(excuse if this is a repeat, my newsreader seems to not have posted several
replies to several threads over last day)


In article > , "Tom S"
> writes:

> Pascal Jolivet 2003
>Sancerre ($16US). If I had been served this wine blind I'd have _sworn_
>that it was a Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc! It is almost colorless, with a
>slight greenish cast and has the typical "cat ****" aroma that is so
>distinctive of this varietal. There was nothing in the nose that betrayed
>its French origin, and only a slight softness on the palate that hinted at
>it. I recalled someone on this NG opining that Marlborough SBs seemed to
>show no trace of terroir - only fruit.

2003s are out already? I had the 2002 Jolivet Sancerre recently, thought it a
clear Sancerre with distinct minerality of flint & chalk. Can't imagine
mistaking for Marlborough. If this clearly had no sense of place, I'd wonder if
the freakish weather of 2003 just ripened the fruit in the Loire past the point
it shows at its most typical.

I really don't want to get into a drawn-out terroir discussion, I've been in
too many of those. But I'll just say that TO ME (I'm not defining for a
dictionary) terroir is the sense of place one gets from a wine. I would never
say that Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc has no terroir, for to me the terroir can
encompass the distinct flavors of the fruit. Terroir comes from a variety of
factors, not just soil.

You think "good" white winemakers obliterate terroir? Then I'll take the wines
of Helmut Dönnhoff, Michel Niellon, FX Pichler, Cotat, Pelle, etc.; you can
take the good winemakers
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply