Sweet Virginia, Not Foxy Lady
Histories of American wine and viticulture record fascinating stories, some resonating to this day. 19th-century growers and breeders worked hard to overcome challenges of climate, blight, capital, and transportation to produce a reliable, acceptable product.
The result: thousands of commercial wineries in the country leading up to Prohibition. Most of the grapes were from California but many central and eastern vineyards, in Canada too, made saleable wine, some sought-after.
Wine varieties were based frequently on indigenous, often Labrusca, grapes, sometimes blended with locally-raised Vinifera.
I have seen many ads for dry Catawba, for example. These wines served as table wines of the day.
So-called foxy grapes were never confined to sweet wines, the kind often derided today as pop wines.
One grape with both commercial success and cachet was Norton’s Virginia, a red wine cultivar derived mostly from Vitis aestivalis. A native American grape species, it was encountered by early explorers and colonists.
Aestivalis has four main sub-species and is found in a broad expanse of eastern North America. For a good description of the main species see in Wikipedia here, and, from the Missouri Botanical Garden, this discussion.
In an early study (1866) of the American wine industry George Husmann (1827-1902) wrote the following of Norton’s Virginia, by astringent he means dry, clearly:
Even allowing for some overstatement his lyrical invocation of the grape’s merits strikes a chord. While Husmann noted certain limitations of geography we must recall the date of writing, and the context of humid climates. Many regions in the East are not typically humid, southern Ontario, for example.
Husmann was a German immigrant – Germans did important early wine work in America, an apt analogy to early american lager brewing. He pursued his work in Hermann, Missouri, where he lived when his first book was published.
He later relocated to California and encountered particular challenges there, some personal. Late in life he promoted further grape varietie, driven largely by his belief that what grew best locally should support the field planting.
Still, he never lost faith in Norton’s Virginia and bruited the grape to the end.
It’s merit for many in the 19th century was the lack of foxy character. This is the “wild” note that typically, and infamously, characterizes Labrusca.
The fox term is generally taken to mean the musky or gamey note in native American grapes, and most hybrid grapes that derive from them.
Norton Virginia is still cultivated, indeed enjoys a modest revival in Missouri and Virginia. There are many interesting reports on its performance. Some are enthusiastic, reporting flavours of earth and clean fruit character, yet differing still from Viniferas.
See e.g. this robust report of famed English wine authority Jancis Robinson. It is from 2012, on some vintages from Chrysalis, a noted Virginia producer of this wine.
Other views are less sanguine, one noted “burnt” edges to the results. It is always difficult to draw firm conclusions from any given report. Much depends on the taster, vintage, vineyard, and winery’s techniques.
Still, Robinson’s comments are telling and may presage wider influence for this grape.
That was 2012 and we are now in 2017 Five years is a blink of an eye in wine terms, and fashions in wine grapes can take decades to implant.
It must be noted too Robinson shares the wine establishment view of fox character: “almost rank”, she calls it.
Ultimately, I feel that objection will fall away, for the next wine renaissance, that is.
First, taste is relative – think of the broad range of flavours in Vinifera winemaking. Any specific flavour can catch on at any time. Why is Sauvignon Blanc with its cat’s pee flavour not “rank” after all?
Perceptions of quality seem to result from a complex interaction of historical, social, economic, technical and cultural factors.
Since Norton’s Virginia has good cultivation longevity (over 250 years), was early acclaimed by experts, and is an authentic product of North American terroir, this suggests it could be a path forward to a revamped wine world.
I would think, given the species from which the cultivar emerged, that it could be grown in Ontario with success, or a related cultivar.
This may be easier than trying to adapt Viniferas to our climate. There are successes to be sure, especially in white wines and for Icewine, but production of a reliably great red wine here seems elusive, at least in my experience.
Hundreds of other heirloom varieties, or new hybrids devised from them, may offer the magic formula, that would make it beer’s I.P.A.
Maybe it will never be one grape, from every region certainly, but I foresee that regions may develop their bellwether native-variety wine, with some cultivars being common to multiple regions as occurs for many Vinifera types.
Vinifera will not disappear any time soon, nor should it. But taking a cue from recent hop-culture and brewing, native varietal character may one day flourish again in North American winemaking.
For any of this to happen, a sea change is needed for the stewards who have guided the industry.* And there is wine precedent for it, eg the new respect accorded historical grape varieties from Spain, Greece, and Italy.
The influence of Californian and Australian alcohol levels and vintning methods, in a word the “mondo” effect, is another example.
Note re images: the first image shown, of a hybrid Norton grape cluster, was sourced here and is copyright Don Kasak. It used by permission under Creative Commons Licence Attribution 4.0, see the full license terms and conditions via this link. The second image is from George Husmann’s book linked in the text and is available via HathiTrust. All intellectual property in the latter resides solely in its lawful owner, as applicable. Images are used for educational and research purposes. All feedback welcomed.
…
*Meaning government regulators, wine media, publicists, retailers, etc.