It's becoming evident to me that (along with waves of periodic publicity,
and different interpretations of the term) "terroir" as a subject of
discussion evokes a variety of assumptions or "baggage." Below, summary of
an ongoing discussion:


1. MS, 13Nov03: "French grapes struggle with bad weather, no irrigation,
hungry crows. California grapes are pampered with water, sun, heat. There is
no question why French wines have more local personality than California
wines."

2. RR, 27Mar06: "According to [posting above], French wines will always be
superior to Californian because they're, well, French."

3. MH, 12Apr07: "I don't read [comment above] to claim French wines are
'superior to' California wines ..."

4. RR, 12Apr07: "Hmm. So bad weather, dryfarming and crows only exist in
France?"

5. MH, 12Apr07: "I don't take the comment that way at all."

6. RR, 12Apr07: "It is a pretense that only France 'suffers' and therefore
experiences more 'character' in her vineyards."

Thanks for the insights, Mike, thoughtfully expressed.

My own question of logic in the original posting referred to the sequence of
comments, taken as a whole. (Specifically, how are items 2 and 6 inferable
from the earlier ones, unless you introduce further assumptions "not in
evidence.")

-- Max

On Apr 13, 11:48�am, "Max Hauser" > wrote:
> Thanks for the insights, Mike, thoughtfully expressed.
>
> My own question of logic in the original posting referred to the sequence of
> comments, taken as a whole. *(Specifically, how are items 2 and 6 inferable
> from the earlier ones, unless you introduce further assumptions "not in
> evidence.")
>
> -- Max

Logical fallacies in online wine arguments? Sacre Bleu!

In article >, says...
>
>It's becoming evident to me that (along with waves of periodic publicity,
>and different interpretations of the term) "terroir" as a subject of
>discussion evokes a variety of assumptions or "baggage." Below, summary of
>an ongoing discussion:
>
>
>1. MS, 13Nov03: "French grapes struggle with bad weather, no irrigation,
>hungry crows. California grapes are pampered with water, sun, heat. There is
>no question why French wines have more local personality than California
>wines."
>
>2. RR, 27Mar06: "According to [posting above], French wines will always be
>superior to Californian because they're, well, French."
>
>3. MH, 12Apr07: "I don't read [comment above] to claim French wines are
>'superior to' California wines ..."
>
>4. RR, 12Apr07: "Hmm. So bad weather, dryfarming and crows only exist in
>France?"
>
>5. MH, 12Apr07: "I don't take the comment that way at all."
>
>6. RR, 12Apr07: "It is a pretense that only France 'suffers' and therefore
>experiences more 'character' in her vineyards."

Max,

I assume that these are the nyms of folk on a wine discussion board. OR, are
they folk that we should know?

Maybe it's the "crows," that made Ravenswood Zins so good. I guess when they
sold to whichever big corporation it was, that the crows (ravens) left? Hence,
the decline in the wines... or maybe not.

Interesting ideas, that folk have.

Hunt

"Hunt" in :
> Max,
>
> I assume that these are the nyms of folk on a wine discussion board. OR,
> are they folk that we should know?

Howdy hunt. Not necessarily, though this folk ("MH") you know already. It
was an ongoing discussion on an HTTP forum.

> Maybe it's the "crows," that made Ravenswood Zins so good. I guess when
> they sold to whichever big corporation it was, that the crows (ravens)
> left? Hence, the decline in the wines... or maybe not.

Incidentally it's striking how much language along your lines appears in a,
or the, classic middle-1970s overview book on California wine (by Bob
Thompson and Hugh Johnson, photos and maps by Harolyn Thompson, ISBN
0688030874). I was re-reading it, and noticed. And that several classy
California Cabernet producers (that I got to know well, soon after that) had
just been formed within a few years of the book's 1976 publication. Such
tentative new labels as "Silveroaks Cellars," formed 1972 by "current
proprietors of Franciscan Vineyards [Duncan and Meyer] with the intent of
using the label only for choice lots of Cabernet Sauvignon from vineyards
they own ... the debut vintage is due to appear in the market late in 1976,
or early in 1977."

