Pinot Clones: your favorite and why?

WINE TALK
1

American Pinot winemakers often describe the clones from which their grapes are derived. Ignoring the process of evolution and selection once these grapes are planted, what are your thoughts about what clones are “best” for your palate? Do you seek out certain Dijon clones above others? What about Pommard clones or Wadenswil? Can you discern a difference? Is the difference in taste between Spatburgunder and other PN at all attributable to clonal selection?

Allen Meadows is on the record as saying of the heavily planted Dijon clones, “these clones tend to taste more of themselves than reflect the site specific characteristics of where they’re planted.” Do you agree or disagree?

Would love the collective insight of WB on this, as it’s one of the most confusing factors to me, and I’ve never really done a comparative tasting of different clones treated in the same way from the same vineyard…

2

Personally i feel that single clones are more clonal specific and clonal blends are more site specific. Not that I have a ton of experience and data to base that on but in my short geek experience this has been the way it seems.

With that said don’t individual clones respond to varying soils and climates differently? Hard to find a favorite with all the variable that come into play. At least in domestic PN.

3

Allen Meadows is on the record as saying of the heavily planted Dijon clones, “these clones tend to taste more of themselves than reflect the site specific characteristics of where they’re planted.” Do you agree or disagree?

Given that he accurately and consistently called out every one of Rudy’s fake wines before anyone suspected, he must know whereof he speaks.

Or he could simply be full of hot air.

A clone doesn’t taste more or less of a site. That would negate the entire concept of site influence. If site matters, it matters. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

Moreover, is he including the various rootstocks and their clones? Wouldn’t they be more influenced by site, and perhaps chosen for a particular site and its soil?

OK so I noticed Brian posted while I was writing so I’ll add this postscript. Brian - I think the idea of monoclonal planting is a US thing. I may be wrong and I’m willing to be told I am, but I think a lot of Burgundy is made from multiple clones. And that’s not unique to Burgundy - the idea of massale selection is to pick some of the better vines to propagate, which implies that they are not all the same.



What about pruning, density, orientation, etc?

How can someone say “My favorite clone is 113 not matter where or how it’s grown!”

4

I agree which is why I based my opinion on domestic PN. I find lots of single clone PN from CA but tend to better appreciate the blends.

5

Clone wars, Begin, they will.

  • Master Yoda -
6

Not what you asked, but there was a period of time 96 to 06 or so, when the same four clones were planted by virtually every Pinot vineyard planted during that time (the clones being 667, 777, 115 and Pommard). Good clones that each have their place, but it was too much of the same thing. More opinions later, but I’m sitting down to dinner :slight_smile:

7

The clonal topic, especially in regards to Pinot, is a long, nearly exhausting topic for which there is no definitive answer. Yes, in America there is more “block” planting and less massale planting but that has roots in both the French inheritance laws and American “tidiness.” Probably other things as well. Certainly in Burgundy clone discussion is essentially non-existent where it is quite the norm here in the States.

There is also the factor that there are, in Oregon, basically no Dijon clone sites over 25 years in age. Just at my winery we get Pommard and Wadensvil from multiple vineyards as well as our own that date back into the 70s and 80s. That makes a difference for sure and is impossible to remove from the equation.

My preference is Pommard and Wadensvil but have had nice success with 115 and 114. Not crazy about about most other Dijon clones but that could be a product of many other factors that are site, age, etc. related. We have done a clonal comparison from Freedom Hill Vineyard and I think the site shows through with the clone acting as a lens or some sort of veneer.

Ultimately while I have biases towards clones I would still take a clone I was suspect of from a vineyard in considered great over a clone I favored from a poor vineyard. That, however, is narrative for my winery so mileage may vary. I am always happy to walk people through what will interest them. Well, usually you get what I am interested in but close. I think we can show how site is paramount and that clone is a variable. In no way am I saying I am right or even know what I am talking about. Just 24 years at it with an opinionated background.

1 Like
8

Holy Sweet Jesus, what a misguided question.

Where’s Eric Texier when you need him?

9

Explain why misguided. The topic header was just meant to provoke people to read the actual question. My general sense is that your terroir, harvesting/winemaking and elevage decisions and general style of wine are going to trump your clones every time.

I’m more curious, since winemakers are often advertising or at least discussing clones, for those with deep knowledge of pinot noir, how the clone impacts winemaking, flavor, etc. do the Dijon clones remind you more of Clos de la Roche and Pommard clones of Pommard in the finished wine, or is that just hogwash?

