An important scientific contribution by John Gilman

What, are you on Victor's payroll now? I understand that my case requires hard data that I am unable to provide. It is merely anecdotal, yet jives, for the most part, with my experience. So, there. As for the Pacific Northwest, it is an uncharacteristic (not to say unwelcome) distortion of my pov to say that I would be a huge fan of all wines from the "right" latitudes. It is equally distortive to mention plonk, as if I had ever suggested that being in the "right" latitude is enough. Hrumph! I am saying that at such latitudes (which, in continental Europe, seem to be in the range of 43 to 50), balanced wines are, as a structural matter, usually possible without correction. If most, say, Burgs are corrected, then the possibility goes unrealized, but it is still there. I am suggesting that we confine our Diogenesian activities to where honesty os possible, even though rare. At least that's what I intend to do, more and more, with the 16 bottles I am able to bring back on each trip.
 
We've been through this before, but comparing European latitudes to North and South American ones is pommes to oranges because of the Gulf stream. Latitudes of 43-50 put you in the New England to Canada range in the Northeastern US.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I understand that my case requires hard data that I am unable to provide. It is merely anecdotal, yet jives, for the most part, with my experience.
Click to expand...

Please, give me some examples, so that I know what you are talking about.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Yes, I wish there was some way to make gulf stream adjusted comparisons.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it quickly makes clear that the discussion is so permeated with evaluation of specific wines as to make the specification of latitudes quickly become circular. If you ask the question, where can wine be grown, you get an already fairly narrow band of about 30-50 latitudes north and south. This band will of course include various wines to which you might object as hot weather wines, but it merely designates the area in which you can actually do it. After that, you can specify parameters, of course--mean yearly temperature should be x; yearly rainful should be y; sun exposure should be z--but as those specifications get more specific, they manifestly beg the question you are supposed to be arguing. If for instance, you thought that only Burgundy can make pinot noir well, instead of just arguing that position, you could give yourself the impression that you were discussing external, evidential features by listing the elements of the Burgundian microclimate so specifically that no other region could match up.

To be clear, I'm not saying your position is false. If weather affects wine, then manifestly the issues you raise are relevant. I'm saying there's no way to extrapolate an inductive list of the required climate features and then turn that into a law-like claim on the order of "good wine can't come from x" that would be different from the simple descriptive statement, "I don't like the following wines that do in fact come from x." That descriptive statement might be highly suggestive, of course, but probably that's as far as you'll get.
 
Can't find PTSD in my acronym dictionary!

Jonathan, there is definitely a tautological component; my claim is weaker than "good wine can't come from x," it's more along the lines of "uncorrected wine with balance is harder to make in x for structural reasons."

Sharon, will think about paradigms.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If for instance, you thought that only Burgundy can make pinot noir well, instead of just arguing that position, you could give yourself the impression that you were discussing external, evidential features by listing the elements of the Burgundian microclimate so specifically that no other region could match up.
Click to expand...
Bravo, Other Professor, bravo.

Although I appreciate (what I take as) Oswaldo's motive for seeking such characterizations: I'd also like an easy-to-use razor when shopping for unfamiliar wine.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Although I appreciate (what I take as) Oswaldo's motive for seeking such characterizations: I'd also like an easy-to-use razor when shopping for unfamiliar wine.
Click to expand...

That's the spirit, Occam's easy-to-use razor in reverse.
 
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
Thank you for the reminder, Ian. So, if you plant vines in Colorado Springs and Cincinnati, the dramatic difference in elevation is going to manifest itself how?
Click to expand...

Did I offend? I was trying to help with the question.

Well, all other things being equal, the annual plant-level air temperature of the sites will be less different than if they were at the same altitude. Ecologists, for example, will sometimes find plant communities at lower latitudes/higher altitudes that are similar to those found at higher latitudes/lower altitudes, because of the comparable air temperature regimes.

Of course, very rarely are all other things equal. Cincinnati is on one of the great lakes, no? So the proximity to this large body of water would affect temperatures, I assume.

Re: slope, which you mentioned previously, I'm not sure whether it's the angle at which sunlight strikes the leaves that makes the most difference, or the drainage of cool air, as I mentioned above. Some of Burgundy's great vineyards (e.g., Montrachet) are only slightly sloped, or so I've read. A modest slope can have a substantial effect on the rate at which cool night air flows downhill, away from the plants, but how much difference is it likely to make in net sunlight reaching the plant?

Except for hilltop and south-sloping sites, a steep slope will constrain exposure to sunlight from one direction about as much as it enhances it in another. So you'd think that the number of PAR photons striking the chloroplasts of vines on sloping land would net out about to something similar to the number on flat land. Also, if exposure were the key variable determining ripeness, you'd think hill-top sites would be ideal, but they aren't, because, I've been told, winds make these sites too cool.

So variations in air temperature, and their effects on rate of photosynthesis, rather than variations in exposure to sunlight, may most often cause site-associated variations in ripeness. To the extent that the slope faces south (in northern-hemisphere vineyards), however, the proportional effect of exposure would naturally be greater.

Without data, of course, this is just conjecture. And, ultimately, the problem of ripeness should one of optimizing several variables, rather than maximizing any single one alone.

Blah, blah, blah.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:

Of course, very rarely are all other things equal. Cincinnati is on one of the great lakes, no? So the proximity to this large body of water would affect temperatures, I assume.
Click to expand...

No. It's on the Ohio River. At the other end of the state you have Cleveland, which is on Lake Erie.

Mark "Flyover Boy" Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:

Of course, very rarely are all other things equal. Cincinnati is on one of the great lakes, no? So the proximity to this large body of water would affect temperatures, I assume.
Click to expand...

No. It's on the Ohio River. At the other end of the state you have Cleveland, which is on Lake Erie.

Mark "Flyover Boy" Lipton
Click to expand...

Right, I was thinking of Cleveland - should have glanced at a map.
 
Saw this today: "It's a failure in the vineyard if I have to wait until the sugars get too high for the flavors to get ripe." -- Cathy Corison
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top