In article >, says...
>
>"Hunt" in :
>> Max,
>>
>> I assume that these are the nyms of folk on a wine discussion board. OR,
>> are they folk that we should know?
>
>Howdy hunt. Not necessarily, though this folk ("MH") you know already. It
>was an ongoing discussion on an HTTP forum.
>
>> Maybe it's the "crows," that made Ravenswood Zins so good. I guess when
>> they sold to whichever big corporation it was, that the crows (ravens)
>> left? Hence, the decline in the wines... or maybe not.
>
>Incidentally it's striking how much language along your lines appears in a,
>or the, classic middle-1970s overview book on California wine (by Bob
>Thompson and Hugh Johnson, photos and maps by Harolyn Thompson, ISBN
>0688030874). I was re-reading it, and noticed. And that several classy
>California Cabernet producers (that I got to know well, soon after that) had
>just been formed within a few years of the book's 1976 publication. Such
>tentative new labels as "Silveroaks Cellars," formed 1972 by "current
>proprietors of Franciscan Vineyards [Duncan and Meyer] with the intent of
>using the label only for choice lots of Cabernet Sauvignon from vineyards
>they own ... the debut vintage is due to appear in the market late in 1976,
>or early in 1977."

I kinda' figured that I knew this MH character, but could not be sure.

Thanks for the info on this older tome. I do not have it, but would bet that
it would make interesting reading, especially in light of the history that has
passed. Were not Duncan and Meyer (fairly recently departed) principals in the
original Christian Brothers endeavor?

Hunt

The Bulldog wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^
Haven't seen you use _that_ name in a while, Hunt!

> Thanks for the info on this older tome. I do not have it, but would bet that
> it would make interesting reading, especially in light of the history that has
> passed. Were not Duncan and Meyer (fairly recently departed) principals in the
> original Christian Brothers endeavor?

Not principals. Justin Meyer was a member of the Christian Brothers
order and learned the craft from the legendary Brother Timothy.
Eventually, Meyer left the order (to get married IIRC) and found Raymond
Duncan, who had made a fortune in the oil biz in Denver and bought 500
acres of prime land in the Napa Valley. Thus, as they say, was history
made.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

You might enjoy a new thread on durable useful cookbooks (and the classic
Sandwich misinformation further popularized online):



"Mark Lipton" in news
> The Bulldog [alleged ps. of Hunt -- Ed.] wrote:
>
>> ...Were not Duncan and Meyer (fairly recently departed) principals in the
>> original Christian Brothers endeavor?
>
> Not principals. Justin Meyer was a member of the Christian Brothers order
> and learned the craft from the legendary Brother Timothy. Eventually,
> Meyer left the order (to get married IIRC) ...

Not unheard-of, by the way. (Longtime tasting friends, of enviably mature
years, are a married couple formerly priest and nun. This is sometimes
labeled a change of habits.*)


Continuing on food: Now in the works, something vast and promising, based
on an entry he


also currently archived
http://tinyurl.com/27yetv

--------
* Yes yes, a pun; "puns are never acceptable" saith the movie [Ridicule,
1996, Canadian-French -- Ed.] but harmless, arguably didactic; besides,
nothing compared to what surfaced in offline corr. on hot subject of
APAP-alcohol interactions where a distinguished, truly distinguished,
physician used three (3) variations of "One must look at Web-based medical
advice with a jaundiced eye."

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:14:41 +0200, Mike Tommasi >
wrote:

>Max Hauser wrote:
>> It's becoming evident to me that (along with waves of periodic publicity,
>> and different interpretations of the term) "terroir" as a subject of
>> discussion evokes a variety of assumptions or "baggage." Below, summary of
>> an ongoing discussion:
>>
>>
>> 1. MS, 13Nov03: "French grapes struggle with bad weather, no irrigation,
>> hungry crows. California grapes are pampered with water, sun, heat. There is
>> no question why French wines have more local personality than California
>> wines."
>
>There is a logic behind this. Terroir will only express itself
>1) if there are interesting soil and weather conditions

Please define "interesting".

>2) if you grow the grapes in a certain way, mainly letting the roots
>grow deep

Please define "a certain way". And what is the scientific support for
your claim that tbe roots need to grow deep? I know that including
"scientific" in any discussion of winegrowing will elicit howls of
outrage but continuing to repeat old wives' tales will not make them
any less questionable than they already are.

>3) if you make the wine in a way that favours the expression of terroir
>as opposed to masking it

And how, may I ask, does one do this? Specific examples, please. Yeast
strains, temperature controls (oops, no fluorocarbons or ammonia
allowed. they weren't used 100 years ago so they casn't bve used now),
no grafting onto North American rootstocks, either.

>So you see, out of 3 conditions, 2 are entirely up to man, they are
>"cultural" (in more ways than one)

You have stretched the meaning of "culture" beyond any recognizable
limit.

>
>You get deep roots by not irrigating (at least not during the first 5
>years of the plant's life) and by regularly working the surface soil, in
>part so as to cut any roots growing horizontally in the first layers of
>topsoil. Irrigation means that the plant will develop its roots
>horizontally to pick up surface water.

