506942 Mon Apr 07 09:05:45 -0700 2008 17 34 Wine 0 3569406 Hi all, Requesting ideas to make a tasting flight to demonstrate minerality in wine. 1. Red and white. 2. The most mineral wines you can think of vs no-mineral (ideally same grape type to take out varietal influence, but does not have to be.) 3. Under $25 if possible? At a tasting bar recently, the bartender poured a poulsard from jura as example of mineral, and a fruit-fwd rioja as example of not mineral. Mon Apr 07 09:05:45 -0700 2008 10403 StephP 1 3570298 On whites, try looking at chenin blanc. This varietal is highly reflective of "terrior" and will demonstrate what you are searching for the best. Try to find ones from Loire, South Africa and one from California. For California the best one for comparison is made by Chappellet. I believe chenin blanc is one of the most under appreciated varietals out there. As for reds, look to Pinot Noir. Compare a Sancerre, a Burgundy, a Pinot from Oregon and one from Central Coast (CA). It is hard to put producers down since I am not sure you can find them in your area. Mon Apr 07 12:20:50 -0700 2008 3569406 180467 WineUnleashed 1 3570348 A very broad reply, I know, but I've found lately that Sicilian reds have a great mineraly taste, as do some vineyards near Vesuvius. Great stuff, IMHO, but don't have a whole lot more to offer there. I guess look for volcanic soils. Mon Apr 07 12:33:24 -0700 2008 3569406 124704 Icantread 2 3571051 Just a comment on a major misconception regarding minerality in wine: It doesn't come from minerality in the soil. This is from the New York Times, but several other wine soil scientists and wine DNA experts have commented on this phenomenon: "“Plants don’t really interact with rocks,” explains Mark Matthews, a plant physiologist at the University of California, Davis who studies vines. “They interact with the soil, which is a mixture of broken-down rock and organic matter. And plant roots are selective. They don’t absorb whatever’s there in the soil and send it to the fruit. If they did, fruits would taste like dirt.” He continues, “Any minerals from the solid rock that vine roots do absorb — sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, a handful of others — have to be dissolved first in the soil moisture. Most of them are essential nutrients, and they mainly affect how well the plant as a whole grows.” "Most of the earthy and mineral aromas and flavors that we detect in wine actually come from the interaction of the grape and yeast. Yeasts metabolize the grape sugars into alcohol, along the way freeing up and spinning off the dozens of aromatic chemicals that make wine more than just alcoholic grape juice. It’s because of the yeasts that we can catch whiffs of tropical fruits, grilled meats, toasted bread and other things that have never been anywhere near the grapes or the wine. The list of evocative yeast products includes an organic sulfur molecule that can give sauvignon blancs a “flinty” aroma. And there are minor yeasts that create molecules called volatile phenols, whose earthy, smoky flavors have nothing to do with the soil but are suggestive of it, especially in wines from the southern Rhone. " Continue reading this article called "Talk Dirt to Me" at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/style/tmagazine/06tdirt.html?pagewanted=2 Mon Apr 07 15:17:53 -0700 2008 3570348 18222 maria lorraine 3 3572569 I read that article last year, too, and found it interesting. That said, for whatever reason, those fruit-yeast reactions do tend to culminate in aromas and flavors that evoke a specific place--hence why we're able to have a discussion about Loire chenins vs. Mosel rieslings vs etc etc etc. What I'd be interested in is figuring out why the fruit from a specific area tends to react to the yeasts (which are themselves often indigenous to that area) in a way that is so transparent and evocative. Despite the contradictory scientific evidence, it's hard to deny that for whatever reason, terroir exists as a component of wine. Well, as a component of well made wine, anyway. Ideas, anyone? *grin* Tue Apr 08 05:45:20 -0700 2008 3571051 121180 tacostacoseverywhere 4 3573682 >>>What I'd be interested in is figuring out why the fruit from a specific area tends to react to the yeasts (which are themselves often indigenous to that area) in a way that is so transparent and evocative.