I think this is an interesting topic that we might want to continue.
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Following an ongoing e-mail conversation on the subject of terroir in Champagne, I thought I'd open it up here to those who may have more to say.
That is, why or why not would secondary fermentation obscure terroir?
Assume one has a champagne made from a single plot and bottled with no dosage. Would this wine as a still wine express something more "place-centric" than its final, bubbly expression?
It's also gotten me thinking about how malolactic fermentation would then figure in (in both still and bubbly wines).
Thoughts?
And from Mr. Champagne himself:
originally posted by Peter Leim:
Hello all,
As some of you know, I live in Champagne, and have something more than a passing interest in the region and its wines. In response to the recent threads about terroir in Champagne, Ill add my two cents here.
I suppose that first of all, I ought to say that I reject the argument that the method of producing champagne precludes the expression of terroir. It's really rather simple--all you have to do is taste different champagnes from different areas to see that it isnt true. The vineyards behind my house in the village of Dizy are capable of making some awfully good champagne from pure chardonnay, but all the winemaking in the world isn't ever going to make it taste like Le Mesnil.
The real issue, in fact, is that Champagne is largely a blended wine, which makes the idea of terroir in Champagne a complicated and controversial discussion. On the one hand, Champagne is composed of varied and diverse terroirs that are as complex as those of any other wine region. On the other, the terroirs of Champagne have historically been valued not as ends in themselves, but as components of a larger blend.
If you believe that expression of terroir is only valid if a wine comes from a single parcel, then you are likely to be disappointed in Champagne. Single-vineyard champagnes exist, but they are necessarily rare due to the way that champagne is produced, marketed and sold. I dont believe, in any case, that the expression of terroir is restricted only to single-parcel wines. The Hermitage of J.-L. Chave is sourced from seven different sites; Bartolo Mascarello insisted on blending his Barolo from Canubbi, San Lorenzo, Ru and Rocche. I dont hear any complaints about lack of terroir in those cases.
Champagne has been a blended wine ever since it was invented 300 years ago. Its tempting to impose a Burgundian paradigm on all the wines of the world (I for one certainly try), but in truth the wines of Champagne were never conceived in the same manner, and it has only been recently that there has been an interest in producing a more isolated expression of site. Its been even more recent that the climate has allowed site-specific champagne to be commercially viable. In the past, only extraordinarily warm vineyards such as the Clos des Goisses could produce champagne worthy of being bottled separately; today, global warming has allowed for a little more flexibility. Remember that Champagne has historically been at the northernmost limit of viable viticulture (Think Chablis is cold? I live a two hours drive due north of Chablis), and one of the primary reasons for blending is to counter the natural variability of climate and its effects on the vine. The region has been getting warmer, which is good (for now), but disasters are not uncommonin 2007, localized hailstorms destroyed nearly 50 percent of the crop in Mareuil-sur-A; in 2003, spring frosts were responsible for losses of up to 80 percent in the Cte des Blancs.
Its true that terroir in Champagne tends to be discussed in terms of village, rather than vineyard. This is not because distinctions within villages dont existthey do, and everybody knows it. The clay slope of Avize produces very different wines than the chalky plain, and in Verzenay you can find vineyards with expositions in all four compass directions, which obviously has an impact on each wines character. But often the only opportunity to taste such distinctions is in vins clairs, and you will rarely see these expressed in finished wines. This is largely due to scale of production and to variability in climate (see above). Is the distinction of village, however, somehow less valid than that of vineyard? After all, we still talk about the same things in Burgundy: Gevrey vs. Chambolle vs. Vosne, or Meursault vs. Puligny vs. Chassagne. Freddy Mugniers village Chambolle is blended from two very different parcels a kilometer apart from each other (Combe dOrveau and Les Plantes), yet I happen to think that its quite a compelling expression of Chambolle-Musigny. I dont find it invalidated because its blended from two different terroirs within the village. By the same token, I dont find Gaston Chiquets Blanc de Blancs dA to be any less valid an expression of place just because its blended from several different parcels. I enjoy seeing the distinctions of village in Champagne, and there are ample opportunities to do so.
Dont get me wrong--Im as excited as anybody to taste single-vineyard champagnes. And in fact, there are more of them in production than you might think. You all know the big three (or at least I hope you do): Clos des Goisses, Clos du Moulin, Clos du Mesnil. I could name at least 30 or 35 others off of the top of my head, and there are more and more appearing all the time. Then there are also lots of other wines that arent technically single-vineyard, but that come from nearby parcels on similar terroir. Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Franaises, for example, comes from two different parcels, but theyre closer together than, say, the two ends of Musigny. Larmandier-Berniers Terre de Vertus is from three adjacent lieux-dits on the same terroir, but if French bureaucracy had rolled the dice a slightly different way, they might have been included in a single one. (Think 1971 Germany. The vineyard of rziger Wrzgarten, after all, is spread over 53 hectares....) If its isolated expression of terroir that you seek, theres plenty of it in Champagne if you know where to look, and wines like these could keep you busy for quite a while.
Anyway, that was all rather long-winded, but those are some thoughts. Not proselytizing, just sharing.
