50
I believe there is a lot of truth to this as new world pinot is in its infant stage. We all (or most of us) have our favorite new world producers and sometimes compare them to the wines of the Cote d’or but in reality are so much different. What matters is the NW winemakers have this passion to improve and continue to search out the best vineyards, clones, yeasts… There has been a lot of progress and it gets better every year.
I am drinking a 2006 Calera Central Coast pinot tonight and yes, it is good, but at the same time it tastes very generic and really hard to pinpoint its origin.
Well, that’s because that’s their generic wine, like an AOC Bourgogne. Try a Selleck or Jensen if you want to see what their terroir can do.
Just generalizing. I get the differences and really enjoy NW and Old world pinots each for what they are.
I agree with his basic premise that heavy hands are not good for making special wines. I just think that it is BS that the new world relies on technology and scientific advancements too heavily, and that that is what guiding our winemaking to a direction of sameness. Not in my back yard at least. If anything it is the opposite. If we can learn faster from others and our own mistakes, how can that be a bad thing? Do you think that farmers like Gary Franscioni or Mark Pisoni took none of their past experiences from the Pisoni, Garys’ & Rosella’s vineyards into account when they developed Sierra Mar and Soberanes?
Sure, I use lab numbers and technology (shame on me and my digital refractometer) in my winemaking, but I would say that 90% of the decisions I make in the vineyards and in the cellar are based on taste and gut feeling. Those gut feelings come from experience, chats with other winemakers, mistakes I’ve made along the way and occasionally AFSD (actual fucking scientific data.) I love the intangibles and the unexplainable things about wine, but I am happy to use science to help me make better decisions.
I really don’t think the so called “problem” of homogenous wines is to be blamed on the lack of diversity in clones in CA. We have plenty. Besides the common Dijon selections(115,667,777) we have the our heritage clones (Swan,Calera,Mt. Eden, etc.) Pommard, clone 23 and so on. Most sites are developed with a minumum of 3 clones, but many I work with have 6+ different clones planted. They may organized in distinct rows and not interplanted randomly like Matt suggests, but at least we know what we are dealing with. Any winemaker can tell you that Pinot Noir vines don’t take long to mutate and adapt to where they are planted. My 115 at the Suacci Vineyard tastes, and performs nothing like my 115 at La Cruz. Also, neither of them are the same in 2012 as they were in 2005 when i started at those sites.
Once the average vine age is about 20 yrs. older in CA, I think that we’ll have the everything we need to FSU in the Pinot world. We have lots to learn in the vineyards, but we have come a long way in a short period of time if you think about it.
I think the sameness he tastes in many wines is due to the fact that more often than not grapes are picked too ripe resulting in smoother(higher pH, lower acid) wines. I think that the use of too much toasty oak can also be part of it. I feel the nuances of Pinot Noir are masked more as you go bigger & riper. Many larger, mainstream wineries feel the need to throw fastballs down the middle, because that is what really sells the easiest to the average consumer. There are a lot winemakers throwing wicked curves and junkballs out there to feed the needs of us Berserkers in the world.
and one more thing
\m/ Hail Satan! \m/
I see what you’re saying in that, if all other things are equal, the difference in wines from a number of different single-clone vineyards would largely be attributed to terroir. Ryan mentioned a couple of 115 plantings that he works with that illustrate this.
What I mean is that a diversity of plant material within any specific vineyard gives the terroir so many more avenues for expression due to the broader genetic makeup and variance in ripeness across different vine types. This would result in a more complex, and potentially more interesting, wine. At least that’s the intent. I imagine it’s pretty easy to screw up pinot made from a massale vineyard.
I also agree completely with Ryan’s entire last paragraph.
Burgundy is what I personally drink, but this is a personal preference. To say no one else is doing anything with diversity is inaccurate, to speak to the diversity of Burgundy being a function of clones proves a lack of understanding of the region. If this was indeed understood and terroir was given acknowledgement, there would be equal arguments for terroir being on display elsewhere.
Terroir is not a concept that stretches only to the borders of France.
What we have here is special, but it is not special at the cost of every other region being less so.
Ray, I don’t think anyone is suggesting Burgundy is a function of clones - at least I didn’t get that from what has been said. I think the argument being made is that the large number of young pinot vineyards that are planted to a handful of popular clones is not necessarily helping to identify what the terroir in these locales is all about. Of course, this is a rather simplistic explanation for a very complex topic.
Like the new labels by the way.
Thanks for the clarification, Tyler. As much as I adore my old Kramer books, I have lately found it difficult to understand what he is on about…this may in fact be related to my eyes rolling back like an irritated teenager whenever I start in. But, who knows?
