Saturday, November 1, 2008

Chablis Terroir Fest

A long-planned investigation in to the role of soils and “geochemical terroir” finally took place with a group of Earth Scientists at Penn State. The goal was to take a single vintage (2006) and a single producer (William Fèvre) to eliminate at least the gross differences associated with winemaker and growing season, even if subtle differences in exposure cannot be eliminated. Otherwise, the intent was to focus on the differences that soil made in the character of the wine in this particular vintage, although even here both the physical (drainage) and chemical properties come into play.

The intent also was to compare a Petit Chablis grown on Portlandian soil, but the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board was unable to deliver these despite having ordered them 3 weeks in advance, so we opted for a quick buy of a 2006 Drouhin Chablis Premier Cru, presumably actually derived from 1er Cru vineyards, but made in a dramatically different (and inferior) style to the Fèvre Chablis.

The Wines

100% Chardonnay, all grown on Kimmeridgian (Jurassic)-derived soil, in most cases consisting of clay, marl, and oyster shells. Exposure varies, with the Grand Cru having the most direct southerly exposure (full sun). The Premier Cru grown to the southwest of the river (Montmains and Vaillons) face southeast. 

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Montmains
A Premier Cru vineyard that faces southeast, grown on a deep soil that mixes marl and clay on top of a Kimmeridgian subsoil. Apparently this blends three different vineyards from the same slope, with one of them including slightly later maturing fruit. Pale yellow-green in color. Initially, very subdued aromas of citrus and crushed chalk, but the wine takes on a spicier floral note with some time in the glass. This tastes initially like a 1:1 mixture of fruit and soil, but given some time, the fruit fleshes out and the mouthfeel becomes sappier and sweeter. This needs some time in the glass to show its suave character, at which point tropical fruit and floral nuances begin to appear. Classic Chablis, this really combines 1er Cru power and minerality. 

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Vaillons
A Premier Cru vineyard that faces southeast, grown on a soil dominated by limestone rather than clay and resting on a hard, fractured limestone bed. Primary citrus aromas dominate along with a subtler note of chalk dust, but these components don’t strike me as integrated at least at the moment In the mouth this comes across as slightly tart without the buffering evident in the Montmains. In our tasting back in California after an hour, this came across as nearly ordinary Chardonnay, although still head and heels above the Drouhin tasted at Penn State. This just did not have the sappiness, spiciness, or underlying complexity of the more slowly evolving Montmains. What role does the lower clay content (and corresponding ion exchange capacity) of this soil profile have? In any case, I think the critics have over-rated this wine by a couple of points, and this strikes me as a step down from the Fèvre Vaillons in 2002.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Fourchaume 
A Premier Cru tasted only in California, I decided to substitute the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent for this one at Penn State. South-southwest exposure with a marl-rich topsoil of variable thickness. On the nose, this wine is much more expressive right out of the gate than the two preceding Premier Cru, with both tropical fruit and floral notes emerging. On the palate, the wine is sappy and round, but it seems to become less delineated and precise with time, finally losing some of its early power. After an hour or so, I thought that the Montmains was showing as the marginally better (or more interesting) wine.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent
A Premier Cru, but separated from the Grand Cru Preuses by a footpath. South-southwest exposure, with dense, compact clay-rich soil resting on a limestone bed. On the nose, a more extravagant citrus, tropical fruit, and white flower notes infused by minerality. In the mouth, this is much richer and has much better volume than the Premier Cru from the other side of the river, but also showing much greater clarity and sustainability of expression than the basic Fourchaume. This was a big step up from the foregoing wines, and I was pleased to see that quite a few of the tasters at Penn State noticed this. This is definitely Grand Cru quality.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Bougros
A southwest-exposed Grand Cru located just down the hill from Preuses, which is just to the east of Fourchaume. Some of the production is from relatively low-lying ground near the river where the drainage is perhaps not quite as good. Fèvre says this is grown on clay-rich topsoil. This was perhaps the most reserved of the noses that we encountered, with citrus and distant chalk dust as the main expressions of the aromatic profile caught early in its evolutionary development. This wine struck me as more linear than the other Fèvre Chablis (with the exception of the Vaillons)—while it had good underlying power and volume, it was not yet showing those evanescent fruit and floral notes of the best of the other Fèvre. I would put this wine a notch below the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent, at least at this point.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Bougros Côtes des Bouguerots
A Grand Cru from a direct south-facing slope of nearly 30% grade, apparently a fault scarp. The thinnest soils of all of the Grand and Premier Cru, consisting of clay and pebbles, this makes it hard to grow the vines. Whoa doggie, this one delivered everything one could expect and more--if anybody at the Penn State tasting was starting to slow down, this one jerked by the lapels and announced itself as Grand Cru. This one had all the floral and faint tropical fruit nuances of the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent, but with an extra dimension of what I can only refer to as “muscle”—it presents a powerful, sappy mid-palate that complements the nonlinear notes (faint notes of a distant tropical isle, a stony white flower-filled grotto) that arise on the long, high Reynolds Number finish. I was again pleased to see that quite a few of the tasters (including some neophytes) realized what they were tasting here.

2006 Drouhin Chablis Premier Cru
When the PLCB failed to deliver the Petit Chablis, we grabbed a few bottles of this as a comparison, but it barely registered as the same varietal for me. Thin, acidic, this seemed to be missing anything resembling ripe fruit at its core. The contrast with the Fèvre wines was dramatic. Still, at least a few people (perhaps hammered at this stage) rated this as their favorite. 

Epilogue
My own order for the Fèvre Chablis would be the Bougros Côtes des Bouguerots as the top wine, followed by the Fourchaumes Vignoble de Vaulorent, then the Bougros, then the Montmains or Fourchaume, with the Vaillons a step down from the others. The connection to soil remains speculative (one cannot of course doubt the importance of exposure), but I am developing some speculative hypotheses for the role of clay (and its ion exchange content) in combination with the highly soluble carbonate of the oyster shells in the Kimmeridgian. More data is needed, but we did have a Program Officer from the U.S. National Science Foundation there, although she only laughed when it was suggested that she needed to fund more research in “geochemical terroir”.