates more easily than other varieties. Also, Pinot has a wider range of clonal expression than other varieties…I’m pretty familiar with the clones for Syrah and Chardonnay, and there isn’t the range of expression that Pinot clones has. Plus what Jane said…Pinot being a transparent grape, so pinot clones will express themselves differently on different soils and exposures.
The main reason is that people aren’t comfortable with or do not understand the realities of Terroir.
Can you expand on that please.
is it that Pinot Noir is a more “transparent” grape–picking up nuances from the terroir and clone to a greater extent than Syrah or Cabernet Sauvignon?
I don’t think that’s true at all. One of the big reasons is that when they wanted to get some clones from Burgundy back in the 70s, they were sent the wrong clones. After extensive quarantine and testing, they realized they’d once again been shafted by the French vine sellers, much as the Californians had been shafted many years earlier when they received Petite Sirah. Or so the legend goes.
In any event, when they started bringing those in, they were very aware of clonal types and some just weren’t as good as others.
But it’s a big deal in Chardonnay too - people once planted the Wente clone and finally realized that wasn’t necessarily the best and today it’s a much smaller percentage of the Chardonnay in CA.
And it’s a huge deal with Cab because there’s so much money invested in it. But Cab had several other things going on. First, it had established itself as the “top” grape in CA. And in doing so, was sold by producer and variety, not vineyard or clone. So it had a huge head start in the consumer mind. More recently producers have been trying to differentiate by vineyard and guys like Beckstoffer have staked their lives on it, but I don’t think that’s ever going to replace the existing branding.
There’s nothing particularly magical about Pinot Noir. It’s just that as mentioned it does mutate freely, but more importantly, people tend to have a very limited frame of reference. In CA the could and probably should grow a much wider variety of grapes but if you look at the top acreage, it’s dominated by four or five. Not because those grapes are particularly suited to the various sites, but because they will sell. They could probably make outstanding Nero d’Avola but who’s going to buy it?
If you plant and grow Grenache, you’re all cutting edge.
Well, even in the lowly grenache graps (!!!), there are huge differences in clonal material. Certain clones produce larger berries and clusters to maximize yields and produce high juice to skin ratios . . . Others do the opposite - smaller clusters, smaller berries, higher skin to juice ratio. We grenache guys just don’t ‘geek out’ on it as much as others (-:
Cheers
Ray, seriously? Can you clarify/explain this statement in further detail?
Crickets . . .
I am scared shitless of Clones!
Chardonnay clones have become a much bigger deal in the Willamette Valley recently. The original chardonnay plantings were ill-suited for growing here, and there were very few “good” chardonnays being released. More recently, like in the last 10 years, a better job has been done with matching clonal selection to site and I think the results are much better chardonnays being released now.
+1
Perfectly said
It’s interesting about Chard clones in OR because the story seems to be reversing. 108 isn’t a bad clone for OR. I’d rather have that or other non-Dijons, personally. It’s just how you farm it and what you’re trying to do with it.
I think Ray’s point is something you here all the time in the new world - site trumps clone. The focus on clones seems to suggest that a certain plant materials grown here will be good because it grows week somewhere else. I think instead, and it’s not controversial to say, site trumps clone. The qualities of 667 in one place don’t necessarily translate to another place, at least not in a linear way. Generalities can be there. But nuance is all about site. Otherwise you could manufacture La Tache or Hirsch or Seven Springs anywhere you like, as they do with McDonald’s French fries.
Very true, but if you drink a lot of domestic Chardonnay and Cab Sav you definitely find clones you prefer across an array of vineyard sites.
Whatever the clone/site relationship is, it’s not nearly as simple as “site trumps clone.” Anyone who vinifies and ages their clones separately can probably attest that there are marked differences between clones from the same site.
I have a small test vineyard that is made up of 25 vine lots. The only grape that I planted two different clones was Sangio. I planted two different grosso clones and its easy to tell them apart based on growth habit. One is more vigorous with generally larger leaves. When I put the vineyard in, I did not have room for all 25 sangio vines for each block so I planted the extras about 30 feet away and head trained them as an experiment and more for landscaping then any other reason. What shocked me is that soil is different and the sun exposure is different such that the head trained vines break bud earlier, start verasion earlier, and accumulate brix earlier. They can run as mush as two weeks earlier.
I have not fermented each individually so can’t if the final product differs all that much but I see it in the field but position/soil seem to be more important than clone for the two that I have.
We have 7 different Pinot clones (some Dijon, some others) planted in our main 15 acre vineyard, I keep them all separate in barrel, and I find that where they are planted is far more important than specific clone. For example, I have 115 and 667 in several different blocks, and the 115 or the 667 is always different in barrel from different blocks. Another good example is that we have 1 acre of the Swiss 2A clone, and contrary to popular wisdom (at least in California), on our site it has small, tight clusters with very small grapes. The only exception I see in our vineyard is our SBC clone, which is a very old clone from Burgundy that we propagated ourselves–it is always very different from everything else. So IMHO, clone has some importance, but terroir is much more important in determining a wine’s profile.
Having attended a tasting of Melville pinots made from different clones in the same vineyard with the same cellar techniques, I have to disagree.
Also, isn’t it accepted wisdom that a lot of the planting in the 60s and 70s was with poor, overproductive clones that have been replaced over time?
The older the vines get the more site trumps clone (in my experience)…but I don’t believe that site ever erases clone completely. 667 or 115 can express themselves differently on different vineyards (or blocks)…but they’ll obviously still be different. And it appears to take at least 10 years (of vine age) for the site to have a significant imact (and 25-30 years for site to be dominant). Perhaps if the wine is made in an ageable style (from old vines), once the wine got old to be all teritiary (i.e. no ‘fruit’ left) that the clone aspects would be erased? That’s a pretty abstract argument tho…and even so I’m a little skeptical. Also, as Kevin Harvey points out (in the other thread), some clones do a better job of reflecting the terrior…for example swan is better at this than 777.