Tag Archives: Wolffer Estate

Viniculture in LI, Part III: Wölffer Estate (revised & updated)

Wölffer Estate entranceChristian Wölffer, a real estate entrepreneur, bought the 14 acres of potato fields known as Sagpond Farms in 1978. Enchanted by the idea of a vineyard of his own after tasting a Chardonnay planted by a Sagaponack neighbor, in 1988 he asked David Mudd to plant fifteen acres of vines. It has since grown to 55 acres, with ten parcels of vines with sub-parcels.  The vine rows were planted running North to South and East to West, depending on the best orientation to the sun based on the terrain. By 1996 he had assembled 168 acres, which he devoted mostly to grazing land for his horses. His first release, a Chardonnay, was in 1991.

Roman Roth and Richard Pisacano are the team that together produces some of the finest wine made in Long Island.  Roman, of course, is the winemaker (and now partner) at Wölffer, and Richie—as he’s known to his friends and colleagues—is the winegrower.  One is, as it were, the right hand and the other the left.  So close are they that Richie’s own wine brand, Roanoke Vineyards, is made by Roman.  Roman himself has his own label, Grapes of Roth, which, since he became partner this year, will be sold in Wölffer’s tasting room.

Roman has been with Wölffer Estate as winemaker since 1992, Richie came to the Estate in 1997.  Both of them had years of experience in the wine trade before coming to Wölffer’s.

Roman & full-time vineyard crew at lunch

Roman & full-time vineyard crew at lunch

Roman comes from southern Germany and learned about vineyards, varieties, and vinification there, as his was a winemaking family. He travelled and worked at wineries in California and Australia before returning home. In 1992 Roman received his Master Winemaker and Cellar Master degrees from the College for Oenology and Viticulture in Weinsberg.  Soon after, he accepted the position of winemaker at Sagpond Vineyards, a new winery in the Hamptons. This was a winemaker’s dream—to be part of a new and growing wine region with the chance to create something new, to leave a footprint at the foundational level.

Over the next several years, Roth managed the expansion of Sagpond Vineyards into “Wölffer     Estate,” now a 55-acre vineyard with a state-of-the-art winery producing a wide range of award-winning wines, all nestled in a 175-acre property with horses, paddocks, stables, and riding trails. Under Roth’s meticulous direction, Wölffer has become a Hampton’s destination, producing wines of excellent caliber and reputation.

In April 2003, Roman received the award of “Winemaker of the Year” presented by the East End Food & Wine Awards (judged by the American Sommelier Society). This reflected the excellence of the wines he produced as winemaker and as a consultant, and was recognition of his contribution to quality winemaking on Long Island as a whole. After Christian Wölffer’s untimely death in a swimming accident, the Estate was in the hands of his children, Joey and Marc. At that time Roman was made a partner in the firm and basically runs it.  In December 2015 he was elected as President of the Long Island Wine Council to serve for two years.

Wolffer Estate, RichieRich started his career with greenhouse plant propagation, then worked for Mudd Vineyards  (the first Vineyard Consulting Management firm in Long Island)  in 1977, while still in high school.  He went on the design and maintain vineyards for Cutchogue Vineyards (now Macari South), Pindar, Palmer, Island (now Pellegrini), Jamesport, and others before he came to Wölffer.  He was invited by Roman to come to Wölffer to help “rescue” the vineyard, to help bring the Estate to the next level and further improve the quality and reputation.  When he arrived he brought along with him the ideas of sustainable viticulture and in fact followed the precepts of Cornell’s VineBalance program for the last ten years.

The first fifteen acres of Wölffer vines were planted by David Mudd in 1988, and it has since grown to 50 acres, with ten parcels of vines with sub-parcels.  The vine rows were planted running North to South and East to West.