I personally believe that too much attention is being paid to clones. In the new world, why is the conversation of vineyard expression dominated by clonal selection? We aren’t hearing of soil depths, exposures, soil types, drainage, or indeed diversity within a region or vineyard itself. The conversation is not the issue, it just needs a proper u-turn to get it going anywhere of value.
Glad you like the labels. We’re now freshly in the 19th century.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
It would be interesting to hear how producers reacted at the Pinot Noir conference in Wellington. Calling on Mike During who was there! How did NZ producers take it?
I cannot imagine that it would have bothered the better producers who are themselves burgheads and trying to do something interesting in NZ; people such as Nick Mills who understands the significance of Burgundy, have spent a lot of time there and whose vines are about 30 years old or more.
I have certainly noticed a tendency in some NZ producers to rely on the lab and to try to get there really quickly. But the smart ones, and there are plenty of them, know that it will take time to discover what PN can do here.
While not agreeing with Kramer’s position, I have to disagree strongly with this conclusion. Kramer has been writing like this for decades. He has very strong positions on certain subjects and does not hesitate to push buttons, but he doesn’t do it just to push buttons. There is a consistency to his writing. Whether you agree with him or not (and I don’t more often than not), he always gives you something to think about. He has been provoking discussions like this since well before there were wine bulletin boards. To me, that makes for a much more interesting columnist than someone who just spits out what people want to hear, and I read his columns regularly as a result.
I was thinking the same thing.
You could easily say the same thing about Napa cabernet in the last ten years or so.
this must be one of the funniest exchanges in internet history.
reminds me when people complain about fish tasting fishy.
That synopsis of the speech was actually less stupid than I thought it would be given the headline and URL. Clearly he’s being deliberately provocative, and I’m not agreeing whole cloth with him; I’m sure he intended to cause a stir and has done so. I’d be interested in the perspective of people smarter than me on the clone argument. And, fwiw, Oregon PN is my favorite drink in the world.
I always find MK to be the one essential read in Spectator. I like the contrarianism, especially when so many of the columns in wine mags seem to be some variation of “Cabernet has finally come of age in ____” or “These are exciting times for Varietal X in Location Y.”
Berry,
Yes, generally speaking, site trumps clone . . . . ie the same clone planted in numerous places can and will lead to very different wines due to site differences . . . unless the winemaker decides to ‘mitigate’ these differences by using lots of new oak, hanging the grapes until they’re really ripe, using lots of new oak, etc (and yep, I’m not a fan of new oak . . .)
Cheers!
So he got paid $20,000 by the Kiwi winemakers to tell them that their life’s work is second rate? ![[welldone.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/fc9709a841aa9379fd892a9cf0b535b05f473b86.gif "[welldone.gif]"){kind=small}
It wasn’t entirely true 10 years ago and it’s even less true now. So while his premise that this problem applies to all pinot makers is demonstrably false if you take it as encouragement for more producers to avoid that homogeneity which certainly exists for many it may serve a good purpose.
But people like Mt. Eden, etc., etc. could justifiably take offense.
A few words in defense of Matt’s postion (or at least his position as I interpret it).
First regarding clones, The New World has relied heavily (but not entirely) on the Dijon clones. These clones were selected for criteria that are often a poor fit (early ripening, dark color, low acidity) for the NW (at least CA). In my personal opinion, some (but not all) of them are particularly poor at reflecting vineyard differences. Most interestingly, they are completely out of favor in Burgundy (where there are now other choices) and I have not met any Burgundian vigneron that would use them today. I disagree with the notion that looking at clones is somehow not showing enough deference to terroir since plant material (clone and rootstock) often drives the difference between great and merely good within Burgundies crus.
Meanwhile, Matt discusses the New World’s reliance on Science but I don’t think he articulated his real point very well. I think he was trying to make a point about the primacy of terroir and in some cases New World producers might be asking the wrong question. Instead of asking science to tell them “How do I make the best wine in the world from this piece of land I already have?”, he thinks they should be asking “Where is a piece of land that can produce truly distinguished wine?” Of course science can be used to help answer the latter question but most new world viticultural study is focused on the former.
Kevin,
The concept of ‘where to plant’ truly seems to be a newer phenomenon - especially when compared to ‘old world’ areas. What would be interesting to me, and I have no clue about this, is whether there are any ‘newer’ plantings in Burgundy, for instance, or what those are planted to. Ie, are there any ‘newer’ vineyards planted in the region?
Also, could someone plant a vineyard in Burgundy to something other than Pinot or Chardonnay or are they ‘required’ to do so? And if so, WHY? AOC regulations, or ‘science’ explaining that this is what’s ‘best’ for that land?
Curious to hear your thoughts . . .