LIla,

I don't believe I insulted you, but anyway. . .

I'll give you all something to cheer about - this is my last discussion of terroir.

Let's get back to some serious wine discussion now. Please describe your "splash decanting" technique!

cdr11,

you probably shouldn't go wasting your money on wines from Bonny Doon.

Great article on Randall Grahm. Who's cab is it?
Could the initials be S O

That article was a lot like a column or book by Cornell West, or some PhD, postmodern literary critic - lots of big words - lots of words, period, but very little meaningful said. (sophisticated-New-York-Times-Reader-Types admire this mumbo jumbo and call stuff like this "brilliant," or "revolutionary"), but I don't buy one second of it. This article is nothing more than a synthesis of gobbledy-gook regurgitated by a kid who just found a new toy (biodynamics) and thinks it makes him smarter and his life more meaningful.

Sorry Skynard, you're trying to embarass (or impress) the wrong guy. Mr. GRaham can keep the "somewhereness," while I simply enjoy a glass of wine with my Thai food tonight.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cdr,

I'll be nice.

cdr11: Were you Jesuit trained?

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
I'll give you all something to cheer about - this is my last discussion of terroir.

It's about time. You don't know what you're talking about.

Low Tannin, you are an astute observer. I was blessed to have attended Franciscan clergy run elementary school and Jesuit High School and college. As a general rule these people never permitted us to accept anything on face value - ever. This included Bible passages and all of the prevailing visions of the intellectual class that would tug at us throughout our lives. I still remember my high school British Literature teacher - one of the most brilliant humans I have ever had the privielege of knowing. He pushed and pushed and pushed and made sure we believed we could accomplish more than anyone could ever expect of us. I gained my love of reading from my Father first, then this wonderful priest (I went on to a degree in English). I even toyed with the idea of joining the priesthood at one point, but could never kid myself into believing I was worthy of such an honor.

As a result of the intense challenges placed on me by my parents and the many talented teachers I've had, I am tremendously skeptical about almost everything and need emprirical evidence for earthly matters.

And Cody, thank you for yet another intellectually stimulating addition to another thread. We would be poorer men without your brilliance.

CDR; I agree with most of what you say, although I'd be careful pulling the verbose Professor West's name into the discussion. If he gets wind of it, he's likey to log on and start lecturing to us all!

I agree that every factor you mentioned has a siginficant effect on the final taste of the wine. To deny that reality would be silly. But to similarly deny the reality that climate and soil impact the final product is non-sensical as well. If this were the case, we would be producing wine in Barstow, where land is cheap.

To me, the problem when people speak of terroir is they take it to an extreme. I have no problem with people acknowledging that certain areas have priviledged climates and soils, and if this is terroir, then it is reasonable to acknowledge it. Napa is a differnt terroir than Barstow. If you go to the extreme, and tell me that 2 vineyards a quarter mile apart with similar soils, similar sun exposure, similar drainage, and similar geography will produce distinctinly different wines because of terroir, then I would think you were handing me a lot of bull. It's not that the 2 vineyards 1/4 mile apart will not produce different wines, as surely they do, but it will be because of vineyard management and winemaking and all the things you mentioned, not some mystical property of the land.

The crux of the question in my mind is not whether terroir exists, but rather, how big can a "terroir" be, and will it exert a measurable influence on the wine if one compares two distinctly different geographic regions (or terroirs) that both have ideal soil and climate conditions?

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
Sorry Skynard, you're trying to embarass (or impress) the wrong guy. Mr. GRaham can keep the "somewhereness," while I simply enjoy a glass of wine with my Thai food tonight.

I should have included a disclaimer: The fact that I linked to the Grahm article does not mean that I endorse all the statements therein, or adopt any of its opinions as my own.

Here are some of the conclusions I draw from the article, having attempted to approach it with a relatively (albeit not perfectly) open mind:

1. The concept of terroir is meaningful to actual winegrowers, and is not just a marketing gimmick cynically applied by the salesmen who have to move the product.

2. The beliefs grapegrowers and winemakers have about terroir and its transmitability will inform the many choices they make in the viticultural and winemaking process.

3. When tasting an allegedly terroir-driven wine, trying to hone in on what taste characteristics are exclusively site-specific is probably a waste of time, given the vast number of variables contributed by the human viticultuire and winemaking processes. Still, a good wine made by a terroirist should be respected as a bona fide attempt by the winemaker to interpret what he thinks the site has to say.

4. Tasting through, say, a series of Burgundies by a talented winemaker who believes his wines express the characteristics of their respective sites can make for an interesting intellectual experience, for those who want to approach wine that way. For just finding a nice match for Thai food, none of that matters.

