"Zins"- Old Vine/Heritage/Field Blends question

I’ve started to search out readings on field blends on the web and I have some questions that I hope can be answered by people on this board. I find field blends intriguing having had my curiosity about them motivated by a trip this summer to Sonoma County.

Wines that are labled Old Vine are not necessarily field blends, correct?

Bedrock’s wines labled Heritage are all field blends. Is the term heritage for field blend unique to Bedrock? Two Acres of Carlisle is a field blend and, obviously, doesn’t have the heritage label.

The Old Vines/history push/movement that Carlisle and Bedrock, among others, are involved in is interested in old vine or field blends or both?

If any of you are aware of good articles or books on field blends, please post those. I’d appreciate it.

Mark

Yes, heritage is just an designation, not a legal description.

I believe old vine doesn’t have a legal requirement either.

Many of the zin “field blends” were not intentional. They ended up as mixed blacks because the people that planted had no way of truly telling what was actually being stuck in the dirt.

My very unscientific and antidotal observations are that Sonoma and costra county have more field blends while Lodi and amador have more monoculture

btw, attend one of the heritage vineyard society tours of you can if this subject is of interest to you

Mark, many (but not all) of the vineyards planted in the late 19th century through the 1920s (pre-prohibition) were blends of varieties, including Zinfandel, Petite Syrah, Mourvedre (Mataro), Carignane, Grenache, Alicante Bouchet, Syrah and others. Well known historic vineyard, field blend wines include Carlisle “Carlisle Vineyard”, Bedrock “Bedrock Heritage”, Buckland “Old Hill Ranch” and Ridge “Geyserville”. There are many other examples.

Not all vineyards planted around the turn of the century were field blends. For example, I believe the Ueberroth Vineyard, planted in Paso Robles in 1885, is 100% Zinfandel.

Charles Sullivan’s “Zinfandel, A History of a Grape and It’s Wine” is a good primer on the history of California wine, as is his book “A Companion to California Wine.” You may want to seek out the website of the Historic Vineyard Society at http://www.historicvineyardsociety.org.

The way it was explained to me by an Italian friend/neighbor/farmer, Chuck Giovannetti, with a mixed black vineyard in the RRV:

Vineyard was acquired in payment for back wages owed by the owner when he went bankrupt in the early 1900’s. Miro (Chuck’s grandfather) moved to the property and lived in a tent after the '06 Quake. The vineyard was originally planted in Carignane in the late 1800’s but was grafted over the mixed blacks in 1910.

The reason for the “Dago Blend” as he refers to it is that the different varieties ensure there is a good wine to be made year in and year out regardless of the weather. Each variety brings something different to the blend, Fruit, acid, tannin etc…

1 Like

Yes, Brian, I believe both are valid reasons depending on the vineyard. Here’s a nice article on field blends.

Here is what I wrote on the current mailer addressing field blends. There were many different reasons, some purposeful and some accidental.

The question of why some old vineyards in California are so diverse is one that I have been digging into for quite a while. Thanks to the librarians of northern California, who had the foresight to save obscure grape purchase receipts, as well as the inventor of graph paper, who unintentionally created the perfect paper for mapping out every vine in a vineyard, here are the main factors I believe account for field-blends.

Varietal-labeled wine was not as important: Prior to the shift to varietal labeling in the 1950s and 1960s, American winemakers and growers were more interested in making wines of a particular “style” such as “Claret” or “Burgundy” or with white, “Hock.” As such, the importance of a varieties’ character was more about what they contributed to a blend of grapes rather than about whether it was good on its own. In planting vineyards for a particular “style” of wine, vineyardists would adjust varieties based on climate, soil, etc. For instance, in hot climates where acidity and lower sugar are needed, one tends to find more Carignane, Grenache, Trousseau Noir, Mataro (Mourvedre). In cooler areas, one generally finds varieties that are earlier ripening and/or bring more color such as Petite Sirah, Alicante Bouschet, and Grand Noir.

