http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837245,00.html

Mike wrote on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:54:39 +0200:

> wrote:
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837245,00.html

> A maker of $2 wines would say that... :-)

> Fluff article

I'm a bit of a sceptic about some of the mystical things that wine
makers and writers discuss but it's impossible to believe that the soil
and the climate would not affect the product. How are the Alaska
vineyards doing?

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

wrote in news:23b91e37-d09e-45d5-8ac5-
:

> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837245,00.html
>

someone had too much time on his hands and a notable predeliction for
hyperbole.
consider the big quote
But Fred Franzia, maker of the popular $2-a-bottle Charles Shaw, told me
that terroir--a French term embracing all things regional, from soil to
climate to topography--is a concept winemakers use to overcharge.
"Anything will grow with sun and water. We can grow on asphalt," he
said. "Terroir don't mean s___."

How many grapes does Fred grow for CS? None IIRC so how much interest
would he have in a subject like terroir. What the author conveniently or
wotherswise omits is that good winemakeing technique can overcome a lot
of deficiency in the soil a bad year is what one winemakers refered to
as "a winemaker's year" since only great technique could produce good
wine.

I could go on but then it is Sunday morning and I grow tired of
preaching to the choir!

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

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

"Joseph Coulter" wrote.....
>
> I could go on but then it is Sunday morning and I grow tired of
> preaching to the choir!
>

Besides, don't you have a "little" storm coming your way?

Batten the hatches and open the port!!!!!!!!

st.helier

"st.helier" > wrote in news:ga1bct$bnq$1
@news.datemas.de:

> "Joseph Coulter" wrote.....
>>
>> I could go on but then it is Sunday morning and I grow tired of
>> preaching to the choir!
>>
>
> Besides, don't you have a "little" storm coming your way?
>
> Batten the hatches and open the port!!!!!!!!
>
> st.helier
>
>
>

Been there two weeks ago with Fay, Hanna's gone, and Ike is headed to
the gulf. (Like you I am in the Northeast)

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

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

"Joseph Coulter" wrote ...........
>
> Been there two weeks ago with Fay, Hanna's gone, and Ike is
> headed to the gulf. (Like you I am in the Northeast)
>

September is supposed to be the first month of spring downunder - but you
wouldn't know it.

Wettest winter on record in these parts (not overly cold though). Have had
rain on every weekend since May!!!!

Have just returned from a week in Sydney, Australia - and wouldn't you know
it - rain!!!

I am thinking that the Sahara Desert is looking like an attractive
proposition.

November is looking warm and dry - yeah right!!!!!!!

st.h

James Silverton wrote:

> How are the Alaska
> vineyards doing?

Actually there are several vineyards and wineries in Alaska and their
wines are decent.

Here in AZ there are some excellent vineyards in both northern and
southern AZ. Not many would expect a primarily desert state to produce
decent grapes but it does.

NY's long island as cold as it gets produces some very nice wines as
does many areas of Canada.

That said, I do feel climate and soil do have much to do with the final
product. However, I feel the winemaker has more to do with it. An
excellent winemaker seems to be able to make a decent wine consistent
year after year despite wide variances in climate conditions from one
year to the next.

Miles wrote:

> James Silverton wrote:
>
>> How are the Alaska
>> vineyards doing?
>
> Actually there are several vineyards and
> wineries in Alaska and their wines are decent.
>
> Here in AZ there are some excellent vineyards in
> both northern and
> southern AZ. Not many would expect a primarily
> desert state to produce decent grapes but it
> does.

Same goes for Utah, which, I believe has one
winery and vineyard.

>
> NY's long island as cold as it gets produces
> some very nice wines as does many areas of
> Canada.

True. Just got back from BC and they grow some
good wine there.

>
> That said, I do feel climate and soil do have
> much to do with the final
> product. However, I feel the winemaker has more
> to do with it. An excellent winemaker seems to
> be able to make a decent wine consistent year
> after year despite wide variances in climate
> conditions from one year to the next.

A "decent wine" yes; a consistent wine - NO WAY,
unless the winemaker is in an area without much
variability in climate etc.

Miles wrote on Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:47:17 -0700:

>> How are the Alaska vineyards doing?

> Actually there are several vineyards and wineries in Alaska
> and their wines are decent.

> Here in AZ there are some excellent vineyards in both northern
> and southern AZ. Not many would expect a primarily desert
> state to produce decent grapes but it does.

> NY's long island as cold as it gets produces some very nice
> wines as does many areas of Canada.