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Following an ongoing e-mail conversation on the subject of terroir in Champagne, I thought I'd open it up here to those who may have more to say.
That is, why or why not would secondary fermentation obscure terroir?
Assume one has a champagne made from a single plot and bottled with no dosage. Would this wine as a still wine express something more "place-centric" than its final, bubbly expression?
It's also gotten me thinking about how malolactic fermentation would then figure in (in both still and bubbly wines).
Thoughts?
And from Mr. Champagne himself:
originally posted by Peter Leim:
Hello all,
As some of you know, I live in Champagne, and have something more than a passing interest in the region and its wines. In response to the recent threads about terroir in Champagne, Ill add my two cents here.
I suppose that first of all, I ought to say that I reject the argument that the method of producing champagne precludes the expression of terroir. It's really rather simple--all you have to do is taste different champagnes from different areas to see that it isnt true. The vineyards behind my house in the village of Dizy are capable of making some awfully good champagne from pure chardonnay, but all the winemaking in the world isn't ever going to make it taste like Le Mesnil.
The real issue, in fact, is that Champagne is largely a blended wine, which makes the idea of terroir in Champagne a complicated and controversial discussion. On the one hand, Champagne is composed of varied and diverse terroirs that are as complex as those of any other wine region. On the other, the terroirs of Champagne have historically been valued not as ends in themselves, but as components of a larger blend.
If you believe that expression of terroir is only valid if a wine comes from a single parcel, then you are likely to be disappointed in Champagne. Single-vineyard champagnes exist, but they are necessarily rare due to the way that champagne is produced, marketed and sold. I dont believe, in any case, that the expression of terroir is restricted only to single-parcel wines. The Hermitage of J.-L. Chave is sourced from seven different sites; Bartolo Mascarello insisted on blending his Barolo from Canubbi, San Lorenzo, Ru and Rocche. I dont hear any complaints about lack of terroir in those cases.
Champagne has been a blended wine ever since it was invented 300 years ago. Its tempting to impose a Burgundian paradigm on all the wines of the world (I for one certainly try), but in truth the wines of Champagne were never conceived in the same manner, and it has only been recently that there has been an interest in producing a more isolated expression of site. Its been even more recent that the climate has allowed site-specific champagne to be commercially viable. In the past, only extraordinarily warm vineyards such as the Clos des Goisses could produce champagne worthy of being bottled separately; today, global warming has allowed for a little more flexibility. Remember that Champagne has historically been at the northernmost limit of viable viticulture (Think Chablis is cold? I live a two hours drive due north of Chablis), and one of the primary reasons for blending is to counter the natural variability of climate and its effects on the vine. The region has been getting warmer, which is good (for now), but disasters are not uncommonin 2007, localized hailstorms destroyed nearly 50 percent of the crop in Mareuil-sur-A; in 2003, spring frosts were responsible for losses of up to 80 percent in the Cte des Blancs.
Its true that terroir in Champagne tends to be discussed in terms of village, rather than vineyard. This is not because distinctions within villages dont existthey do, and everybody knows it. The clay slope of Avize produces very different wines than the chalky plain, and in Verzenay you can find vineyards with expositions in all four compass directions, which obviously has an impact on each wines character. But often the only opportunity to taste such distinctions is in vins clairs, and you will rarely see these expressed in finished wines. This is largely due to scale of production and to variability in climate (see above). Is the distinction of village, however, somehow less valid than that of vineyard? After all, we still talk about the same things in Burgundy: Gevrey vs. Chambolle vs. Vosne, or Meursault vs. Puligny vs. Chassagne. Freddy Mugniers village Chambolle is blended from two very different parcels a kilometer apart from each other (Combe dOrveau and Les Plantes), yet I happen to think that its quite a compelling expression of Chambolle-Musigny. I dont find it invalidated because its blended from two different terroirs within the village. By the same token, I dont find Gaston Chiquets Blanc de Blancs dA to be any less valid an expression of place just because its blended from several different parcels. I enjoy seeing the distinctions of village in Champagne, and there are ample opportunities to do so.
Dont get me wrong--Im as excited as anybody to taste single-vineyard champagnes. And in fact, there are more of them in production than you might think. You all know the big three (or at least I hope you do): Clos des Goisses, Clos du Moulin, Clos du Mesnil. I could name at least 30 or 35 others off of the top of my head, and there are more and more appearing all the time. Then there are also lots of other wines that arent technically single-vineyard, but that come from nearby parcels on similar terroir. Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Franaises, for example, comes from two different parcels, but theyre closer together than, say, the two ends of Musigny. Larmandier-Berniers Terre de Vertus is from three adjacent lieux-dits on the same terroir, but if French bureaucracy had rolled the dice a slightly different way, they might have been included in a single one. (Think 1971 Germany. The vineyard of rziger Wrzgarten, after all, is spread over 53 hectares....) If its isolated expression of terroir that you seek, theres plenty of it in Champagne if you know where to look, and wines like these could keep you busy for quite a while.
Anyway, that was all rather long-winded, but those are some thoughts. Not proselytizing, just sharing.