Winemaking: Even going back to 1882, industry leaders noted the tendency of the States main “Claret” grape, Zinfandel, to have variable ripening which could cause sugars to be higher than expected in tank (we call this the “soak-up” factor today) resulting in stuck fermentations and “acetification.” To battle this, they recommended the blending of varieties that were later ripening. They were also convinced, as was considered true in Europe at the time, that blending the varieties before fermentation resulted in a better, “more harmonious” wine than one blended after fermentation. Even today we are learning, in a more scientific way, about the potency of co-fermentation and the resulting co-pigmentation, co-polymerization and the resulting stabilization of color, tannin and aromatics.

Hedging Viticultural Risk: Just as one might diversify a stock portfolio growers likely planted many different varieties in an attempt to offset potential crop loss. Vineyardists in the 1880s and 1890s were working with varieties that had little or no track record in California. On top of this, the more progressive ones were also experimenting with myriad rootstock selections whose rooting and grafting propensities were not well known. Beyond Phylloxera, there were also issues of powdery mildew and other pests.

Neighbors: As I found reading the journals of Eli T. Shepherd, who owned the present day Bedrock Vineyard in the 1880s, it was common for neighbors to buy and sell rootstock and vine cuttings from each other. Newer imports were purchased from the intrepid growers and nurserymen who foraged for vine material in Europe, but Zinfandel, Semillon, Mataro, and others already present in California were not purchased through a nursery. For instance, Shepherd went to the nursery of J.P Drummond (now Beltane Ranch in Kenwood) for St. Macaire, Beclan, and other cuttings. Drummond was also the first to import Petite Sirah into California in 1882; file this fact away for the next section, as Pagani Ranch lies across the street from Drummond’s old nursery. Similarly, H.W. Crabb, the original owner of To Kalon Vineyard in Napa, sold an array of cuttings that he had imported (his favorite being “Crabb’s Black Burgundy,” which has now been identified as Mondeuse). Our Oakville Farmhouse Vineyard, which lies catty-corner to To Kalon, is nearly 20% Mondeuse Noir. Drummond and Crabb are just two examples of how certain varieties moved outward in a diaspora like fashion from nurseries.

Randomness: Nursery stocks were not necessarily well controlled, nor were the cuttings passed between neighbors. For instance, Drummond advertised Petite Sirah, Alicante, Beclan, St. Macaire, and others that have been found in vineyards in Sonoma. But what about the random Castets vine (another of Bordeaux origin) we have found at Bedrock? My guess is that it was included in the original cuttings from France and propagated accidentally as another variety or slipped into cuttings being sold as another variety.

And that was the case around the world. The idea of monoclonal culture couldn’t exist until people realized that clones could be identified through DNA, which they didn’t know about back before the mid 1900s.

In Europe they would do massale selections, taking the vines that seemed to do best and propagating those, but even in doing so, they were probably taking a mix of grapes because other than ampelography and taste, it was pretty hard to be exact. In most places where wine was made, people hedged their bets. In Piedmont, Nebbiolo is related to several other grapes, including of all things Viognier, and it’s almost a certainty that several grapes were interplanted in the vineyards, as would have been the case in Burgundy, where we know that they included things like Gamay, because there were several attempts to eliminate it over the years, as well as grapes like Aligoté. The whole idea of single-grape vineyards, and single-clone vineyards, is post WW2.

Folks,

Thanks for the info and suggestions. One of the things I like about wine is the more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know.

Greg,
I’m not sure that statement is quite accurate. Many of the vines/cuttings brought over from Europe in the 1900’s were from a single cutting…thus not a selection massale. And therefore monoclonal.
Most DNA typing only looks at a few sites in the DNA to guarantee w/ 99.99% (made up number) certain that it is the same variety. By conventional DNA, Pinot Noir/PinotGris/PinotBlanc are the same variety…
though the certainly have some different characteristics out in the vnyd. I don’t know how many sites you’d have to look at to distinguish between the three.
To identify clonal variations, you’d have to do the complete genome of the vine…pretty expensive proposition.
And vines mutate out in the vnyd. So you could have a monoclonal Swan clone Pinot planting (say) and DNA typing would tell you it’s PinotNoir. But if you did the entire genome sequence on every vine,
you would find differences.
Least that’s the way I understand it. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong. Jancis has a good discussion of the DNA typing in her book.
Tom

Morgan - I enjoyed the current newsletter, and there is obviously interest in the subject, but I have my re-certification exam in surgery this year and I’d appreciate no more study material in my inbox.

