So Who Expresses Terroir Most Purely In Calif???

So… the Euro-centric wine geeks often dismiss the notion that Calif has terroir. This is, of course, nonsense. Calif can express terroir just as well as any other place in the world.
However…in some cases the winemaking style/technique is overlain on this expression of terroir. For example:

1. Ridge: I think it’s easy enough to pick out, blind, the PasoRobles, the DryCreekVlly, the Fiddletown, the HowellMtn Zins. On a good day, maybe even the LyttonSprings vs. the Geyserville Zin. Probably the YorkCreek vs. LyttonSprings PetiteSirahs. The Carignan from the DryCreekVlly Zins may be a bit tougher. The Syrah/Grenache all speak loudly of Ridge winemaking and only whisper their DryCreek origins. Yet across the board, the Ridge reds speak loudly of Ridge. And only with a subtle voice their terroir and, sometimes, their variety.
2. Siduri/Novy: When you taste thru a bunch of Adam’s Pinots, I think they are all distinctly different. For his regional blends or vnyd-designate Pinots, I think I could pick out those from StaRitaHills, SantaLuciaHighlands, RRV, maybe SonomaCoast; certainly Oregon. Though I doubt I could pick out blind the Keefer vs. AmberRidge or the Pisoni vs. Garys’. I’m just not that good enough at the terroir thing at that refined a level. But I think they all speak well of their respective terroirs. Yet, overlain on their terroir is that distinctive Siduri winemaking style. That is, I think I could probably pick out an Ojai vs Siduri Pisoni Pinot blind w/o too much trouble. But they’re, to me, distinctly Siduri.
3. Carlisle: Things are a bit tougher here w/ Mike’s reds. I think Mike’s reds have a distinctive stylistic signature to them, though it’s not as easily identifiable as some other wineries. They speak, to me, strongly of their varietal character; Zin, Syrah, Petite. I think I could probably pick out the JamesBerry vs. CardiacHill vs. Rosella’s Syrah. I’d have a very tough time w/ the CarlisleVnyd vs. Pietro’s Zin. Maybe even the MonteRosso Zin I’d have trouble picking out blind. But I think it’d be easy enough to pick out the Carlisle vs. Rosenblum vs. Ravenswood Zin. Not so vs. the Bedrock, though. But I think Mike’s reds have a distinctive style that’s not too hard to pick out in a blind tasting.

So…these are three examples that come to mind of winemakers whose wines express their terroir, at least on a regional basis, very well; but who’s winemaking style is distinctive and shows thru the terroir. I can think of a few others as well. And I can think of a few winemaker’s winemaking style can obliterate any expression of terroir in many/some cases. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. And some folks even assert that the winemaker’s style is part of a wines terroir. Not sure I buy into that, though.

So…the $64,000 question is: Who/what winemaker has a winemaking style that is so subtle that you can identify the terroir easily enough, but you can’t identify who the heck made it? That s to say, what winemaker can mostly purely express the terroir of the grapes, but the winemaking style takes a distinct back-seat to the terroir?? You can say, blind, dang…this is a Hirsch Pinot or a MonteRosso Zin…but danged if I can figure out who made it??
This is, of course, important to those who worship at the altar of terrior. Others worship at the altar of varietal typicity. Others worship at other altars of their choosing.
Tom

Calera?

My fav CA producer…Mt Eden Vineyard

Tom, are you arguing that Carlisle’s style represents an expression of terroir or the opposite? I would argue that the wines are more of an expression of style than terroir or varietal character.

A couple Cabs that come to mind immediately are:
Mayacamas
Dunn
Corison

Lagier-Meredith for Syrah

Mt Eden for Cab and Pinot

Talley for Pinot

Turley sometimes pushes ripeness but they do not use a ton of new oak or at least don’t use enough to kill the individual wines. Side by side, the vineyard designates show very differently.

Arguments could be made for lots of wines. Disagreements will be voiced for most all of them.