I've read this paragraph a dozen times and I still don't have a clue
what point you're trying to make.

>
>Terroir will not be evident in the wine unless you make the wine in a
>certain way. I am not advocating making odd smelly wines by doing
>nothing, but wine will express terroir if the winemaking was, to the
>extent possible, non-interventionist. You do what is required to steer
>the wine in the direction it naturally tends to (terroir) but protect it
>with reasonable amounts of SO2.
>
>This is why the notion of terroir as understood by its champions (I mean
>the winemakers who most succeed in obtaining it) is not limited to
>questions of geology and meteorology, it inevitably includes the work of
>the vine grower and the winemaker. Terroir without the man is just
>"natural conditions".

Total BS.

With this note, I'm taking leave of AFW. I once found many of the
discussions here interesting and well informed. I was a regular
contributor and felt that I learned a lot from people who knew a lot
more about certain aspects of wine than I did. Now I find a severely
debased level of discourse.

I'm sorry this response had to be to one of Michael's posts because
this post is really not directed specifically to him. It's just that
his post was the one that finally prompted me to write what I have
been thinking for a long time now.

This is the only NG I subscribe to and I'm about to uninstall the
(Free Agent) newsreader that I use. If anyone has any comments, the
e-mail address is a valid one.

Vino

> Incidentally it's striking how much language along your lines appears in a,
> or the, classic middle-1970s overview book on California wine (by Bob
> Thompson and Hugh Johnson, photos and maps by Harolyn Thompson, ISBN
> 0688030874). I was re-reading it, and noticed. And that several classy
> California Cabernet producers (that I got to know well, soon after that) had
> just been formed within a few years of the book's 1976 publication. Such
> tentative new labels as "Silveroaks Cellars," formed 1972 by "current
> proprietors of Franciscan Vineyards [Duncan and Meyer] with the intent of
> using the label only for choice lots of Cabernet Sauvignon from vineyards
> they own ... the debut vintage is due to appear in the market late in 1976,
> or early in 1977."

The best book I know for how the winemakers of California made wine in
the 1970s is Great Winemakers of California, Capra Press, Santa
Barbara 1977. In this book Robert Benson has long interviews with many
top winemakers. The book likely has long been out of print. There are
interviews with Martin Ray, David Bruce, Paul Draper, Richard Graff,
Andre Tchelistcheff, Warren Winiarski, Joseph Heitz, Richard Foreman,
and Michael Mondavi to name a view. There are many minute details on
how they grow grapes and make wine, and the details differ greatly for
many winemakers.

On Apr 15, 12:49 am, Vino > wrote:

> This is the only NG I subscribe to and I'm about to uninstall the
> (Free Agent) newsreader that I use. If anyone has any comments, the
> e-mail address is a valid one.
>
> Vino

Should you ever decide to check this or other Usenet group in the
future, you do not need a newsreader. Just go to Google and select
groups. You can read any of the groups there including this one
without signing up. If you wish to post, you only have to subscribe to
the group there, which only requires an active mail address. Groups do
change slowly over time. A specialized newsreader does offer more
options, but Google has most of what most people require.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:06:40 -0700, cwdjrxyz wrote:

> On Apr 15, 12:49 am, Vino > wrote:
>
>> This is the only NG I subscribe to and I'm about to uninstall the
>> (Free Agent) newsreader that I use. If anyone has any comments, the
>> e-mail address is a valid one.
>>
>> Vino
>
> Should you ever decide to check this or other Usenet group in the
> future, you do not need a newsreader. Just go to Google and select
> groups. You can read any of the groups there including this one
> without signing up. If you wish to post, you only have to subscribe to
> the group there, which only requires an active mail address. Groups do
> change slowly over time. A specialized newsreader does offer more
> options, but Google has most of what most people require.

Except that it does not carry any of the binaries newsgroups, such as
"alt.binaries.food"

Godzilla

From: "DaleW" >
Newsgroups: alt.food.wine
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 6:16 PM
Subject: Logic of terroir


On Apr 13, 11:48?am, "Max Hauser" > wrote:
> Thanks for the insights, Mike, thoughtfully expressed.
>
> My own question of logic in the original posting referred to the sequence
> of
> comments, taken as a whole. (Specifically, how are items 2 and 6 inferable
> from the earlier ones, unless you introduce further assumptions "not in
> evidence.")
>
> -- Max

>Logical fallacies in online wine arguments? Sacre Bleu!

