Terry Theise and yeasts

originally posted by Fatboy:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:


But you know, there are people who are still making wine in Burgundy according to the Accad method and no one has any problem with their wines, or in fact seems able to pick them out from others.
Click to expand...

this misses the point entirely. how did you learn to discriminate burgundy from bordeaux? practice. there was a time when it was all just red wine.

which means to learn to reliably pick wines that strictly adhere to accad's vinification methods (many of which are just jayer turned up to 11* -- as if russ meyer wasn't even enough) from other chunky, high-extract wines you'd need to put in the time drinking that shit** (which, yes i know, is what you and meadows do -- you will both get to take your place with the saints in time, don't worry).

so if what you mean by "no one has any problem with their wines" is, they don't stand out that much amongst a humdrum crowd, and the points guys are happy to steer the n00bs at them, i'm sure you are right.

but if what you mean by "no one has any problem with their wines" is that no one can reliably discriminate them from the kind of burgundies they do prefer to buy and cellar, you need to stop tasting so broadly, and narrow your focus a bit.

fb.

* one obvious difference between jayer and accad was in the amount of sulphur accad used during the crush -- which is interesting given the topic, because this allowed accad to inoculate with yeasts that encouraged his preferred slow cool fermentation.

** though for the record, sometimes i can actually enjoy this sort of thing, in context; just not at home.
Click to expand...
fb, I think you may have a skewed view of what Accad wines are.

First, if you knew anything about my tastes, you'd know I don't go to the high extract guys -- I leave them to some of my colleagues whose seem to appreciate them more than I. I only have time to visit producers whose wines I like, and I am a finesse guy, certainly more so than anyone I know who is writing except possibly Gilman, who in any case is not very far off from where I am.

Some of the wines I'm referring to are quite elegant (at least for the appellation, as one I am thinking of produces several Cortons, not an inherently elegant appellation). Another producer seems to be the universal choice these days for the best around in Pommard -- again, not an elegant appellation, but the resulting wines are not rough or rustic. A third produces wines from some of the more powerful CdN appellations (Gevrey, Nuits, CdV), but also makes some superb and fine Echzeaux and one of the best Suchots around, and even the wines from Gevrey etc. are well balanced and not like some of the other producers there.
 
the danger in being specific is that one risks being disagreed with. my guess is he's talking about yves confuron* in one, maybe two cases, but who knows?

it's a riddle.

if i win a prize, i want the one with the raffia-work base.

fb.

* if so, they are wines in that popular wines with the points guys style -- tasty, and taste expensive, drunk young in restaurants. the winemaking is a modified accad. or modified jayer if you like. or something. but not what people think of as classical "accad" (think grivot in the late 80s).
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:


First, if you knew anything about my tastes, you'd know I don't go to the high extract guys -- I leave them to some of my colleagues whose seem to appreciate them more than I. I only have time to visit producers whose wines I like, and I am a finesse guy, certainly more so than anyone I know who is writing except possibly Gilman, who in any case is not very far off from where I am.

Some of the wines I'm referring to are quite elegant (at least for the appellation, as one I am thinking of produces several Cortons, not an inherently elegant appellation). Another producer seems to be the universal choice these days for the best around in Pommard -- again, not an elegant appellation, but the resulting wines are not rough or rustic. A third produces wines from some of the more powerful CdN appellations (Gevrey, Nuits, CdV), but also makes some superb and fine Echzeaux and one of the best Suchots around, and even the wines from Gevrey etc. are well balanced and not like some of the other producers there.
Click to expand...

i actually mean this with the greatest respect, but it's the problem that comes with being a writer. you are a finesse guy (i believe you) but your examples are all sites that produce the opposite of finesse (there is a damn good reason why jayer's cros parantoux was higher regarded than his echezeaux, and it is that the latter, in comparison, lacks finesse). i understand that writers have to be relatively comprehensive, but i am also genuinely puzzled as to why anyone would actually want to do it to their self.

and -- also with the greatest respect -- it leads to an odd situation that is in some sense anti-terroir: where people are encouraged to think, "oh, i like burgundy. there's no chambolle on the list, so why don't i plump for a pommard. i know the name, and the points guys liked it."

here's the thing: it makes little sense to care too much about terroir at all if people aren't going to be encouraged to put the time in and actually learn the terroir and acquire the experience to find the subtle discriminations therein, and to have a relationship with a given terroir and even given winemakers. yet what the the shnooks and even writers inevitably do is promote the idea of wine as an inter-changable product: what schnooks and writers promote is the idea that people should focus on drinking the 'finest' of whatever -- irrespective of origin, and hence terroir.

at some level, to trot out my standard metaphor, the whole idea of wanting to be a generic wine expert is like the desire to have a wonderful monogamous relationship with your wife while banging every hot chick you see. it's like, sure, we all want to, but...

fb.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

If you think secondary literature on Wittgenstein is sparse, you don't get out much.
Click to expand...

the secondary literature on wittgenstein is a circle jerk. or a wine bored. whichever metaphor you prefer.

which is why, beyond backer & hacker (which is arguably more opaque than even the original), there is no secondary literature on this stuff (65 to 82 -- the very critical sections of the investigations that detail wittgenstein's analysis of "definitions").

it is also why people always miss the deeply nerdy circular joke wittgenstein was making when he pointed out that ordinary language works fine, thanks much:

"One keeps hearing the remark that philosophy really makes no progress, that the same philosophical problems that had occupied the Greeks are still occupying us. ... The reason [why] is that our language has remained the same and seduces us into asking the same questions over and over. As long as there is a verb to be which seems to function like to eat and to drink, as long as there are adjectives like identical, true, false, [and] possible, as long as one talks about a flow of time and an expanse of space, etc., etc., humans will continue to bump up against the same mysterious difficulties, and stare at something that no explanation seems able to remove."

if he could have foreseen the days of wine bored debates on the definition of "terroir," i'd like to think he would have worked something prophylactic in here somewhere.

fb.
 
