they do have typicity, but it is no longer varietal typicity. It is the über-typicity of superripeness, which subsumes all else. Considering their genetic


relationship, perhaps it is not surprising that Sauvignon Blanc has undergone much of the same transition as Cabernet Sauvignon—from overtly herbaceous historically in Sancerre, to fruity, even in extreme cases to exotic fruits such as passion fruit, in New Zealand. Here you could define typicity in terms of the aromatic molecules associated with the variety. Herbaceousness is due to methoxypyrazines (synthesized in the grape), while tropical characters come from volatile thiols (formed during fermentation from odorless precursors that are typical of the variety). Methoxypyrazine levels are controlled by ripeness at harvest; thiol levels can be influenced by choice of yeast. What appears to be a range of typicities, even opposing typicities, is in fact due to the balance between these two types of compounds, both intrinsic to the variety. So, what price typicity?


Does a whiff of petrol identify the essential character of Riesling, or is it a flaw? It’s created in Riesling by TDN (trimethyl-dihydronaphthalene), which is rarely found in grapes but develops in the bottle by slow chemical actions. Environmental conditions, such as temperature and water supply, influence its production. It has, in fact, become more typical of Riesling in recent years, since the change in climatic conditions has resulted in earlier development of TDN, in the first few years after release rather than after decades. Here is a case where climate change has not so much changed typicity as enhanced it. Of course, the occurrence of petrol is not always popular: I believe there is a research project at Geisenheim to breed Riesling that does not develop TDN. I guess this accepts the view that petrol is part of the typicity or Riesling but has the objective of changing that typicity.


Chardonnay is in many respects the antithesis of Sauvignon Blanc or Riesling: a chameleon with little typicity, its character is influenced more by winemaking than anything else. Chardonnay can be lean and even green, and quite acidic; it can be fat and buttery; or it can taste more like a forest than a wine. Malolactic fermentation is a major influence: When blocked, the wine can be lean and linear; when pushed to extremes, the wine can taste of popcorn. Maturation in stainless steel favors the lean style. The effects of maturation in oak depend greatly on how much new oak is used, because Chardonnay is like a sponge in absorbing the character of the oak. Perhaps, ironically, nothing typifies Chardonnay’s lack of typicity more than the ABC movement a while back: Anything But Chardonnay presupposes that Chardonnay has distinct typicity, but the movement was more a protest against fashion than an opinion about the variety.


Place or taste? Is the concept of varietal typicity intrinsically in conflict with the concept of typicity of place? Doesn’t the idea that a variety has typicity imply that its character rises above place? This might imply that the so-called international varieties were chosen because their typicity can be expressed in many places.


Meursault used to produce the fattest and most buttery wines of the Côte de Beaune. Today, it is more lean and mineral, due to changes in winemaking that refl ect a collective change in the view of what constitutes typicity


I would suggest that the way their character has changed with worldwide propagation argues against this idea but leaves open the possibility that there is typicity for each place, at least when a particular variety is grown there. When we talk about typicity of place, or the dominance of terroir, which amounts to much the same thing, of course we turn to Burgundy, where the concept more or less originated. Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are accepted as the varieties par excellence to display effects of terroir. There are far too many cases of adjacent vineyards that consistently produce different results to argue with the concept. Of course, these differences are overlaid by the style of each producer. Yet changes in white Burgundy


cast some doubt on the notion of a unique match between place and variety. Meursault used to be known for producing the fattest and most buttery wines of the Côte de Beaune. It is actually quite a long time since I have had a Meursault in this classic style; today, Meursault is more inclined to be lean and mineral. In fact, they even talk about le matchstick in Meursault to describe a tendency to show gunflint. This is due to changes in winemaking that reflect a collective change in the view of what constitutes typicity. A constructivist view might be that typicity is a concept reflecting no more than the taste of the observer. It is more than that, but I would add time as a contributory factor in addition to place and variety. The effects of time are more dramatic in the past two decades owing to climate change. In fact, the concept of typicity in its classic formulation rather implies a constant range of external conditions, but climate change shows that it is more a snapshot of the effects of place on variety in a given set of conditions— subject, of course, to the current fashion in winemaking. 


THE WORLD OF FINE WINE | ISSUE 79 | 2023 | 87


Illustration by Dan Murrell


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220