After trading a few emails over the years, I met and tasted with Rusty Gaffney (who writes the PinotFile newsletter) at Pinot Days 2010. In a follow-up email he asked me to describe “what to look for in the different Dijon clones, and in particular the single Dijon clone Pinots now being seen in the marketplace.” Good question. I don’t consider myself an expert on Pinot clones but I’ve made decisions on what to plant at the Westwood Estate vineyard based on on a substantial amount of reading, interviews, and tasting. Before I get into specifics, a little background:

What Is a Clone?

First off, “clone” is not a bad word. When we talk about clones in the vineyard we aren’t referring to anything cooked up in the laboratory through arcane and scary genetic engineering — heaven forbid! Like many agricultural fruits, vines are grown from cuttings of other vines, not from seeds. A grape clone is just a family of genetically related plants grown up from a single vine — actually a single bud.

For more reading on clones — a subject way too big for me to tackle here in blog format — I recommend the following, focused on Pinot Noir: Here’s a good set of definitions from the Joseph Swan website; and how about a “History of Pinot Noir at FPS” by Susan Nelson-Kluk, the Grape Program Manager, Foundation Plant Services at UC Davis. Here’s a great “Perspectives on French Clones” by my old friend James Stamp, and an article on why “Clones Matter” from Willakenzie Estate. Riversun Nursery in New Zealand has put together a cogent history, and John Winthrop Haeger has veritably written the book on “North American Pinot Noir” where he included some great info on clones.

Raymond Bernard and “Dijon Clones”

Every reference I cited above mentions Dr. Raymond Bernard of the University of Dijon as the originator of what we have come to call here in the US the “Dijon clones” of Pinot Noir. Back in the late 1990s I was privileged to spend a day with Dr. Bernard in his experimental vineyard, in the Hautes Côtes above Beaune.

During this intensive visit, Dr. Bernard filled me in on the history of the clonal selection program he instituted. Back in the 1950s the vineyards in the Côte d’Or(ient) were not in the best shape — many vines showed the effects of viral disease, harvests were late, fruit was very susceptible to rot, and there was a sense among the vignerons of the region that the wines they were making were not as good as what previous generations had produced. Along with other visionaries of the era, Dr. Bernard developed the idea of “clonal selection” — taking buds from vines showing no evidence of disease to establish “mother” vines: clean vines of known pedigree that would supply source material to establish new vineyard plantings, free of disease and perhaps possessing other desirable characteristics.

Initially, Dr. Bernard’s ideas were greeted with scorn — or at least skepticism — by the tradition-bound vignerons of Burgundy. With no initial support from the local establishment, he was forced to use his own money to start the experimental vineyard at Mt. Battois in the Hautes Côtes. One vigneron who saw the potential of Dr. Bernard’s vision was Jean-Marie Ponsot, who opened his Clos de la Roche as a source of material for the early clonal trials. Dr. Bernard made his selections not just on the basis of disease status — he was also looking for diversity in the size and shape of clusters and the growth habit of the vines. Later, Dr. Bernard cast his net wider in the Côte d’Or, and even farther.

When I toured Mt. Battois with Dr. Bernard he mentioned that he and his team were developing over 100 individual clonal selections of Pinot and almost that number of Chardonnay. For many years selected clones were planted and evaluated not only in the experimental vineyard but also in the vineyards belonging to the Lycée Viticole, where trials were vinified, tasted and ranked annually. Dr. Bernard was proud to show me the sign at the entrance to the experimental vineyard, hung with the shingle of every professional society and bank in the region — the days of skepticism and using his family money are long past.

My Evaluation of the Dijon Clones

Of the hundreds of selections of Pinot evaluated by Dr. Bernard’s group and the students at the Lycée Viticole, a number have proven themselves with the vignerons of the region and growers and winemakers around the world. I have tasted still red wines made from the following clones originating at Mt. Battois: 113, 114, 115, 459, 667, 777, 828 and 943.

A note on the clone numbers: they don’t mean anything other than the accession number assigned to each selection when it was added to the collection at Mt. Battois.