>> Beautifully worded. Terroir is an intensely debated subject. On the one hand, terroir is an almost mythical, Romantic concept that describes “the sense of place” in a wine. On the other hand, terroir is thought to be a misunderstood concept at best, often inaccurately used to describe flavors that are a function of the varietal or clone, winemaking practices, or human intervention. Living in the Napa Valley, which lies between two parallel formerly volcanic mountain ranges, I had long thought that the volcanic soil contributed some very specific flavors to the wine. I had even read a scientific article or two that linked them. It turns out I was wrong, along with the scientists. The research of the last three years or so, and I have talked to one of the scientists firsthand, is that the soil has a very limited effect on the flavor of a wine. Whatever effect is subtle, unknown and mysterious. The best guess is that it makes the fruit react differently on a chemical level with the yeast. >>>those fruit-yeast reactions do tend to culminate in aromas and flavors that evoke a specific place--hence why we're able to have a discussion about Loire chenins vs. Mosel rieslings<<< We may associate certain aromas and flavors as being typical of wine made in that region, but is that terroir? Certainly, the selection of yeast is a winemaking (human) decision, and so not terroir. Different yeasts produce different flavors, and often different strains of yeast are used for different varietals. This is beyond the indigenous yeasts that may appear on grapes -- they may be enough to get the wine through a complete fermentation, but more likely they aren't, and the winemaker must supply an "outside" yeast unless he wants a stuck fermentation. Also, not all indigenous yeasts produce good flavors -- many of them produce incredibly bad, disgusting flavors. So yeast is (mostly) not terroir. And when we try to ascertain terroir when we compare in the fruit flavors of two wines of the same varietal, is it the same clone? Different clones of the same varietal will have discernibly different flavors. The difference, then, is not terroir, but a human decision to use a particular clone. And even if it is the same clone, is the wine made in an identical fashion, so that the only difference between the two wines would be the site where it's grown? I remember one brilliant (famous) wine writer state in a Terroir discussion/symposium two years ago that the only terroir that can be measured is in someplace like a small region of Burgundy -- where the same grapes, same clones, same weather, same winemaking practices are used, and terroir is the difference between the wine from one plot of land and the wine from another plot of land nearby. It sounded good to me at the time. But now there is that soil thing, so maybe he isn’t right after all. Terroir is very difficult to pin down, or isolate, as you may gather. Any taste of terroir, of course, is diminished when the varietal is grown to different ripeness levels, undergoes several fermentations, and is heavily oaked. It cannot be said that when we taste the same varietal grown in three different parts of the world, we are tasting "terroir." More likely we are tasting different grape clones, with different ripeness levels, turned into wine using different yeasts and different stylistic methods of winemaking. Certainly with ripe fruit flavors, we are tasting, by extension, weather, one of the components of terroir. But how much are we tasting weather, or climate? The degree of ripeness possible is ultimately mandated by weather, but degree of ripeness of the grapes when they are made into wine is also a human decision based upon a desire for certain style of wine. Human decision also, on the number of fermentations (wine, malolactic and brett) and the use of oak or not. It's difficult to tease apart the components of terroir from the components and decisions that go into winemaking. Which are which, and can terroir ever be isolated so that we can accurately say, "Ah, THAT is terroir." There's a great deal more to discover and to learn. Tue Apr 08 11:10:13 -0700 2008 3572569 18222 maria lorraine 5 3574748 What a well written, thoughtful response. Thanks for taking my question seriously! I have a couple of questions, but unfortunately no time to suss them out right now... will attempt to do so later. Tue Apr 08 15:36:45 -0700 2008 3573682 121180 tacostacoseverywhere 5 3577807 Wow, I have been out of this thread for some days now and am quite honestly stunned by this now. Don't really have a response. World shattered. must. pick. up. pieces. Honestly, that's really something, all those talks about chalk in this or that soil, etc. I would think it would impart something, SOMETHING to the fruit and therefore the wine, after all nutritious lands do produce tastier fruits. I'm obviously not sufficiently versed on the topic. Definitely deserves a lot of thought, especially concerning where and why grapes are chosen for wine. Wed Apr 09 12:36:24 -0700 2008 3573682 124704 Icantread 1 3570666 For whites: the classic comparison would be a Chablis (mineral) vs. a California Chardonnay (not so mineral). Both Chardonnay. Very different mineral levels. I will defer on the red question, don't feel I know enough to comment. I'm sure some of the resident experts on the boards can make better suggestions. Mon Apr 07 13:39:48 -0700 2008 3569406 89969 moh 1 3571984 Minerality in wine can be quite subtle. The word most commonly refers to those flavors like wet stone, flint or oyster shells, all