With the Rhone Rangers tasting in San Francisco just a month ago and Hospice du Rhône in Paso Robles coming up later this week, I thought this was a timely blog post:
Should Petite Sirah be a Rhône variety?
What do people here think? Should Petite Sirah be considered a Rhône variety?
Well…not that I would have any opinions on the subject.
Sounds like a pretty cranky rant to me. Not sure what Jo’s association with PS exactly is, but I gather he does PR work for Foppiano, a wnry whose focus is PS.
He seems to believe that since RR does not specifically promote PS (nor do they specifically promote Syrah or Mourvedre or Viognier or…), that wineries whose focus is PS should NOT join RR, but should join PSILY instead, whose focus IS to promote PS. Perhaps the could get more bang for their buck by doing that. But he seems to want RR to disbar PS, thereby forcing those PS producers from RR and into PSILY…I guess. That is, he doesn’t want PS producers in under the RR umbrella.
Baloney, I say. I’m all for being inclusive. At RR, I make an effort to try a bunch of PS’s from producers I’ve not tried. If they were not under the RR umbrella, I wouldn’t get that opportunity. I’d have to say that RR has done far more towards promoting PS to me than has PSILY.
So they don’t grow (much) PS/Durif in the RhoneVlly?? BFD I say. PS certainly has its roots in the Rhone and would be grown there if those Frenchies wern’t so fussy about making wines from rotted/mildewy grapes. The wusses. They grow much more Viognier in Calif than they do in the RhoneVlly. So maybe Viognier shouldn’t be considered a Rhone variety either??
The blog entry strikes me as “It’s Monday…what do I write about today to get some attention out on the InterNet. I know…something to stir up some controversy.” The whole subject seems like a non-iissue.
And, FWIW, it’s Billy Crawford of McDowellVllyVnyds.
Tom
The fact that it grows in the Rhone and is used in some of their wines means it is a Rhone varietal. There are probably a number of big deal wines (read 100 points) that contain PS in some small quantity. It’s fruitiness and structure is quite noble.
I see the point about diluting the effort to promote the grape over two organizations, but I think that RR would be a better bet since PSILU is pretty single minded.
Where is stated PS is a legal variety in rhone? I didn’t find anything.
+1. I’m curious as well.
Legal or not, it’s there…
http://www.thewinenews.com/augsep03/cover.asp
Also, in the wikipedia reference on Durif, aka Petite Sirah, it says that an alternate name is Pinot de l’Hermitage. I like the sound of that…
Fixed.
Any variety can be grown in the Rhone, but that does not make it a “Rhone variety.” Seems to me that only those grapes which are permitted to be labeled as a Rhone AOC should be considered a Rhone variety, and I don’t believe the Durif is permitted in any of the Rhone AOCs. I did find this: Durif Grape Variety - Cellarnotes.net
Most seem to agree that it is rarely found in France today, but I suppose if someone wants to argue historical lineage, maybe it can be claimed as a Rhone variety.
According to this source, the only AOC that allows Petite Sirah/Durif is Palette - which is Provence, not Rhone: Unusual Wines - Petite Sirah / Petite Syrah
That’s great information… Add those to the list of varieties not legal in Rhone wine.
There isn’t even a basis for a debate here yet.
“American heritage variety with Rhône bloodline” pretty much sums up how I think of PS.
I don’t doubt at all that it’s planted in the Rhône and makes its way into some Rhône AOC wines, but that it’s not an approved variety pretty much says it’s not a Rhône variety.
But, that’s not really the question raised by the article. Should it be allowed in Rhône Rangers? There is no AOC for Rhône Rangers, and the term originated from winemakers planting GSM, but I think in the minds of consumers there’s a link (probably just because of the name (Sirah - Syrah) but add in the bloodline aspect and I lean towards “yeah, why not?” with hint of “who cares?” …although I think it’d be more at home at ZAP than at RR.
What makes you think so?
PS is no more a Rhone variety than Tannat or Charbono regardless of its origin.
Indeed, since the variety was invented elsewhere in France and never gained acceptance in the Rhone the only claim seems to be the (partial) parentage of Syrah and any stylistic similarities. While I thought the article was pretty interesting for its history of PS and Syrah in California. I did find a few points and quotes from the article curious.
The author (who unfortunately seems to have passed away recently), says Rhone Rangers “… goal is to increase the public’s awareness of Rhône-style wines”. So not necessarily actual Rhone varietal wines as approved by the AOC, but Rhone ‘style’ wines whatever that means. Personally I find many, many styles of wine from the Rhone so I suppose a ‘Rhone style’ could include Tannat or Charbono, or Zinfandel, or anything else the majority of the members considered to be ‘Rhone style’.
Later in the article, he refers to PS as ‘America’s own Rhone variety’.
From Dennis Fife talking about customers trying PS and Syrah side by side - “They love the idea that America has its own Rhône variety…”
And from Ehren Jordan “In California, Petite is more Rhône-like than the vast majority of Syrahs that are made here…”
So maybe the better question is what is Rhone Rangers fidelity to the AOC definitions which for better or worse are very clear.
Or if things really went astray would we just be talking about more California Hearty Burgundy here?
I’d hope that California would have NO fidelity to AOC definitions.
They should just feel free to co-opt the place name then?
Hence my hearty burgundy comment.
Do you object to the name Rhone Rangers for California wine?
And how would you feel say about California Old Vine Zinfandel from maybe Chile?
“Rhone Rangers” is a trade designation that identifies a “type” or “style” of wine made in California. It does not purport that Rhone Ranger wines are French-made. To my knowledge, it is not used on labels to “brand” wine, or to misrepresent that a California wine has been produced in France. I don’t agree with your analogy.
Point taken although I don’t know what ‘french made’ has to do with it.
And I did not mean to suggest anyone in RR should adhere to AOC rules in classifying specific bottlings.
But it seems a bit far a field to ignore the standing legal definition of varieties that constitute wines from the Rhone, and invent new CA Rhone varieties.
So would you object if they indeed decided to include Tannat, Charbono, and maybe Zinfandel?
Who said anything about “California” having fidelity to AOC definitions?
Just knowing that older vineyards typically weren’t planted to a homogeneous mix of grapes, PS’ parental ties to the region, and rumors heard over the years. Nothing concrete.