If Oregon had Grand Crus...

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

[/quote
White Rose is a pretty special site. Arcus as well.


/quote]

And up on the same hill is Domaine Drouhin, and across from them an estate no one likes to talk about on this forum.
Nysa and De Ponte aren’t shabby either, but is it the terroir or wine making that distinguishes the best from the also rans?

You mean Domaine S…oops wait, my lawyer is calling. Back in a minute.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

After our experience last night, I would agree with the vote for XNovo.

+1

However, it seems to me part of the issue with X-Novo not having wider recognition is the fact that it’s very small and locked down by Walter Scott. So, no other vintners have access to the fruit, thus current opinions on it’s potential are limited?

That said, I do agree it should be in the running as one of, if not THE, best vineyards in the WV.

+1 also on SSV mentioned above.

If we’re looking at Grand Cru Vineyards, three of the major grand cru vineyards in Burgundy (La Tache, Romanee Conti, La Romanee) are monopoles!

And my personal favorite, Clos de Lambrays is as well.

[Todd_Hamina]

I got tired just reading your list Jim.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Never sure what to do with threads like this. I’m not much for the comparisons between Oregon and Burgundy. I get why it happens. I don’t think I have any comments about what vineyard is what level and vineyard is another level.

For those that don’t know, however, PGC is the largest cataloger of older, historically significant and well-farmed vineyards in Oregon. We currently receive fruit from:

Anderson Family (Dundee site planted in 1992)
Arcus Vineyard (originally Archibald planted in 1978)
Balcombe (Dundee planted in 1990)
Chehalem Mountain (Dick Erath’s original site planted in 1968)
Corrine (Chehalem Mtn AVA site originally planted as Jacob-Hart Vineyard in 1988)
Durant (Dundee Hills originally planted in 1972)
Estate (second site planted in Ribbon Ridge in 1984)
Freedom Hill (originally planted in 1982)
Hyland (originally planted in 1972)
Lia (part of the Jacob-Hart Vineyard along with Corrine)
Medici (Chehalem Mtn AVA originally planted in 1976)
Ridgecrest (first Ribbon Ridge site planted in 1982)
Risdall Ranch (originally Shafer Vineyard planted in 1972)
Weber Vineyard (originally planted 1978)

Additionally we have made wines from Seven Springs (as Anden 2002-2006), Shea (2000-2004), Eason (now part of Eyrie planted in 1985), White Rose (technically only at Torii Mor and initially planted in 1980), Whistling Ridge (2003-2012), Red Hills (2009) and Winderlea (as Goldschmidt 2002-2006 and Winderlea 2007-8).

I don’t know how many of these are or would be or might be GC comparable. I do know that these sites all originally harken back to an older and rarer time in the Oregon wine biz. These are all, in some way, important and relevant vineyards. We tend to get the oldest or at least oldest remaining blocks in these sites. Some of these sites still do, could or should lay claim to having the capacity to producing fruit that could be turned into absolutely top level wines. There are, of course, newer sites that are at or have the potential to be at a place where their individual excellence could be considered over a long period of time.

At the least it is encouraging that people are willing to consider the sites of Oregon meriting a discussion of a Burgundy-like hierarchy even if it will never happen and is likely a terrible idea in the real world.

We have made every effort to seek out places of historical Oregon significance and keep their stories going (or alive in some cases). Glad that people are willing to engage in the conversation and support our endeavors and those of folks like Marcus, Ken, Kelley and on and on.

I think this is why determining what qualities would lead to elevation of a vineyard need to be the first thing any round table of monks should do.

Early establishment leads to older vines, and more experience at farming. But over the next 200-800 years that edge will shift. Many of my favorite older plantings are being replanted, and many have the lack of knowledge of the region when they were planted as part of their terroir(not always to the detriment of the wines by any means).

I am extremely excited to get our part of the West Field at Temperance Hill this year. Single high wire trellis and 12 foot spacing between the rows. The old vines are interplanted now so it’s only 5 feet between plants. But that section of the vineyard has produced some very great wines over the years.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Glad there aren’t Grand Crus in the WV. Lots of freedom for winemakers to show their skills and make the best of a wide range of vineyards…some 20+ miles from each other. Better than the fierce bickering about whether the row 20 feet over is GC or 1er and worth the extra $250+/bottle…or not, because it’s a family legacy with allegedly under-performing progeny at the helm.

