originally posted by georg lauer:
originally posted by MLipton:
In this case, though, what occasioned our discussion was that Ziereisen’s Pinots get less interesting as the bottling gets more prestigious. I have enough experience now to have some idea what a Pinot Noir from the Kaiserstuhl tastes like (though I have need help keeping Buntsandstein and Muschelkalk straight). The wine in question was far more anonymous in character than its less prestigious counterpart. When I finished it tonight (no fatsink for me) it could have been a Navarro “Methode l’Ancienne.”
Mark Lipton
I have not yet touched many of the more expensive bottles from them (certainly enjoyed the basic Pinots and the whites), but could it be that they are indeed from different soils than the simpler wines (and certainly those from the Kaiserstuhl)?
My geology is not the best and the nomenclature is often used rather confusingly, but around Efringen is definitely a distinct geological area with an exposed layer of what they call Jurakalk (this area is rather distinct from most others, as is the Kaiserstuhl with its volcanic origin) . They are in direct extension of the Swiss and French Jura that goes all the way west into burgundy (and to the east into the Swabian Jura where Helmut Dolde is). This is the soil that Ziereisen lists for all the more "serious" wines. In contrast, the basic Pinots are said to be from Muschelkalk with Loess, which would make sense for the flatter areas and which is much more similar to the vineyards to the north of them.
So maybe it is not only the winemaking that leads to these different results.
Georg L
