The Terroir ... according to two North American guys ...

I am enjoying this book very much, as a result of the reflections and tastings of two guys of the "New World", but in love with the "Old World".

It is interesting to see the evolution and conclusions of their arguments (from what has been read so far), since they start from natural pragmatism and skepticism and rooted in the culture of this part of the world (North America), but without giving truce or credit to “everything explain the Science. "

When they talk about “Terroir”, they argue hard against it and refer us to other authors who, rightly, criticize the concept and describe it not only as “myth”, but even as a “joke”, not in vain the concept of terroir had two key moments of resurgence in the last century: at the beginning of the 20th century (when phylloxera devastated France) and in the 80s (when the famous blind wine tasting happened where Californian wines beat those of Bordeaux outright), it is say, the two moments where French hegemony was in danger ... more than suspicious, right? Not to mention that a few hundred years ago, in France, when it was said "gôut de terroir", it was something pejorative ... it meant that a wine tasted bad, it was defective ...

However, they continue to argue, as two true lovers of old France and rise above the prejudices that their culture and origin (New World) could keep them imprisoned. They reach interesting conclusions.

Today the concept of “non-intervention” is very fashionable… the defenders of the ecological, biodynamic… and, above all, natural… as they are self-proclaimed.

However, everything is "intervention." The vineyards are not organized alone, they are not planted in certain places with certain soils and orientations ... it is the human being who does it and who "drives" the vineyard and makes decisions throughout the year about it, even the least "interventionist".

Therefore they argue that the romantic concept of "terroir", as the "purest" and as what "wise Nature" gives us, they deny it and go much further.

Terroir is synonymous with time, centuries ... incessant trial and error in a dance that human being dances with Nature ... and after centuries ... appears that "result" we call "Terroir" ... that is, Time / History ... which is exactly what they "don't have" in the New World, where it all started, almost literally, "yesterday."

So, no matter how much the defenders of Science insist, the “Terroir” will never appear in the laboratory analysis, because Science does not explain everything and, in addition, it will always have a “romantic” and inexplicable component, subjective and, In my opinion, wonderfully magical.

"Globalization" makes each day "Old and New World" come closer, but we can still say that, philosophically, we are different both worlds and in both there are wonderful and not so good things ... some "tale" our French friends always have, but centuries of advantage too, American friends (and New World friends in general).

The "Terroir" exists ... and if it did not exist, it would have to be invented ...like the word "somewhereness"

Champagne ... soloists or symphony orchestras? both of course ...

Champagne's revolution is wonderful, with so many small producers making their specific wines from a single vineyard ... it is unstoppable and very exciting, as long as we do not forget or belittle the wonderful art of blending.

Champagne and Burgundy were always rivals, historically speaking, until that doctor said: "the king should only drink wines from Burgundy to improve his health" and that caused Champagne to stop innovating and improve its still wines and focus much more in its "common and frequent accident that exploded its bottles".

I insist that the current revolution in Champagne is wonderful and I really enjoy it when I am lucky to try these new plot wines ... they are like "soloists", making a musical metaphor, but I want to defend today that fine art of blending ... like Krug, for example, who usually mix about two hundred wines from a dozen different vintages to offer us his "Grande Cuvee" ... blending is an art, if it is done badly, it is only "mixing" ... the Grande Cuvee de Krug (and many others) is a symphony orchestra, not a soloist.

Champagne is not Burgundy, nor does it have its diversity of soils. Champagne is wonderful in itself, without the need to "compete" with Burgundy or any other wine region in the world.

Already Dom Perignom did a much more serious and rigorous work in the classification of "terroirs" and other matters that the one that the romantic and false legend attributes to him with the famous phrase: come, I am drinking stars!

The key to blending well done (I insist, a sophisticated and difficult art) is that you know exactly what you will find in the bottle, every year, regardless of the vicissitudes of the particular vintage ... but we live in a world where the "novelty" prevails and that of "knowing what you are going to find" no longer excites anyone.

When a couple of human beings love each other, as time goes by, they enjoy much less "first time", they get to know each other more and more and they "know what they will find when they have sex with each other," that doesn't mean I can't be wonderful ...

Once I was lucky to enjoy a tasting of base wines in Bollinger ... it was incredible, didactic and I learned a lot to understand Champagne better ... they were extremely different wines among them: some like acidity knives, others more mature and dense , some minerals such as stones in the mouth ... and to all this add its "reserve bombs", of other vintages, to polish, compensate, correct and balance its final mixture of those base wines to offer in the end its "symphony orchestra" .

There is a meme circulating on social networks that says something like this: I am in favor of same-sex marriage, but I am also in favor of sex between people of the same marriage, which is being lost.

So here I leave you my metaphors for the controversy (which is what I really like, feed the debate): soloists and symphony orchestras, promiscuity and fidelity in marriage ...

Another day I will talk more deeply about this land of chalk and iron masks ... I think it is important to defend the wonderful and enigmatic art of blending ... I would give anything to be able to be with a chef de cave in that process ... tasting countless times a huge amount of different base wines, watching how they change, listening to the experts how they try to guess the evolution of each one of them ... because that is the Art of Champagne and that and no other is their great legacy ... that is his enormous knowledge of each terroir, of each vineyard in symphony with the vicissitudes of each vintage and its climatology ...

And no, Champagne is much more than "drinking stars" ...

Some people don’t blend, they just mix.
Jean-Marc Lallier – Deutz

The interest in blending is the aggregation of positive components.
Francis Egly – Egly-Ouriet

Champagne can only be made in Champagne. Why? First, we have very bad weather. Second, we have our three grape varieties and chalky soil and all that. Third, we have 330 pages of regulations.
Pascal Lecrerc-Briant

Trimbach Clos St. Hune - Alsace

There are extremely great wines, in my opinion, those who do not do full justice, such as the Clos St. Hune by Trimbach ...

Powerful, intense, mineral, but also full of elegance and subtle nuances ... different and not comparable with the "purity" of Egon Müller or the surgical precision of Donhoff ... closer perhaps to great Palatinates like a Kincherstuck of Burklin Wolf, almost really neighbors, but different between them.

I always liked that wine and with it I managed to make several people in my restaurant fall in love and spread the passion for wine. Modest in its presentation and bottle image, it is a bomb inside.

I leave you some pictures of some "very French Germans, or some pretty German French"