RT

So I’ll take the Devil’s Advocate to this.

\

1. the average knowledge base on this board is in the top 1% of consumers. The remaining 99% know basically nothing about Willamette Valley wines and are either picking by label, marketing, samples, visits, and word of mouth(or server recommendation). Vineyard delineation would help give them some confidence and an idea that the industry here is not a novelty(which is literally the word used by a a very nice, and very honest, wine shop employee I spoke with in a big mid-Western city a couple of years ago.)

2. there is plenty of fierce bickering by the “important folks” in the valley. Mostly over prestige and money.

3. nothing guides pricing within any of the wineries. Mark Tarlov makes a $300 wine and says he’s “starting a conversation”. There’s no rhyme or reason to his choice in pricing. I get that he’s kind of trying to validate the Willamette Valley on a world stage but am really not sure this works. I do think that vineyard delineation would help with this issue.

4. there’s so little information on the Willamette Valley and vineyards here, and that’s a huge disadvatage on a world stage. What information we have is slowly being brought together by the community.

5. codification doesn’t need to restrict the varieties planted the way Burgundy does. That was a separate act in Burgundy.

6. while smaller houses would be pushed out by wealthier buyers…that’s happening regardless. Codification would at least increase the purchase price for the current owners.

[Rodrigo_B]

Glad there aren’t Grand Crus in the WV. Lots of freedom for winemakers to show their skills and make the best of a wide range of vineyards…some 20+ miles from each other. Better than the fierce bickering about whether the row 20 feet over is GC or 1er and worth the extra $250+/bottle…or not, because it’s a family legacy with allegedly under-performing progeny at the helm.

RT

So I’ll take the Devil’s Advocate to this.

\

1. the average knowledge base on this board is in the top 1% of consumers. The remaining 99% know basically nothing about Willamette Valley wines and are either picking by label, marketing, samples, visits, and word of mouth(or server recommendation). Vineyard delineation would help give them some confidence and an idea that the industry here is not a novelty(which is literally the word used by a a very nice, and very honest, wine shop employee I spoke with in a big mid-Western city a couple of years ago.)

2. there is plenty of fierce bickering by the “important folks” in the valley. Mostly over prestige and money.

3. nothing guides pricing within any of the wineries. Mark Tarlov makes a $300 wine and says he’s “starting a conversation”. There’s no rhyme or reason to his choice in pricing. I get that he’s kind of trying to validate the Willamette Valley on a world stage but am really not sure this works. I do think that vineyard delineation would help with this issue.

4. there’s so little information on the Willamette Valley and vineyards here, and that’s a huge disadvatage on a world stage. What information we have is slowly being brought together by the community.

5. codification doesn’t need to restrict the varieties planted the way Burgundy does. That was a separate act in Burgundy.

6. while smaller houses would be pushed out by wealthier buyers…that’s happening regardless. Codification would at least increase the purchase price for the current owners.

I agree that some form of vineyard delineation would be helpful for consumers.

As you noted, Willamette Valley is an infant relative to most European wine regions, so in a sense it’s just starting to come together and develop.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on what form of delineation would be useful to the regions and consumers. Is it a two tiered classification based on Burgundy’s Premier Cru/Grand Cru vineyard classification? Something else?

[Mattstolz]

Never sure what to do with threads like this. I’m not much for the comparisons between Oregon and Burgundy. I get why it happens. I don’t think I have any comments about what vineyard is what level and vineyard is another level.