5. From what Grahm said about biodynamics, it appears to me to have all the trappings of a pseudo-science.

6. Grahm identifies himself as a synaesthete, someone whose sensations in one physical sense trigger imagined sensation in another, like people who experience certain colors when they hear certain musical tones. Tasting wine is obviously a richer experience for someone with synaesthesia, but the problem is it's totally subjective & totally personal. No one else will "get" what you're "getting".

Finally, a comment to cdr11: You always sneer at what you call "postmodern", but your "critique" of the article is as postmodern as it gets: (1) You immediately assume the writer has an Agenda. (2) You Deconstruct the article to suss out its Agenda and determine the writer's Ideology, which of course matters more than its factual assertions. (3) Having nailed the writer to a particular place on the Identity Politics spectrum, you are then free to dismiss or embrace his entire argument based thereupon.

I had a liberal arts education, so you can bet I heard plenty of this junk coming from behind the lectern. But somehow, I just couldn't shake my old habits of reading inductively, engaging with an article's assertions one at a time, evaluating each on its own merits.

Thank God I was in engineering.

Vynrd,

I read the article over a couple of times, and it was more annoying to me each time. The main point he kept making was, "Terroir can be expressed if man does the right things." Is this at all contradictory to you? It is to me.

Wine Joe,

I have never stated that the location of a vineyard, or its soil, aspect, etc., have no impact on the fruit that grows, whether it be apples, avocados or vitis vinifera. As a very general principle of agriculture, a farmer who wishes to make money and grow fruit or vegetables a cosumer will enjoy and therefore buy more of, will plant the right crops in the right spot. Barstow may be a great spot to have a Yucca Farm, but Screaming Eagle hasn't sent its vineyard acquisition team there.

I'd go into it more, but I have said I wouldn't.

Wouldn't that be hilarious if Dr. West was a forum member? I wonder if he sleeps in that black outfit with the turtleneck?

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
Low Tannin, you are an astute observer. I was blessed to have attended Franciscan clergy run elementary school and Jesuit High School and college. As a general rule these people never permitted us to accept anything on face value - ever. This included Bible passages and all of the prevailing visions of the intellectual class that would tug at us throughout our lives. I still remember my high school British Literature teacher - one of the most brilliant humans I have ever had the privielege of knowing. He pushed and pushed and pushed and made sure we believed we could accomplish more than anyone could ever expect of us. I gained my love of reading from my Father first, then this wonderful priest (I went on to a degree in English). I even toyed with the idea of joining the priesthood at one point, but could never kid myself into believing I was worthy of such an honor.

As a result of the intense challenges placed on me by my parents and the many talented teachers I've had, I am tremendously skeptical about almost everything and need emprirical evidence for earthly matters.

And Cody, thank you for yet another intellectually stimulating addition to another thread. We would be poorer men without your brilliance.

Thanks for the explanation as to why you continue to deny the obvious. Typically Catholic.

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
And Cody, thank you for yet another intellectually stimulating addition to another thread. We would be poorer men without your brilliance.

LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
Vynrd,

I read the article over a couple of times, and it was more annoying to me each time. The main point he kept making was, "Terroir can be expressed if man does the right things." Is this at all contradictory to you? It is to me.

Well, what's annoying to me about that article is Grahm's tone, which I found to be pedantic and know-it-all. It seemed like such a surefire way to draw a from you, that's kinda why I posted it.

But no, that quote isn't contradictory to me. Wine doesn't even become drinkable without man "doing the right things". Terroir wouldn't be a concept associated with wine unless winemakers thought they could make wine in a way where subtle differences in site impart identifiable characteristics of their own.

I guess it's been obvious to me all along that terroir is some kind of human construct, as opposed to a self-evident, inherent component of wine. I just don't think that its being a construct makes it a fraudulent one.

It's like theology. A theist (I am one) will identify God as being outside of, and transcending, mere human invention, but would still admit that theology, or the organization and classification of people's concepts of God, is a construct. That doesn't mean that theologians are acting in bad faith, or that the construct of theology cannot assist one in the perception of fundamental reality.

Whew! OK, I'm out. Time to put on my tweed jacket with the elbow patches & go to sleep.

Your theology analogy is not appropriate. Theology is a human system, but God is not. There is nothing man can do to change that, but theological systems can be changed at will.

To compare the concept of terroir with God is a faulty arguement, in my opinion. Perhaps the comparison between the made up concept of terroir and the made up doctrines of organized religions may be more accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by cdr11:
Perhaps the comparison between the made up concept of terroir and the made up doctrines of organized religions may be more accurate.

That is the comparison I was trying to make. If that wasn't clear, it was probably because I stayed up too late writing that post.