Miles wrote:

> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>
>> BTW, I have NEVER EVER met a "wine maker" who
>> did
>> not say that wine is made on the vine. Does
>> that give you a further clue?
>
> I see. So winemakers are just a dime a dozen
> huh?

The ones who have the RESPONSIBILITY for handling
TONS of fruit are paid more because of the
responsibility they have not because they are
magicians.

> Anyone with some basic knowledge and some
> good grapes can make just as good of wine as
> another huh?

Yes, this is basically true. If you live in a
wine producing area, I suggest you obtain some
fresh fruit and have a go at it yourself.

There are a lot of places where you can get the
necessary equipment for a small home operation
and it is not that expensive.

A good book for beginners is "From Vines to Wines"
by Jeff Cox. It is a very basic and easy to read
and understand book and covers both the growing
of the grapes and the making of the wine from
them.

>
>> You still have not given your experience -
>> besides drinking, of course.
>
> Your experience is worthless and purely
> argumentative at best. If you produced decent
> wines then you'd be more than just a backyard
> hobbiest.
> There is high demand for a skilled winemaker
> that knows their stuff.
> You must not be one of them!

I am 63 years old. I have worked both in a
commercial vineyard and winery for a consulting
wine maker.

Wine making is NOT as glamorous as some would
believe. It is a hell of a lot of work. Instead
of seeing acres of grapes and tons of fruit to
process, I prefer to keep my winemaking as a
hobby and keep it fun.

>
> BTW, my experience is from tasting wines from
> various winemakers that
> used the same vineyards. Some great, some
> so-so, some crap. Difference
> was the winemaker, not the grapes.

Have you ever tasted great wines made from
inferior grapes from one of your great
winemakers?

That is my whole point which seems to have alluded
you. You can make plonk or great wines from
great grapes but you can not make great wines
from inferior grapes.

You HAVE to have good fruit to begin with and
therefore "Wine is made in the Vineyard". This
is a saying that all winemakers will tell you.

> That said, I
> do agree bad grapes produce bad wines but you'll
> never have a great wine without a great
> winemaker.

Try it yourself. I think you might surprise
yourself what you can actually make.

Miles wrote:

> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>
>> Well, not exactly true. If one checks the
>> basics and monitors pH, sugars, and TA then the
>> rest is pretty simple.
>
> If that were true then wines made by different
> winemakers using grapes
> from the same vineyard would all be the same.
> In reality they can vary widely from horrid to
> excellent.

Stupid people can make careless mistakes. It
happens in all professions. I am not defending
poor winemakers. The point is that they have to
go out of their way or be total **** ups to make
bad wine from good grapes.

On Sep 9, 8:41�pm, Miles > wrote:
> Bi!! wrote:
> > One only has to go to France or Italy and taste wines from parcels a
> > few hundred meters apart made by the same wimemaker using the same
> > methods in the same cellar to know that something is happing in the
> > grape to cause the flavor differences.
>
> Same thing in Napa or Sonoma despite irrigation so not sure what your
> point is. Irrigation controls water in the ground. �It does not control
> air temperature, sunlight, humidity etc. �My point is that the winemaker
> IMHO can make even a larger difference. �Otherwise winemakers would be a
> dime a dozen and they're not.

It's not really the same in Napa or Sonoma, there is a consistancy on
flavor and textures from plot to plot and year to year. Irrigation is
a part of it but much of has to do with what the winemakers do in the
cellar to get that consistancy. Basically, winemakers are a dime a
dozen, many of them were "cellar rats" that moved up through the
chain. Many in California come from UC Davis where they are taught a
specific protocol and method. Viticulturists are a bit harder to
find...not much glory there in the fields.

On Sep 10, 1:13�am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
> > BTW, I have NEVER EVER met a "wine maker" who did
> > not say that wine is made on the vine. �Does that
> > give you a further clue?
>
> Paul
>
> this is true, and good wine is influenced mainly by how you grow the
> grapes in order to have the best ingredients prior to vinification. But
> to make great wine you must have a) grapes that come from a good wine
> area, with appropriate soil and climate, b) a winemaker that knows how
> to make all those numerous decisions during the winegrowing and
> winemaking process that will bring out the best of the grapes,
> particularly when you have a difficult year.
>
> Guess what a) and b) are called?
>
> TERROIR.
>
> QED (terroir is not only the climate and soil, but also the work of the
> winemaker).
>
> --
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Well put Mike!

"Bi!!" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 8:41?pm, Miles > wrote:
" Basically, winemakers are a dime a
dozen, many of them were "cellar rats" that moved up through the
chain. "


While I may agree winemakers are a dime a dozen, the really good ones have
strong reputations, and they can be worth their weight in gold!!!

I have 3 friends that own wineries in Napa. One is a smallish winery and he
prides himself on handling mostly all the vineyards except the picking.
They still supervise which clusters to bring in.

The owner, vineyard manager, winemaker combo still exists in many a small
vineyard in Napa.

Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

>
> Wine makers usually do NOT make decisions
> regarding the growing of the fruit. That is left
> to the wine grower. The wine maker can specify
> the brix, TA, pH etc that he wants but it is the
> wine grower who has to know how to achieve what
> the wine maker wants. Thus, like I have said,
> the wine grower has to be more knowledgable about
> his profession.

Paul, you operate from the presumption that the winemaker and grower are
two different people, which is certainly the case usually in the US.
However, in Europe it is still common in smaller operations for the same
person to both tend the vines and make the wine. These two roles in
France are referred to as vigneron-viticulteur. None of this
contradicts the notion that "wine is made in the field" but it does
change the role of the winemaker.

Mark Lipton


--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

On Sep 10, 10:35�am, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> "Bi!!" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 9, 8:41?pm, Miles > wrote:
> " Basically, winemakers are a dime a
> dozen, many of them were "cellar rats" that moved up through the
> chain. �"
>
> While I may agree winemakers are a dime a dozen, the really good ones have
> strong reputations, and they can be worth their weight in gold!!!
>
> I have 3 friends that own wineries in Napa. �One is a smallish winery and he
> prides himself on handling mostly all the vineyards except the picking.
> They still supervise which clusters to bring in.
>
> The owner, vineyard manager, winemaker combo still exists in many a small
> vineyard in Napa.