For those that don’t know, however, PGC is the largest cataloger of older, historically significant and well-farmed vineyards in Oregon. We currently receive fruit from:

Anderson Family (Dundee site planted in 1992)
Arcus Vineyard (originally Archibald planted in 1978)
Balcombe (Dundee planted in 1990)
Chehalem Mountain (Dick Erath’s original site planted in 1968)
Corrine (Chehalem Mtn AVA site originally planted as Jacob-Hart Vineyard in 1988)
Durant (Dundee Hills originally planted in 1972)
Estate (second site planted in Ribbon Ridge in 1984)
Freedom Hill (originally planted in 1982)
Hyland (originally planted in 1972)
Lia (part of the Jacob-Hart Vineyard along with Corrine)
Medici (Chehalem Mtn AVA originally planted in 1976)
Ridgecrest (first Ribbon Ridge site planted in 1982)
Risdall Ranch (originally Shafer Vineyard planted in 1972)
Weber Vineyard (originally planted 1978)

Additionally we have made wines from Seven Springs (as Anden 2002-2006), Shea (2000-2004), Eason (now part of Eyrie planted in 1985), White Rose (technically only at Torii Mor and initially planted in 1980), Whistling Ridge (2003-2012), Red Hills (2009) and Winderlea (as Goldschmidt 2002-2006 and Winderlea 2007-8).

I don’t know how many of these are or would be or might be GC comparable. I do know that these sites all originally harken back to an older and rarer time in the Oregon wine biz. These are all, in some way, important and relevant vineyards. We tend to get the oldest or at least oldest remaining blocks in these sites. Some of these sites still do, could or should lay claim to having the capacity to producing fruit that could be turned into absolutely top level wines. There are, of course, newer sites that are at or have the potential to be at a place where their individual excellence could be considered over a long period of time.

At the least it is encouraging that people are willing to consider the sites of Oregon meriting a discussion of a Burgundy-like hierarchy even if it will never happen and is likely a terrible idea in the real world.

We have made every effort to seek out places of historical Oregon significance and keep their stories going (or alive in some cases). Glad that people are willing to engage in the conversation and support our endeavors and those of folks like Marcus, Ken, Kelley and on and on.

im mostly just saving this list so I know what to ask for when I email around the time of the next release to check and see if any of the library wines are left. dont mind me.

I also wanna mention that I italicized the part I did because that is an important endeavor even in absence of any kind of hierarchy that would ever theoretically happen. being the bearers of the history of the region is part of what makes PGC so special. Of course, it sure doesnt hurt that a ton of these vineyards also happen to be mentioned several times in most people’s lists of the top vineyards in the region.

what Marcus said is really interesting as well though. I have always pictured most of the oldest plantings in the Valley as some of the best… and im sure a lot of that has to do with vine age. as some of those plantings get replaced it will be interesting to see how things develop. I have always thought of the oldest sites partially as good because if you had a whole valley to plant in and choose a spot, hopefully you chose a damn good one. just like if you just walked into an imaginary totally fallow Burgundy Cote in the 1970s, you would probably choose halfway up the hill on the Eastern side. but who knows, we all know how much difference a few meters can make in the Cote… and its not like the soil in Oregon lacks complexity. what if Hyland would have been explosively better a quarter mile down the road?

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Don’t get me wrong, old vines are a difference maker. The Marjorie bottling from Cristom was always of their block bottlings my favorite back in the day. That was the old vine section, and made so e tremendous wines. But in 200 years, all the current blocks will be old or in a cycle of replanting so the advantage of old vines now won’t be limited to the few vineyards that existed in the 70s.

Old vines are a great way for monks to choose their purchasing now, but a serious classification might need to wait until all the sites are older sites. Or a different way of choosing might need to be employed.

[Jim_Anderson]

Don’t get me wrong, old vines are a difference maker. The Marjorie bottling from Cristom was always of their block bottlings my favorite back in the day. That was the old vine section, and made so e tremendous wines. But in 200 years, all the current blocks will be old or in a cycle of replanting so the advantage of old vines now won’t be limited to the few vineyards that existed in the 70s.

Old vines are a great way for monks to choose their purchasing now, but a serious classification might need to wait until all the sites are older sites. Or a different way of choosing might need to be employed.

Yes. My point was to say that I’m more of an Oregon vineyard librarian than a Grand Cru classification kind of person. Folks back in the 70s didn’t have some special intel on where and what to plant and it certainly doesn’t mean that because their vineyard has been around for 40-50 years that a vineyard that has been around for 10 won’t be or isn’t already superior. I have no claim to the best vineyards. I think I can claim the broadest swath of historical Oregon sites many/most of which have continuous ownership, good/very good+ locations and good to excellent farming. It’s been important to Patty and me to continue to tell the story of Oregon’s past with and through our wines. I don’t know if that makes them in the GC consideration discussed here and it’s not important to me. Likely the greatest vineyard site in Oregon has not or will not be planted (meaning it’s being used for some other purpose). I could be incorrect about this. And, again, I don’t care.