Tom, you hit the Siduri/Novy angle but you approached it from Pinot. As I sit here tonight and finish the last glass of 09 Garys’ syrah, and then earlier this last week the 09 Rosella’s syrah, I would make a confident argument for the fact that Adam gets the terroir to consistently show through these two wines, especially the Rosella’s. I have drank enough of these vintages now of the Novy SLH syrahs that there is distinctive terroir there and these wines show it.

+1

I also agree with Cris about Mt Eden Cab and Pinot.

I’ll yield to your superior palate on this one, Frank. And not being sarcastic at all. I have just not tasted them side-by-side enough
to say I can identify the distinctive terroirs of the two wines. But they both, to me, speak strongly of SLH Syrah.
Tom

To even qualify, must at least one other producer also make wine from that location? I would posit the answer to that question should maybe be “yes,” otherwise how can one separate expression of terroir from winemaking style?

I would put in a vote for Williams-Selyem, Littorai, and Cobb. I think their wines are all wonderfully made but allow site to shine quite nicely.

Also, and I am sure I will get flack from those who have preconceptions about their wines due their past style, but I would argue the Turley wines from the last four vintages, where they have pulled back their style a bit, are pretty darn true to place-- Ueberroth on Paso versus Mead on Atlas Peak versus Hayne versus their efforts from Contra Costa and Lodi (which I think are the best Zinfandel’s made from those appellations these days) are all quite distinct. Yes, they still have alcohol but because they pick at sane levels they gain them through soak up rather than water addition and TA adds after picking at 30" brix like many Zinfandels made in CA- something that is critical in allowing Zinfandel to show its origin.

As for Syrah, there are not too many people who source from all over but I think Copain would jump to the top of the pile.

I guess I don’t agree that Mike’s winemaking style subdues either the terroir nor the varietal character. Certainly not nearly as much as does Ridge’s. When I taste thru a bunch
of Carlisle wines, they are all distinctly different one from the other. And I think they display their terroir in the coarse-grained sense. Whether in the fine-grained sense, as with his
RRV Zins, I just can’t say. Like I said originally, the Carlisles are a bit tougher nut to crack, style-wise. They have, to my palate, a distinctive style. But it’s not any single thing I
can put my finger on. Not like the Ridge or Siduri paradigm.

Lagier-Meredith for Syrah

I guess I’d tend to agree w/ this, Cris. But since they only make one Syrah, I don’t know if it represents the MtVeeder/L-M terroir or not.
But I don’t see a common L-M winemaking style across their Syrah/Mondeuse and the Chester’sAnvil wines.

Turley sometimes pushes ripeness but they do not use a ton of new oak or at least don’t use enough to kill the individual wines. Side by side, the vineyard designates show very differently.

Yup…would very much agree on the Turley Zins, Cris. Back in the old days of HelenTurley, I think her winemaking style pretty much bludgeoned terroir into submission. But I think,
despite the alcohol levels, Ehren does a particularly good job w/ highlighting the expression of terroir.
Tom

Don’t have enough experience w/ them (i.e. Haven’t followed them from the very start) to say yea/nay.

Also, and I am sure I will get flack from those who have preconceptions about their wines due their past style, but I would argue the Turley wines from the last four vintages, where they have pulled back their style a bit, are pretty darn true to place-- Ueberroth on Paso versus Mead on Atlas Peak versus Hayne versus their efforts from Contra Costa and Lodi (which I think are the best Zinfandel’s made from those appellations these days) are all quite distinct. Yes, they still have alcohol but because they pick at sane levels they gain them through soak up rather than water addition and TA adds after picking at 30" brix like many Zinfandels made in CA- something that is critical in allowing Zinfandel to show its origin.