I would not disagree with you on that Dick. There are plenty of
examples of superstar winemakers, Heidi Barrett, Elias Fernandez, Mike
Grigich, Warren Winarski, David Ramey to name a few but one would have
to admit, all of them work with prime vineyards producing prime
fruit. John Kongsgaard precribes to the "death and ressurection"
method of winemaking where once the juice is pressed and fermented he
puts it to sleep and has minimal intervention with the wine until it's
time to bottle. He uses wild yeast and lets nature take it's course.
He does spend a small fortune making sure that his fruit is the best
it can possibly be though.

Bi!! wrote:

> I would not disagree with you on that Dick. There are plenty of
> examples of superstar winemakers, Heidi Barrett, Elias Fernandez, Mike
> Grigich, Warren Winarski, David Ramey to name a few but one would have
> to admit, all of them work with prime vineyards producing prime
> fruit. John Kongsgaard precribes to the "death and ressurection"
> method of winemaking where once the juice is pressed and fermented he
> puts it to sleep and has minimal intervention with the wine until it's
> time to bottle. He uses wild yeast and lets nature take it's course.
> He does spend a small fortune making sure that his fruit is the best
> it can possibly be though.

And then there's Abe Schoener:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/dining/10pour.html

Mark Lipton
--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

Don't you think that laws regulating winemaking/growing relflect the real
world realities on viticulture specific to regions.

The claim they irrigate and we don't as though one is better than the other
to me is bogus. They irrigate in some areas because they NEED to. In areas
they do not and regulate as such they likely don't need to irrigate. Its
like passing a law that a vegetarain cannot eat meat...they were not eating
it anyway...

Its just like Chapitalization which is done in some regions and legal there
but not legal in others. I think in California where they irrigate
technically its not legal, but in Bordeaux they have done sugar additions
and its not illegal. Its not illegal in many areas and I think that include
Burg, Bordeaux Champaigne etc.

Local conditions dictate some of these issues.



"Bi!!" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 9:11?am, miles > wrote:
> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
> > California wine making is relatively simple
> > because of the lack of all that much variability.
> > All one has to do is drip irrigate (similar to an
> > IV drip in humans) ?to control vine vigor and
> > yield and voila, consistent grapes year after
> > year.
>
> That can be done anywhere in the world but its far from being enough.
> Furthermore not all vineyards 'drip'.
>
> > I have been an amateur winemaker for about 40
> > years now, have my own backyard vineyard
>
> Whoopy. ?Let me know when you're more than just a backyard hobbiest.
> Even a long time winemaker can make crap wine. ?Some are far better than
> others.
>
> > One of the tricks of a winemaker working with less
> > than ideal grapes is to OAK THE HELL out of them.
>
> An unskilled winemaker may do so. ?I like oak aged wines but not
> overkilled as was done with California Chardonnays for years.
>
> > You can make good wine with good grapes OR you can
> > make terrible wine with good grapes
>
> That is true but I feel the winemaker has the larger influence. ?Most of
> the vineyards in an area produce decent grapes. ?The various winemakers
> make the difference in the wines coming out of that region.

Uh, MiIes....fyi, one cannot irrigate in many areas of the
world...it's against the law. Virtually every high end winery in Napa/
Sonoma has some type of irrigation system, they can't afford not to in
that climate and they are not prohibited by law so they protect their
investment by irrigating. Additionally there are a number of
techniques used in the vineyard including cropping, green harvesting,
canopy management, spacing, not to mention the use of fertilizer and
chemicals to enhance growth and curb pests etc. that contribute to the
end result in the quality and texture of the grapes.

One only has to go to France or Italy and taste wines from parcels a
few hundred meters apart made by the same wimemaker using the same
methods in the same cellar to know that something is happing in the
grape to cause the flavor differences. Try the three different wines
from Diamond Creek side by side from the same vintage and you'll see
what I mean. The grapes are all grown within a literal stones throw
of each other yet in three different micro-climates, soil types and
sun exposures.

On Sep 10, 12:05�pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> Bi!! wrote:
> > I would not disagree with you on that Dick. �There are plenty of
> > examples of superstar winemakers, Heidi Barrett, Elias Fernandez, Mike
> > Grigich, Warren Winarski, David Ramey to name a few but one would have
> > to admit, all of them work with prime vineyards producing prime
> > fruit. �John Kongsgaard precribes to the "death and ressurection"
> > method of winemaking where once the juice is pressed and fermented he
> > puts it to sleep and has minimal intervention with the wine until it's
> > time to bottle. �He uses wild yeast and lets nature take it's course.
> > He does spend a small fortune making sure that his fruit is the best
> > it can possibly be though.
>
> And then there's Abe Schoener:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/dining/10pour.html
>
> Mark Lipton
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: �http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

Certainly and interesting if not controversial winemaker. I'm not a
fan of his wines but I respect his pioneering spirit. I do think that
he would make better wines if he took more care in the hygiene
department.

Mike wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:23:34 +0200:

> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> Don't you think that laws regulating winemaking/growing
>> relflect the real world realities on viticulture specific to regions.

> To a certain extent you are right

>> Its just like Chapitalization which is done in some regions
>> and legal there but not legal in others. I think in
>> California where they irrigate technically its not legal, but
>> in Bordeaux they have done sugar additions and its not
>> illegal. Its not illegal in many areas and I think that
>> include Burg, Bordeaux Champaigne etc.

> Chaptalization is only allowed in non-Mediterranean areas of
> France when conditions are bad, it requires a special
> authorization and is limited to 1.5° of alcohol, I believe. I also
> believe this is wrong.

