Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Eric, so this is what I reading:
a) Carbonic in Beaujolais does not obscure terroir.
Reason given: "During the 1971 carbonic maceration meeting in Avignon, there was a consensus among the oenologists (Chauvet, Charnay, Coste, Puisais and Cuinier) that aromas and polyphenol structure obtained by carbonic maceration (made it) very easy to (peek) whatever the grapes or terroir are.
b) Carbonic in the Rhone (e.g. the terroir-less Anglore) does obscure terroir.
Reason given: "d'essais et d'applications entre 1955 et 1960" found that "L'arôme des vins était peu apprécié car il modifiait la silhouette classique des obtentions de ce vignoble".
You may well be right, I am not disputing that, I am just trying to understand the logic, since you are writing with passion but claiming logic: it seems to me tautological to conclude that carbonic does not interfere with terroir in a region where people are used to it, but interferes with terroir in a region where people are not.
Maybe this example will make my point clearer: suppose all red côte d'Or Burgundies were made carbonically and a Pacalet type person came along one day and started making them conventionally. Isn't it equally likely that an argument would erupt as to whether such methods obscure the differences between terroirs (that people are used to detecting)?
So much more of the world's wine is made conventionally than carbonically that most people (in places other than Beaujolais) are more accustomed to the first and have a hard time accepting carbonic as just as much a background noise as conventional, in order to go beyond that initial screen and detect terroir expression. It's not really proof of inability to express terroir if people accustomed to conventionally vinified Rhones drink a carbonic grenache and find that it modifies the classic profile.
a) Carbonic in Beaujolais does not obscure terroir.
Reason given: "During the 1971 carbonic maceration meeting in Avignon, there was a consensus among the oenologists (Chauvet, Charnay, Coste, Puisais and Cuinier) that aromas and polyphenol structure obtained by carbonic maceration (made it) very easy to (peek) whatever the grapes or terroir are.
b) Carbonic in the Rhone (e.g. the terroir-less Anglore) does obscure terroir.
Reason given: "d'essais et d'applications entre 1955 et 1960" found that "L'arôme des vins était peu apprécié car il modifiait la silhouette classique des obtentions de ce vignoble".
You may well be right, I am not disputing that, I am just trying to understand the logic, since you are writing with passion but claiming logic: it seems to me tautological to conclude that carbonic does not interfere with terroir in a region where people are used to it, but interferes with terroir in a region where people are not.
Maybe this example will make my point clearer: suppose all red côte d'Or Burgundies were made carbonically and a Pacalet type person came along one day and started making them conventionally. Isn't it equally likely that an argument would erupt as to whether such methods obscure the differences between terroirs (that people are used to detecting)?
So much more of the world's wine is made conventionally than carbonically that most people (in places other than Beaujolais) are more accustomed to the first and have a hard time accepting carbonic as just as much a background noise as conventional, in order to go beyond that initial screen and detect terroir expression. It's not really proof of inability to express terroir if people accustomed to conventionally vinified Rhones drink a carbonic grenache and find that it modifies the classic profile.