with a faint metallic taste. The other group of flavors that occur are more in the mineral water vein -- flavors like baking soda, chalk, salt, a vitamin mineral supplement, especially magnesium and zinc. Minerality is generally most easily detected in wines that are lean, perhaps austere even, and not so fruit forward. Sancerre, a Sauvignon Blanc from the Loire, is the first that comes to mind. Compare it with the most non-minerally Sauvignon Blanc made, probably the ones from Marlborough New Zealand, or barrel-fermented Sauvignon Blanc. All that ripe fruit, all that malolactic, all that oak, eclipse any minerality that may be there. Another good example is Muscadet, another white wine from the Loire, made from the Melon de Bourgogne grape. Probably even flintier than the Sancerre. Because red wines are bigger -- with big fruit flavors, two to three fermentations, and oak aging, the minerality, if it exists, is tougher to taste than in white wines. Burgundies (Pinot Noir) often have an earthy minerality to them -- compare those with a big extracted New World Pinot Noir. Red wines from the Rhone region often have minerality, as do the Garnachas from Spain. You may be interested in this very similar thread, titled: "Recs to demonstrate 'mineral'" http://www.chowhound.com/topics/467450 Mon Apr 07 20:33:28 -0700 2008 3569406 18222 maria lorraine 2 3572051 thanks, that helps a lot. Mon Apr 07 21:09:22 -0700 2008 3571984 10403 StephP 1 3572005 Loire reds, particularly unoaked ones, can exhibit minerality pretty well. Try a Bourgeuil and compare it to a California and a New York cabernet franc. The French version should have the most minerality and the California will likely have the least. Mon Apr 07 20:46:03 -0700 2008 3569406 16011 oolah 2 3578109 Good call on Bourgueil and cabernet franc. But a lot of the Bourgueil I've had recently have a good deal of funk, both good and bad, that might detract from the flights demonstrating minerality. A Côtes-du-Rhône is certainly within your budget. A lot of the good ones will have a nice streak of minerality. The contrast between CDR and an Australian grenache/GSM blend is usually clear as night and day. Wed Apr 09 13:36:21 -0700 2008 3572005 97069 mengathon 1 3572062 Loire reds and Maria L. suggestions are great as well. Basically there is great minerality featured in the wines from Northern France, Germany and Austria. You really could open up and study minerality on quite a few varietals. Take the suggestions given from various posts and just try to incorporate something from Northern France, German, Austria compared to something more south. You will find what you are looking for. Again, I am partial to the study of Chenin Blanc for it is soooo reflective of where it comes from. Let us know what you decide. Mon Apr 07 21:12:19 -0700 2008 3569406 180467 WineUnleashed 1 3572232 My number one varietal for minerality would be a Loire chenin blanc... savennieres is the quintessential beautiful flinty wine, IMO... Drier rieslings can have a similar impression also. Hope this helps. Mon Apr 07 22:56:30 -0700 2008 3569406 42549 Chicago Mike 2 3574625 I agree that Savennieres is a quintessentially beautiful wine. I don't agree that it is a quintessentially beautiful FLINTY wine. I do agree it is a quintessentially beautiful wine with some minerality, but it is not a flinty minerality. Rather, the minerality is quite subtle, more in the chalk and baking soda vein, but even that is buried beneath the flavors of controlled oxidation -- brioche, hops and slight caramel, lovely light herbs of tarragon and chives, and nice citrus notes of lime and tangerine. For flinty, Muscadet is it. But it's not as beautiful as Savennieres, unless you're having your Muscadet with oysters. That's flintiness in stereo. Tue Apr 08 14:59:38 -0700 2008 3572232 18222 maria lorraine 3 3575403 well, flinty and minerally are to an extent subjective impressions of texture. And those are my impressions of a fine chenin texture. FWIW, If we want to talk about "minerality" in terms of "flavor of rocks" then graves is a real candidate given the "gravel" of the soil... i can't think of a consistently "rockier" red wine than Haut Brion. So it depends on whether we're talking about mineral texture or mineral "flavor" Interesting that alot of comments here are on white burgundies wwhich in general do have a cleaner/steelier impression than new world chardonnays, IMO. Tue Apr 08 19:11:12 -0700 2008 3574625 42549 Chicago Mike 1 3572543 Agree with WineUnleashed on the Chenin tip, M.L. with the Muscadet rec. For whites, would add Chablis, German riesling, esp. from the Mosel, and Gruner, esp. from Kamptal (Wachau tends to be a little less austere, so the minerality wouldn't be as clearly expressed). For reds I agree with oolah--how about Chinon? Maybe I'd add Monsant from Spain? Those stick out in my mind as fairly mineral appellations at their best. Tue Apr 08 05:34:56 -0700 2008 3569406 121180 tacostacoseverywhere