Whatever the "law", given that most customers are allowed to assume that
French wines are made from grapes grown in the Appellation, I think it
is cheating even if sweet grape juice from elsewhere is used and not
just sugar.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> Don't you think that laws regulating
>> winemaking/growing relflect the real world
>> realities on viticulture specific to regions.
>
> To a certain extent you are right
>
>> Its just like Chapitalization which is done in
>> some regions and legal there
>> but not legal in others. I think in California
>> where they irrigate technically its not legal,
>> but in Bordeaux they have done sugar additions
>> and its not illegal. Its not illegal in many
>> areas and I think that include Burg, Bordeaux
>> Champaigne etc.
>
> Chaptalization is only allowed in
> non-Mediterranean areas of France when
> conditions are bad, it requires a special
> authorization and is limited
> to 1.5° of alcohol, I believe. I also believe
> this is wrong.
>

Do you also believe it is wrong for California
producers to add tartaric acid to their musts or
to dilute their musts with water.

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> James Silverton wrote:
>> Mike wrote on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:23:34
>> +0200:
>>
>>> Richard Neidich wrote:
>>>> Don't you think that laws regulating
>>>> winemaking/growing relflect the real world
>>>> realities on viticulture specific to regions.
>>
>>> To a certain extent you are right
>>
>>>> Its just like Chapitalization which is done
>>>> in some regions
>>>> and legal there but not legal in others. I
>>>> think in California where they irrigate
>>>> technically its not legal, but in Bordeaux
>>>> they have done sugar additions and its not
>>>> illegal. Its not illegal in many areas and I
>>>> think that include Burg, Bordeaux Champaigne
>>>> etc.
>>
>>> Chaptalization is only allowed in
>>> non-Mediterranean areas of France when
>>> conditions are bad, it requires a special
>>> authorization and is limited to 1.5° of
>>> alcohol, I believe. I also believe this is
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Whatever the "law", given that most customers
>> are allowed to assume that French wines are
>> made from grapes grown in the Appellation, I
>> think it is cheating even if sweet grape juice
>> from elsewhere is used and not just sugar.
>>
>
> Absolutely, MCR makes no difference. Either
> technique makes no sense today, all it does is
> increase alcohol

Increased alcohol aids in the keeping qualities of
the wine and also adds a very slight "perception"
of body and sweetness or smoothness. In not so
good years, the Cabernet Sauvignon in Bordeaux
will not mature fully. The same is true here in
the Mid Atlantic. It seems the very best wines
are made from grapes that just fit with not any
room to spare into the growing window between
spring frost and autumn frost.

> and does not improve weak
> grapes, lack of subtance or flavour. Increased
> alcohol is not desirable, the market demands
> LOWER alcohol.

I think you should voice your opinion to
California producers. High alcohol seems to be
the norm there. Adding tartaric to lower the pH
is also the norm.

Personally, IMO, I like wines in the 12% - to no
higher than - 13% range but that is just my
taste, your mileage may very. I like wines to
drink with food and not compete with the food.
In short, I like the "old age wines" and not the
"new age wines".


>

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>> Mike Tommasi wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Neidich wrote:
>>>> Don't you think that laws regulating
>>>> winemaking/growing relflect the real world
>>>> realities on viticulture specific to regions.
>>> To a certain extent you are right
>>>
>>>> Its just like Chapitalization which is done
>>>> in some regions and legal there
>>>> but not legal in others. I think in
>>>> California where they irrigate technically
>>>> its not legal, but in Bordeaux they have done
>>>> sugar additions
>>>> and its not illegal. Its not illegal in many
>>>> areas and I think that include Burg, Bordeaux
>>>> Champaigne etc.
>>> Chaptalization is only allowed in
>>> non-Mediterranean areas of France when
>>> conditions are bad, it requires a special
>>> authorization and is limited
>>> to 1.5° of alcohol, I believe. I also
>>> believe this is wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Do you also believe it is wrong for California
>> producers to add tartaric acid to their musts
>> or to dilute their musts with water.
>
> Yes, I live in California-like conditions in
> southern France and unfortunately everyone
> around uses tons of tartaric to make their wines
> less flat. Well, not everyone... I think that is
> wrong too. I have seen perfectly balanced whites
> come out of Provence or Roussillon without
> tweaking.
>
Whites typically are more acidic to begin with.

I just harvested Pinot Gris and Seyval Blanc here
in Maryland with both having brix of 21.3 and pH
of 3.2. TA was in the 0.85 area. No tweaking
necessary. The wines are fermenting away happily
as I type and will yield about 11.5% ABV and be
nice crisp dry white wines. Sauvignon Blanc and
Vidal Blanc will be harvested here shortly with
more than likely nearly the same numbers.

Reds will typically have their pH increase by at
least 0.2 during fermentation - especially during
Malo Lactic fermentation.

If you don't want your reds tweaked, are you in
favor of using more sulphites? A wine with a pH
above about 3.5 is just calling out to all
spoilage organisms. I think some Frenchman named
Louis Pasteur did some studies for the French
wine industry, no? :-)

Mark Lipton wrote:

> Paul, you operate from the presumption that the winemaker and grower are
> two different people, which is certainly the case usually in the US.
> However, in Europe it is still common in smaller operations for the same
> person to both tend the vines and make the wine.
>
>

I find the same thing in the USA. The vast majority of wineries are
small production. The wines found at your local store nationwide come
from the larger producers...but they are the minority. Most wineries do
not distribute very far outside their local region and often just at the
winery itself. The wineries throughout California I have visited are
much like what you describe in Europe.

miles > wrote in :

> Mark Lipton wrote:
>
>> Paul, you operate from the presumption that the winemaker and grower
>> are two different people, which is certainly the case usually in the
>> US. However, in Europe it is still common in smaller operations for
>> the same person to both tend the vines and make the wine.
>>
>>
>
> I find the same thing in the USA. The vast majority of wineries are
> small production. The wines found at your local store nationwide come
> from the larger producers...but they are the minority. Most wineries
> do not distribute very far outside their local region and often just
> at the winery itself. The wineries throughout California I have
> visited are much like what you describe in Europe.
>

If I might ask a question. What is all the bickering about.

