
In a very round about way I've been thinking about
terroir. I've been toying with different analogies and even reading
Sherlock Holmes in the search for meaning.
Good
terroir is like a private school education. Expensive, exclusive and supposedly able to bring out the best in the vine / student. I wonder though -
Can the stamp of one's education be detected later in life?As to the equations, I thank
Jeremy Pringle for the idea and
Jamie Goode and
Andrew Jefford for their content.
Now some explanation. . .
1.
Terroir is a rather nebulous term. Nicolas Joly says for instance -
Everywhere, the earth has a different face. I can accept this, each site is unique and therefore marketable. . .
2. Equally, a great site devoid of vines, is just a postcard. The grape is the medium, without it, all the rest is hype and real estate.
3. There is a lot of talk about a vine being able to express geography. Tasting notes (I am as guilty as anyone else) are littered with talk of stones, minerals, slate, river rocks. . . Is there any proof that what is in the earth somehow appears in the wine and that this can be discerned and identified as being site specific?
The grape and its specific genome (which relates to the clone, rootstock and variety planted)
is what surely determines what is finally in the juice. The genome determines what can be said, the environment (soil, water supply, drainage, sunlight, temperature, canopy management etc etc)
gives the accent.4. Finally, a rather self explanatory equation, inspired by
Jefford's point, that
terroir is obliterated by intervention. His target was the acidification of Australian wine, arguing this is sometimes extreme and heavy handed.