Tom - true they were monoclonal when they were taken from a single plant. But when growers in Europe would do massale selection, those new vines wouldn’t have come from a single plant, but from a group.

When you refer to the 1900s, I’m assuming you mean post WW2 1900s? Between the Gold Rush and Prohibition, the wine industry wasn’t really labeling wines by variety. That’s kind of a Mondavi thing. So there wouldn’t really have been a need to isolate specific varieties, and in Europe, the tradition was generally to plant a few grapes together to ensure a harvest. In fact, in some places they even planted different crops along with the grapes.

As far as mutations go, that’s kind of interesting. The mutations happen on new growth, right? So with roses for example, if you get a sport and you cut that cane off, that would be the end of the mutation. OTOH, if you were to propagate that mutation, and I’m sure a lot of that was done in the past, whether intentionally or not, you’d spread the new mutation. But there again, that would add another element to your field blend.

There was a test on this, in fact answers are due tonight. Go to the Bedrock site and click on “View Allocation.” Luckily it’s multiple choice.

To Mark: really there is no legal meaning behind “Old Vine” or “Field Blend” so knowing the producers to trust and the vineyards is key. The term “field blend” is newly being co-opted as marketing departments learn it’s the new buzz. Even many mixed-black vineyards aren’t necessarily field blends i.e. all picked at once and cofermented, but the winemakers are doing what they can to make the best wine. The HVS and their participating wineries are a great starting point, as is Bucklin’s web site.

Greg,
I was thinking more in terms of Calif rather than Europe. True, that in Europe, the propagation was usually selection massale. And to some cases in Calif as well. Like the “Eberle clone” of Syrah. When Gary
cleaned up the prunings when he & Olmo pruned the Syrah at UCDavis in the mid-'70’s, since those were a collection of prunings from a bunch of vines that Gary propogated, that, technically, would have been
a selection massale.

As far as varietal labeling, that was not RobertMondavi’s doing. That would be FrankSchoonmaker. He wrote a book on Calif wines in the '40’s, that championed the labeling of Calif wines
by region of origin and grape variety, rather than as “claret” or “burgundy” or “chablis”. The idea, under his scolding, started to take hold in the '50’s-'60’s and had become pretty commonplace by the time
Mondavi came along.

I’m not that expert on DNA typing (I only know what I read on the InterNet…so it must be true), but my understanding is that vines are continually mutating out there in the vnyd
as they grow, some varieties (Pinot, Nebb). You take some new growth from one vine and another sample from another vine and compare. The DNA typing would indicate them to be the same variety,
only looking at a limited number of sites. But if you did the full genome sequencing, you find differences at other sites. Least that’s the way I understand. Somebody please shoot me down if I’m wrong.
Tom

Found a historic 117 zin vineyard not in the HVS database, Schmierer Vineyard in Lodi.

https://www.soquelvineyards.com/2014-old-vine-zinfandel/

Now, I think you’re supposed to buy it. newhere

My understanding is the noir/blanc/gris (and musque?) are easy on/off mutations. In other words, a particular Pinot Noir experiences a somatic mutation, where beyond that point it’s Pinot Blanc. In that case, that particular noir/blanc pair are genetically identical except for the “on” on one and “off” on the other. That would make that particular Pinot Noir much more genetically similar to that particular Pinot Blanc, than it is to virtually any other Pinot Noir of its own clonal name. Does that make sense?

…and the charming Martin Ray made a lot of friends sharing his opinions on the matter.

Yeah you’re right about varietal naming Tom. I always use Mondavi because I kind of think of him as the kickstarter for Napa and consequently wine in the US, but I know there were people before him who wanted to promote individual grape varieties as opposed to blends, which were also associated with screwcaps and were declassé - Pink Chablis (a concept I always liked), Hearty Burgundy, Paul Masson Champagne, the various Ports, etc.

As far as clones go, I was told by a number of producers in Europe that they intentionally planted mixed grapes for the reasons Morgan mentioned in his great post. And a number of the Italians in Brooklyn said that’s what their grandpas did too.

What Maria told me at LdH is that they can no longer do selection massale in Rioja. They are now supposed to get the “official” vines from the nurseries and the irony is that many of those originally come from her vines. But now they’re carefully typed and you know what you’re getting, whereas that wasn’t necessarily the case in the past.