We’ve decided on my winery’s path and what our plan is and what fruit we want to work with. The path forward is interesting and exciting and I hope people uncover sites like X-Novo in the present and Fir Crest from the past and bring them into the light of great Oregon vineyards because caring people make awesome wines from them. That’s my jam through and through. I’m here for this state’s winemaking vibe and hope I contribute and that our defense of and tale telling of the past helps create a future for stuff that will be the gold standards in the future.

[Todd_Hamina]

I’m here for this state’s winemaking vibe and hope I contribute and that our defense of and tale telling of the past helps create a future for stuff that will be the gold standards in the future.

• I tip my hat to you Sir.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Don’t get me wrong, old vines are a difference maker. The Marjorie bottling from Cristom was always of their block bottlings my favorite back in the day. That was the old vine section, and made so e tremendous wines. But in 200 years, all the current blocks will be old or in a cycle of replanting so the advantage of old vines now won’t be limited to the few vineyards that existed in the 70s.

Old vines are a great way for monks to choose their purchasing now, but a serious classification might need to wait until all the sites are older sites. Or a different way of choosing might need to be employed.

Yes. My point was to say that I’m more of an Oregon vineyard librarian than a Grand Cru classification kind of person. Folks back in the 70s didn’t have some special intel on where and what to plant and it certainly doesn’t mean that because their vineyard has been around for 40-50 years that a vineyard that has been around for 10 won’t be or isn’t already superior. I have no claim to the best vineyards. I think I can claim the broadest swath of historical Oregon sites many/most of which have continuous ownership, good/very good+ locations and good to excellent farming. It’s been important to Patty and me to continue to tell the story of Oregon’s past with and through our wines. I don’t know if that makes them in the GC consideration discussed here and it’s not important to me. Likely the greatest vineyard site in Oregon has not or will not be planted (meaning it’s being used for some other purpose). I could be incorrect about this. And, again, I don’t care.

We’ve decided on my winery’s path and what our plan is and what fruit we want to work with. The path forward is interesting and exciting and I hope people uncover sites like X-Novo in the present and Fir Crest from the past and bring them into the light of great Oregon vineyards because caring people make awesome wines from them. That’s my jam through and through. I’m here for this state’s winemaking vibe and hope I contribute and that our defense of and tale telling of the past helps create a future for stuff that will be the gold standards in the future.

You and me both.

I’m a record keeper first and foremost.


Codification is only analysis of what has been recorded. I think it would have benefits and drawbacks for Oregon, but having been a starving record keeper for a lot of years, I also support analysis of what the librarians and record keepers have in their books.

[R_M_Kriete]

I don’t think you have anything to worry about. This is all just a fun “what if…” consideration. I really doubt anything will ever be codified in Oregon wine making beyond the AVAs. There would be decades (centuries?) of haggling and bickering over how to decide the classifications. And it is not as if Americans are growing in their enthusiasm for rules, regulations, and authorities. Not even in little old easy going Oregon.

True. Antifa is so against Cru classification!

[Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i]

Glad there aren’t Grand Crus in the WV. Lots of freedom for winemakers to show their skills and make the best of a wide range of vineyards…some 20+ miles from each other. Better than the fierce bickering about whether the row 20 feet over is GC or 1er and worth the extra $250+/bottle…or not, because it’s a family legacy with allegedly under-performing progeny at the helm.
RT

So I’ll take the Devil’s Advocate to this.

