So Why Is Terroir So Friggin' Important???

From a discussion on cold soaks destroying terrior, I came upon the following comment: ...vineyard individuality or wine making individuality?, which trumpeted the superiority of a wine that expresses terroir (vineyard individuality is my interpretation) over one that expresses wine making indivudality.
When I think of some wines that express "winemaking individuality"...wines like the DavidBruces of the late-'60's & early '70's, the "Draper perfume" of the Ridge Zins, the ?? of the Tony Coturri wines, the wines of Jacobo Gravner, Edi Kanti, Radikon, the Vin Jaune wines of the Jura, the perfume of a good Beaujolais Noveau...on and on....all of which are good expressions of winemaking trumping terroir.
So...how did terrior get put up on this pedestal to be worshiped and fawned over, to be declared superior to winemaking character or varietal character in a wine?? How the heck am I supposed to identify that terrior thingey if it's a NevadaCnty Rkatsiteli...so that I know if I'm supposed to like it or not? Back in the mid-'70's, the Monterey Cnty Cabernets displayed their terrior, in spades, but were widely loathed by everybody because of their terroir. Back in the '70's, the Calif Pinots displayed plenty of terroir...but they were widely rejected because they didn't display the same terroir as RedBurgundy. Now the SantaLuciaHighlands terroir seems to be perfectly acceptable in those Pinots.
So...what the heck's so important about a wine expressing terroir?? To my taste, perverted as it is, I prefer the wine to express some kind, any kind, of individuality...be it coming from the terroir, coming from the varietal character, coming from winemaking...I just want it to say something unique to me. That's all.
Talk & cat-fight amongst yourselves.
Tom

Minefield subject as always! As I type this I am looking at my white wines over my right shoulder. 8 and a half cases in a cool basement. There is some Muscadet and a few Chablis. Both these wines represent good winemaking, a fair vintage, climate, careful selection of grapes and so on. Where they come from is distinct in my mind. I taste them and I find that they taste the way I expected. They both express terroir! Would they taste the same if they had been grown in the Rhone valley or on the cliffs near Maury? I don`t think so but would a white CdP taste the same if grown in the Loire Valley? Stay tuned!

[David M. Bueker]

If we can back off the motional ranting I think it may have something more to do with the fact that the vast majority of wines are industrial products that could come from anywhere and be made by anyone with a chemistry book and a handy lab analyst.

Now take a wine crafted with care from a specific plot of land that speaks of where it came from. Ah, now that's the good stuff.

Where your comments go off the rails Tom is that people haven't (generally) besmirtched Draper's wines or the old David Bruce wines or the great BV wines of the '60s (to name a personal favorite) because they were and are great wines that are not industrial & speak to a specific, identifiable style. Sure some folks still vilify everything that isn't artisanal Beaujolais or Muscadet, but they have their own board. Still a few others with more money than any one person has a right to can afford to buy these micro-production Burgundies or wines like Le Pin that speak to a row of 11 vines tended as though they were the winemaker's 11 children. But they are hardly the majority, they just have some loud voices.

Terroir is important. Geyserville would not be Geyserville if it wasn't grown where it is, now would it be Geyserville if it wasn't made the way it is.

Every wine needs a winemaker unless we are to wait for individual grapes to go over on the vine & suck the juices in situ.

So...how did terrior get put up on this pedestal to be worshiped and fawned over, to be declared superior to winemaking character or varietal character in a wine?

A bit of a straw man, isn't this? Because that has not been my experience, that folks declare terroir superior to winemaking character or varietal character. I often drink with some quite dedicated "terroirists", but all of them acknowledge and enjoy winemaking character and varietal character.

Burgundy and Germany drinkers are probably the most intense terroir fans. But few Burg fans wouldn't admit to the distinctiveness of style of a Dujac or Coche Drury. And no German fan I know doesn't want Riesling typicity more than anything.

And even the winemakers you name- if terroir doesn't matter, why doesn't Ridge just bottle Red Blend Wine? Although for my tastes Coturri could probably just bottle one wine, I'd call it Fresh Kills Zin.

I must ask, who is Edi Kanti?

A bit of a straw man, isn't this? Because that has not been my experience, that folks declare terroir superior to winemaking character or varietal character. I often drink with some quite dedicated "terroirists", but all of them acknowledge and enjoy winemaking character and varietal character.

