The recent comments about Pinotage got me to thinking about hybrid grape varietals and whether they will ever be fully embraced. In Virginia, hybrids such as Syval Blanc, Chambourcin, Vidal Blanc are regularly planted. But if a neophyte wine region is to get any respect, doesn’t it have to do so with known and accepted grape varietals? It’s hard enough to get someone to buy a wine from an unknown and unproven area. It would seem that convincing consumers to purchase both an unknown varietal from an unknown area would double the difficulty of marketing such a wine. And then there are the wine geeks (we know who we are) who know oh so much about varietals and, for the most part, often sniff at hybrid based wines. Jim Law, one of Virginia’s premier wine makers refers to this attitude - somewhat tongue in cheek - as “Grapism.” He may have a point. Hybrids rarely get press and when they do, the coverage seems to have an obligatory air to it. The number of hybrid wines in my cellar is the grand total of 1 and it’s a dessert style wine. When tasting at a winery, I’ll admit to being less interested in hybrid based wines. Why are hybrids not “in” wines? What will it take to make them “in” wines?

I've help make (and naturally, tasted) dozens of wines made from Vidal, Seyval, Chambourcin, Ruby Cabernet, Muscadine and other "lesser" grapes from Georgia and Texas and they've yet to earn my respect.

To me, it's a simple matter of economics. When I can buy a Seyval or Chambourcin for less than the price of a good Argentinian Torrontes or Spanish Garnacha, then I'll sit up and pay attention.

Until then, hybrid grapes from "other" American regions will just be a touristy novelty.

My sentiments fall along BLIL's line of thinking. It's not that hybrids or native grapes make "bad" wine, I had a bottle of Chambourcin from Westbend in NC recently and it was nice (and $15). But, as I have said many times in the past, it's a world-wide competitive playing field with very little favoritism for the "home team." This becomes more acute when viewed through the lens of limited financial resources. When I visited the Westbend winery they had a nice Cabernet Sauvignon reserve wine but it was like $28. I have a list of 4,926 wines I already wish I had the coin to purchase *before* visiting this winery and nothing I tasted there made this wine leap to the head of the pack.

Curiously, the winemaker made an unannounced visit to my store two weeks later and tasted me on many of the wines I had already tasted. They were all decent but nothing which would create more revenue for my store than other competitor wines. I was very pleasant with the dude but I could also tell he was sort of pissed that I wasn't genuflecting about the wines and placing an order on the spot. But I have a duty to stock wines that will sell with a "right sized" amount of hand sells.

Even before his visit I was considering stocking the Chambourcin because it is different and fairly priced. I still very well might. But I can tell you I am not getting any special orders for Chambourcin (or other hybrids)! And hitting the North Carolina wineries is a pretty popular recreational activity hereabouts. So I am not sure it is 100% "grapism" or such. People here want their Red Diamond Merlot or Joel Gott Zinfandel and lack the level of inquisitiveness to seek out Vidal Blanc, etc.

Personally, I like trying such wines but, again, only if the price is right and doesn't make me think about other wines I am already familiar with for years and thus will go unpurchased because of buying a hybrid grape based wine. Limited cash means you make choices.

As an aside I am curious as to why Chambourcin has turned out more or less a failure in the Loire Valley. There's purportedly about 9,000 acres planted in the Loire but I have yet to see a single French Chambourcin here in the US. Maybe part of the answer to your question lies here?

I can get a nice Picpoul for $10, a killer Gros Manseng for $12, etc. Can I get equal quality and price from a hybrid? Send free sample bottles to Hanes at...

Good question, but lets state from the outset that Pinotage is not a hybrid. Neither is Ruby Cabernet mentioned further down.

And you won't see a varietal French Chambourcin in your shops because of EU anti-hybrid laws would forbid it from being sold. In the EU a hybrid wine, if exceptionally allowed as in England, cannot be labelled as a quality wine.

There is definitely an understanding amongst most wine experts that hybrid -- and native vine species -- cannot make quality wines.

But I have tasted certain examples that I think are as good as some vinifera and that I would buy including -- Norton, Chambourcin, Baco Noir, Vidal Blanc, Seyval Blanc and Ravat.

Here in the UK we see hardly any hybrids, most common is English Seyval Blanc which makes a steely crisp dry white though is comingless common as vineyards here switch to Chardonnay and Pinot.

However ASDA - a UK supermarket chain owned by WalMart - used to stock an Australian Chambourcin that was very popular; the shelves were often emptied even though it was priced higher than similar wines.

When I have been in the US in states where hybrids are grown they seem very accepted by the locals.

I think that some hybrid/natives can make good wines, but if people aren't prepared to pay for them then less will be spent on their winemaking and there is a vicious circle.


I reckon tho', that hybrids won't be accepted amongst cognescenti until RP gives one a 90+ score

I know next to nothing about the hybrid varieties, but IIRC, there was a guy on WLDG a while back that earned the name "The Hybrid Guy" because of his cheerleading for wines made of those grapes.

Yes, Paul Bulas. See http://hybridwines.blogspot.com

Paul's opinion is that they with native grapes are American varieties that grow well and produce well in local conditions and should be supported.

He deplores the way many commercially are made overly sweetened and makes his own dry versions.