Marcus, thanks as always for your insightful input. Some very good points. Some far less informed thoughts below:

1. the average knowledge base on this board is in the top 1% of consumers. The remaining 99% know basically nothing about Willamette Valley wines and are either picking by label, marketing, samples, visits, and word of mouth(or server recommendation). Vineyard delineation would help give them some confidence and an idea that the industry here is not a novelty(which is literally the word used by a a very nice, and very honest, wine shop employee I spoke with in a big mid-Western city a couple of years ago.)
   The WV continues to evolve so fast that remaining a well informed consumer is no easy feat! Vineyard delineations might help with marketing but could provide confusion…I.e.: Corton vs. Chambolle-Musigny Amoureuses. Dundee GC vs. Chehalem? Couldn’t it be argued that compared to Burgundy, the WV is still a “novelty”? Seems like a shortsighted judgement compared to CA. Would vineyard delineations change that opinion?

2. there is plenty of fierce bickering by the “important folks” in the valley. Mostly over prestige and money.
   OR used to pride itself on its family-like cooperation between wineries (with inevitable tensions). Competition, big money, etc. are bound to change that…but I’m hoping the tradition continues to a much greater extent than in Burgundy and CA. Something else that’s probably evolving fast

3. nothing guides pricing within any of the wineries. Mark Tarlov makes a $300 wine and says he’s “starting a conversation”. There’s no rhyme or reason to his choice in pricing. I get that he’s kind of trying to validate the Willamette Valley on a world stage but am really not sure this works. I do think that vineyard delineation would help with this issue.
   As a minority consumer. I selfishly love this. Let Mark charge whatever he wants. There’re so many excellent options that are 80%+ less expensive.

4. there’s so little information on the Willamette Valley and vineyards here, and that’s a huge disadvatage on a world stage. What information we have is slowly being brought together by the community.
   Burgundy has received a crazy amount of attention. Is available information about the WV significantly less than that for New Zealand, Australia, California, Germany (Spatburgunder), etc.? There’s certainly no Clive Coates equivalent.

5. codification doesn’t need to restrict the varieties planted the way Burgundy does. That was a separate act in Burgundy.

6. while smaller houses would be pushed out by wealthier buyers…that’s happening regardless. Codification would at least increase the purchase price for the current owners.
   Sadly true, but I get the sense that new and displaced producers aren’t necessarily pushed down to the less desirable bottom land. There seem to be a considerable number of new younger vineyards (lots of new names to me) showing promise. Not something that happens in Burgundy IMHO

RT

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Glad there aren’t Grand Crus in the WV. Lots of freedom for winemakers to show their skills and make the best of a wide range of vineyards…some 20+ miles from each other. Better than the fierce bickering about whether the row 20 feet over is GC or 1er and worth the extra $250+/bottle…or not, because it’s a family legacy with allegedly under-performing progeny at the helm.
RT

So I’ll take the Devil’s Advocate to this.

Marcus, thanks as always for your insightful input. Some very good points. Some far less informed thoughts below:

1. the average knowledge base on this board is in the top 1% of consumers. The remaining 99% know basically nothing about Willamette Valley wines and are either picking by label, marketing, samples, visits, and word of mouth(or server recommendation). Vineyard delineation would help give them some confidence and an idea that the industry here is not a novelty(which is literally the word used by a a very nice, and very honest, wine shop employee I spoke with in a big mid-Western city a couple of years ago.)
   The WV continues to evolve so fast that remaining a well informed consumer is no easy feat! Vineyard delineations might help with marketing but could provide confusion…I.e.: Corton vs. Chambolle-Musigny Amoureuses. Dundee GC vs. Chehalem? Couldn’t it be argued that compared to Burgundy, the WV is still a “novelty”? Seems like a shortsighted judgement compared to CA. Would vineyard delineations change that opinion?

Whether we’re a novelty or not compared to Burgundy isn’t my issue, it’s whether we stay a novelty.
Jim catalogues old vine vineyards. I catalogue under recognized sites. And, to some extent try to illustrate that the edge of ripeness is earlier than people think and that low alcohol wines are still possible and can be very good wines.

But no one goes to a library they’ve never heard of.
For anyone who likes my wines, they should thank you and Bob Wood. Because if it wasn’t for the specific support of my wines from the people on this board, I wouldn’t be making them anymore.

99% of retail locations in this country have a set amount of spots for Oregon wine on the shelf. And most of those shelf spots go to bigger producers because they’re known. In most retail shops Willamette Valley wines are still an afterthought, although that is changing over the past 5-10 years. As the knowledge and confidence of consumers grow. Codification, done well, would give consumers more confidence to explore the region. And it should also give people some confidence against the need to constantly make wines that are designed to impress people through size, oak, and extraction.

