Tim Atkin MW: Debating the merits of terroir

“Soil is dirt.” I’m sure the Californian producer Bill Jekel was being deliberately provocative when he entered into a well-publicised debate about terroir with Bruno Prats of Château Cos d’Estournel at the end of the 1980s, but he was also articulating a position that was widely held in the New World at the time. To many winemakers outside Europe, where you planted your grapes was of secondary importance to what went on in the winery. With the right skills and equipment, base metal could be turned into vinous gold. 

It’s a measure of how much the wine world has changed that the recognition of the existence and importance of terroir (of which soil is obviously an important part) is largely a done deal. The word may have no direct English translation – a sense of place or the American wine writer Matt Kramer’s term “somewhereness” are as close as we get – but it’s accepted as self-evident that place matters. 

The current winemaker at Jekel Vineyards, Bill’s successor Charlie Gilmore, whose “heart is always in the vineyard no matter where he is”, talks about the “climate, the soil and the long, cool growing season” of Monterey on the winery’s website and the “exceptional” fruit they provide. 

But maybe the debate about terroir still has some life in it. In March, the University of California Press will publish Professor Mark A. Matthews’ new book, Terroir and Other Myths of Winegrowing. A trained academic, Matthews has no time for what he calls “tradition without thought” and, over the course of more than 200 densely argued pages, criticises many aspects of terroir. He believes that the increase in the use of the term (which is a surprisingly modern phenomenon) has more to do with marketing than with scientific reality. 

Terroir, “a kind of window dressing”, rarely features in “leading plant journals” and is used by a minority (or even “fringe”) of scientists, according to Matthews. He concedes that “the grape is necessarily a product of its environment” but maintains, somewhat confusingly, that there is “no evidence of grapevines having unique reactions to environments”. 

Unsurprisingly, Matthews has no time for poetry or “the spiritual aspect of terroir”, preferring to concentrate, more prosaically, on “how the grapevine and its environment interact to make a grape”. Terroir, he concludes, is a “shibboleth that establishes an in-group in a world unto itself. This isn’t wine appreciation … it is more like wine snobbery”. Discuss, as they say. 

Understanding terroir

It’s certainly true that there is much we don’t know about the way vines react to their environment (an alternative word for terroir, perhaps). It’s also true that terroir is often used to excuse bad winemaking or grape growing and that good vineyards can produce poor wines in the wrong hands, just as mediocre ones can produce very drinkable wines. 

And while we are acknowledging such verities, I think that Matthews has a point when he asks whether wine writers have “done the work to critically evaluate the myths and legends they endorse”. Most of us aren’t trained scientists. We accept some things as axiomatic that are nothing of the kind and should ask more questions. Are massal selections always superior? Do lower yields mean better wines? Is hand-picking always better than machine harvesting?

But in the end I disagree with many of Matthews’ conclusions. It’s obvious that different winemakers will bring their own personalities to bear on grapes from the same vineyard – just as two photographers standing in the same spot will take different shots of the same scene – and that there is a human element to the way terroir is created and interpreted, but that doesn’t make terroir a “shibboleth”. You only have to taste two Bonnes Mares Grands Crus from the same producer, one grown on limestone soils, the other on clay, to realise that it’s much more than that. 

Terroir is multi-factorial. Indeed, you could argue that, as it is understood by most people in the wine world today, it is so broad as to be virtually meaningless, including elements of history, tradition and received wisdom as well as soil, climate, plant science and geology. But that would be a mistake. More often than not, the best sites consistently produce superior wines. That’s why Bâtard-Montrachet tends to taste better than Bourgogne Blanc.

Call me a journalist subject to the “myths of winegrowing”, but I also believe that there is an element of terroir that transcends scientific enquiry. Call it the “psychology of place”, to use the architect David Adjaye OBE’s term, if you like. Call it mysticism. Or call it an acceptance that there are some things in life that cannot be explained in purely rational terms. 

A friend of mine who is a professional musician told me that she could tell if an instrument had been well played by a previous owner. “It’s as if the violin is imbued with its own history,” she said. I feel something similar about great vineyards. You can analyse the soils, look at degree days and crunch as much data as you want, but the best sites have an undeniable je ne sais quoi.

Readers' comments (10)

  • I think that there is still a lot more way to walk along in terms of terroir. Many people in the wine industry jump to conclusions that are related to lack of research and narrow mindedness whenever there is an "X" factor they cannot describe or control. Im an optimistic though and believe that in the near future more people would appreaciate the art of interpreting nature, seeing it as a complex process with millon posibilities . Great Article!! Thanks

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For a geological interpretation, I think 'Terroir' by Wilson still stands up.
    I once observed a clear difference in friability on each side of the wall between Le Montrachet and Chevalier.
    Life in the soil,sunlight,drainage all differ from one patch of ground to another, so why shouldn't the grapes grown from them?
    Undoubtedly also vines take influence from surrounding vegetation - the clearest evidence of that is vineyard adjacent to eucalyptus.
    Cannot people stop arguing about this? If you prefer to interpretat using a notion of 'terroir' , then good. If you think it's codswallop, then interpret the difference by whatever explicit method suits your thinking. La vie est trop court.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Tim
    good article indeed, but if I had to be critical, I'd say: two pages about terroir and not a single time the word "agronomist" has been used...
    What's wrong??? Do people make wine out of thin air???

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks for the article, for another great read on some aspects of terroir, see the Guild Somm article below by Greg Jones:


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It seems that some scientists have lost their observation capacity, a virtue that used to be too natural among our ancestors. What is not feassible to be scientifically proved is then a myth. I have quiet few shibbolets to be shown....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • An experiment by Geert Jan Vis et al of TNO, the Netherlands, showed soil appears to have zero influence on the taste of wine. In the same year wine was made from the same grape by one wine maker from 26 different vineyards (with very different soils) in the same year. Wines were identitical.

    Wijn van Nederlandse bodem byGeert-Jan Vis, Denise Maljers, Stan Beurskens, november 2015

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hi Tim,this is probably why people think there is still a world between an MW and an oenologue !


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hi Tim,this is probably why people think there is still a world between an MW and an oenologue !


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What I love about Tim is his uncanny ability to make an interesting subject so boring. Well done again Tim.Fine work!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am unclear as to why it is thought that terroir was introduced for marketing purposes as few consumers know what it means.

    It seems another example of the wine industry talking to itself, as evidenced by this debate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

These comments have not been moderated.

You are encouraged to participate with comments that are relevant to our news stories. You should not post comments that are abusive, threatening, defamatory, misleading or invasive of privacy. For the full terms and conditions for commenting see clause 7 of our Terms and Conditions "Participating in Online Communities". These terms may be updated from time to time, so please read them before posting a comment.

Any comment that violates these terms may be removed in its entirety as we do not edit comments.

If you wish to complain about a comment please use the "report this post" button or email harpers.editorial@wrbm.com.

Sign in

Newsletter Sign-up

I wish to receive the following newsletters:

Subscriber only alerts:

Twitter Facebook YouTube Linkedin