Causality for Minerality
Interesting thread on Jamie’s blog about minerality. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4102088&postID=4870445419430833421. Apparently, in Chile, according to winemaker, Aldolfo Hurtado, the coastal fog transmits small quantities which presents itself as minerality.
One cannot dispute that salt(s) are mineral(s). Various so-called mineral waters, for example, have discernible individual flavour according to the degree and composition of those salts, but the presence of salt on grape-skins does not, per se, make the resulting wine mineral. However, doubtless, the salt would also impregnate the leaves and the soil and it is feasible to suggest that this confers an impression of minerality. There are many wines in which we can taste a discernible briny quality: Muscadet, Txacoli, Vinho Verde, Picpoul, Vitovska from vineyards around Trieste, Vermentino from northern Sardinia, reds from Bandol and certain wines from vineyards around Collioure etc.
Minerality is certainly partly about impression and partly texture in the mouth. The descriptors I would normally associate with minerality are stoniness, metallic, shell-like and earthy notes, balanced, and I use that word advisedly, by focused acidity. Minerals and stones do have an intrinsic flavour, or call it, if you will, taste sensation. Consider the metallic flavour in certain wines from Friuli and Slovenia, taste the almost rusty earthiness in the Fer-influenced (iron) wines of Gaillac and Marcillac deriving from the famous rougier soils or examine how the unique terroir on the hill of Mas de Daumas Gassac plays a role in establishing the distinctive minerality of the reds. It does seem from taste as well as a priori that the components of terroir influence the minerality of the wine.
The quality of minerality is easier to taste on certain wines and grape varieties than others. Chardonnay, being aromatically fairly neutral, is one that performs as a sponge, absorbing myriad, subtle flavours from the terroir and from winemaking techniques. We talk, for example, about the minerality of wines from the Chablis region and the nuances that emanate from various combinations of lime, chalk and clay as well as the Kimmeridgean marl. This terrain is formed from exoguira virgula (fossilised oyster shells) and the specific gout-à-terroir is said to originate from this.
One contributor to Jamie’s blog argues that the minerality one detects on the palate is a lack of fruit ripeness; in other words the absence of ripeness manifests itself as an appearance of minerality. This is a specious inference. If one examines wines from cooler climates such as Sancerre and Pouilly-Fumé (and even Marlborough) from a long growing season it is not unripeness, but rather physiological maturity, that allows the maximum expression of minerality. The same applies to warm climates such as the Roussillon. The wines of Matassa, Pithon and Roc des Anges possess extraordinary mineral structure precisely because of the alliance of terroir, old vines and physiological ripeness. Their natural acidity helps to convey the impression of minerality; it is not the reason for it.
Minerality tends to be more pronounced with older vines (and naturally lower yields) and deeper root systems. Take the extraordinary old vines Chenin from Anjou, Vouvray and Montlouis, amongst others, where the minerality underpins ripe fruit and rich alcohol and enables the wines to age gracefully over decades.
As usual the argument revolves around (or degenerates into) a cross-purposes discussion of what minerality is. By all means let us define our terms but let us not say that those terms can’t be defined. Just as people dispute the existence and influence of terroir because it can’t be precisely calibrated so discussions inevitably boil down to what you taste and what you think you can taste. Minerality is the backbone given to the wine by the influence of the terroir; it buttresses the flavours with a determined structure.