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.
Which was my point earlier. And speaking of, I did put an order in during the recent Berserker day thing and I’m looking forward to including your Mourvedre in a tasting of Mourvedre I’m organizing. Have some Bandol wines and of course some from Spain, but wanted to include some CA as well and yours is one.
Nathan V. wrote:IIRC, in many Northern Rhone appelations massale propagation is illegal.
Why is that?
John - I don’t know the answer in the Rhone, but I’ve been told the same thing in Rioja. It’s ironic but the powers that be want to be sure that the grapes planted are all the approved Tempranillo. Where did they get those? From the local growers of course. And for generations, those growers had been doing the massal selection. But today that’s no longer legal. At least that’s what I was told a while ago by a board favorite.
That of course, raises more interesting questions. Is Tinto Fino or Tinta del País in Ribera del Duero, or Tinta de Toro really so different from the Tempranillo in Rioja, which the partisans believe? And is the Sangiovese in Montalcino really all that different from the Sangiovese elsewhere in Tuscany?
My guess is that somewhere along the way, massal selection produced a preponderance of a few vines that happened to be nice in a particular area and if anything, that’s the difference between the regions. And in that case, it’s like trying to freeze history to prohibit further massal selection.
But maybe not. Maybe it’s just the regional differences on the exact same grapes?
John,
I tried to get my point across a few times now. It seems as though my comments were not clear to neither you nor to Ryan. If you both feel that clones are not the emphasis, that it is actually site that is given the majority of the focus in the New World, I am glad to hear it.
Now, I’m off to label my bottles!
Ray. Your comments were not clear at all. We are all still waiting for a coherent answer to your statements and rather babbling comments, “beliefs”. The undertone is a bit disturbing to those back here at home (the New World) that have put time, money, and effort into specific sites and clones.
Andrew
I appreciate you taking the time to set bait for me, but I will decline to respond when the level or disrespect has been placed at such an altitude.
As I have in the past, I wish you best of luck with your wines.
Ray. Such a typical Ray Walker answer. Why are you so transparent? Bait? We are all simply just waiting for an answer to a blatant statement you made about your “beliefs” of New World (your home) practices. I wish YOU luck with your wines and “beliefs”. Oh and
Andrew, I’ll take that as a compliment. I was in fact sincere in wishing you well. It is a common practice, though I understand your version with emphasis to be somewhat different.
Hey John
I hadn’t seen your post before. I agree with this aspect of it. Here we speak of pinot fin and pinot droit amongst other things. I’ve seen real examples of it making a difference. In this instance, our points of usage for the word ‘fuss’ are going in two different conversation paths. I was initially speaking to those that go on and on about clone selection. Really, I hope to here more about the aspects of a vineyard besides clonal selection. Some here have said that they have heard enough of this in their circles, this is of course good to hear.
I personally wish to hear more about the vineyards themselves, as a person looking in from the outside. This says nothing about actual ‘practices’ which has been assumed here before. It is simply a desire that I have to hear more about these vineyards. Case in point, go to Andrew’s site (well done by the way), he has a selection of well known vineyards that he sources from. As someone from the outside looking in, I’d love to be able to know more about what contributes to those vineyards being so well thought of. If it is unknown, fine. But, as a wine geek, I am much more interested in these aspects than I am about the types of clones at play. And Andrew is a wine geek so he can of course run down a lot of the info. I’d like to know about the soil type(s) for example. I can tell the clones by looking at his data. Fwiw, I’ve been wanting to have info such as this for my site as well. Of course this is a work in progress. And yes, there is frustration in wanting to have more info, but this is more a selfish interest than anything else. Just to clear the air, I don’t think of him as leaning on clones, he has some impressive vineyards that he sources from. Simple really.
Andrew,
I really don’t have anything against New World wines. I of course have my preference which I did something about by moving from a wine producing region in California (Sonoma County) to live in Burgundy. But I see a lot in the US (Oregon, California) I’ve not been to other New World wine regions) that looks like the makings of great potential. It isn’t a knock on NW wines that there are some aspects that I don’t personally like, I just don’t. Others will. This doesn’t change simply because I was born in California.
Last thing. I didn’t speak ill in this forum about any CA practices…so, I don’t know how I should answer this.
Seriously though, I’ll be in SF (maybe later this month) and would appreciate getting together with you. You should be well aware that your decision to start your own winery had ripple effects that ended with me being in Burgundy. So, there’s really no reason to be at odds.
Strictly from a spectator/entertainment standpoint, I’d really prefer the drama of you two being at odds. Far more entertaining than you two hugging it out.
Rereading Rusty Gaffney’s interesting piece on the history of “faux” 828 clone that apparently came to the US by the late Gary Andrus, I read this quote and thought of this thread.
Faux “828,” like many clones, has performed inconsistently depending on the site at which it is planted. As Haeger points out in North American Pinot Noir, “So for Pinot Noir, despite all the passion for clones and clonal selection, the mantra remains the old adage about real estate; location, location, location.”
I hear these sentiments in the new world again and again, yet the fuss over clones continues. I find it fascinating.
Is it possible domestic producers and growers who pay a premium for extraordinary sites might select themselves out as more likely heritage or Pommard rather than Dijon fans?
The reason Pinot clones are seen as important in the New World is that there is significant difference between them and the effects of terroir have not yet been fully worked out. When I worked with Pinot in New Zealand we had several clones, all pretty much on the same site and some performed better than others. When the owners decided to expand, they planted the clones which had produced the best wines.
Doesn’t that make perfect sense?
In Burgundy it’s different. There will be local wisdom about which clones should be planted in which appellations (there may even be rules). This is all based on hundreds of years of experience, not 10s. Also the individual terroirs are written down in stone. That’s just not the case in CA or the NW or NZ. It’s still a matter of trial and error and trying to make the best informed guess.
However, I bet that even in Burgundy when you talk to growers they have their opinions about which clones they are going to plant in which vineyards.
As an aside, I reckon there are more New World vineyards that claim to be planted from some cuttings stolen from La Tache than there Egyptians tour guides who claim descent from Rameses III.
Caveat: I am not a wine maker or botanist. I infer the meaning of clones in this context, but I’m still not sure if we’re talking about cuttings propigated from one plant or about different individuals of the same genus and species, like people. I am assuming propigation from cuttings. Nor am I a scientist or geneticist.
This conversation on clones strikes me a bit like Nature vs Nurture when raising children. The clones have the same genetic material but the epigenetics (Epigenetics - Wikipedia) will cause gene expression to switch on and off, and that means the plant’s terroir and year to year climate make the differences. Not so much clone to clone.
I can hack a hydrangea’s colors year to year by messing with the soil chemistry of the ground it’s in (http://www.hydrangeashydrangeas.com/colorchange.html). It’s the same plant, but you can mess with it to have it express differently year over year by changing the soil acidity/inputs. So it seems to me Ray Walker is correct about terroir being more of the issue than the clone. If Sarah Cohn Bennett’s research was published anywhere, that might be a definitive answer to this.
Janet, yes, clones are cuttings from one mother vine.
Jon, very funny about the tour guides. On your first part, “doesn’t that make perfect sense?” It does, if greatness comes from methods that promote uniformity in a vineyard. Some people see greatness coming from vineyards with clonal diversity and less uniformity in growth habit, productivity, even ripening time, to promote a wider range of qualities in the grapes and then the wine. I see it both ways, but I’m more intrigued by the latter perspective.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}