Yes, a straw man it is. Speaking as a terroirist-in-training (freshly back from the camp at Tora Bora), I can say that I value individuality above all. I want my wine to be distinctive, and that means firstly a winemaker who can let the grapes express themselves, and secondly a viticulturist who can let the grapes speak of their place, and thirdly grapes suited to the climate in which they're growing. When these factors come together, the result is usually a wine that has character, a sense of place and of style. As you say, Burgundy, the poster child for terroir, abounds with wines made in wildly differing styles, yet which still communicate a sense of place.

Mark Lipton

Dang it, Tom! There you go being scientist and expecting consistency out of wine geeks! What are you thinking??

OK, I generally stay out of debates like this but what the heck. It seems to me that the whole terroir idea only works for areas in which wine geeks like the terroir. You mentioned Monterey County as one that wine geeks don't like. Another example would be Lodi. Wines that reflect Lodi terroir are not likely to appeal to most wine geeks and we avoid them in droves. Yet they are no less products of the land than great wines from Burgundy or the Rhone. It's just that the Lodi land really isn't all that great in comparison. If a wine comes from an area known for its terroir, perhaps the feeling is that anything that doesn't reflect that is a bit of a waste, even if it's otherwise very good? (And that really is a question.) But in the end, I think we're all suckers to some degree for complex wines that reflect that individuality you speak of. To go along with what David said, it's hard to believe that anyone is so hung up on terroir that they can't enjoy something like one of Draper's better wines.

WTF? Have you never tasted a range of single vineyard wines from the same producer, vine type, and vintage before? How can you explain the vast differences in a German or Burgundian vinters wine arsenal without Terroir? You need a plane ticket or a good wine shop. WTF indeed.

Boy, Tom; you really stepped in it this time!

Boy, Tom; you really stepped in it this time!

I knew things would liven up around here!!!! Blimey, its only 11.30 pm MT.

I have always found the concept of terroir difficult to grasp, and I find the confusion continues in this thread. Are you all talking about the same thing when you talk about terroir?

The first interpretation of terroir seems to focus only on the environmental conditions. Grapes that come from different plots with different soil structures, drainage schemes, amounts of sunlight, and so on, produce wines that are distinct from one another even though all other variables are held constant (that is, the same grape grows on both plots, they undergo the same treatment through the vinification process applied by the same individual). These quotes seem to be talking about that interpretation of terroir:

a wine that expresses terroir (vineyard individuality is my interpretation) over one that expresses wine making indivudality.

Have you never tasted a range of single vineyard wines from the same producer, vine type, and vintage before? How can you explain the vast differences in a German or Burgundian vinters wine arsenal without Terroir?

A second interpretation of terroir brings in the idea that the wine speaks of where it came from. This interpretation does not seem to require identical winemaking practices to allow for terroir distinctiveness. Instead the manipulation applied by the winemaker is best suited for the juice that comes from a particular plot--somewhat enhancing the ability of a wine to speak of its place. And, I don't know precisely what folks here were thinking, but when I think of this interpretation, I think of tasting a wine where the elements I taste kind of sound like the description of the environmental conditions (especially the soil) in which the grapes were grown. It seemed like the following two quotes offered an interpretation of terroir that combined distinctive environmental conditions with accentuating winemaking practices:

Now take a wine crafted with care from a specific plot of land that speaks of where it came from.

a winemaker who can let the grapes express themselves, and secondly a viticulturist who can let the grapes speak of their place

Then there is a third interpretation of terroir that could be renamed regional distinctiveness. Wines from a certain area tend to taste a certain way. It is unclear how much of this is due to environmental conditions unique to that region and how much is due to winemaking practices unique to that region. But if the first interpretation of terroir was about splitting, it seems that this interpretation is more about lumping. For example, it seems like folks are talking about the first interpretation when trying to characterize how one 1er Cru within a Burgundy village appellation is different from another, while others use this third interpretation to characterize how Pinot Grigios from the Alto Adige all share similar characteristics that identify them as being from Alto Adige and not somewhere else. This quote seems to reflect that third perspective:

There is some Muscadet and a few Chablis. Both these wines represent good winemaking, a fair vintage, climate, careful selection of grapes and so on. Where they come from is distinct in my mind. I taste them and I find that they taste the way I expected. They both express terroir!

So if terroir means all these three things at once, which seem quite distinct to me, I wonder how useful it is as a tool for talking about a wine with a sense of place . . .

So...what the heck's so important about a wine expressing terroir??