>That said, I do feel climate and soil do have much to do with the final
>product. However, I feel the winemaker has more to do with it.


I guess that you would agree then that "terroir" is not everything? It
seems logical enough since the reputations of individual wineries do
change.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

The way the climate seems to be changing (especially in the frozen
north), one wonders if Alaska will end up being a prime state for
Pinot Noir by 2050? They certainly have no shortage of slopes.

Dan-O

Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

> Same goes for Utah, which, I believe has one
> winery and vineyard.

Really? I've tried the wines from one winery just outside of Moab, UT,
on the bank of the Colorado river, but I don't recall its name. It's
also true that New Mexico isn't everone's idea of wine country, but
Gruet produces some very nice wines there.

> True. Just got back from BC and they grow some
> good wine there.

The Okanagan Valley is quite well known for its wines, though one does
have to be rather selective (but, then again, where don't you?)


> A "decent wine" yes; a consistent wine - NO WAY,
> unless the winemaker is in an area without much
> variability in climate etc.

Yes, if you want consistent wine go for Gallo. Like any agricultural
product, wine is too much at the mercy of nature's whims to be truly
consistent, but a talented winemaker can make an interesting wine in all
but the most disastrous of years. Those wines, though, will still bear
the imprint of the year unless steps are taken to erase
(technologically) those imprints.

Mark Lipton


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

Mark wrote on Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:35:45 -0400:

>> Same goes for Utah, which, I believe has one
>> winery and vineyard.

> Really? I've tried the wines from one winery just outside of
> Moab, UT, on the bank of the Colorado river, but I don't
> recall its name. It's also true that New Mexico isn't
> everone's idea of wine country, but Gruet produces some very
> nice wines there.

>> True. Just got back from BC and they grow some
>> good wine there.

> The Okanagan Valley is quite well known for its wines, though
> one does have to be rather selective (but, then again, where
> don't you?)

>> A "decent wine" yes; a consistent wine - NO WAY,
>> unless the winemaker is in an area without much
>> variability in climate etc.

> Yes, if you want consistent wine go for Gallo. Like any
> agricultural product, wine is too much at the mercy of
> nature's whims to be truly consistent, but a talented
> winemaker can make an interesting wine in all but the most
> disastrous of years. Those wines, though, will still bear the
> imprint of the year unless steps are taken to erase
> (technologically) those imprints.

I believe the number of wineries using Vitis vinifera grapes grown in
Alaska is very small indeed. Places using imported juice or local
berries are more usual.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

> "Anything will grow with sun and water. We can grow on asphalt," he
> said. "Terroir don't mean s___."
>
Would wines from vines grown on asphalt have a hint of petrol?

Dick R.

"Mike Tommasi" > skrev i melding
...
>> Would wines from vines grown on asphalt have a hint of petrol?
>
> No, "goudron".
>
>
Ouch! (I tarried not long looking up that...)

:-) Anders

Mark Lipton wrote:

> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>
>> Same goes for Utah, which, I believe has one
>> winery and vineyard.
>
> Really? I've tried the wines from one winery
> just outside of Moab, UT,
> on the bank of the Colorado river, but I don't
> recall its name.

That's the one I am talking about. Acutally, I
liked their wines a lot better than those I tried
on the West slope of the rockies in Colorado.
The one in Utah did not let the grapes hang for
so long as to make rocket fuel.

> It's also true that New Mexico
> isn't everone's idea of wine country, but Gruet
> produces some very nice wines there.

Good ones in Idaho also just West of Boise.

>
>> True. Just got back from BC and they grow some
>> good wine there.
>
> The Okanagan Valley is quite well known for its
> wines, though one does have to be rather
> selective (but, then again, where don't you?)
>
>
>> A "decent wine" yes; a consistent wine - NO
>> WAY, unless the winemaker is in an area without
>> much variability in climate etc.
>
> Yes, if you want consistent wine go for Gallo.
> Like any agricultural product, wine is too much
> at the mercy of nature's whims to be truly
> consistent, but a talented winemaker can make an
> interesting wine in all
> but the most disastrous of years. Those wines,
> though, will still bear the imprint of the year
> unless steps are taken to erase
> (technologically) those imprints.
>
> Mark Lipton
>
>

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:22:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was interested to read in a book on Biodynamic wine making, the
thesis that it's the vines - in combination with the soil in which
they find themselves that are responsible for the creation and
maintenance of terroir. The corollary of that, was that the use of
synthetic fertilisers and cultivation methods which create a
discontinuity between top soil and subsoil are actively destroying
terroir.