Yup, Morgan…Ehren was exactly the first person who came to mind when I thought to pose my question. Maybe w/ his Failla, but certainly w/ the Turley’s.
I still think the Turley’s get beaten up too much because of their alcohol levels and the sins of their original winemaker.
Tom

Please help me out Cris. What is our style? We use little to no oak. Many of our ferments are uninoculated. Nearly all our wines are unfined and unfiltered. Our alcohols range from the 13s to the 16s. And unlike some producers, I use whole cluster judiciously so the resulting wines don’t become more about the technique than the fruit. In fact, we do so little that if you’re willing to accept sulfites in “natural” wines, most of our wines would qualify as such. (I just eschew “labels”.) My number one goal has always been to not let winemaking obfuscate the fruit. So please, tell me what you think our style is. Thank you.

My vote would be for Peay

I’m perplexed. (“Welcome Perplexed. We’re glad you’re here.”)
I thought “terroir” is all about the vineyard/location and not about the winemaker expressing such terroir.

For pure vineyard, I’ suggest Hirsch, Rosella’s, Gary’s, and Savoy.
Yes - “pinot-centric”, I know.

I was just discussing the finer points of Carlisle zins with respect to their terroirs with a friend the other day. To my mind they are as clear as they are from any winery. Not just appellation differences, but even down to vineyards. There is no way I’d be buying the wines if that wasn’t the case.

I’m not Cris, nor have I had enough of your wines to know whether I agree with his previous post, but perhaps the yeast native to your winery imparts a “signature” of sorts? I dunno — totally guessing, and just throwing that out there.

Just ask Burgundy drinkers.

I can only call it as I see it from tasting Carlisle wines many, many times. To me they exhibit a very ripe character with a certain amount of softness. I often see signs of new oak even though you’ve share relatively low percentages being used. The wines I’ve tasted have a certain sameness of style. That’s all. Clearly some disagree. Its all about palate preferences and judging by the clamoring I see for your wines I’m in the minority.

Regardless of that I respect what you are doing in the way of resurrecting and saving old vine vineyards in California which I’ve told people many times. One wine I consistently enjoy the most from Carlisle would probably be gone if not for you. Two Acres is a great story and bottling that is an asset to the California wine community.

[quote=“Cris Whetstone”]Tom, are you arguing that Carlisle’s style represents an expression of terroir or the opposite? I would argue that the wines are more of an expression of style than terroir or varietal character.

Cris, I would argue that you need to taste a few more Carlisle wines. I have the privilege of being friends with Mike (and Tegan at Turley for that matter) and share more than a few vineyards with him. I doubt I would be as close of friends with him, nor share vineyards, if we did not have a very similar aesthetic when it comes to wine. The Carlisle wines really do run the full gamut of style (try the 2009 Two Acres, a field-blend based on Mourvedre from the impossibly cold RRV for Mourvedre or the 2009 Cardiac Hill Syrah from Bennett Valley, both of which are under 14% alcohol). Even the wines that are higher in alcohol (and I reject the idea that great wines cannot have higher alcohol after having CDP’s from the 60’s and 70’s that tip the scale at 15% and are still brilliant) are generally balanced by incredibly low pH’s and bright acid (the 2009 Martinelli Road, which might be the best wine I have ever had, and I have tried many, from the only old-vine vineyard on Martinelli Road is 16.1% with a pH sub 3.3).

I realize you are commenting about all the varieties but since Mike makes mainly Zinfandel, and this seems to be what you are commenting on, I would suggest first, that you make some Zinfandel from an old vineyard (I will happily sell you a ton or two from my vineyard planted in 1888), and second, as stated above, try some more Carlisle wines (PM me and I will happily share some of my limited allocation with you).

I would forward the opinion that Mike’s wine are as distinct (and loved!) as they are because not only are they purely delicious but they are true to their place. Not since my father’s wines from Ravenswood from the 1980’s and 1990’s have I thought that a producer is making wines more soulfully, more elegantly, and more focused on place (and on particularly historical vines that no one else in the world has) than the current Zinfandel’s from Carlisle (and Turley) right now.

Thanks Cris. Appreciate the feedback. Not sure what else we can do to not get in the way of the fruit (eliminate all new oak across the board? Intentionally pick some vineyards underripe and others overripe to eliminate a “sameness”?) but we’ll keep working on it.