We have immense discussions, cf current thread on Clos de Vougeot, on how subtle differences in drainage, soil composition and exposure on the same, fairly small vineyard makes for wildly different wines, and Burgundy buying as a whole is fueled by the narcissism of small differences. So where does the discussion of clones come in? And is it of the same importance as the discussion of destemming vs whole cluster, or even trellising, canopy management or cold soak and maceration time?

If you have I ntelligent thoughts, I want to hear them. Being dismissive of the question is poor form. We’re friends here, I hope.

(Edited for spelling.)

10

First of all, there are surely very few folks on this board with the wide ranging experience needed to answer the question(s). You would need to have tasted from within a single vineyard the wines made from several different clones as well as the wines made from blends of clones. In multiple different vintages. Followed through the evolution of the wine. That’s to have an informed opinion about one site, and probably anyone at the winery has that experience if they ran experiments on different clones, or were involved in changing from one clone to another. And consumers or critics who follow the winery closely might have that experience as well, but it’s rather less likely.

That’s needed to comment intelligently about the effects of clonage on a single site in a single region. To make a general comment about clones, you would need experience that very very few people have.

And there are deeper problems than that with the question. First, you appear to assume that all wines are made from single clones, or at least that single-clone wines are better than multiclone wines. Second, you assume that different clones will perform similarly in different sites. Modern cognitive psychology shows that these assumptions will tend to be reflected in the answers to your question — ie, that by biasing the question, you also bias the answers. Is that what you want?

That said, I never pay attention to what clones are used in a bottle of wine that I buy. There are so many better predictors of the quality of the juice inside.

11

Really? Methinks you are analyzing the person instead of answering his question. I didn’t read that he assumed anything. He asked what we thought about individual clones, if we have a palate preference for any individual clone and if we felt that any expressed their clone over the winemaking.

At least that’s how I read it. You seem to be the one assuming here.

12

Jim,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I really appreciate it. A question I have has to do with rootstock. On the Pommard and Wadenswil from the older vineyards — I assume those are own-rooted? Do you (or really anyone you know) have much in the way of sticks in the ground on Dijon clones? – Just wondering the effects of rootstock as well, and whether or not that can be separated out from clones. (I suspect it is difficult to do so).

Thanks,

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

13

I am well aware that many, if not most, wines are made from multiple clones. I assume that many of the differences between different clones are exactly that they may perform differently in the same site, and that’s really the whole point here. The origin of these clones are often from massale selection over years and years and, at least my understanding was, that they made great wine because, over time, they proved well suited to the terroir from which they grew, not that they’re somehow supergrapes that will grow well everywhere, and that’s really at the crux of what I’m curious about. They’re clones that were well suited to the particular Burgundian terroirs from which they came (except Wadenvil, of course). Perhaps the clones that would do best in California would be taken from an entirely different place. You’re the one making assumptions here.

Also, I think, between the winemakers, merchants, and extremely experienced longtime drinkers of Burgundy and California PN, there is a ton of expertise on WB. Jim Anderson already offered some, as have others. I am always impressed by the breadth and depth of knowledge on WB. And if I can stimulate discussion, great.

The Question is: “tell me your thoughts about clones of Pinot Noir,” nothing more. As for your take on contemporary cognitive psychology, I haven’t studied it since medical school, and I’m less interested in that than in the individual responses of those who care to offer the insight they’ve gained over the years instead of criticizing me for asking an honest question about something I find complex and confusing, despite my reading.

14

I think rootstock differences are nearly impossible to, er, root out. I can’t. I would love to see someone blind taste through various rootstocks and point out 101-13, RG, etc. Certainly ripening, vigor and related things would come into play with rootstock but for the average person and pretty much all (every?) wine I wouldn’t expect any noticeable differences.

We have gotten Dijon clone fruit from self rooted vines but that has been in instances of grafting 115 onto Chardonnay (for instance) just to throw another factor into things. Maybe Drouhin has some self rooted Dijon plants that they planted. Short of that I doubt there is much out there other than the few folks that still do not use rootstock.

Back to clones and the question. Due to our flagrant use of Pommard and Wadensvil I don’t have tons of experience in telling folks what the characteristics of Dijon clones are. I think 115 has a pretty broad range but certainly planting where things are planted will be the largest determinant. At least in my mind. I like the consistency of texture, weight and denser flavor profile in Pommard and the more ethereal, fragrant, light and feminine character in Wadensvil. The majority of our wines are single clone but that is largely due to how things are planted here and how sections of vineyard are sold here and that we choose to make many wines mostly in small quantities.

