There are dozens of clones of nebbiolo, with two main ones now, which evidently have different taste properties.
In the Rhone, there are lesser clones of syrah, particularly in the south but also in the north. Producers like Texier and producers in Cote Rotie are trying to preserve the serine variant, which is considered superior.
Serine isn’t a clone. I’m not sure variant is even correct. Probably progenitor to modern syrah is more apt. He has a lot of clonal variation within blocks of serine. Hence, the need for a massale selection.
Massale is certainly the best way to go if you have the choice.
I’m not sure that’s established, Nathan:
http://www.bowlerwine.com/site/wines/3632.html (Texier calls his old serine vines syrah)
http://palatepress.com/2011/04/wine/finding-serine-the-rediscovery-of-cote-rotie’s-forgotten-grape/ (may be syrah adapted to Cote Rotie over centuries)
http://www.wineanorak.com/wineblog/syrah/syrah-and-serine (Jamie Goode seems to favor viewing it as a clone)
If it’s not syrah, it would be illegal under the Northern Rhone appellation rules, no?
Let’s look closer at the argument “site trumps clone”.
Two adjacent vineyard blocks with the same soil, aspect, climate, etc, - each block planted to a different clone - will surely produce two different wines if vinified separately. This is the influence of clone, and the greater the difference in the two clones, the greater the difference in the wines.
On the other hand, two vineyards with differing soil, aspect, climate, etc, both planted to the same clone will also certainly produce two different wines. This is the influence of site, and the greater the difference in the two sites, the greater the difference in the two wines.
Can we definitively say that one “trumps” the other? How different do two 777 vineyard sites have to be to trump the difference between clone 113 and 777 planted at the same site, for example? I really don’t know, and would therefore be interested in answers from those of you with experience.
Here’s what I can add to the ‘site vs clone’ argument. While at UC Davis, one of my classmates, Sarah Cohn Bennett, daughter of the founders of Navarro, did an interesting study on tannin and color development in pinot noir. Using The Adams Harbertson Assay, she looked at all kinds of objective items, including total phenolics, total tannin levels, polymeric pigment levels, anthocyanin levels and more. Not granted, she could not ‘objectively’ analyze ‘complexity’ or ‘aromas’, but what she found was that . . . site trumped clone. Within the same site, there were differences between clones for sure, but these ‘differences’ were smaller than the differences seen with the same clone planted at different sites throughout CA.
What does this prove? Nothing absolute - but something to definitely look at.
And as far as Pinot being ‘transparent’ whereas other varieties are not so much, me thinks you’d have plenty of folks willing to argue that point.
Cheers!
Good grief guys, I was labeling and capsuling my 2010s. Forgive me for not monitoring a thread while working with my wines. 
Anyhow,
there is a lot of leaning on clones for ‘information’ given from winemakers in the US about their wines, especially pinot noir producers. Of course I can’t say why exactly why some choose to lean on this, but those that do lean on this while shouting about being Burgundian or speaking of their terroir seem to run themselves dizzy in my opinion.
I do believe that site trumps clonal selection. I’ve no proof, this is just what I believe.
In short, I believe too much emphasis is placed on clones and winemaking prowess. How is it that if a wine is great from the New World it is rarely mentioned how great the site is? Anyone? There are loads of interesting sites in the US, but how can these be appreciated as much as they should if aspects such as clones are given the majority of the focus?
Another example:
La Tâche clippings anyone? How many times has this been claimed? What should this even mean? What is planted in one of the world’s most famous vineyards is supposed to be the highlight of a vineyard in California. With just this detail (clippings from a vineyard in Burgundy…that’s France) a vineyard is expected to work wonders…
Do you all Really not understand to what I was speaking?
