Just because science has not yet identified sensory markers linked to soil and minerals doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We may not understand how or why, but I for one still believe that soil, and not just its tilth or fertility, affects the sensory characteristics of wine. Science just needs time to catch up.
Thanks, Paul. Soil is definitely a humongous factor when it comes to sensory qualities. It is just not a direct correllation in terms of flavor profile. At least in my experience (although I'm not the all-knowing God). Re one of my previous posts, https://randycaparoso.substack.com/p/is-it-okay-to-talk-about-terroir
I think this is something most agree with, but as Randy wrote it's the "direct" correlation between the two that's unlikely, meaning you literally taste limestone because the soil was limestone. We taste the effect of that soil, whatever that effect may translate to, but it's unlikely anything so direct.
As someone who grows and produces Riesling in the Finger Lakes, we enthusiastically concur with Randy's point-of-view. "Terroir" can also extend to certain cultural practices that differentiate the fruit that comes from one "place" and fruit that comes from another nearby. Terroir is about way more than the soil. It may begin with the soil, but where terroir ends, well, there may be room for debate.
Thanks, Bruce! Honestly, though, I don't think I have a "point-of-view." As I mention in the post, it is not a point-of-view to recognize that a Chablis is a Chablis, a Carneros Chardonnay is a Carneros Chardonnay, or a Finger Lakes Riesling is a Finger Lakes Riesling. The distinctions based upon place are there, whether anyone chooses to recognize them or not. The distinctions are not there, of course, when vintners choose to take grapes from different vineyards or regions, and blend them all together to capture some sense of uniformity (such as "varietal" or brand identities). But when left well enough alone, wines tend to taste where they come from.
Good on you for keeping this in the line of sight. Andre T. consulted on a property in Paso for Dr. Hoffman that was planted with walnut trees. He looked at the site...put some dirt in his hand, took a deep sniff...popped it in his mouth, spat it out and said....plant pinot. A bucket list pinot, Adelaida HMR Pinot Noir. Growing in a 'place' where pinot isn't. Just like the Zellerbach V. at Hanzell...a place where pinot isn't. Andre T. was all about PLACE.
Also, the tanks at Hanzell for temp controlled fermentation
were custom made by Andre and came from a dairy in Sacramento. Ivan Shock did a midnite run in the ToKalon V., planted with Masson clone, with Brad Webb and Andre. These cuttings became the Zellarbach V. And those clones changed, now officially known as the Hanzell Clone.
Just because science has not yet identified sensory markers linked to soil and minerals doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We may not understand how or why, but I for one still believe that soil, and not just its tilth or fertility, affects the sensory characteristics of wine. Science just needs time to catch up.
Thanks, Paul. Soil is definitely a humongous factor when it comes to sensory qualities. It is just not a direct correllation in terms of flavor profile. At least in my experience (although I'm not the all-knowing God). Re one of my previous posts, https://randycaparoso.substack.com/p/is-it-okay-to-talk-about-terroir
I think this is something most agree with, but as Randy wrote it's the "direct" correlation between the two that's unlikely, meaning you literally taste limestone because the soil was limestone. We taste the effect of that soil, whatever that effect may translate to, but it's unlikely anything so direct.
As someone who grows and produces Riesling in the Finger Lakes, we enthusiastically concur with Randy's point-of-view. "Terroir" can also extend to certain cultural practices that differentiate the fruit that comes from one "place" and fruit that comes from another nearby. Terroir is about way more than the soil. It may begin with the soil, but where terroir ends, well, there may be room for debate.
Thanks, Bruce! Honestly, though, I don't think I have a "point-of-view." As I mention in the post, it is not a point-of-view to recognize that a Chablis is a Chablis, a Carneros Chardonnay is a Carneros Chardonnay, or a Finger Lakes Riesling is a Finger Lakes Riesling. The distinctions based upon place are there, whether anyone chooses to recognize them or not. The distinctions are not there, of course, when vintners choose to take grapes from different vineyards or regions, and blend them all together to capture some sense of uniformity (such as "varietal" or brand identities). But when left well enough alone, wines tend to taste where they come from.
Good on you for keeping this in the line of sight. Andre T. consulted on a property in Paso for Dr. Hoffman that was planted with walnut trees. He looked at the site...put some dirt in his hand, took a deep sniff...popped it in his mouth, spat it out and said....plant pinot. A bucket list pinot, Adelaida HMR Pinot Noir. Growing in a 'place' where pinot isn't. Just like the Zellerbach V. at Hanzell...a place where pinot isn't. Andre T. was all about PLACE.
Very cool, Andrea, thanks! Next week I'll post my personal memories of Andre, which will add to your story.
Also, the tanks at Hanzell for temp controlled fermentation
were custom made by Andre and came from a dairy in Sacramento. Ivan Shock did a midnite run in the ToKalon V., planted with Masson clone, with Brad Webb and Andre. These cuttings became the Zellarbach V. And those clones changed, now officially known as the Hanzell Clone.