I will sum up my surely overly long narrative by reiterating the point I have made at least once in each post: Site is the overriding factor (I am speaking about Pinot Noir) and all other conditions only bring out the nature of the site. There will be differences of course. We bottle 3 clone specific Pinots from one site specifically to further explore the concept and nature of site (or terroir if you prefer). Clone is an aspect. If you have gotten this far you officially are either a dork or have certifiable problems. I know. Look at what we do. I am a dork with problems and a winery at my disposal to express my issues.

1 Like
15

16

Great info, Jim - thanks. I’ve been wondering, is the red fruit vs. dark fruit division in Pinot Noir typically due to clone? I think the two Patricia Greens I’ve tried both had more of a red fruit profile (which I tend to like) - is this a Pommard thing? I imagine this an overly simplistic question about a complex topic, but this seems like a good place to ask!

17

Noah, I think this is a great topic to raise.

I’m no winemaker but this is a topic I have have often discussed with NZ pinot noir producers. NZ pinot noir producers are just as interested in it as Jim and other Oregon producers and, I understand, have similar experiences.

NZ pinot noir in the 1970s was founded on the so-called Abel or Ata Rangi clone (said to be taken from a cutting from Domaine de la Rominee-Conti that was confiscated at Customs and then given to our Research and Science Department). It provides silky mouthfeel, good tannins and savoury flavours. It is a large part of what I think of as the signature Ata Rangi or Martinborough mouthfeel and flavour profile of savoury and brambly flavours.

Pommard/Clone 5 is widely planted and arrived in NZ soon after Abel. Winemakers I have spoken to don’t favour it as a single component of their wines. But it delivers solidity, weight and structure to their wines.

The Dijon clones arrived in the early 1980s and were very popular. The wines the clones produce is less structured than Abel or Clone 5 but add more perfumed and elegance, I understand. As Meadows indicates, in NZ too, after the initial enthusiasm, winemakers now only typically want Dijon clones as part of a mix.

There are now more than 20 clones widely planted in NZ. It is even believed there may be some Wadenswil in NZ, confused with Abel. A recent arrival, Escarpment and others are now growing the Australian Mornington Peninsula clone MV6, a clone producing some of the best Aussie pinot noirs.

Some winemakers barrel separately their parcels from individual clones and you can see some signature from the Abel, 10/5, 5, or whatever it is. Ultimately they blend for bottling.

The modern trend is for NZ winemakers to plant a range of clones to try to achieve more complexity of flavour eg Craggy Range planted eight clones at their Te Muna Road vineyard. Ata Rangi now has over a dozen different clones planted. Pinot noir is inherently genetically unstable, so there may more complexity than people think in NZ vineyards.

18

Instead of merely ‘asking’, what is your opinion? You must have some idea since you brought it up.
Not being a grower, I have no inside knowledge of how clones differ from non-clones, but I could see how they impart certain characteristics to the detriment of complexity. Also, in New World fields, I think the grower wants to create a certain uniformity and uniformity tends towards blandness (think McDonalds or other chain restaurants). When push comes to shove, the field of grapes and wine is much broader than anyone could have ever imagined.

19

I really don’t have a horse in this race and am merely curious, just as I was about why a Beaujolais producer would opt for carbonic maceration over a more Burgundian elevate (and why Metras tasted the way it does was my prompt for that question). These are questions that I feel I should have some insight into, and I don’t really know the history and I don’t have any of the on- the-ground experience, so I rely on people to tell me.

I don’t know if growers want uniformity or a smooth blend of multiple clones, and I dont know what each clone brings to the table. It really is an honest and simple question. I will admit that it was prompted specifically by the literature on Soliste’s website where their “mission” is to craft Burgundian wines in California by expressing certain single clones. They basically advertise their L’Ambroisie as modeled on La Tache and the grapes are all 828, which they suggest is a La Tache clone. Is there some legitimacy to that, or is that project doomed from the start? Why those questions in my mind prompted was a realization that I’m totally ignorant on the qualities of different clones and what they bring to the specific wines, hence asking the Board for insight. Not sure why a few people are so skeptical of the question…

20

I’ve been wondering about the same thing, so thanks for starting the thread.