To be clear, I was talking in terms of “clone” when saying site trumps clone. So 667 planted in one place can be very different from 667 planted in another place. I didn’t say that clonal differences in one vineyard are meaningless. Not at all. Just that when we talk clones, we are implying that 667 and 777, etc., mean something absolute. But those absolutes vary so much from site to site, what instead matters more is terroir. Not that clones or plant material are unimportant. Rather, site matters more and ultimately, mass selection isn’t about just planting different things in one place, it’s about growing those vines and replanting over time with cuttings from a variety of vines that do well on that site. That’s the selection, and it’s over time and it’s about what does well in a given site.
Still confused. Talk of “great sites” happens all of the time in the New World, at least is does in my circles.
Look at it another way. Michael Jordan was the best basketball player of his generation (at least). Whether he played in the old Chicago Stadium, the new arena, the Forum in LA, or some playground in his hometown, he was Michael Jordan, the greatest. Clone trumps site. Now matter where you put it, it’s the greatest.
But the La Tache cuttings Ray mentions? Take that and put it in the ground in Oregon, CA, where ever, and it is NOT La Tache. Site trumps clone.
So to the OP’s question, why the fuss over clones? Because clones suggest something absolute about the wine made from them, but in reality there’s more value in where those clones or whatever plant material you have were grown, not so much the clones used (though they are still important). All this fuss about clones is oversimplifying things, which in the end does more to confuse things.
I’m excited. There hasn’t been a Pinot minutiae dustup for a long time.
Must mean the economy is coming back.
Don’t you have some rugby to watch, or triplets to round up?
Hey Ryan
apologies for the confusion. I think Vincent is speaking directly to what I was attempting to express.
Have a great evening, I’m off.
Cheers
Ray
I see it mentioned in so many places that Pinot is more prone to mutation than most other wine grapes are. Then I read this in Jancis Robinson’s new Wine Grapes book:
it is often claimed that Pinot has a particularly high mutation rate (Bernard 1995) but to date there is no scientific evidence that Pinot has a higher mutation rate than any other variety. The real reason for this considerable clonal diversity is simply the length of time the variety is thought to have existed - around 2,000 years.
Does anyone have first hand evidence of this supposed trait of the grape? I understand that there are many truths for which there is not supporting scientific evidence, but I don’t think that bit would have been included unless the author belived that these common reports are not true. I’m interested to know if people have actually witnessed it.
I think the degree to which site overwhelms clones is a good measure of the quality of the site. (ie if the site has little to say, it’s not that great). There are certainly many sites that are overwhelmed by clonal character while it is nearly impossible to see clonal influence in others.
An interesting observation, Kevin.
That’s what Eric said to me and we discussed a hypothetical genetic analysis of these rows of syrah. I may be misrepresenting what he told me, we had been drinking of course, but this is my understanding.
If you took 1 vine a cultivated from that, it would be a clone. A serine clone, I guess. The point I was making was that with old vineyards, and subsequent massale plantings, you see a lot of variation within a vineyard, or even within a row of vines.
IIRC, in many Northern Rhone appelations massale propagation is illegal.
So my backyard vineyard in Houston must be on a good site. Our local terroir has clearly overwhelmed any influence my vines have tried to have! ![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
Hey, I grew up in Houston. You just need to grow that Pinot with some air conditioning and it will be fine.
Why is that?
Ray; “Rarely mentioned” by whom? At least in my small circle of clowns, site is paramont- it’s what starts the discussion about a wine, and inevitably gets the most focus. Saying that clones get the “majority of focus” would imply that some of us would go seek out a vineyard source based on clones before we would consider site- and you know that isn’t how it works.
Perhaps you are talking about media focus?
I can’t really think of any winemakers for whom clones occupy a greater emphasis than place- regardless of the variety of grape involved or where they make wine. A facet to be sure- among many others, but I’d respectfully disagree that site is “rarely mentioned”- to the contrary, it is of overarching importance. Perhaps because it is still a frontier out here and there is no “empirical” defined pecking order as in Burgundy, much less the history, it seems less prominent, but I think it is very much at the epicenter of discssions about california wine, and suggesting otherwise isn’t really a supportable position.