Except for clones 459 and 943, I have tasted wines made from several California vineyards over several vintages, often in comparative trials. I have tasted the clone 459 in only one experimental trial, and the clone 943 is so newly-available in California that it is not widely planted — more on this later. Impressions gleaned from these tastings are:

  • Clone 113: Wines were generally thinner and lighter than average. Several growers reported that clone 113 yielded more heavily than other Dijon clones, though unevenly. Winemakers noted variable quality. I decided against planting it.
  • Clone 114: Wines can be among the most pretty and perfumed of the Dijon clones, but highly variable according to site and vintage. In the right location and year, wines from clone 114 were outstanding. But when it was bad it was horrid — thin and hard and less interesting than clone 113. I decided against planting it as well.
  • Clone 115: Raymond Bernard mentioned that year after year wines made at the Lycée Viticole from clone 115 placed at or near the top of their evaluations (until clone 943 came along). Our experience in California is comparable — clone 115 consistently produces wines of impressive aroma, structure and balance from different locations. I planted it at the Westwood Annadel Estate Vineyard (AEV) where it has done well. The clusters and berries are on the small side of average. The wines show cherry fruit with hints of leather and roses.
  • Clone 459: As I mentioned, I have only once had the chance to taste wines from a trial including this clone. I found it unremarkable; it made no better impression on me than the clone 113 in the same trial. I could not find much information on this clone at the time I was planting and so did not include it.
  • Clone 667: This clone is capable of loveliness in the right location. It seems that in warmer locations it accumulates sugar too quickly, and the resulting wines are simple, with green apple aromas and hard tannins. In cooler locations it performs better. Since AEV is a cool site I took the chance and planted it there — with good result. At our site the cluster and berry size for clone 667 is about 30% larger than clone 115. The wines are lighter and more elegant; cherry aromas mingle with cranberry and pomegranate, with more allspice/nutmeg/clove spiciness than clone 115.
  • Clone 777: This is a dangerous clone to my thinking. In my experience it produces wines with big tannins and deep color wherever it is planted — very un-Pinot-like. The berries of clone 777 seem to show thicker skin and a higher seed count than average, which would account for the high tannins and dark color (due to reduced juice/solids ratio). In warm locations it accumulates sugar even more quickly than clone 667, which can lead to wines having very harsh tannins. Even when sited in cooler locations, careful cap management and lower peak fermentation temperatures are required to produce an interesting wine. Clone 777 is not a standalone in my opinion — I planted a small amount of it at AEV to add a structural dimension plus a hint of anise aroma to our Dijon clone blend. At AEV the clone 777 accounts for about 8.5% of the total Dijon clone acreage, but less than that of the total yield as the clusters and berries are a little smaller than clone 115.
  • Clone 828: Every time I have tasted a wine from this clone I have been struck by how clean and fruit-forward the wines are, even the ones that have shown a greater level of elegance and complexity. Some people love this fruit-forward character; I do not. I never even considered it for planting at AEV. In my notes I have that the selection originated in the Savoie… not that there’s anything wrong with that.
  • Clone 943: When I met Dr. Bernard I asked him about clones he was working with that we had not yet seen in the US. “Ah… the 943…” he said, and smiled, and shook his head. His favorite clone. Once they started working with it, wines from clone 943 came out at the top of the tastings at the Lycée Viticole every year. I have in my notes that Dr. Bernard mentioned the Lycée had torn out clone 113 to plant more 943. Needless to say I was interested, and frustrated that it was not available to us at the time. Given the good results we were having with the other tête de cuve Dijon clones at AEV, I decided to plant clone 943 on nothing more than Dr. Bernard’s recommendation. So far we have not been disappointed. Clusters are smaller than clones 115 or 777, but more numerous. Berries are smaller than any other Dijon clone I have worked with, and with a less than average seed count. I have made wine from this fruit for two vintages now, and it has me quivering with anticipation for these vines to reach maturity. The wines are dark but elegant, and softer than wines from the other clones — perhaps due to the lower seed count. The aromas are amazing, ethereal unlike any of the other wines, but when I stick my nose in it the pleasure centers in my brain light up with “PINOT” — yes, in all caps.

So that’s my impressions of some of the Dijon clones. It is possible that given the right location, careful farming and inspired vinification, any one of these clones could produce a really good stand-alone wine. Just not probable. So far, in my experience only the clone 115 is capable of making an interesting stand-alone in average conditions.

Personally, I would never make a wine out of 100% clone 777, and the few single-clone bottlings I have tasted have reinforced this opinion. That’s just my taste, though — I don’t care for Pinots that are trying to be big Zinfandels or Cabernets. Based on my limited experience I would not make a stand-alone wine from the clone 943, either — the wines would be too soft for my palate.

We have the right location, careful farming and inspired vinification — and I still would not produce a single-clone bottling from any of the Dijon clones we have planted. From an optimistic (winemaker’s) viewpoint the elements that each of the Dijon clones can bring to a blend will make a wine that is greater than the sum of its parts. From a more pessimistic (grower’s) perspective, working with a mix of clones is a hedge against any one of them failing in a particular vintage. Any way you shake it, clonal blends are a win-win. I have literally bet the farm on it.