Agreed, it does seem to be a localized movement with specific pockets of consumers. When GrapeRadio went to the East Coast we saw/tasted several varieties, including Norton and Chambourcin. The wines seemed arguably well-made, but none of them particularly excited us. It seemed to me like these wines would be a hard sell, and yet one Virginia producer, Chrysalis, has gone to the extent of planting significantly more Norton grapes. So, obviously there's a market for non-vinifera grapes somewhere.

Maybe we need to step back and define what a hybrid is. The Oxford Companion to Wine and The New Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia both define Pinotage as a hybrid. Ditto Ruby Cabernet.

My understanding is that a hybrid refers only to a cross between Vitis vinifera and non-vinifera varieties. So Pinotage (cross between Cinsault & Pinot Noir) and Ruby Cabernet (cross between Carignane and Cabernet Sauvignon) would not be hybrids under that definition. Sounds like Peter is using the same definition for hybrid.

A couple of folks have mentioned Norton in this thread, but Norton (and Cynthiana) are pure vitis aestivalis. No cross, no hybrid, just an American grape variety of its own.

We drink a decent amount of Missouri stuff - white and red. The value is not great, but I'm willing to pay a couple of extra $$ to support local folks trying to make good wine. The biggest problem here is finding people who keep the residual sugar remotely in check.

Cheers,

Dave

I suspect so and that would make sense. The OCW has a fairly broad definition that permits both naturally occurring and man-made hybrids, but does not seem to restrict the definition to V.vinifera and v. lambrusca (or other species). When introduced to me (back in the day), Pinotage was described as a French Hybrid which is supported by other sources. If a hybrid is technically v. vinifera and non v. vinifera, then what, technically, is a man-made crossing of v. vinifera with a different v. vinifera (say, crossing pinot noir with syrah)?

But the larger point is, regardless of its scientific cataloging, these 19th and 20th century man-made grapes don't seem to get much respect. Is it lack of quality, lack of education, lack of exposure or long standing bias?

The vast, vast, vast majority of vitis vinifera don't get much respect either. I can't put my hands on the number of varieties of that species that are out there quickly, but it's thousands, and we talk about what, 50, most of the time?

Cheers,

Dave

yep, we talk about a small fraction of v.vinifera. There are thousands. Heck, of those that we do talk about, even some of those aren't that well known.

I think even that is generous. I'll bet 95% of the conversation here revolves around about 25 grapes.

Yep, and to BEB's point, "...these 19th and 20th century man-made grapes don't seem to get much respect. Is it lack of quality, lack of education, lack of exposure or long standing bias?" The answer is arguably all of the above - but I think it would come down to familiarity and what's available in the market place. If presented with too many choices in wine, I dare say many people would just go back to cocktails and beer.

Was Durif (aka Petite Sirah) an intentional cross, or a discovery? I thought it was the former, but now I'm not so sure. If it was an intentional cross then it'd be a man made grape that is appreciated.

As for Pinotage, or for the ones I've tried (I've tried a few, including being at a Pinotage tasting), I think its lack of acceptance is deserved.

The fact that crossing Cab Franc with Sav Blanc gave us Cab Sav shows that hybridizing grapes is a tricky business.

That's my understanding also, Dave. That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. For real authority, the OCW supports that view.
My impression from the thread drift, however, is that Norton was merely added as yet another example of a grape variety that doesn't get much respect. Of course, that's to be expected of anything without European origins grown east of the west face of the Rockies, right?

But that wasn't an intentional cross was it, Eric? Isn't it thought to be a natural fluke and not a man-made cross? And that's really one of the points of my question: Can intentional crosses designed by man come any where close to being as good as what nature stumbles across?

I have both the first edition and the latest, third, edition of the Oxford Companion to Wine and it cleary defines what a hybrid is and it clearly does not define either Pinotage or Ruby Cabernet as hybrids.

Perhaps you can check again?

Intentional, hence its name Durif is the name of its creator.

The viticultural definition of hybrid, as supported by OCW, is the offspring of a crossing between varieties of different species.

Whether man-made or naturally occurring doesn't affect the definition.

I thought the title of this discussion suggested that the real dividing line with grape varieties is between vitis vinifera and everything else. A cross between two varieties of v. lambrusca maybe a cross but it still isn't v. vinifera. A crossing between v. vinifera and anything else is a hybrid and so isn't v. vinifera.




I'd be interested to know of these sources.



A cross.

Interesting you choose pinot & syrah; that is one of the theories of the parentage of Pinotage discussed in my book.

Well, yes.

The grape varieties we see in commercial use, such as Cab Sauv, Syrah, Chardonnay etc etc are the result of natural crosses but the only reason they have survived is because man chose them to survive. All the thousands or millions of natural crosses that weren't selected because they were not good enough didn't survive.

All the crossing and hybridizing that has been and continues to be taking place all over the world produce hundreds of thousands of varieties that are eventually found to be not worthy. Those few that go into production, such as the recent Traminette, Marselan and Nouvelle, are very rare

Rereading this thread I am wondering whether the term hybrid used in the thread title and first post was used to mean a man-made cross.

If so, that isn't the standard accepted viticultural definition of hybrid and means that we've been talking at cross purposes.

I did. It does.

Perhaps you are using a more technical term term that that supplied.

Hybrid is hardly a technical term when discussing wine on a wine website.

'My' definition is the one given in the OCW that you have been referring to: "hybrids, in common viticultural terms, the offspring of two varieties of different species, as distinct from a cross between varieties of the same species."