Wine functions as a very strong symbol for inner archetypes. If this isn’t immediately obvious, just reflect on the part the liquid has played in religious ritual. Therefore, people use subjects connected with wine to project deep prejudice about important psychological areas such as where we think we come from. The terroir versus manipulation controversy represents basic nature versus nurture consideration.

I just want it to say something unique to me. That's all.
Tom

What is so important about that? - one is tempted to ask. Is it an elite sense of escaping the anonymity of mass culture that is driving you there? The cult of personal achievment? Fear of death?

Peter

[David M. Bueker]

So if terroir means all these three things at once, which seem quite distinct to me, I wonder how useful it is as a tool for talking about a wine with a sense of place . . .

But they are not really distinct (and actually terroir is an incredibly difficult thing to define or discuss - hence the little tempest we have going on right now), as at its most basic it's is only about a wine expressing a sense of where it came from. At that level it's a handy name for a difficult concept.

Things get truly confusing/contentious when the "degree" of terroir is at issue. Does a wine express terroir if you can clearly identify it as Red Burgundy instead of Oregon Pinot Noir (or flip that example & it's equally valid by the way - the New World has just as much terroir as the old, it's just sitting there waiting to be discovered - take that Randall Graham), or do you have to be able to identify the section of Clos Vougeot or Shea Vineyard where the grapes were grown. Then we're getting into the completely bizarre and undefinable, since individual taste is individual, and what you might regard as an archetypal Clos Vougeout from its upper (and ostensibly better if you ask the true Burg geeks) sections might to me taste dilute and more like it came from nearer the road. Ok - is that terroir or good/bad vineyard husbandry or good/bad winemaking or good/bad tasting? Now the concept does get too confusing to be useful except as discussion fodder among friends, preferably with two glasses in front of each person - one of Clos Vougeot and one of St. Innocent Shea Vineyard Pinot Noir.

So...what the heck's so important about a wine expressing terroir??

Because Terroir is the most beautiful aspect of wine.

Best
Fredrik Svensson

[David M. Bueker]

So...what the heck's so important about a wine expressing terroir??

Because Terroir is the most beautiful aspect of wine.

Best
Fredrik Svensson

Ok I will actually come up on the other side of that one. Terroir is not an aspect of a wine. Color, aroma, flavor (and maybe texture) are aspects of a wine. Terroir is our interpretation of those aspects.

I will no longer engage in this topic, I will no longer engage in this topic, I will no longer engage in this topic...said three hundred more times.

That's how I got out of discussions about religion. Oh, this is not religion? Sorry, my mistake.

WTF? Have you never tasted a range of single vineyard wines from the same producer, vine type, and vintage before? How can you explain the vast differences in a German or Burgundian vinters wine arsenal without Terroir? You need a plane ticket or a good wine shop. WTF indeed.

Good starting point Bill. Indeed they are different.
HOWEVER,
Now go back and repeat that tasting, keeping most parameters the same but changing the producer (say, or vintage). Do the wines from the same vineyard taste similar - swamping the effect of the producer? If so, you definitely have terroir. But, my experience has been mostly different. I tend to trust the producer in both Germany and Burgundy, so my belief is that the 'terroir effect' while real is of relatively small significance within a 'reasonable' geographic area, compared to the other factors. It's a ripple - sometimes a wave, in a much bigger wine lake.

That's how I got out of discussions about religion. Oh, this is not religion? Sorry, my mistake.

The hell it isn't!!!!
-w

So...what the heck's so important about a wine expressing terroir?? To my taste, perverted as it is, I prefer the wine to express some kind, any kind, of individuality...be it coming from the terroir, coming from the varietal character, coming from winemaking...I just want it to say something unique to me. That's all.
Talk & cat-fight amongst yourselves. Tom

I haven't really done my due diligence and carefully read all the entries here, but I need to go take a shower and wait by the mailbox for a check.

My growing ever more cynical self tells me that terroir wouldn't mean a damn thing if winemakers didn't have to market their wines. Yes, it's a marketing tool! Hey, buy my wine! It's better beacause you can taste the dip from biodynamically raised Albanian sheep in every drop. Or, conversely if your terroir ain't none too famous, hey, buy my wine. It was made by the only bisexual, black, Amer-Asian, blind woman in all of Latvia!