So it could well be the experience of a winemaker using such
techniques, that there is no correlation between place and flavour.
Those of us who have tasted Henri Gouge's wines from neighbouring
parcels, know differently.
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

"Paul E. Lehmann" > wrote in
:


>
> Good ones in Idaho also just West of Boise.
>
>>
Saint Chappelle is a long time Caldwell Idaho maker (since the mid 70's)
there is a vinyard in Twin Falls area (Snake River Valley) that has been
recommended to me, but I don't get out there as much as I should.


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

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

> A "decent wine" yes; a consistent wine - NO WAY,
> unless the winemaker is in an area without much
> variability in climate etc.

I suppose consistent is subjective. True, there are better years than
others. What I am referring to is a winemakers ability to produce a
well above par wine year after year with only subtle differences despite
large variances in climate from one year to another. A couple of my
favorites are Truchard Syrah and Concannon Petite Syrah. They are
excellent every year. Some years are awesome but never a bad wine or
even so-so. What I note with a good winemaker is when doing verticals
and noting only slight differences from year to year. To me a winemaker
that knows there stuff is worth more than the grapes themselves.

James Silverton wrote:

> I guess that you would agree then that "terroir" is not everything? It
> seems logical enough since the reputations of individual wineries do
> change.

Terrior is certainly not everything. Wines produced from several
wineries all using grapes from the exact same vineyards result in some
excellent, some crap. Totally different wines.

Dan the Man wrote:
> The way the climate seems to be changing (especially in the frozen
> north), one wonders if Alaska will end up being a prime state for
> Pinot Noir by 2050? They certainly have no shortage of slopes.
Pinot Noir has been grown in AK for quite some time due to its cool
climate in the southern parts.

Mark Lipton wrote:

> a talented winemaker can make an interesting wine in all
> but the most disastrous of years.
>
> Mark Lipton

Thats pretty much what I'm referring to. I find a good winemaker can
make a decent wine even in horrible years. I realize ratings are
subjective but on my own personal scale a winemaker who produces 90+
rated wines does so year after year despite climate changes. Sure, they
may vary 92 in a bad year and 98 in good year.

"IanH" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:22:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> I was interested to read in a book on Biodynamic wine making, the
> thesis that it's the vines - in combination with the soil in which
> they find themselves that are responsible for the creation and
> maintenance of terroir.

ISTM that biodynamicists are just organic vignerons that believe in a whole
load of pseudoscientific twaddle and squit!

Graham

miles wrote:

> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>
>> A "decent wine" yes; a consistent wine - NO
>> WAY, unless the winemaker is in an area without
>> much variability in climate etc.
>
> I suppose consistent is subjective. True, there
> are better years than
> others. What I am referring to is a winemakers
> ability to produce a well above par wine year
> after year with only subtle differences despite
> large variances in climate from one year to
> another. A couple of my
> favorites are Truchard Syrah and Concannon
> Petite Syrah. They are
> excellent every year. Some years are awesome
> but never a bad wine or
> even so-so.

There is probability a LOT less variability in the
wine areas you refer to than in Bordeaux.

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.

> What I note with a good winemaker
> is when doing verticals
> and noting only slight differences from year to
> year. To me a winemaker that knows there stuff
> is worth more than the grapes themselves.

How long have you been making wine. Do you have
any experience in this area?

I have been an amateur winemaker for about 40
years now, have my own backyard vineyard and
worked at a commercial vineyard and winery a
couple years after I retired. (Northern Virginia
area)

One of the tricks of a winemaker working with less
than ideal grapes is to OAK THE HELL out of them.
Oakiness covers up a multitude of deficiencies in
grape quality. MANY so called "Knowledgeable"
wine drinkers don't know the difference between
the natural flavors from the grape and those
introduced from the barrel.

You can make good wine with good grapes OR you can
make terrible wine with good grapes BUT one can
NOT make good wine with terrible grapes. The
French, and anyone who grows wine, have a saying;
"Wine is made in the vineyard"

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.

miles wrote on Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:19:26 -0700:

>> I guess that you would agree then that "terroir" is not
>> everything? It seems logical enough since the reputations of
>> individual wineries do change.


Heaven forbid, I suppose, but I wonder how long it will be for control
of winemaking to be turned over to computers? It might be be claimed
that the process is far too complicated but computers steadily improve,
now beating grand masters at chess! A year ago, I was ensured that the
game was far too complicated but one has recently been programmed to win
at Go!
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

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

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.

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'.

No, it can't be done anywhere in the world. Some
areas have excessive moisture. One can not turn
off the rain.