I think that everyone agrees that some areas are more suited to a type
of grape than others and expressthat grape to its fullest potential. No
one really expects great Pinot from the Languedoc.

I equally believe that everyone agrees that winemakers can put their
stamp on a given wine if they really want to.

So it is not the concept of terroir that is in question so much as
whether one prefers a terroir driven wine to a winemaker driven one.

I like wines that taste of their roots, and think that it is possible to
find such. Others may prefer something else, but to say that terroir
does not exist is like saying that sugar cane isn't sweet.

Just my .02

--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

Joseph Coulter wrote:

> miles > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mark Lipton wrote:
>>
>>> Paul, you operate from the presumption that
>>> the winemaker and grower are two different
>>> people, which is certainly the case usually in
>>> the US. However, in Europe it is still common
>>> in smaller operations for the same person to
>>> both tend the vines and make the wine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I find the same thing in the USA. The vast
>> majority of wineries are
>> small production. The wines found at your
>> local store nationwide come
>> from the larger producers...but they are the
>> minority. Most wineries do not distribute very
>> far outside their local region and often just
>> at the winery itself. The wineries throughout
>> California I have visited are much like what
>> you describe in Europe.
>>
>
> If I might ask a question. What is all the
> bickering about.

I believe the bickering is about the statement
made or inferred that the winemaker plays a
bigger role than terroir in the production of
fine wines.


>
> I think that everyone agrees that some areas are
> more suited to a type of grape than others and
> expressthat grape to its fullest potential. No
> one really expects great Pinot from the
> Languedoc.
>
> I equally believe that everyone agrees that
> winemakers can put their stamp on a given wine
> if they really want to.
>
> So it is not the concept of terroir that is in
> question so much as whether one prefers a
> terroir driven wine to a winemaker driven one.
>
> I like wines that taste of their roots, and
> think that it is possible to find such. Others
> may prefer something else, but to say that
> terroir does not exist is like saying that sugar
> cane isn't sweet.
>
> Just my .02
>

Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

> I believe the bickering is about the statement
> made or inferred that the winemaker plays a
> bigger role than terroir in the production of
> fine wines.

I've never said terrior is not important. However, you did imply a
winemaker is rather insignificant.

I love wines from the Stags Leap area in California. However, only a
few winemakers create the wines from there I find to be excellent.

I love many of Cambria's wines. They sell their grapes to several
others. I have yet to find anyone elses wines from those same vineyards
that match the quality of Cambrias.

Jed Steele produced some excellent wines while at Kendal Jackson many
years ago. When he left I feel Kendals wines took a nose dive. Steele
on his own produces very nice wines using the same vineyards others
failed with.

Thats my point. Yes, you have to start with a good grape and terrior
does have a ton to do with it (Zins do better grown in a warm climate
for instance). But a winemaker who is skilled is worth his weight in
gold not a dime a dozen as you imply.

In article >,
Joseph Coulter > wrote:

> miles > wrote in :
>
> > Mark Lipton wrote:
> >
> >> Paul, you operate from the presumption that the winemaker and grower
> >> are two different people, which is certainly the case usually in the
> >> US. However, in Europe it is still common in smaller operations for
> >> the same person to both tend the vines and make the wine.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I find the same thing in the USA. The vast majority of wineries are
> > small production. The wines found at your local store nationwide come
> > from the larger producers...but they are the minority. Most wineries
> > do not distribute very far outside their local region and often just
> > at the winery itself. The wineries throughout California I have
> > visited are much like what you describe in Europe.
> >
>
> If I might ask a question. What is all the bickering about.
>
> I think that everyone agrees that some areas are more suited to a type
> of grape than others and expressthat grape to its fullest potential. No
> one really expects great Pinot from the Languedoc.
>
> I equally believe that everyone agrees that winemakers can put their
> stamp on a given wine if they really want to.
>
> So it is not the concept of terroir that is in question so much as
> whether one prefers a terroir driven wine to a winemaker driven one.
>
> I like wines that taste of their roots, and think that it is possible to
> find such. Others may prefer something else, but to say that terroir
> does not exist is like saying that sugar cane isn't sweet.
>
> Just my .02

I can't agree more with Joseph. I want the wine to taste as much like
its origin as possible. One of the biggest issues for me in the wine
world today is the move to make wines taste the same in different areas
of the world such that cabernet, pinot, syrah, etc. all taste the same
because of some perceived marketable product.

Mike wrote on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:35:01 +0200:

> miles wrote:
>> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the bickering is about the statement
>>> made or inferred that the winemaker plays a
>>> bigger role than terroir in the production of
>>> fine wines.
>>
>> I've never said terrior is not important. However, you did
>> imply a winemaker is rather insignificant.

> Just to catch the thread you discouraged me from answering,
> unlike the supreme authority Wikipedia, over here nobody
> considers terroir as not including the winemaker's style,
> knowledge, skill. That is why it is so hard to translate,
> because terroir as simply geographic location, climate and
> soil is just "place".

"Terroir" as place, climate and soil seems useful but when you throw in
"skill" I think you are becoming unnecessarily mystical. I've not heard
of terroir changing when a winemaker retired but I would defer to
greater knowledge.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> miles wrote:
>> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the bickering is about the statement
>>> made or inferred that the winemaker plays a
>>> bigger role than terroir in the production of
>>> fine wines.
>>
>> I've never said terrior is not important.
>> However, you did imply a winemaker is rather
>> insignificant.
>
> Just to catch the thread you discouraged me from
> answering,

I don't recall ever doing this. I have never
discouraged ANYONE from answering any of my posts
on any subject.

> unlike the supreme authority
> Wikipedia,

Since it is a French term and since Wikipedia
allows one to edit the contents, perhaps you
should send in your idea or concept of Terroir
and see if it flies.

> over here nobody considers terroir as
> not including the winemaker's style, knowledge,
> skill.

Can you reference that please.

> That is why it is so hard to translate,
> because terroir as simply geographic location,
> climate and soil is just "place".

