DOMAINE JOSMEYER

It seems that the new Grand Cru designations were delayed as a result of an overabundance of democracy. Indeed, the fi rst Grand Cru Commission was established in the region in 1973. Its efforts were for naught as there was no agreement which could be reached on which parcels would be anointed with the prized designation signifying them as better than all the rest. More success came two years later in 1975, but those classifi cations and the accompanying rules did not come into force until 1983. Plenty of time for the dissidents to come to terms with the new order. Ehrhart who is the current Vice President of the Grand Cru Commission is upbeat about the progress being made. Fifty one areas have been designated as Grand Cru; his Domaine Josmeyer is fortunate that its 26 total hectares of vineyard holdings include large holdings in two of them, Hengst and Brand. Along with the identifi cation of the 51 Grand Cru areas, rules have been established on the grapes which qualify for bottle labeling as a Grand Cru: Riesling, Gewürztraminer, Pinot Gris and Muscat d’Alsace. Asked to predict whether the present trajectory will take the system further to resemble, for example Burgundy, where not only are Grand Cru vineyards identifi ed, but as well, Premier Cru vineyards as being perhaps a notch below, but still superior in quality, Ehrhart shrugs his shoulders. Similar shrugs on questions about subdividing the relatively large Grand Cru vineyards, into smaller named parcels, again a la Burgundy, so as to allow for there to be more particular expressions of terroir or place.

The ongoing evolution of the Grand Cru system in Alsace aside, Ehrhart’s Josmeyer is perfectly positioned. Offi cially all of the Grand Cru vineyards are equal. Unoffi cially, three or four have established themselves as the best of the Grand Crus and two of those among the best are Hengst and Brand

which are the stars of Josmeyer’s range of wines (others of the Grand Crus are working to express more fully their potential). As the crow flies, Josmeyer’s Brand and Hengst parcels are separated by a mere 3 or 4 kilometers. But, despite close proximity these two vineyards are vastly different from each other. The difference is not in exposure, as both face the south, but in soil. Brand’s soil is dominated by sandy decomposed granite. Its wines tend to be crystalline and brightly defined. Ehrhart prefers the French term “ciselé”, which means “carved”. The richer Hengst soil imparts a very different character. Its dense limestone make up leads to greater richness and power. Both, however, benefit from a peculiar microclimate. As Ehrhart surveys the valley, cradling Wintzenheim where Josmeyer’s cave is located, and looking across the valley towards Brand on the opposite hill, he points out a precipitation anomaly. The shape of the hills leading up valley westward toward Munster functions as a rain blocker.

At times when drenching rain may fall in Munster, or toward the north in Kaysersberg or 30 kilometers to the east in Germany, Brand and Hengst will be dry. Its microclimate experiences one third the rainfall of surrounding areas, which at harvest time can be a savior of quality.

Domaine Josmeyer is very much a family operation which has existed for four generations since its founding in 1854. The Domaine is now led by a triumvirate: two Meyer sisters, Isabelle and Céline, and Ehrhart, who came to the Domaine in 1995 through marriage to Isabelle. Although now divorced from Isabelle, there is perfect harmony among the three in their division of labors and management of Josmeyer. Christophe takes charge of the vineyards and is Managing Director. Isabelle is the winemaker. Céline is President of Josmeyer and tends to fi nance and administration. Watching the three interact with each other and parade of tourists cruising tasting rooms on a rainy weekend was illuminating in revealing their love of their métier and their shared passion for their wines. Case in point—a young couple from Brazil, who spoke no French entered the tasting room eager to taste the wines. It was plainly evident they had no intention to buy even so much as a single bottle. Nonetheless, they were warmly welcomed, offered a generous selection of wines to sample, and, patiently bridging language gaps, their questions were enthusiastically answered.

A measure of the three’s devotion to the Domaine and the quality of their wines is their near religious fervor about their bio-dynamic techniques which have been practiced since 1998. There is a vast gulf which currently divides vineyard practices, not only in France but worldwide. The modernists have embraced technology in all of its glory. Chemical analyses, insecticides, herbicides, anti-fungal chemicals, artifi cial fertilizers are all central to their management of the vineyard. If a vine looks stressed “give it a pill”, not literally of course, but fi guratively. Every malady has a chemical cure. Bio-dynamics occupies a completely opposite universe. First principle: no use of chemical products in the vineyards. Period. Not a little bit, not sometimes, never. Vineyard management becomes somewhat akin to organic farming. Ehrhart, indeed, is a confectioner of his own compost fertilizer. His brew is a mix of six different herbs and bark plus the left over lees and stems which he believes provide ideal nutrition for the vines. Camomile, oak bark, stinging nettle etc. compost together for a year before being broadcast into the vineyards.

Josmeyer takes things, however, even one step further from the modernists. This is the bio-dynamics script which is nearly mystical in its prescriptions. Bio-dynamics call for a series of practices, the description of which on the surface might be taken as fanciful. The steps are numbered from 500 to 509.

Take, for example, bio-dynamics step 500. It calls for taking a hollow cow’s horn, stuffi ng it with a manure mixture and burying the horn in the vineyard in the late fall. Thereafter, in the spring, the stuffed horn is to be exhumed and the stuffi ng used, diluted of course, as a spray on the soil of the vineyard. Many an eyebrow arches as this and other of the bio-dynamics rituals are recited. However, there is some science which backs up the practice. The cow’s horn provides an ideal environment for the growth of a diverse fl ora of pro-biotic bacteria. Analysis of the mixture resulting from the stuffi ng and burial shows an unusually rich concentration of such bacteria. Do these rules produce a measurably better quantity and quality of helpful bacteria than say for example breeding in petri dishes at a pharmaceutical house? No one knows. Fertile ground, one might argue for scientifi c study. But Josmeyer and other disciples, such as the renowned Domaine Lefl aive in Puligny Montrachet (whose wines are among the most sought after in the world) are strident in their conviction that the methods not only work but are vital to the quality of their wines. Defi nitive peer reviewed scientifi c studies or no, there is one argument which Ehrhart advances which possesses logical gravitas. Overuse of chemicals in the vineyard, with vignerons resorting to chemicals like a hypochondriac let loose in a pharmacy is fraught with peril. Successive application of a multitude of products obscures the cause of any malady. Ehrhart points to one stressed vine in the Hengst vineyard. Examining closely he can see the signs of a mushroom invasion which has penetrated the stalk and is progressing downward toward the roots. There is compelling logic to his argument that had he been treating this vine with a variety of products he would have no idea of the cause. Too much of a product? Too little? If so which one?