>
>> 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.

After I retired, I worked part time at a
commercial winery so I am a tad more experienced
than "just a backyard hobbiest"

> Even a long time winemaker can make crap wine.

Yes indeed, from crappy grapes to work with.

>
> Some are far better than others.

True BUT wine as been made for centuries. It is
not exactly high tech work. Knowledge and
experience are a plus but it is not rocket
science. Growing quality grapes requires a hell
of a lot more knowledge than "making the wine".

>
>> 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.

Commercial wineries will do what it takes to move
out the wine. Besides, most people are used to
drinking heavily oaked wine and don't know the
difference.


> 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.

Until you have some experience actually growing
the grapes and actually making some wine
yourself, you are left with your unfounded
beliefs.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:12:32 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:

>"IanH" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:22:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>> I was interested to read in a book on Biodynamic wine making, the
>> thesis that it's the vines - in combination with the soil in which
>> they find themselves that are responsible for the creation and
>> maintenance of terroir.
>
>ISTM that biodynamicists are just organic vignerons that believe in a whole
>load of pseudoscientific twaddle and squit!

You're entitled to your opinion. I suggest, however, that you take
time out to read François Bouchet's" Bio-dynamic Agriculture". While
there's a lot of mystical stuff, there's also a lot of very
interesting stuff based on observation and experience. I don't buy the
mystical magic, but I like the wines I've tried.
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

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.

Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
> miles wrote:

>> Even a long time winemaker can make crap wine.
>
> Yes indeed, from crappy grapes to work with.

While true you seem bent on making the winemaker rather insignificant.
Only a skilled winemaker will be able to make a great wine with great
grapes. Doesn't matter how good the grape is if the winemaker doesn't
have what it takes.

> True BUT wine as been made for centuries. It is
> not exactly high tech work. Knowledge and
> experience are a plus but it is not rocket
> science.

Bull. It is not as much science as it is skill. If it were science
then no tasting would be needed prior to bottling. Just run ONLY
science tests and adjust and bottle. Sorry, but there isn't just a
simple chemistry book one follows in order to make great wine, given
great grapes.

Paul E. Lehmann wrote:

> Until you have some experience actually growing
> the grapes and actually making some wine
> yourself, you are left with your unfounded
> beliefs.


lol, you just told me it isn't rocket science. Just start with good
grapes and follow a basic wine cookbook and ya got a great wine. Ya,
sure. Sorry Paul but a great winemaker is just that...great. They're
not a dime a dozen.

"IanH" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:12:32 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:
>
>>"IanH" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:22:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>
>>> I was interested to read in a book on Biodynamic wine making, the
>>> thesis that it's the vines - in combination with the soil in which
>>> they find themselves that are responsible for the creation and
>>> maintenance of terroir.
>>
>>ISTM that biodynamicists are just organic vignerons that believe in a
>>whole
>>load of pseudoscientific twaddle and squit!
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. I suggest, however, that you take
> time out to read François Bouchet's" Bio-dynamic Agriculture". While
> there's a lot of mystical stuff, there's also a lot of very
> interesting stuff based on observation and experience. I don't buy the
> mystical magic, but I like the wines I've tried.
> --
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.
Graham

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.

Hey Miles, here is a clue. The French do not have
a term for "wine maker". Their term is "wine
grower".

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?

You still have not given your experience - besides
drinking, of course.

Miles wrote:

> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>
>> Until you have some experience actually growing
>> the grapes and actually making some wine
>> yourself, you are left with your unfounded
>> beliefs.
>
>
> lol, you just told me it isn't rocket science.
> Just start with good
> grapes and follow a basic wine cookbook and ya
> got a great wine. Ya,
> sure.

That is closer to the truth than you may realize.

> Sorry Paul but a great winemaker is just
> that...great. They're not a dime a dozen.

Some wine makers (dishonest and egotistical ones)
try to make believe they are magicians. I see
you have bought the story, hook, line and sinker.

Hey, I have some grape cool aid mix left from
years ago. Know of any "Wine maker" who can make
it into some "wine" for me?

Miles wrote:

> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
>> miles wrote:
>
>>> Even a long time winemaker can make crap wine.
>>
>> Yes indeed, from crappy grapes to work with.
>
> While true you seem bent on making the winemaker
> rather insignificant. Only a skilled winemaker
> will be able to make a great wine with great
> grapes.

Bullshit. Amateur winemakers have been wining all
kinds of awards making wine from premium grapes.

> Doesn't matter how good the grape is if
> the winemaker doesn't have what it takes.

