[vitus]

I would be fascinated to see a scientific approach to mimicking the effects of terroir. I don't believe for one minute that it's magic, but I also don't think it's fully understood.

Some aspects are explainable, e.g. limestone-rich soil increases the acidity of grapes, which can impart notes of citrus on the wine. But what about notes of chocolate, or berries, or stone fruit? In some cases, this is totally because the winemaker actually conditions with those things, but in plenty of cases, this is actually imparted by the growing conditions.

For what it's worth, the impression I get is that Americans place a lot of stock in the varietal of grape, e.g. Pinot noir or Chardonnay, whereas the French place a lot more emphasis in the region, e.g. Bordeaux or Burgundy. Both impart different qualities (e.g. it's going to be a lot easier to find notes of pepper in a Tempranillo than in a Chardonnay).

[veggieburglar]

You are correct that American wines are much more likely to be labeled with their varietal, and European wines with their place of origin. However, those places of origin are so closely tied to specific wine styles that it’s really one and the same. Red Burgundy is always going to be Pinot Noir- unless it’s labeled Beaujolais, which is always Gamay. Sure, there are some outliers (white Burgundy is almost always Chardonnay, but there are some bottling a of Aligote and Pinot Blanc) but generally you know what grape/blend you’re going to get from each of these places. New Word winemakers aren’t as tied to tradition (and hundreds of years of trial and error) in what they plant, so you’re more likely to see unusual choices.

Not going to get into terroir other than to say that to reduce it solely to the soil type is the wrong way to look at it. It’s more of a holistic view of the entire growing microclimate, including soil, topography, water table, general climate conditions, etc.

I’m a sommelier and own a wine shop, for what it’s worth.

[vitus]

> Not going to get into terroir other than to say that to reduce it solely to the soil type is the wrong way to look at it.

We're agreed on that front. My comment about limestone was to present one scientific aspect of terroir as _I_ understand it (which is to say, as a casual wine drinker recalling something I'd heard from a winemaker some years back).

That's a fair point about a lot of varietals being very heavily coupled to places of origin, and that's especially true for the big names that we've been discussing. But a white wine from the Alsace region (for instance!) could be a Gewurztraminer, or a Riesling, or something else entirely. (That said, I wouldn't expect an Alsatian white to be an Italian varietal...)

(https://winefolly.com/deep-dive/alsace-wine-region/ suggests a pretty even split between 4 different main varietals, with a tail.)

[veggieburglar]

Alsatian wines would typically be labeled with the varietal on the bottle, for just that reason- Alsace is known for a variety of world class white wines.

[Melting_Harps]

> Not going to get into terroir other than to say that to reduce it solely to the soil type is the wrong way to look at it. It’s more of a holistic view of the entire growing microclimate, including soil, topography, water table, general climate conditions, etc.

Well said.

[yencabulator]

All of these things sound like something a tightly controlled vertical farm could reproduce at will, once they figure out the mechanics. They could even come up with new, even more preferred, "terroirs", by adjusting settings.

[veggieburglar]

No doubt that they would come up with “new” terroir- every spot has its own “terroir.” My point was that it’s not something that can be quantified, so there’s no point trying to game it.