Wolffer Estate, views, 05Wölffer’s terroir, given its location on a hill, varies considerably, much more so than the vineyards on the North Fork.  The Estate has two types of soil, Bridgehampton loam and Haven.The Bridgehampton soils are mostly the flatter ground and the hillside soils, which are lighter, are mostly Haven. [i]    Where the two converge one overlaps the other with interesting effects on the micro-terroir of individual vines.  Both soils offer good drainage and the way that the vineyard slopes allows the cold air to flow out of the vineyard across to the Montauk Highway.  With its undulating topography and overlapping soils, it makes for an especially interesting terroir, particularly so for Long Island.  Rich refers to it as a “unique setting.”

Both Richie and Roman agree that “The vineyard comes first,” and “we focus on what we can do in the vineyard, then we can make wine from that.”

The California model is not a good one to follow in LI; Wölffer has healthy low vigor/well balanced vineyards.  With respect to viticulture, Rich’s is a balanced approach, with individual attention to the vines.  Indeed, given his 30-years of experience, they call him “the grape-whisperer.”  As Rich pointed out, in his straightforward but modest way, “given time, one develops an intuition.”

For Rich, rule number one for a vineyard manager is to throw out the personal calendar and appointment book—the vineyard has precedence over all matters personal.  The Manager is like a doctor on call, always ready to respond to an emergency.  Or, as Rich puts it, “Sometimes I’m not a vineyard manager as much as I am vineyard-managed.”

For example, in 2011, despite the terrible weather, including Hurricane Irene’s contribution, Wölffer had no crop loss whatsoever thanks to the adequate manpower that was available to manage the problems engendered by the weather.  Wölffer managed to harvest 2.79 tons per acre, which was right at the 20-year average for their harvests.  The biggest challenge of the season was the sudden changes in the weather, and that requires a very nimble and highly attentive manager.

The symbiotic relationship between vineyard manager and vintner was demonstrated in the 2005 vintage, which had been a very good season until 20 inches of rain were dumped on LI in the space of a week just at harvest time, with the result that grapes were so swollen with water that the sugar levels were diluted to as low as 16 degrees Brix.  Some growers went ahead and picked the swollen grapes immediately after the rain, others abandoned entire parcels of fruit.  Roman, however, saw the potential for patience rewarded and had Rich leave the grapes alone for a few days.  Three days of dry weather led to the grapes shrinking back to normal size and reaching 23 Brix, and by the fifth day the sugar level had reached 25 Brix, which was unheard of in terms of sugar levels that increased so dramatically in so brief a time.  At that point some of the crop began to shrivel and raisin, so a 35-person crew was sent out to pick what were now very ripe grapes.  Some other vineyards had been watching what was going on at Wölffer Estate and held off as well, but none had the resources that the Estate enjoyed, so as soon as the grapes were brought in the crew was sent out to help harvest the grapes at the other vineyards as well.  As a result, some very good wine was made that year, although at much smaller yields than usual.  This is part of what Rich calls Roman’s “wine-rescue program.”

The fact of the matter is that Richie and Roman “get energy from  one another.”

Wölffer now has seven varieties planted, including Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Merlot, Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Trebbiano and Vignoles—of which there is a half-acre.  Chardonnay needs to be picked at full ripeness.  In the mid-1990s the significance of proper clonal selection became better appreciated, so that optimal results can be obtained in the vineyard. Presently there are three Chardonnay clones planted:  Davis 3+4  Dijon 76, and Clone 96.  Dijon, which is a Burgundy clone, tends to offer comparatively low acidity by comparison with Davis 3+4, which was developed for the warmer climate of California.  Merlot clones include 181 (from France), 3 (from U. of C. at Davis), and 6 (from Argentina).

Wölffer planted Trebbiano Toscano [aka Ugni Blanc] in 2010, the only Long Island vineyard to do so.  The vines were productive by the 2nd year, yielding 3.5 tons / acre and by the 3rd year, 8 tons of good fruit.  Given the large and experienced vineyard crew that the Estate can call on at harvest time, it was possible to harvest by hand 6 to 8 tons per hour, or about 40 tons at the end of a 7-hour day.  In fact, many of the crew are people with other jobs but who have helped harvest the crop by hand for as long as ten years or more.  They know what they are doing and are very efficient.  According to Rich, the best of all the pickers are invariably women, who are more careful and attentive than are most of the men.