On Sep 11, 9:35�am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
over here nobody considers terroir as not
> including the winemaker's style, knowledge, skill. That is why it is so
> hard to translate, because terroir as simply geographic location,
> climate and soil is just "place".
>
I really hate entering terroir arguments.
But.....
to me "terroir" is not place per se, but sense of place.
The basic would indeed be geography, geology, and climate.
For me, at least in established terroirs that would expand to include
some human choices made long ago (what grapes to plant).
I can see including other cultural norms (re style, aging, etc) though
not as clear.
But including "winemaker's style, knowledge, skill?" Knowledge sure,
as that and skill enables winemaker to follow the cultural norms.
But winemaker's style? If individual stylistic choices are part of
terroir, then terroir truly has no meaning.

miles wrote:

> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>
>> I believe the bickering is about the statement
>> made or inferred that the winemaker plays a
>> bigger role than terroir in the production of
>> fine wines.
>
> I've never said terrior is not important.
> However, you did imply a winemaker is rather
> insignificant.

Let me clarify in case there is a
misunderstanding.

I am stating that the quality of the fruit is of
the upmost importance.

I have and do state that winemaking is not magic
and that a great many people can and do make
excellent wines.

An understanding of basic high school chemistry, a
good nose, experience and avoiding common
mistakes are the requirements. With excellent
grapes to start, one has to really screw up and
or be very careless to turn quality grapes into
plonk.

Now, I will grant you that not ALL winemakers fit
the criteria I mentioned. I worked at a winery
in which a large number of their barrels were
contaminated with Brett. The winemaker knew it
but sold off the wine anyhow. There are those in
ANY profession that will do what it takes to push
the product and get revenue to the owner - even
that is a very stupid and short lived answer.

I have also suggested that as a side you might try
to make your own wines as it is not expensive and
you might very well be surprised at the results.
I suggest this to all lovers of wine. One can not
really understand or fully appreciate wines
unless on has gotten their hands in some musts
themselves.


>
> I love wines from the Stags Leap area in
> California. However, only a few winemakers
> create the wines from there I find to be
> excellent.

Others may have contrary opinions of the same
wines. I doubt there is any one "style" of wine
that pleases all.

> I love many of Cambria's wines. They sell their
> grapes to several
> others. I have yet to find anyone elses wines
> from those same vineyards that match the quality
> of Cambrias.

It would be an interesting exercise for you to
find out why this is true. Perhaps others use
oak barrels from a different origin - French,
American, Hungarian etc or perhaps your favorite
winemaker or others blend in some other variety.
I think the blending laws vary by state but I
think it is generally accepted and allowed to
have up to 10% of a varietal other than what is
on the label.

For my own wines, I always blend. I do not name
my wines by variety. I name my blends by the AVA
that I am in (Catoctin AVA).

>
> Jed Steele produced some excellent wines while
> at Kendal Jackson many
> years ago. When he left I feel Kendals wines
> took a nose dive. Steele on his own produces
> very nice wines using the same vineyards others
> failed with.
>
> Thats my point. Yes, you have to start with a
> good grape and terrior does have a ton to do
> with it (Zins do better grown in a warm climate
> for instance). But a winemaker who is skilled
> is worth his weight in gold not a dime a dozen
> as you imply.

Like I stated, that is your opinion based on
specific wines you mentioned. Others may have
just the opposite opinion. That does not mean
that you OR the others are wrong or has bad
taste.

Lawrence Leichtman wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Joseph Coulter > wrote:
>
>> miles > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Mark Lipton wrote:
>> >
>> >> Paul, you operate from the presumption that
>> >> the winemaker and grower are two different
>> >> people, which is certainly the case usually
>> >> in the US. However, in Europe it is still
>> >> common in smaller operations for the same
>> >> person to both tend the vines and make the
>> >> wine.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I find the same thing in the USA. The vast
>> > majority of wineries are
>> > small production. The wines found at your
>> > local store nationwide come
>> > from the larger producers...but they are the
>> > minority. Most wineries do not distribute
>> > very far outside their local region and often
>> > just
>> > at the winery itself. The wineries
>> > throughout California I have visited are much
>> > like what you describe in Europe.
>> >
>>
>> If I might ask a question. What is all the
>> bickering about.
>>
>> I think that everyone agrees that some areas
>> are more suited to a type of grape than others
>> and expressthat grape to its fullest potential.
>> No one really expects great Pinot from the
>> Languedoc.
>>
>> I equally believe that everyone agrees that
>> winemakers can put their stamp on a given wine
>> if they really want to.
>>
>> So it is not the concept of terroir that is in
>> question so much as whether one prefers a
>> terroir driven wine to a winemaker driven one.
>>
>> I like wines that taste of their roots, and
>> think that it is possible to find such. Others
>> may prefer something else, but to say that
>> terroir does not exist is like saying that
>> sugar cane isn't sweet.
>>
>> Just my .02
>
> I can't agree more with Joseph. I want the wine
> to taste as much like its origin as possible.
> One of the biggest issues for me in the wine
> world today is the move to make wines taste the
> same in different areas of the world such that
> cabernet, pinot, syrah, etc. all taste the same
> because of some perceived marketable product.

I'll drink to that. Each area can make excellent
but different wines. Personally, I do not like
the heavy bodied, high alcohol, highly oaked
wines that seem to be preferred by many. I like
the "Old World" style of wine which is good
because that is the kind I can make with the
grapes grown in this area. I can not make a
California "jammy" cabernet not do I want to do
so.

DaleW wrote:
> On Sep 11, 9:35�am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> over here nobody considers terroir as not
>> including the winemaker's style, knowledge, skill. That is why it is so
>> hard to translate, because terroir as simply geographic location,
>> climate and soil is just "place".
>>
> I really hate entering terroir arguments.
> But.....
> to me "terroir" is not place per se, but sense of place.
> The basic would indeed be geography, geology, and climate.
> For me, at least in established terroirs that would expand to include
> some human choices made long ago (what grapes to plant).
> I can see including other cultural norms (re style, aging, etc) though
> not as clear.
> But including "winemaker's style, knowledge, skill?" Knowledge sure,
> as that and skill enables winemaker to follow the cultural norms.
> But winemaker's style? If individual stylistic choices are part of
> terroir, then terroir truly has no meaning.