Winemakers, winesellers need to differentiate their wines and tells us why they are better. Someone stumbled across terroir and recognized that it individualizes and particularizes. They keep us fighting about it and tasting their wines to see whose terroir reigns supreme. Since you can't grow grapes grown in Burgundy in Warren County, New Jersey, the concept of terroir is a powerful tool which cannot be alienated from the wine. But there are so many other factors which affect the end result of the winemaking process, the dirt the grapes are grown in can easily be shoveled aside.

To be sure, if all other things were equal in the winemaking process and the only variable was the terroir, one would end up with two differently tasting wines. I don't argue that. However: terroir in and of itself would probably not be important at all if winemakers didn't have to sell their wines.

However: terroir in and of itself would probably not be important at all if winemakers didn't have to sell their wines.

Hmmm. I wonder why it is that Napa farmland planted to grapes is more expensive than Georgia farmland?

But I guess that's right. If either a Napa winemaker or a Georgia winemaker didn't sell their wine, terroir would be unimportant.

My growing ever more cynical self tells me that terroir wouldn't mean a damn thing if winemakers didn't have to market their wines. Yes, it's a marketing tool! Hey, buy my wine!

No reflection on you specifically, Gary, but I encounter that sort of comment nowadays from people mystified by the "terroir" talk and who (human nature being what it is) feel a need to project an explanation for it consistent with their existing understanding. I could be wrong, but I am guessing that few of those people have spent a lot of time exploring those wines where terroir has long been implicit, or reading existing wine writing (like Yoxall's popular English-language Burgundy book, 1968) that bring out (maybe without even using the word) why it's important. Maybe they also haven't had experiences like I did in Burgundy a few years ago when a director of a large firm there challenged some visitors to identify a random mystery wine (vineyard and vintage) in the glass, and I (who don't even like to play guessing games at tastings, unlike some of my friends) to my own surprise identified the wine exactly, using cues from the wine itself, especially the geography which was the most obvious (the year was a little harder).

There is nothing the least little bit religious or commercial about any of that, but I guess it is hard to see until it is part of your own experience.

QED, Max. You identified wines based on where they were grown. In other words, those wines were individualized and particularized geographically. The next step is to say how those thusly identified wines pleased you and whether you would choose them over other wines based on their terroir or other criteria. That's purchasing logic, and marketing, in this case using the terroir tool, is seeking to influence that logic. That is totally commercial. There may be one or two winemakers out there who make their wines just for the sake of making their wines, but most want to sell it in order to live and leave the l'art pour l'art to the the starving artists.

Far from being mystified by the concept of terroir, I am fascinated by how it moves wine aficionados. It can be a distinguishing mark; it doesn't have to be. And, again, it only takes on any significance within the framework of marketing a wine because it can (doesn't have to) help you identify it.

There is a "romance" still tied to wine and I suppose conversations like this stem in part from that concept.

I don't doubt that a certain plot of land is important to what comes from the land--I see and taste this everyday right outside my door. I plant the same variety of tomatoes in two separate locations. Because of the placement and access to sun and different air temps, the tomatoes that mature (and at separate times) do in fact express differences.

Still, what I do with those tomatoes, and what they give to me, sustenance, is its own reward. That's how I feel about wine. I prefer wine that is an expression of its total environment, so long as the wine meets my expectations and pleases my senses. But if the wine doesn't do those things, whether terroir or winemaker intervention, the offense to my senses is all that matters.

Becoming either rigid or rabid over a concept seems rather futile to me, especially after considering that every move from commercially growing grapes to bottling wine is a form of intervention.

There is a "romance" still tied to wine and I suppose conversations like this stem in part from that concept.

Thomas, it's funny you should mention home-grown tomatoes. That's exactly the image which comes up in my mind when terroir is being discussed. We grew tomatoes in the same spot in our backyard behind two neighbors' garages in New Jersey for about 50 years. I knew "our" tomatoes as they were distinct. (Those percolating PCBs, you know.) But romanticize and mystify them? That doesn't fly with me except to recapture childhood memories. And I think many things associated with wine (and other products) are romanticized, mystified, and, by golly, sometimes deified, so that we will choose that product over others. And I often wonder how many folks spend heaps of money to consume things which they perhaps might not otherwise prefer because of all the, gasp, hype. You are right when you suggest that the only thing that matters is your personal response to a product. If terroir helps you to locate or avoid a product you like or dislike, respectively, great!! The rest is just (a sometimes fun) mental exercise.

(Boy, am I cranky today. Besides the rain, I just heard that my favorite local, boutique bakery where I could buy super duper baguettes for 49¢ each closed down.)