Sun 23 Dec 2007
Let’s Make Some More Rules: Old Vines
Posted by Fredric Koeppel under Old vines , Government regulationsThe term “old vines” on a wine label conjures an image of a hillside in Sonoma County that supports thick, gnarled, somewhat
stunted grapevines, usually zinfandel, planted in the 1880s or 1890s or early 1900s by Italian immigrants. The vines are so old that they must be carefully tended, and they manage to bring forth only a handful of grapes in each vintage. Yet how deep, rich and flavorful are the wines that these venerable vines produce, like the essence of the grapes, the vine and the vineyard itself. Drinking an “old vine” zinfandel, we feel as if we are imbibing not merely wine but the history of California itself, the struggle of the immigrants, the tales of failure and success, the origins of the Golden State’s wine industry.
But how old is an old vine? Sometimes a wine label that uses the term “old vines” will state that the wine was made from 50-year-old vines. Is that really old compared to a vineyard planted in the 1890s? If one producer can call the wine made from 100-year-old vines “Old Vines,” does the producer of a wine made from 30-year-old vines have the right to use the same term?
Before we tackle the issue itself — because the term “old vines,” like the designation “reserve” and its many variations, is completely unregulated by state or federal laws — let’s talk about the concept itself.
It is an article of faith, in Europe (especially France) as well as in California, that wine made from old vines is inherently better than wine made from young (or younger) vines. A vineyard, after being planted, usually takes seven to 10 years to produce
grapes that might be made into superior wine, while vines at the ages of, say, 25 to 50 years may potentially produce wines of great character. Wines made from those 100-to-120-year-old zinfandel or “field blend” vineyards in Sonoma County can be a models of purity, intensity and integrity.
However, the term “Old Vines” on a wine label does not guarantee, as some writers assert, that a wine will display the highest quality; our notions of “old vine” virtues are enmeshed in romantic ideas about the history of the vineyards and the wines they produce. As Tom Pellechia wrote about the “old vines” concept on VinoFictions in August: “Of course, this whole subject is mere sentimentality. Whether they are old vines or new vines, it still takes good grapegrowing and winemaking to produce the best wine.” Yep, it’s possible to take great grapes from a venerable vineyard and fuck up the whole process; I’ve had “old vine” zinfandels that tasted like stewed raisins on steroids.
Conceding, though, that it’s possible to make fabulous and unique wines from old vine vineyards, what should the consumer who plucks such a wine from a shelf in a neighborhood wine and liquor store think? Since the term “old vines” is officially unsupervised, producers can put anything on labels they want to, even if the vineyards are 25 or 30 or 35 years old. What, then, is the proprietor of truly old vineyards, over which a great deal of pride and work are exercised, supposed to do? Can’t we help out the innocent wine buyer?
I would favor regulation from the TTB that at least required producers who used the term “old vines” to state, on the back label, the age of the vines or vineyard, and if possible the name of the vineyard, from which the grapes derived, as in,
“Made from vines planted in 1920 in the Big Heart Vineyard” or, also acceptable, “Produced from grapes planted circa 1895 in Sonoma Valley,” since sometimes exact dates and deeds are obscure.
Joel Peterson, founder of and former winemaker for Ravenswood, recommends that vines be classified in this way: 0 to 10 years, young vines; 10 to 50 years, middle age; 50 to 80 years, old vines; over 80 years, ancient vines — see the discussion about old vine zinfandel at the website of the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission — though I wonder if we need an official classification for young and middle aged vines. Meanwhile, Tom Wark, writing on Dec. 14, on Fermentation in his guise as “Wine Czar,” recommended that all “old vines” be required to be 50 years old or older, a scheme that has the advantage of simplicity.
In any case, consumers need to know with confidence that when they pick up a bottle of wine designated “Old Vines” or “Century Vines” or “Grandfather Vines” that they’re getting something real, not a phrase tricked out by a producer’s marketing department.
FK took the photograph of a zinfandel vine in the Barricia Vineyard in Sonoma Valley, originally planted in 1858 and replanted between 1885 and 1940.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Addendum:
I favor the reverse: a regulation that forces producers to tell us when wines are from new vines (under 10 years). In my opinion, they offer more chance of inconsistency and of course, immaturity. But that’s my pet peeve!
December 24th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Yes, we all have those pet peeves! and that’s an intriguing idea for a label warning: “This wine was made from five-year-old vines and may not display the depth or nuance or character of wines made from more mature vines.”
December 24th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I like my vines the way I like my old biker women: “thick, gnarled, somewhat stunted”.
I’m not an expert on botany or viticulture, but what are the chances that over time these plants have diverged from their original planting? If you can graft vinifera vines on labrusca roots or cross the two for a hybrid, I can only imagine the genetic drift from a century of cross pollination and random mutations. (Not to say that the final product wouldn’t make good wine, just that it might be a “Zinfandel 2.0″ rather than a true Zin.)
Cf the 150 year confusion of Merlot/Carménère in Chile and more recent arguments over Zinfandel/Primitivo/Crljenak Kaštelanski.
Biology rants aside, I’m always in favor for more information on the backs of wine labels… as long as we don’t end up with a federally mandated B&W ingredient label like we see on packaged food. Between the bar code and the warnings about pregnant women and driving, there would hardly be room for a humorous story or poorly written doggerel.
December 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Could be a quite simple rule:
If you write Old Vines on the label, the average age of the vines has to be written as well.
Also the age of the plant start from the moment is planted which is documented .
Buone Feste A Tutti
January 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Fredric,
Just read this in Gourmet Traveller Wine:
Yalumba Winery and owner Robert Hill Smith have declared their own internal classification for age of vines on their wine labels. The new guidelines will apply to all Yalumba wines from the 2007 vintage forward.
Old Vine - Min. 35 yrs.
Antique or Very Old Vine - Min. 70 yrs.
Centenary Vine - well, ok
January 19th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Yes, I saw that in some context, I think on Ton Warl’s “Fermentation” blog. At least Yalumba is trying to be honest and open about they’re older wines. California should follow this lead.
June 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Frederic, thank you for the interesting and informed comments on the old vine debate. I agree that simple is better. The key to good wine is good vineyard practice whether the vines are young or old. In my experience old vines are just more consistent. Bye the way, I still make wine at Ravenswood and besides that I am not sure that a winemaker can ever be “former”. You may have heard that my son is starting a winery. Check out his blog at bedrockwineco.com.