I agree, about terroir arguments, anyway.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that style, passed from generation to
generation, and unique to a very small geographical granularity
(remembering that until Napoleon even language changed in a matter of
miles, people traveled so little), is as linked to locality (in France
anyway) as soil PH?

I agree with Mike that in France the common definition of terroir
includes human specificities just as it does micro-climates.

-E

On Sep 11, 2:18�pm, Emery Davis > wrote:
> DaleW wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 9:35 am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> > over here nobody considers terroir as not
> >> including the winemaker's style, knowledge, skill. That is why it is so
> >> hard to translate, because terroir as simply geographic location,
> >> climate and soil is just "place".
>
> > I really hate entering terroir arguments.
> > But.....
> > to me "terroir" is not place per se, but sense of place.
> > The basic would indeed be geography, geology, and climate.
> > For me, at least in established terroirs that would expand to include
> > some human choices made long ago (what grapes to plant).
> > I can see including other cultural norms (re style, aging, etc) though
> > not as clear.
> > But including "winemaker's style, knowledge, skill?" Knowledge sure,
> > as that and skill enables winemaker to follow the cultural norms.
> > But winemaker's style? If individual stylistic choices are part of
> > terroir, then terroir truly has no meaning.
>
> I agree, about terroir arguments, anyway.
>
> Wouldn't it be fair to say that style, passed from generation to
> generation, and unique to a very small geographical granularity
> (remembering that until Napoleon even language changed in a matter of
> miles, people traveled so little), is as linked to locality (in France
> anyway) as soil PH?
>
> I agree with Mike that in France the common definition of terroir
> includes human specificities just as it does micro-climates.
>
> -E- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, the passing on of tradition is what I meant by cultural norms,.
So I can see including the use of old foudres, or leaving wine on the
lees, etc. But when Mike said "winemaker's style", that to me goes
beyond terroir. Perrot Minot, Jadot. Dominique Laurent, Rousseau, and
Ponsot all make Chambertin, all make very *different* Chambertin, and
those differences aren't part of the terroir. To me, Rousseau would be
truest to my idea (which could be wrong) of the terroir, Ponsot and
Jadot in the middle,and Laurent and PM least true to the terroir,
though they might be fine wines. I think Laurent's and PM's wine taste
more of Laurent and PM than of place (others obviously feel
differently).

On Sep 11, 2:56�pm, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> DaleW wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 2:18 pm, Emery Davis > wrote:
> >> DaleW wrote:
> >>> On Sep 11, 9:35 am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> >>> over here nobody considers terroir as not
> >>>> including the winemaker's style, knowledge, skill. That is why it is so
> >>>> hard to translate, because terroir as simply geographic location,
> >>>> climate and soil is just "place".
> >>> I really hate entering terroir arguments.
> >>> But.....
> >>> to me "terroir" is not place per se, but sense of place.
> >>> The basic would indeed be geography, geology, and climate.
> >>> For me, at least in established terroirs that would expand to include
> >>> some human choices made long ago (what grapes to plant).
> >>> I can see including other cultural norms (re style, aging, etc) though
> >>> not as clear.
> >>> But including "winemaker's style, knowledge, skill?" Knowledge sure,
> >>> as that and skill enables winemaker to follow the cultural norms.
> >>> But winemaker's style? If individual stylistic choices are part of
> >>> terroir, then terroir truly has no meaning.
> >> I agree, about terroir arguments, anyway.
>
> >> Wouldn't it be fair to say that style, passed from generation to
> >> generation, and unique to a very small geographical granularity
> >> (remembering that until Napoleon even language changed in a matter of
> >> miles, people traveled so little), is as linked to locality (in France
> >> anyway) as soil PH?
>
> >> I agree with Mike that in France the common definition of terroir
> >> includes human specificities just as it does micro-climates.
>
> >> -E- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, the passing on of tradition is what I meant by cultural norms,.
> > So I can see including the use of old foudres, or leaving wine on the
> > lees, etc. But when Mike said "winemaker's style", that to me goes
> > beyond terroir.
>
> Dale, terroir can be taken two ways.
>
> There is a perverse tendency in french AOCs to try to define what wines
> from a terroir should be like, what is "typical", and they go so far as
> to taste all wines claiming AOC status as if tasting were an objective
> way of determining what is typical, a meaningless term in itself; this
> would tend to make all wines from a great appellation more or less the
> same, and all would stick to a model basically decided by the most
> influential (and largest) producers in the AOC (in a perversely
> democratic way).
>
> The countertendency, which is supported by the most intelligent and
> innovative winemakers, is the idea that while they all share a terroir,
> there is room for the winemaker to find his own way of expressing that
> terroir, in an intelligent blend of tradition and creativity. IOW,
> terroir not as a homogenizing concept, but terroir as a pretext for the
> greatest diversity within that AOC. It is in this sense that terroir
> involves the winemaker's style, which can bring out this or that aspect
> of a particualr region.
>
> --
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As I said, I hate terroir discussions.
I find it awful when say Brun's excellent Beaujolais is denied AOC
status as "atypical."
I'm totally fine with creative ways of winemaking expressing terroir.
Terroir and typicity should not be excuses to promote mediocrity.
But that is different that saying that winemaking style is PART of the
terroir.
Didier Dagueneau and Henri Bourgeois both make interesting (and very
different) Pouilly Fume. Both express their terroir (IMHO). But the
stylistic choices of the wine are not a part of the terroir,

Hello Mike,

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:13:37 +0200, Mike Tommasi >

>this is true, and good wine is influenced mainly by how you grow the
>grapes in order to have the best ingredients prior to vinification. But
>to make great wine you must have a) grapes that come from a good wine
>area, with appropriate soil and climate, b) a winemaker that knows how
>to make all those numerous decisions during the winegrowing and
>winemaking process that will bring out the best of the grapes,
>particularly when you have a difficult year.
>
>Guess what a) and b) are called?
>
>TERROIR.
>
>QED (terroir is not only the climate and soil, but also the work of the
>winemaker).