Vines’ vigor affects wine character.  For that reason, there are rows of Cabernet Franc and Merlot that are reserved for making rosé that run down a slope, with Bridgehampton Loam  eight feet thick at the top that is overlaid with Bridgehampton Loam  as one goes down the slope, until the Haven is only eight inches thick.  The Bridgehampton soils are mostly the flatter ground and the hillside soils, which are lighter, are mostly Haven.  This represents ever-changing terror, which is to say that each vine in a row has a micro-terroir of its own.  Indeed, thanks to drainage and soil changes along the rows, the vigor of the vines changes along the length of the slope.  Consequently, in order to “harmonize” that vineyard parcel, Rich has leaf-pulling and green harvesting done along the rows at graduated intervals, with the vines furthest downslope getting the most attention, and those at the top less.  Thus, the vines mature and are ready for harvest at nearly the same time.  This is the work of a ‘grape-whisperer.’

Roman & crew at soccer. Goal!

Roman & crew at soccer. Goal!

Wölffer always has an adequate vineyard crew—for one thing, the Estate make harvesting fun and treats the harvest as a celebration.  They feed the workers very well, with much coffee and snacks available throughout the workday.  Because of so much attention in the vineyard throughout the season, there is mostly clean fruit at harvest time, which makes it easier and faster to hand-pick.  In fact, a good crew can pick [clean fruit] by hand faster than a mechanical harvester is able to do.  Naturally, by harvest time there are an abundance of workers available due to the fact that the tourist season has come to an end and many of the workers had been in the hospitality industry for the summer season.

Wölffer has already joined the Long Island Sustainable Winegrowers program, which leads to certification in sustainable farming.  They had, as mentioned above, been growing their vines responsibly since the mid-90s, so the transition to the LISW program was actually very easy, as they’d been following the VineBalance guidelines that are the basis for the LISW ones, but modified to better fit the conditions of Long Island, rather than for the whole state of New York.  For example, they do not use pre-emergent herbicides or added nitrogen to the soil—the use of nitrogen-fixing cover crops takes care of that.  Periodically, given the high acidity of the Long Island soil, about 1½ tons of lime per acre is added to raise the pH level of the soil to make it more amenable for the vines.  By May of 2013, the vineyard had succeeded in meeting all 200 requirements of the LISW and obtained its certification for sustainable winegrowing.

The winery is large and sophisticated, enjoying excess capacity such that not only does Wölffer buy grapes from five other vineyards, including Mudd’s vineyard,  Dick Pfeiffer’s, and Surry Lane’s to make Long-Island appellation wines under the Wölffer label.  Roman gets to use the winery facilities  to make his own Grapes of Roth and Richie’s own Roanoke Vineyards wines.  He also uses the facilities to make wine for clients Scarola Vineyards and Gramercy Vineyards as well.  Indeed, in 2009 an extremely selective picking of botrytised Riesling grapes took place in Jamesport Vineyards, allowing Roman to make a TBA  under his Grapes of Roth label.  Not too many TBAs are made anywhere in the US of A; the very first one was a feat of the late, great Konstantin Frank, in 1965, of Finger Lakes fruit, of course, not LI.  That one made headlines—in 2015 Roman’s two latest efforts with botrytised wines have earned him the highest scores ever awarded for Long Island wines.

