Weaving clonal spells

First impressions are often the best, and the seven tasters sharing lunch at Peter and Brenda Bosworth's Morningside Vineyard just a few Sundays ago were right about the property's 2003 vintage. Free-draining soils work wonders in wet years.

In spite of unwelcome rains in March that set a new record in the Coal River Valley, the couple's 24 year-old vineyard produced some impressive small parcels of wine in 2003. Their site includes a patchwork quilt of six top-performing Pinot Noir clones. The handful of carefully labelled carafes left crowding the table after half an hour of sipping and spitting provided a sound body of evidence to support the view.

Yet nagging doubts still remained in the mind of one of the State's most experienced Pinot Noir growers and winemakers. 

The Bosworths first planted their 3ha vineyard at Tea Tree back in 1980. Today, there are half a dozen others nearby, with more being planned. Only two other vineyards in the Coal River Valley preceded the couple's pioneering endeavours. George and Priscilla Park's Stoney Vineyard at Campania was planted in 1973. GlenAyr at Richmond was established by Strathayr's Casimaty family in 1975. 

What sets Morningside apart from its peers are the calcareous subsoils that lie sandwiched between a metre or so of black cracking clay at the surface and a base of porous limestone further below. 

The combination of good luck and good management on the site suggests its unique mix of clones and growing conditions have put Morningside among the front runners of Coal River Valley Pinot Noir producers.

Clones? No, they're not grape-based versions of Dolly the sheep. The word 'clone' comes from the Greek word κλών (klón), meaning a 'twig' or 'shoot' derived from a mother plant. Pinot Noir clones with slight differences in their genetic make-up behave slightly differently from one another in the vineyard. Some may have vigorous upright growth habits. Others may have shoots that are inclined to be droopy and require frequent tucking in behind foliage wires. Some may produce wines with particularly expressive aromas and flavours while others appear more sullen; perhaps deeper, darker, or more tannic.

Pinot Noir producers typically find their various clonal selections grow and ripen at different rates and respond accordingly by harvesting them separately.

"So, would a simple mixing of wines from all six clones produce a Pinot Noir worthy of our premium Morningside label?" Bosworth began, thinking aloud.

"Or would the blending of two or more components give us a smaller volume of wine with an even better outcome?"

Few experienced palates could predict the likely results. It would be a matter of suck it and see. Literally.

"Tasting and comparing wines all made by the same process seems like a no-brainer," Bosworth continued.

"But in 2001, we had a similar tasting of 10 barrels of Pinot from our 1999 vintage. It turned out we had one wine we'd made from a particular clone that wasn't too bad by itself. But in the blend we assembled from all the batches we produced that year we discovered that something just wasn't quite right. That one batch dragged down the quality of the whole thing.

"It was incredible to think that one barrel in ten could make such a huge difference. We could find exactly the same thing happening all over again if we were to put together a single blend for bottling without considering what it's going to be like beforehand."

Bosworth's comments drew murmurs of affirmation around the table.

The first sample – made from fruit grown on 20 year-old vines identified as clone 8104 – displayed wonderful fragrance. But it seemed a little subdued and short on ripe flavours.

Sample 2 – from Burgundy clone 115 – seemed too plump and plummy in flavour. At odds with the variety's renowned subtlety and finesse. And perhaps sample 4 – made from Mariafeld clone 0014 – might have been just a bit too tough and too oaky for its own good?

A few more minutes spent re-assessing samples prompted further discussion. Was the fruit used to make wine number 1 picked a little too early? Could anyone see a characteristic fruit flavour common to each of the wines... something suggesting a combination of black cherry and mocha? What would happen if a blend were created using only samples 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6?

Some questions were left unanswered. Others were put to the test. 

A blend comprising all of the wine samples but number 1 looked like stealing the show. Its varietal aromas were as clear as a bell.

"It just needs something to take away that savoury character while still retaining its rich chocolate and plum mid-palate," added near-neighbour and international wine judge, Greg Melick.

The solution? To reinstate clone 8104 and include it in Morningside's final Pinot Noir blend.

"Hmmm... aren't we back where we started?" someone mused.

Too right. And that's Pinot Noir for you – a quixotic, will-o'-the-wisp variety. One that often defies all logic, yet still manages to captivate growers and makers the world over.

First published 21 July 2004: The Examiner