Quite. Truly unheard of. We are all men and women of logic and clear of
personal prejudices, having our heads screwed on the wrong way, and
generally Having A Bad Day And Now There Is This Guy On Internet ...

However.
As a non-argument concerning terroir, I would propose two cellar tastings:
Couche-Bizouard in Meursault, and Dirler-Cadé (particularly Riesling!) in
Bergholtz (that is in Alsace, close to Guebwiller). An hour of tasting
speaketh more than tomes of litterature.

Cheers

Nils

On Apr 15, 2:40 pm, "Nils Gustaf Lindgren"
> wrote:


> However.
> As a non-argument concerning terroir, I would propose two cellar tastings:
> Couche-Bizouard in Meursault, and Dirler-Cadé (particularly Riesling!) in
> Bergholtz (that is in Alsace, close to Guebwiller). An hour of tasting
> speaketh more than tomes of litterature.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nils

The best test I can think of are involve red wines of DRC for a single
year. Romanee-Conti, La Tache, Richebourg, Grands Echezeaux,
Echezeaux, and Romanee-St.-Vivant are within easy walking distance of
one another. The grapes used for the DRC wines come from property
owned and managed by DRC. The winemaker is the same for all. There are
slight differences in how the wines are made from year to year,
depending on the ripeness, etc. There could be a small variation in
any given year in how individual wines are made, and this could
account for a likely small variation in the wine. A slightly different
mix of Pinot Noir clones in different vineyards could have a small
influence However, if you compare DRC wines from the same year, it
usually does not take an expert to detect that they are different. It
may take some training to identify each wine by name.

"cwdjrxyz" > skrev i meddelandet
oups.com...
On Apr 15, 2:40 pm, "Nils Gustaf Lindgren"
> wrote:


> However.
> As a non-argument concerning terroir, I would propose two cellar tastings:
> Couche-Bizouard in Meursault, and Dirler-Cadé (particularly Riesling!) in
> Bergholtz (that is in Alsace, close to Guebwiller). An hour of tasting
> speaketh more than tomes of litterature.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nils

>The best test I can think of are involve red wines of DRC for a single
>year. Romanee-Conti, La Tache, Richebourg, Grands Echezeaux,
>Echezeaux, and Romanee-St.-Vivant are within easy walking distance of
>one another. The grapes used for the DRC wines come from property
>owned and managed by DRC. The winemaker is the same for all. There are
>slight differences in how the wines are made from year to year,
>depending on the ripeness, etc. There could be a small variation in
>any given year in how individual wines are made, and this could
>account for a likely small variation in the wine. A slightly different
>mix of Pinot Noir clones in different vineyards could have a small
>influence However, if you compare DRC wines from the same year, it
>usually does not take an expert to detect that they are different. It
>may take some training to identify each wine by name.


Exactly the same with Couche-Bizouard, except that you actually can get into
the tasting cellar just by making a phone call. And there it is Chardonnay,
not PN.

And, you can afford the wines.

For a given value of "afford", that is.

Cheers

Nils

--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

In message >
"Nils Gustaf Lindgren" >
wrote:

> From: "DaleW" >
> Newsgroups: alt.food.wine
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 6:16 PM
> Subject: Logic of terroir
>
>
> On Apr 13, 11:48?am, "Max Hauser" > wrote:
>> Thanks for the insights, Mike, thoughtfully expressed.
>>
>> My own question of logic in the original posting referred to the sequence
>> of
>> comments, taken as a whole. (Specifically, how are items 2 and 6 inferable
>> from the earlier ones, unless you introduce further assumptions "not in
>> evidence.")
>>
>> -- Max
>
>>Logical fallacies in online wine arguments? Sacre Bleu!
>
> Quite. Truly unheard of. We are all men and women of logic and clear of
> personal prejudices, having our heads screwed on the wrong way, and
> generally Having A Bad Day And Now There Is This Guy On Internet ...
>
> However.
> As a non-argument concerning terroir, I would propose two cellar tastings:
> Couche-Bizouard in Meursault, and Dirler-Cadé (particularly Riesling!) in
> Bergholtz (that is in Alsace, close to Guebwiller). An hour of tasting
> speaketh more than tomes of litterature.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nils
>
Or a vertical tasting of five different climats of Pommard at Domaine
Coste-Caumartin - and that is to name but three, So many Burgindy and
Alsace growers in particular make wines from different climats or
lieux-dits or appellations and, despite being made by the same maker,
in the same chai, often by identical methods, are very different.
Why, if not influenced by terroir and terroir alone?

Tim Hartley