In fact, given that Roman makes three rosés, eight whites, thirteen different reds, three award-wining dessert wines, two sparkling wines, and two apple ciders (a total of 29 different wines alone for Wölffer’s, not to speak of the wines he makes for Roanoke Vineyards), the question arises. How does he do it? Well, as he explained, working at the Karlschüle in South Germany he dealt with a wide variety of reds and whites. There he learned that close attention to detail mattered: every tank had to be topped up, every bung properly place, etc. He also gave credit to the excellent wine-growing climate of Long Island, which shares the same latitude and Madrid and Naples and gets the most sun of all of New York State. So, in early August they begin picking the grapes for sparkling wine, when they’re not fully ripe, then grapes for the rosés, which also don’t need full ripeness, and on to the whites, then the reds, which need more ripeness, and at the end of October, the late-harvest grapes. It means he has time to deal with the winemaking over a period of as much as three months. He gives as much attention to a basic white as he does to a Christian Cuvée red, because he can, all because of the enabling climate and soil.

For Roman, to make good wine demands a very scrupulous attention to detail. Not only are the grapes all hand-picked at the proper time, but when the fruit arrives at the winery they have as many as 56 hands at work at the sorting table, so no bad fruit goes into the must. Few wineries have the resources to bring more than a dozen hands to that task. When the must is fermenting in the tanks they do pumpovers three times a day, where most wineries do it only twice or even once. Of course, it helps to be able to afford a cellar team that can give this kind of time to such matters. It also helps to have had one fabulous vintage after another since 2010—2011 being the exception—and it may be true for 2015 as well.

To Roman, the great untold story about Long Island wines is their longevity: a 20-year-old Chardonnay still drinking well, for instance, and red wines that can mature and hold up for 25 to 30 years. The word has not yet gotten out to collectors that the wines of the region can be laid down and over time they will increase in value—not yet like great Bordeaux, perhaps, but as rarity and demand increase, even that is a possibility.

Roman introduced a dry rosé to the Long Island wine repertoire in 1992, within a year of his arrival at the winery—he was quite bullish in his pursuit to make Wölffer rosé a respected and fashionable wine.  The 2011 is made with 54% Merlot and 21% Chardonnay, 9% Pinot Noir, 8% Cabernet Franc, 8%Cabernet Sauvignon. The 2012 consists of 69% Merlot, 16.5% Chardonnay, 5% Pinot Noir, 4.5% Cabernet Franc and 5% Cabernet Sauvignon.  The blend, as one can see, varies considerably from year to year, depending on the results of the harvest.  Whatever the blend, Wölffer calls it “Summer in a Bottle.”

Along with its wide range of varietal wines, including Merlot, Cabernet Franc, Chardonnay, Trebbiano, and so on, Roman also makes a non-alcoholic verjus that is a low-acid alternative to vinegar (used in a salad make the salad much more wine-friendly), but it is also an eminently quaffable beverage that is its own “Summer in a glass.”  Perfect for those friends who can’t or don’t drink wine, yet almost as enjoyable.

Wolffer merlot 2007And I cannot omit mention of the time that I stopped by at Wölffer’s tasting  room to try a glass of the 2000 Merlot, which at a $100 a bottle had caused a sensation.  The glass of wine cost only $25, and I sipped it slowly for over an hour, observing how it evolved with time and exposure to air.  Slightly closed at first, it wasn’t long before it was offering notes of plum and black berries, and then hints of cedar and clove, becoming brighter and deeper in bouquet and flavor, and lingering long on the palate.  An extraordinary wine.  I knew then that Long Island wine had arrived on the world stage.  I had become hooked.

More recently, an article on the North Forker website of July 6, 2015, “Long Island wines receive record-breaking reviews in The Wine Advocate” stated that the critic, Mark Squires, of the Advocate had awarded two Wölffer Estate Vineyard wines — the Descencia Botrytis Chardonnay and Diosa Late Harvest — the highest scores ever received in the region, each earning 94 points.

Wölffer wine offerings board“If I had to name a ‘short list’ of top wineries in the region, this would have to be on it, without requiring any thought,” Squires wrote in his review. “Under winemaker/partner Roman Roth and Vineyard Manager Rich Pisacano (who also owns Roanoke, at which Roth is also the winemaker), this winery excels in making age-worthy, structured wines.”