Greetings terroirists. I have been reading this stuff on yeasts and sense of place found in wine and feel the need to make a comment based on my experience and understanding. I am a scientist by training but have been making wine since 1976. I do NOT add yeasts to my Pinot Noir BUT I do add sulfur dioxide at the destemmer. My experience, supported by published research, shows that this suppresses yeasts that cause problems ie produce greater levels of compounds such as acetone and acetic acid. Both of these compounds are more detrimental to humans than alcohol and both add flavour components that will mask the flavours representing a sense of place. Sulfur dioxide is a compound released by yeasts as part of their normal metabolic processing. So I prefer to add some sulfur dioxide early to select away yeasts that mask my sense of place. I have made wine with cultured yeasts and although I prefer to use the indigenous yeasts if a neutral yeast is used I believe the result is more predictable in terms of stuck ferments. So I have nothing against careful use of added yeasts and feel that a sense of place can be tasted. My experience with indigenous yeasts and Chardonnay is a little different. I earn my whole income from growing, making and selling my wine and after having stuck ferments three times over the last ten years I now use added yeasts in a proportion of my barrels. I earn my income from growing, making and selling my wine so I can't risk losing significant amounts of wine due to stuck ferments. I usually whole bunch press a batch and divide it into two, half happening naturally and half with a neutral added yeast. I see greater variation between these batches due to barrel variation than from the indigenous Vs added yeast. Here I refer to variation between barrels that should be identical. Many of my colleagues share this view. Please understand that I really only produce three wine types, Chardonnay, Gamay and Pinot Noir so my experience is mainly confined to that. Many years ago I made Cabernet but something happened to my palate and I rarely gain any enjoyment from any Cabernet type wine, finding the flavour of the grape something I do not like whether it be Lafite or Mt. Mary.
 
originally posted by David Lloyd:
Experiential based rather than interpolation

I see greater variation between these batches due to barrel variation than from the indigenous Vs added yeast.
Click to expand...

amen.

i did a search of this thread for the word elevage at one point yesterday. it was nowhere to be seen. yet, as your comment implies, its influence on a finished wine is profound. speaking for my chubby self, to give one example, once the obvious bullshit has been weeded out, elevage has more influence on whose beaujolais i buy than any other factor.

fb.
 
originally posted by fatboy:
originally posted by David Lloyd:
Experiential based rather than interpolation

I see greater variation between these batches due to barrel variation than from the indigenous Vs added yeast.
Click to expand...

amen.

i did a search of this thread for the word elevage at one point yesterday. it was nowhere to be seen. yet, as your comment implies, its influence on a finished wine is profound. speaking for my chubby self, to give one example, once the obvious bullshit has been weeded out, elevage has more influence on whose beaujolais i buy than any other factor.

fb.
Click to expand...

I am a New World Winemaker based on the Mornington Peninsula in Australia so I tend to use non French terms such as sense of place instead of terroir. I have recently swapped parcels of fruit with a friend. We do things in a very similar way and used identical, second fill barrels. The wines were placed according to sense of place, ie by vineyard by 70% of a group of 60 winemaker colleagues when tasted blind. His vineyard typically yields 1.5g/l tannin whereas mine is typically 0.7 to 1. The difference in darkness of colour between our two sites is also about the same when measured season by season. I haven't put Burgs thru the same battery of tests yet I describe his as Gevrey style and mine as Chambolle style. Great to start quantifying what it is people prefer in a style rather than ethereal religious like interpretive stuff.
 
originally posted by David Lloyd:
Great to start quantifying what it is people prefer in a style rather than ethereal religious like interpretive stuff.
Click to expand...
Don't let Terry Theise catch you.
 
I traveled with Terry in 2008 in Austria and found the yeast situation very interesting. At one point I was very frustrated because it seemed as if most people were using the same yeasts for their gruner and riesling (etc) and the sameness was getting to me. Tremendous difference when you taste at Hirsch or Nik. Dramatic.

Also, Terry is just not sensitive to it, we all have our different views of wine.

Another aspect that is missing to this yeast discussion is that, as I believe, the yeasts are different every year, and help to express (and take care of) the vintage. If you're making yeasts in a lab, as much as I like Roagna, something is going to be missing.
 
originally posted by Alice F.:

Another aspect that is missing to this yeast discussion is that, as I believe, the yeasts are different every year, and help to express (and take care of) the vintage.
Click to expand...
It's a lot to wade through, but see above.
 
Now, Joe. Normally, people who just skim three posts and then write their own irritate me, but...have you seen this thread?
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Alice F.:

Another aspect that is missing to this yeast discussion is that, as I believe, the yeasts are different every year, and help to express (and take care of) the vintage.
Click to expand...
It's a lot to wade through, but see above.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the indigenous population they are likely to be the same. The sequence will tend to be the same and populations will peak at about the same number. Subtle variation will occur caused by ambient temperature and micro nutrient levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top