Sorry, but I can't agree with you here. Terroir is (afaiac) the
invariables - the exposure, the land, the subsoil and so on. If a
vigneron (to sidestep the argument about who does what) decides to
replant his vines at a density of 6000 pied/Ha, I don't think that
changes his terroir. It changes his wines, and may well improve them
by forcing the vines to "dig" deeper into the ground to find water and
nutrients.

In Burgundy, three or twenty vignerons can own parcelles of a
designated vineyard which is surely so designated because the terroir
is substantially the same over the whole vineyard. Yes they can make
different wines, but that doesn't mean that M Coche Dury's terroir is
better or worse than that of the Comte Lafon, merely that one has
made better choices throughout the whole wine making process - from
pruning the previous year, treating, green harvesting, trimming,
thinning and picking, to the actual winery techniques.

At least that would be my understanding of this.

As for the bickering over what is more important. Any fool can destroy
good ingredients, but it takes a skilled artisan to make the best from
the best. So wine starts in the field and you can't make great wine
from crap grapes. But a bad winemaker can easily make crap wine from
great grapes.
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:40:46 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:

>That's just it! It's the mysticism and magic, along with the homeopathic
>practices etc., that I scorn. That they take care of the land and vines and
>produce decent wine is not in dispute but normal organic farming should
>produce similar results.

Except that tbey don't. That's the whole point. Organic farming is
infinitely simpler to switch to, and yet many growers are switching to
bio-dynamic techniques rather than to organic ones.

It would be so convenient if the solution to the use of ever
increasing quantities of ever more toxic sprays were to use normal
organic methods, but the experience of winemakers who have switched to
bio-dynamics - including Huet, for example, is that the results are
better.

I don't for one moment accept the cosmological paraphenalia that
Steinr talked about. But if experienced winemakers can say "this horn
manure is extraordinary and it will transform the wine. In two or
three years, the terroir of the plot emerges again, and all the soil
tests carried out show a very significant increase in root density and
depth. Hardly astonishing therefore, that the wines are different. ",
then it behoves us not to reject the whole discipline out of hand.
What they say is based on their own personal experience and on the
basis of actual soil tests (for the root density) and tasting (for the
resulting wine).
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

IanH wrote:

> Hello Mike,
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:13:37 +0200, Mike Tommasi
> >
>
>>this is true, and good wine is influenced mainly
>>by how you grow the grapes in order to have the
>>best ingredients prior to vinification. But to
>>make great wine you must have a) grapes that
>>come from a good wine area, with appropriate
>>soil and climate, b) a winemaker that knows how
>>to make all those numerous decisions during the
>>winegrowing and winemaking process that will
>>bring out the best of the grapes, particularly
>>when you have a difficult year.
>>
>>Guess what a) and b) are called?
>>
>>TERROIR.
>>
>>QED (terroir is not only the climate and soil,
>>but also the work of the winemaker).
>
> Sorry, but I can't agree with you here. Terroir
> is (afaiac) the invariables - the exposure, the
> land, the subsoil and so on. If a vigneron (to
> sidestep the argument about who does what)
> decides to
> replant his vines at a density of 6000 pied/Ha,
> I don't think that changes his terroir. It
> changes his wines, and may well improve them by
> forcing the vines to "dig" deeper into the
> ground to find water and nutrients.
>
> In Burgundy, three or twenty vignerons can own
> parcelles of a designated vineyard which is
> surely so designated because the terroir is
> substantially the same over the whole vineyard.
> Yes they can make different wines, but that
> doesn't mean that M Coche Dury's terroir is
> better or worse than that of the Comte Lafon,
> merely that one has made better choices
> throughout the whole wine making process - from
> pruning the previous year, treating, green
> harvesting, trimming, thinning and picking, to
> the actual winery techniques.
>
> At least that would be my understanding of this.
>
> As for the bickering over what is more
> important. Any fool can destroy good
> ingredients, but it takes a skilled artisan to
> make the best from the best. So wine starts in
> the field and you can't make great wine from
> crap grapes. But a bad winemaker can easily make
> crap wine from great grapes. -- All the best
> Fatty from Forges

I'll drink to that.

DaleW wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2:18�pm, Emery Davis > wrote:
>> DaleW wrote:
>>> On Sep 11, 9:35 am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
>>> over here nobody considers terroir as not
>>>> including the winemaker's style, knowledge, skill. That is why it is so
>>>> hard to translate, because terroir as simply geographic location,
>>>> climate and soil is just "place".
>>> I really hate entering terroir arguments.
>>> But.....
>>> to me "terroir" is not place per se, but sense of place.
>>> The basic would indeed be geography, geology, and climate.
>>> For me, at least in established terroirs that would expand to include
>>> some human choices made long ago (what grapes to plant).
>>> I can see including other cultural norms (re style, aging, etc) though
>>> not as clear.
>>> But including "winemaker's style, knowledge, skill?" Knowledge sure,
>>> as that and skill enables winemaker to follow the cultural norms.
>>> But winemaker's style? If individual stylistic choices are part of
>>> terroir, then terroir truly has no meaning.
>> I agree, about terroir arguments, anyway.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be fair to say that style, passed from generation to
>> generation, and unique to a very small geographical granularity
>> (remembering that until Napoleon even language changed in a matter of
>> miles, people traveled so little), is as linked to locality (in France
>> anyway) as soil PH?
>>
>> I agree with Mike that in France the common definition of terroir
>> includes human specificities just as it does micro-climates.
>>
>> -E- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, the passing on of tradition is what I meant by cultural norms,.
> So I can see including the use of old foudres, or leaving wine on the
> lees, etc. But when Mike said "winemaker's style", that to me goes
> beyond terroir. Perrot Minot, Jadot. Dominique Laurent, Rousseau, and
> Ponsot all make Chambertin, all make very *different* Chambertin, and
> those differences aren't part of the terroir. To me, Rousseau would be
> truest to my idea (which could be wrong) of the terroir, Ponsot and
> Jadot in the middle,and Laurent and PM least true to the terroir,
> though they might be fine wines. I think Laurent's and PM's wine taste
> more of Laurent and PM than of place (others obviously feel
> differently).

