I've just returned from the first actual tasting of my wine. One hard truth I've learned is that being far away from the wine guarantees that I have little control over the winemaking process. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Despite our soap opera-ish dust up a few weeks ago Sal and I both agree on one thing at least - he's the winemaker and I'm not. In fact what I really am this go round is a negociant. Having enough on my plate already, I would almost certainly have made a mess of the winemaking process this go round.
Almost to a man (and woman) everyone I know personally remarked in advance "I'm sure the wines will be good". I presume this sentiment exists because I'm known for drinking good wine. There is some truth to this in that I have no intention of bottling and trying to sell a wine I wouldn't drink myself. The problem is, what if the wine is crappy now?
It has to be said that I was extremely nervous about the wine. I (and everyone) have tasted plenty of bad wine over the years and I was wondering if perhaps my wines were terrible. After all, the syrah vineyard is completely untested, I'd never tried the mourvedre and there isn't enough of the Grenache (only a little over one barrel) to matter. I was making a contingency plan: if the wine was sub par - walk away now! Since I hadn't paid crush fees it would only be a moderate financial bloodbath, and in the wake of the worldwide economic disaster moderate bloodbaths were to be preferred to large scale ones.
We rolled into the winery late Tuesday morning. It was very quiet there, with no one around but Sal and the cellar hand. This was in direct contrast to my previous visits, when the facility was noteworthy for the hectic bustle and noise. Even though there was a certain energy about it before I must say I liked the placid mood better - things seemed more under control, rows of wines slumbering (most actually still fermenting to some extent) peacefully in barrel.
Only one of my wines was in barrel, the Grenache. The Grenache had come in first, a month earlier than the other two. The syrah had been pressed off and was undergoing malolactic fermentation (ML). The mourvedre was being pressed off as we showed up.
We tasted the mourvedre first, a swig of purplish-gray murk. It tasted about as good as it looked, not unexpected in such a raw state. I could detect some wine like aromas underneath the murky smell and honestly I don't know about this one. I'm optimistic however. What choice do I have?
The syrah was next. Now this is more like it. Nice fruit, good aromas and pretty smooth. Definitely an easy drinker, not destined to be an Important Wine. I'm relieved. If the syrah doesn't work then the whole venture has issues, as the syrah will be bottled by itself and will most probably be a blender for the other two.
We tasted the Grenache last, out of barrel. This one is the most finished, having pretty much concluded both fermentations, and its been in barrel for nearly a month. Very tasty! Not only is the Grenache excellent, but it's in exactly the style I like for this varietal - bright flavors, good acid backbone and on the light side of intense, with nice forward red fruit. How about that wine bullshit!
I only have a little more than one barrel of the Grenache. If I would have a decent amount I'd bottle it on its own (Northern California Jason urged me to bottle a couple of cases of straight Grenache just for private consumption upon tasting it)
I knew the Grenache would be a blender but due to the nice flavors I'm now intending to make it the primary component in what will probably be a three - way G-S-M blend, hoping to preserve those nice flavors while adding some stuffing on the back end.
Of course the high quality of the Grenache is directly related to my limited allocation, as the low yield (due to the frost) apparently is the greatest factor here.
This idea was brought home after Sal let us taste the GV estate syrah. Even though the GV vineyard is only ½ mile from the Wirth vineyard where my syrah is from it was hit very hard by the frost (the Wirth seems to have escaped for whatever reason). Their total yield was only 1.1 tons per acre, a ridiculously small quantity for a wine that will sell for around $20. We tasted it and ... it was great, which I guess is some consolation to the winery owners, who will of course take a financial beating on it. Similarly the adjacent syrah vineyard was harvested at 5 tons an acre (owned by the original owners of the winery and its vineyards) and it was terrible.
It's always illuminating to have tastings like this. Syrah has a reputation of being able to give a generous yield without serious degradation in quality but clearly it's a matter of degree. Certainly the quality of pinot noir or cabernet sauvignon is acutely sensitive to yield volume; a typical high end pinot vineyard will be farmed to yield 2 to 21/2 tons per acre whereas conventional wisdom dictates that you can get away with 3 or 4 tons per acre for even high end syrah. This may be a reason why the top pinot growers in SB County are now getting $4500+ per acre for grapes while a reputable syrah site will fetch around half of that. And this is reflected in the price of course.
It brings up a conundrum for any grower. If you own Domaine Romanee Conti or Chateau Lafite you know what yield generates the highest quality grapes: that's going to be your yield in a normal year of production because you're assured of getting several hundred dollars per bottle of your finished product. Maintaining the quality and reputation of the wine from a top estate is far more important that concerns about the effect of low yields on the bottom line.
What if you're a small grower in
The Charlie situation is keenly important to me because Sal feels Charlie cranked up the volume on the mourvedre, most probably to make up for the Grenache disaster. Since Mourvedre is a very late starter and ripener it was still dormant during the frost. I hope he didn't, although it makes sense. At this point the mourvedre is the real question mark in the prestigious Ritual 2008 lineup.
Leave a comment