Stereotyping New World Wines
Came across a fascinating article by Susanne Johnston in the Summit Daily News. Ms. Johnston is a retailer and seems to know here wine. At one point in the article on the subject of "terroir" she translates this french word into English as "Placeness". A brilliant description and one I’ve not heard before to describe those characteristics in a wine that are the result of the natural environment in which that grapes were grown.
Yet toward the end of the article we get this:
Can there be terroir qualities in New World wines
like those coming from California or Australia? In my personal
experience there are specific qualities that the earth and sky bring to
specific places like Diamond Mountain, Stag’s Leap and Mount Veeder in
Napa Valley that cannot be duplicated anywhere. However, it is a rare
and wonderful thing when a winemaker from these regions allows the
terroir to shine through, instead of making a wine for the masses.
As Mr. Jefford says, “There is nothing wrong with
preferring the taste of fruit to that of terroir in wine…If
you love fruit more than stones, rejoice in your good fortune. It will
save you much money — and you barely need bother with French wine at
all.” To discover, though, why people are prepared to pay more to taste
stones, lose yourself in a fine bottle of Cru Chablis or a Meursault,
it is an experience few forget."
The implication here is that "terroir" tastes like minerals. Or, that the terroir of a vineyard is translated by the mineral qualities found in a wine.
There is also found in the quote of Mr. Andrew Jeffords by Ms. Johnston the suggestion that New World wines, because they tend to be fruitier, are much less likely to exhibit a mineral character and less likely to exhibit terroir. While somewhat insulting, it’s not an important point right now.
What struck me is this notion that terroir is properly exhibited in the mineral character found in wine. This seems likely a very narrow definition of the idea of terroir and too close to the idea that we too often here repeated that when a wine has an "earthy" taste that’s the terroir talking.
Surely a vineyard’s terroir might contribute more than mineral character to a wine. What about spice characteristics? What about the texture of a wine? Andrew Jeffords is a well known wine writer. Yet, I think what we have detected here is a real bias both against New World wines and in favor of Old World wines that has been displayed in his comments on terroir. This shouldn’t be.
However, that said I think this kind of blanket statement is the fault of New World vintners as much as it is Jefford’s bias. It is difficult for anyone who tastes wine on a regular basis to move past the fact that fruit flavors are a much more important element in New World wines. There is a huge bias against any hint of herb or vegetal elements among New World, and particularly Californian, winemakers. Great efforts in the vineyard and the winery are made to assure not a hint of herb or veggies show up in wines. Surely this has created a stereotype for New World wines.
Terroir — “placeness” — doesn’t reside (in the classic sense) in merely the soil but in the microclimate, the angle of sunliight throughout the growing season, the exposure and lie of the land, drainage, every element of the physical and climatic “geography” of a particular vineyard. The broader the area (moving from single vineyard to small region to bigger region) reduces those distinct characteristics. It’s much easier to talk about the terroir of, say, the Red Rock Terrace vineyard than it is the terroir of Diamond Mt. as a whole. The influence of terroir does not reveal itself solely in the earthy or mineral character of a wine; that’s far too narrow a definition. The nature and quality of fruit, the wine’s texture, it’s “pointedness,” or weight and presence: all of these are part of the influence of terroir. There’s a very real sense in which the experience of making wine in California (or oregon and Washington) is simply too young to know what the effects of terroir are, especially when compared to vineyards in Burgundy and Bordeaux that have been cultivated for centuries.
Fred:
Exactly!!
tom…
Tom
Fred is certainly right. Terroir is microclimate in every sense of the word. Terroir and winemaker style are the two dominant influences in the taste of wine above and beyond grape varietal, unless the wine is made in a factory where everything is averaged. We have lots of examples of distinctive terroir in North America. The light crisp whites of the Niagara Escarpment,the distinctive fruit flavors of Ciel du Cheval vineyard here in Washington, the differences among vineyards such as Shea, Bednarick, and Freedom Hill in Oregon, and the Mountain wines of Napa. I’ve tasted plenty of swill from France and Italy that would benefit from a little stainless steel in a factory and certainly show no sign of terroir, unless you mean those off flavors and defects that show through. This argument is getting tiresome. The real question is whether wine has character or not. There are wines of character from both the new world and old, just as there characterless wines such as the “Top Ten” sellers Alder recently discussed at Vinography. Gene
I find the suggestion that terroir (or even “stone” flavors) and fruit flavors are somehow opposites or mutually exclusive to be ridiculous. I would have stopped reading the article at that point. Clearly Jefford, whoever he is, has no idea what he’s talking about.
In fact, maybe the fruitiness of California wine is a major result of California terroir, namely sunshine, which is lacking in many European winegrowing regions where the wines are less fruity and more austere.
Thanks, Tom & Gene. Sunlight would certainly make the LARGEST terroir in the world, though (seriously) the notion of terroir must count heat and light and constancy among its important factors. And looking at Alder’s note, you’re absolutely right; the point of what we smell and taste and feel in wine is that every aspect works together, not in opposition. There is nothing contradictory in a wine’s character being both “minerally” and “fruity.” Does anyone object to that exquisite combination in a Premier or Grand Cru Chablis?
Little needs to be said on defining terroir, as most here obviously get it, and won’t get an argument from me, but I thought I’d take another jab at Susanne Johnston…Matt Kramer described terroir as “somewhereness” some time ago, and Randall Grahm reminded us of that during his oration on biodynamics at this year’s Terroir Conference at UC Davis. One has to wonder if Susanne “borrowed” Matt’s poetic description and morphed it into her own “placeness.” So much for originality.
Isn’t the issue somewhereness vs nowhereness and placeness vs noplaceness?
You should start with simple fruits like bananas and apples, or any other fruit that is classified as B/D (beginner foods). The reason you should start with these particular ones are because they are virtually hypoallergenic and carry a very low risk of your child having an allergic reaction. You should delay introducing citrus fruits and strawberries as these are more prone to causing allergic reactions.
You should start with simple fruits like bananas and apples, or any other fruit that is classified as B/D (beginner foods). The reason you should start with these particular ones are because they are virtually hypoallergenic and carry a very low risk of your child having an allergic reaction. You should delay introducing citrus fruits and strawberries as these are more prone to causing allergic reactions.