Well, I think we're agreeing, actually. There are certainly, to my
mind, stylistic choices that go beyond terroir. Where I disagree with
Mike (and with all respects to M. Brun's fine work) is on the notion of
typicity. I think that typicity is an expression of the terroir and the
local traditions within it. (Where we agree is that the INAO should
lighten up and let folks work!)

-E

Lawrence Leichtman wrote:

> I can't agree more with Joseph. I want the wine to taste as much like
> its origin as possible. One of the biggest issues for me in the wine
> world today is the move to make wines taste the same in different areas
> of the world such that cabernet, pinot, syrah, etc. all taste the same
> because of some perceived marketable product.

I'm not sure what 'taste much like its origin' truly means. Yes, I love
Petite Syrahs from the Stags Leap region. But not all Petites from that
area are the same or even close. Most I dislike but the ones I do enjoy
are the best I've had from anywhere.

I love Pinot Noir's from the Solvang/Buelton area. But I'm not sure
theres a taste I can pinpoint unique to that area. Tastes for even a
given region vary widely between different wineries.

I love Zins from Amador County. However, there are a few from Paso
Robles that are a close match to the style I enjoy. Again, in both
areas the taste varies widely. I do prefer those two areas over others
as I can't find the style I enjoy at very many other regions but there
are a few.

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> That is why it is so
> hard to translate, because terroir as simply geographic location,
> climate and soil is just "place".

I'm not sure I've ever heard terrior including the winemaker. If thats
they case why not just refer to a specific vineyard & winery rather than
mention a region which defines neither?

Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

> Personally, I do not like
> the heavy bodied, high alcohol, highly oaked
> wines that seem to be preferred by many.

I prefer the full bodied, fruit forward bold spicy jammy Zins. I find
too many old world wines lacking in up front bold fruit. They're great
wines, just not my style. I too do not care for the over oaked wines
and glad that fad seems to be fading with US wines.

IanH wrote:

> Except that tbey don't. That's the whole point. Organic farming is
> infinitely simpler to switch to, and yet many growers are switching to
> bio-dynamic techniques rather than to organic ones.

I was under the impression that organic farming produces far less crop
per acre and is thus more costly.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:29:34 -0700, Miles > wrote:

>IanH wrote:
>
>> Except that tbey don't. That's the whole point. Organic farming is
>> infinitely simpler to switch to, and yet many growers are switching to
>> bio-dynamic techniques rather than to organic ones.
>
>I was under the impression that organic farming produces far less crop
>per acre and is thus more costly.

Surely there's more to making decent wine than "crop per acre", isn't
there? The logical end result of maximum crop per acre is minimum
quality IMO.

Both organic and biodynamic farming are less productive, but when you
see traditional winemekers pruning for productivity on the one hand
and then carrying out draconian green harvesting to reduce yield in
the summer, you have to feel there's something that's incoherent in
their viticultural techniques. This is sort of answering sideways.
Sorry.

What I mean to say is that in the old world at least, quality and
yield are arguably inversely proportional. So the fact that yield
might be reduced when organic or biodynamic viticultural techniques
are adopted, need hardly be seen as a disadvantage. Yes, it is in a
large scale industrial facility, but not for the smaller wineries
whose wines I find 100 times more interesting.
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

Miles > wrote in :

> IanH wrote:
>
>> Except that tbey don't. That's the whole point. Organic farming is
>> infinitely simpler to switch to, and yet many growers are switching
>> to bio-dynamic techniques rather than to organic ones.
>
> I was under the impression that organic farming produces far less crop
> per acre and is thus more costly.
>

Yes and . . . Less crop more concentration. Same reason I cull my
lemon tree and used to do the same to my peaches. More isn't better it
is just more.

--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

On Sep 12, 9:04�pm, Joseph Coulter > wrote:
> Miles > wrote :
>
> > IanH wrote:
>
> >> Except that tbey don't. That's the whole point. Organic farming is
> >> infinitely simpler to switch to, and yet many growers are switching
> >> to bio-dynamic techniques rather than to organic ones.
>
> > I was under the impression that organic farming produces far less crop
> > per acre and is thus more costly.
>
> Yes and �. . . �Less crop more concentration. Same reason I cull my
> lemon tree and used to do the same to my peaches. More isn't better it
> is just more.
>
> --
> Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacationswww.josephcoulter.com
>
> 877 832 2021
> 904 631 8863 cell

More is better when you're Kendall Jackson, Adler Fels, Gallo, Bronco
or any number of mass producers in California.

IanH wrote:

> Surely there's more to making decent wine than "crop per acre", isn't
> there? The logical end result of maximum crop per acre is minimum
> quality IMO.

Sure theres some truth to that but you missed the point. I've been
under the impression that organic farming produces less 'Good' crop per
acre. My current opintion is that it does not in itself increase the
quality of the juice simply by using organic methods and nothing else
that couldn't be done through other methods.

There was some recent studies done on quality of fruits and vegetables
using organic methods. The study concluded the quality of crop was not
improved. I'll have to find that study, it was very recent as in the
past month or so. It was for fruits and veggies and not wine grapes so
who knows how it would apply to the latter.

Joseph Coulter wrote:

> Yes and . . . Less crop more concentration. Same reason I cull my
> lemon tree and used to do the same to my peaches. More isn't better it
> is just more.

While thats true its not the organic methods in itself producing that.
The same methods could be used anyways.

Heck, the sharpshooter and other critters have been known to cause low
production but intense fruit. Karly's 'Last Syrah' was one of the best
I've ever had. It was the last bottling prior to turning over the crops
as a result of the sharpshooter...no organic farming used!