2. there is plenty of fierce bickering by the “important folks” in the valley. Mostly over prestige and money.
   OR used to pride itself on its family-like cooperation between wineries (with inevitable tensions). Competition, big money, etc. are bound to change that…but I’m hoping the tradition continues to a much greater extent than in Burgundy and CA. Something else that’s probably evolving fast

Collegiality in our industry did exist and still does.
It would be good to remember that the formation of the AVAs was done in a collegial effort by a majority of wineries, and spearheaded by a group of industry leaders, who mostly still seem to be friends and haven’t been to court with each other that I know of.
While codifying individual vineyards would be harder, there’s little doubt in my mind that the AVAs have been helpful and were executed well.



3) nothing guides pricing within any of the wineries. Mark Tarlov makes a $300 wine and says he’s “starting a conversation”. There’s no rhyme or reason to his choice in pricing. I get that he’s kind of trying to validate the Willamette Valley on a world stage but am really not sure this works. I do think that vineyard delineation would help with this issue.
As a minority consumer. I selfishly love this. Let Mark charge whatever he wants. There’re so many excellent options that are 80%+ less expensive.

Yeah, but for me it’s a bit disheartening to see someone say they’ve had the best wines from Oregon and nothing impressed them…and that’s happened with people from Jean-Nicholas Meo to Michael Chang.


4) there’s so little information on the Willamette Valley and vineyards here, and that’s a huge disadvatage on a world stage. What information we have is slowly being brought together by the community.
Burgundy has received a crazy amount of attention. Is available information about the WV significantly less than that for New Zealand, Australia, California, Germany (Spatburgunder), etc.? There’s certainly no Clive Coates equivalent.

You seem to have listed a bunch of places that haven’t delineated vineyard quality via a system a la Burgundy…which side are you arguing

That seems to be a huge argument for, not just us but NZ, Germany, AU, etc., following in the footsteps of Burgundy, or following California’s lead developing our own version of significant wine publications like W&S, Spectator, etc.

5. codification doesn’t need to restrict the varieties planted the way Burgundy does. That was a separate act in Burgundy.

6. while smaller houses would be pushed out by wealthier buyers…that’s happening regardless. Codification would at least increase the purchase price for the current owners.
   Sadly true, but I get the sense that new and displaced producers aren’t necessarily pushed down to the less desirable bottom land. There seem to be a considerable number of new younger vineyards (lots of new names to me) showing promise. Not something that happens in Burgundy IMHO

Because Oregon isn’t planted out. Codification isn’t just for our use now, but also for centuries in the future. The Valley will be planted out at some point. And it would aid the newer and less moneyed in the meantime by creating highly sought after spots for the larger and less risk averse to focus on(and pay for), leaving less “star” status based opportunities for those who are willing to bootstrap up. It’s creating a system that would aid exposure and definitely aid education about the less well known areas, especially as pricing on the GC sites escalated and incentivized smart shoppers to nearby options.
MG


RT

[Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i]

Understandably, WV winemakers are looking for ways to differentiate and elevate their wines to be more attractive to consumers and industry professionals. The classification system in Burgundy was going on long before serious efforts in the 1800s and the more “official” designations in the 1920s and 30s. It still took 50 more years to dial in the GCs after the INAO AOCs were established. Not sure how many WV vineyards were planted 50 years ago?

With exceptions and inevitable squabbles, Burgundy’s system has held up well with wines from GC sites typically rising above 1er, above Village (IMHO at least). It took a long time to get there.

I’m not sure that a premature and potentially inaccurate vineyard delineation system would be an advantage for younger regions. Certain winemakers and vineyard owners might benefit but consumers and professionals would be confused if there was an ongoing series of appreciable corrections, additions and alterations.

Anyway, the wild card of global warming might take a wrecking ball to the various classification systems.

RT

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Understandably, WV winemakers are looking for ways to differentiate and elevate their wines to be more attractive to consumers and industry professionals. The classification system in Burgundy was going on long before serious efforts in the 1800s and the more “official” designations in the 1920s and 30s. It still took 50 more years to dial in the GCs after the INAO AOCs were established. Not sure how many WV vineyards were planted 50 years ago?