What does it take? Please tell me.

>
>> True BUT wine as been made for centuries. It
>> is
>> not exactly high tech work. Knowledge and
>> experience are a plus but it is not rocket
>> science.
>
> Bull. It is not as much science as it is skill.

A good wine maker, like a chef, is greatly aided
by a good nose. If you call that "skill" I can
buy that.

> If it were science
> then no tasting would be needed prior to
> bottling. Just run ONLY
> science tests and adjust and bottle.

Hey, look, I never mentioned "Science" in wine
making.

> Sorry, but
> there isn't just a simple chemistry book one
> follows in order to make great wine, given great
> grapes.

Well, not exactly true. If one checks the basics
and monitors pH, sugars, and TA then the rest is
pretty simple.

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

> 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!

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

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.

"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote.....
>
>> Just start with good grapes and follow a basic wine cookbook
>> and ya got a great wine.
>
> That is closer to the truth than you may realize.
>

Guys, taking emotion right out of the equation, we are talking about two
totally different "sciences" here.

OK - in a smaller operation they may be the same person - however, if I
may be so bold as to generalise, the sciences of Viticulture and Oenology -
that is the study of vine growing and grape harvesting (i.e. viticulture) as
opposed to the science and study of all aspects of wine and winemaking from
the grape harvest to bottle (i.e. oenology - enology if you are American)
separate operations, but equally important to the making of great wine.

I have yet to meet a winemaker who did not say that great wines are created
in the vineyard - put it this way, great grapes provide the raw materials to
allow a good winemaker to make great wine.

OTOH - I have spoken to numerous viticulturalists who could say that the
winemaker F_____ up a wonderful crop!

The fact of the matter is that there are numerous methods of growing any
crop - "factory" production, using whatever fertiliser, insecticides,
fungicides, irrigation etc necessary to maximise yields - in a good year,
with good quality, but perhaps lacking the "individuality" which a
particular site may offer.

Then there is organic growing (remember, nitrogen, phosphate, copper and
sulphur are all organic elements!) - and at the "extreme" (depending on your
perspective) there is bio-dynamics - yes, a certain amount of mysticism and
homeopathy.

Now, like others, I don't buy into stuffing chicken shit into buffalo
horns - burying them for a couple decades and placing a pinch of snuff with
a gram of shark cartilage into a barrel of mountain water!!!!!!!!!!

When I worked in the industry, I saw first hand, a winemaker make a more
than acceptable wine out of rotten grapes (cleaning up a moldy mess with a
silver compound etc) - and vice versa - a wonderful crop stuffed up by
questionable winemaking practices.

To the great unannointed, I describe things thus - the grower provides the
raw material for the winemaker to practice his art.

And like all forms of art, some will like the end product and some will not.

However, there are no absolutes.

--

st.helier

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

>
>"IanH" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:12:32 GMT, "Graham" > wrote:
>>
>>>"IanH" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:22:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was interested to read in a book on Biodynamic wine making, the
>>>> thesis that it's the vines - in combination with the soil in which
>>>> they find themselves that are responsible for the creation and
>>>> maintenance of terroir.
>>>
>>>ISTM that biodynamicists are just organic vignerons that believe in a
>>>whole
>>>load of pseudoscientific twaddle and squit!
>>
>> You're entitled to your opinion. I suggest, however, that you take
>> time out to read François Bouchet's" Bio-dynamic Agriculture". While
>> there's a lot of mystical stuff, there's also a lot of very
>> interesting stuff based on observation and experience. I don't buy the
>> mystical magic, but I like the wines I've tried.
>> --
>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.
>Graham
>
....and that sir is exactly the point i think. Julian Castagna, who
makes my most favourite Australian red wine, (ok, outside of Grange),
"Genesis", a magnificent Shiraz Viognier, ( a wine Mr Riggs of Run Rig
fame is envious of!!), and he IS a bio-dynamic winery. His humble
answer to the oft asked questions regarding the "science" or
"mysticism" is simple. "Ask the scientists". His response always
alludes to the "natural" way of doing things, making wines reflecting
his "terroir". ...."and if that is bio-dynamics, then that's what I
do"...

hooroo....

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.

If one has a difficult year then the fruit is not
of optimum quality. Thus, one can not make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear.

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.

>
> Guess what a) and b) are called?
>
> TERROIR.

You obviously do not know the definition of
"Terroir"

Check here for a clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroir



>
> QED (terroir is not only the climate and soil,
> but also the work of the winemaker).
>
>