With exceptions and inevitable squabbles, Burgundy’s system has held up well with wines from GC sites typically rising above 1er, above Village (IMHO at least). It took a long time to get there.

I’m not sure that a premature and potentially inaccurate vineyard delineation system would be an advantage for younger regions. Certain winemakers and vineyard owners might benefit but consumers and professionals would be confused if there was an ongoing series of appreciable corrections, additions and alterations.

Anyway, the wild card of global warming might take a wrecking ball to the various classification systems.

RT

As I noted, you have to walk before you can run. And also that codification might have to take a significant period of time to allow vine age to be established.

But when a long journey looms, the end is accomplished sooner by beginning right away.

Also-your characterization of the process as inherently premature and inaccurate seems biased. Especially given how good a job the industry has done with AVAs so far. While probably not perfect, I have no major quibble of any kind with the AVAs as established. Except perhaps to add a few new ones, the Cherry Grove/Patton Valley area has a very distinct nature in my opinion, and to sub-divide the ones that are too big(Chehalem) and take the obvious next step of delineating differences within the existing ones(Oracle and Durant share the common thread of the Dundee Hills but are very different terroirs).

Shooting a horse before it’s born makes no sense to me. Nor does branding it a donkey until one has seen the ears.

I don’t know why consumers would be more confused by a correction than they already would be?
Particularly if the process is primarily focused on noting distinctions, includes more wide ranging levels of high quality(1er Cru does this in Burgundy) and a producer can always do as we do now and demonstrate their own belief in a site by designating the site on the bottle.

Right now there’s no real information at all unless one has significant drinking experience.

There are lots of issues that woukd arise, and I could argue against this pretty easily, even from the standpoint that if we designated a site Grand Cru and the producer still slathered the wine in new oak, enzymes, and coldsoak then it would give even more credence to a consumer walking away from the region. But I would take that risk, because Burgundy hasn’t received crazy attention for no reason. Wine quality is one, but the digestibility of the story a region that is fragmented into vinous tidbits is impressive and leaves a lot to be explored.

I don’t know that I care about GC sites as much as I care about creating a region with a continuity to it that celebrated the diversity of the sites. And the classification system in Burgundy does that better than anywhere else. GC vineyards in Burgundy are a tiny percentage, and in codifying Oregon that percentage shouldn’t be exceeded, and the path to that designation should be as stringent as it gets.

[Mattstolz]

Understandably, WV winemakers are looking for ways to differentiate and elevate their wines to be more attractive to consumers and industry professionals. The classification system in Burgundy was going on long before serious efforts in the 1800s and the more “official” designations in the 1920s and 30s. It still took 50 more years to dial in the GCs after the INAO AOCs were established. Not sure how many WV vineyards were planted 50 years ago?

With exceptions and inevitable squabbles, Burgundy’s system has held up well with wines from GC sites typically rising above 1er, above Village (IMHO at least). It took a long time to get there.

I’m not sure that a premature and potentially inaccurate vineyard delineation system would be an advantage for younger regions. Certain winemakers and vineyard owners might benefit but consumers and professionals would be confused if there was an ongoing series of appreciable corrections, additions and alterations.

Anyway, the wild card of global warming might take a wrecking ball to the various classification systems.

RT

I personally think a lot of people are getting really bogged down in the “grand cru” terminology when the point of the thread is not necessarily meant to be about whether grand cru designates are actually the right way to go for Oregon- or if its the right time for it- but more to be a snapshot of whether or not there is any kind of consensus on vineyards that tend to consistently make really great wines.

I think we can all agree the Burgundy system works great for Burgundy, but its got a pretty unique history that made that system possible. I have no desire to turn the WV into Burgundy Jr. Oregon has its own history, culture, and people which makes it my very favorite wine region out there.

right now, it seems old vines are king in Oregon. those vines are part of the heritage of the region and speak to the spirit that founded it. it makes them very exciting to work with, and really fun wines to drink. they are the current equivalent of GC, as it does seem like they consistently make the best wines in a producer’s portfolio. we are in a really interesting time, though, because a lot of those old vine vineyards are being planted and some great new ones are being planted. Just like we won’t be seeing any more First vine plantings from PGC, and X-novo is killing it. this is the first part of the cycle Marcus is referring to where we will see a chance for some of the vineyards not planted by pioneers to begin to catch up in vine age. I think its an interesting time for reflection on where the quality currently rests.

[Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i]

I personally think a lot of people are getting really bogged down in the “grand cru” terminology when the point of the thread is…

Well…“Grand Crus” are 2 of the 5 words in your thread title. In the world of Pinots and Chards, the term means one thing and refers to one place.

I don’t believe it’s too early to “start” work on parsing and identifying “great” vineyards in OR. Shooting completely from the hip…I believe it’s going to be a process that outlives me…before reaching meaningful conclusions.

Anecdotally, I’ve had outstanding Seven Springs Pinots from various vintages from 3 different producers…and completely lackluster examples from a 4th. At this point, producer and vintage mean more to me than vineyard, although it’s impossible to separate certain producers from certain vineyards.

RT

[Mattstolz]

Anecdotally, I’ve had outstanding Seven Springs Pinots from various vintages from 3 different producers…and completely lackluster examples from a 4th. At this point, producer and vintage mean more to me than vineyard, although it’s impossible to separate certain producers from certain vineyards.

RT

im curious if the 4th bottling was from a winery you normally enjoy? because I agree with your statement that producer and vintage mean more than site oftentimes, but I think thats true anywhere. the suggestion I always give people in burgundy is to buy producers they trust and like. but while I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Walter Scott SSV be better than some other random producer, I would be surprised if the SSV wasnt still one of the better bottlings that producer made. do you think that is a fair guess?

but hey, there are times when people are probably not blown away by Richebourg from some producers too! (for the record, I’m not comparing SSV to Richebourg, though)

[ChrisJames]

As I noted, you have to walk before you can run. And also that codification might have to take a significant period of time to allow vine age to be established.

But when a long journey looms, the end is accomplished sooner by beginning right away.

Also-your characterization of the process as inherently premature and inaccurate seems biased. Especially given how good a job the industry has done with AVAs so far. While probably not perfect, I have no major quibble of any kind with the AVAs as established. Except perhaps to add a few new ones, the Cherry Grove/Patton Valley area has a very distinct nature in my opinion, and to sub-divide the ones that are too big(Chehalem) and take the obvious next step of delineating differences within the existing ones(Oracle and Durant share the common thread of the Dundee Hills but are very different terroirs).

Shooting a horse before it’s born makes no sense to me. Nor does branding it a donkey until one has seen the ears.

I don’t know why consumers would be more confused by a correction than they already would be?
Particularly if the process is primarily focused on noting distinctions, includes more wide ranging levels of high quality(1er Cru does this in Burgundy) and a producer can always do as we do now and demonstrate their own belief in a site by designating the site on the bottle.

Right now there’s no real information at all unless one has significant drinking experience.

There are lots of issues that woukd arise, and I could argue against this pretty easily, even from the standpoint that if we designated a site Grand Cru and the producer still slathered the wine in new oak, enzymes, and coldsoak then it would give even more credence to a consumer walking away from the region. But I would take that risk, because Burgundy hasn’t received crazy attention for no reason. Wine quality is one, but the digestibility of the story a region that is fragmented into vinous tidbits is impressive and leaves a lot to be explored.

I don’t know that I care about GC sites as much as I care about creating a region with a continuity to it that celebrated the diversity of the sites. And the classification system in Burgundy does that better than anywhere else. GC vineyards in Burgundy are a tiny percentage, and in codifying Oregon that percentage shouldn’t be exceeded, and the path to that designation should be as stringent as it gets.

Briefly, how did the AVA system in Oregon come about in a way that has been amiable? Who were the players who made that happen? And how do you envision it possibly happen for vineyard designation? There would have to be a lot of hurt feelings. I can think of one producer who has on his website that his vineyard could be considered GC, yet no one on this thread mentioned the vineyard. And if you think of the mentioned vineyards, most of them have been in Ribbon Ridge, Dundee, or Eola-Amity.