Further to that, in the Nov. 16 issue of Wine Spectator Wölffer’s Grapes of Roth 2010 Merlot one of the top 100 wines of the year 2015.  No other Long Island winery has ever achieved that accolade.  Tom Matthews wrote:  “A polished texture carries balanced flavors of tart cherry, pomegranate, toasted hazelnut and espresso in this expressive red. Features firm, well-integrated tannins and lively acidity.  Elegant.  Drink now through 2022. 2,592 cases made.”

Wölffer logo139 Sagg Road, PO Box 900. Sagaponack, NY 11962.   Phone 631-537-5106

Wölffer Estate

P.S. – Wölffer’s also has some sample vine trellises alongside the winery.  It provoked yet another post on the blog:  Wölffer’s Trellis Sampler.

An excellent article about Roman Roth by Louisa Hargrave can be found at Roman History:  Winemaker Profile published by the North Forker in April 2015.


[i] According to the  LISW Climate & Soil Web page, “Bridgehampton-Haven Association: These soils are deep and excessively drained and have a medium texture. It is its depth, good drainage and moderate to high available water-holding capacity that make this soil well-suited to farming.”

 

Wölffer’s Trellis Sampler

I suspect that few people know of Wölffer’s trellis sampler, but I’m sure that it’s unique on the island, perhaps in all of New York State.  Located on the south side of the winery in the main building, it has examples of eight of the principle trellis systems used in vineyards around the world, only one of which is widely used in Long Island.  Viewing them is almost like taking a vineyard tour around the world with regard to the different ways that vines are trained.  There are compelling reasons for using one in preference to another, depending on the country, the climate, the prevailing laws of a region, and custom or tradition.

Needless to say, the trellis sampler inspired me to look into the trellis and training systems more deeply, because they are central to what a wine-grape vineyard is all about.

Regardless of the trellis used, the vines must be trained to it, and there are two kinds of training:  spur and cane.  Some trellises are more amenable to one or the other.  This will be indicated below.  The entire point of the training and trellis systems is that they significantly aid in helping the vines’ canes and shoot develop in a way such that the amount of light and air can be controlled.  In addition, trellises allow for effective canopy management.  Vines leaves need sunlight for photosynthesis and the grape clusters benefit from solar exposure as well, but not too much.  Typically, the vine rows will be oriented to catch the maximum sunlight early in the day (so facing east), in the afternoon (facing west), or for the fullest amount of sunlight, by facing south.  Much depends on matters of aspect and slope of the land and finding the optimum exposure.

The movement of air should be facilitated so as to avoid the development of different molds, fungi, and rot and to dry the grapes after a rain.  The amount of shade can further be controlled by pulling leaves if needed.  Finally, the trellis and training should provide a fruit zone for easy maintenance and harvesting.

Not to add to the confusion, but one must bear in mind that a spur-trained vine is cane-pruned, whereas a cane-trained vine is spur-pruned.  (Vine pruning deserves its own explanation, but not here.)

Alberate training: vine and oliveVine training, which is what trellises are for, has been around since the beginning of viticulture, and was employed by the Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Greeks, the Romans, and medieval monasteries.  Without trellising, grapevines will climb and cling onto anything that can be reached by their shoots, or tendrils.  Nevertheless, this is a kind of rudimentary spur training called Alberate.

The result can look like a mess, as in the case of this Sangiovese vine climbing into an olive tree, and it can be difficult to harvest the grapes or effectively treat the vines with chemicals to control pests and disease.  Nevertheless, it is very easy to maintain.  This example was found in a small vineyard-cum-olive-grove in Strada-in-Chianti, just outside Florence.

Wine produced from these grapes is, needless to say, no better than ordinary table wine at best.

Bushvine (viña en vaso)Another ancient and still widely-used untrellised vine training is called Gobelet (“goblet” or vase”), also known as bush vine (Australia). It’s history can be traced back to the ancient Romans and even the early Egyptians.  It was widely employed in California in the 19th Century and some vineyards there still carry on the practice.  It is especially popular in Spain, where it is called en vaso.  Gobelet-trained vines are head trained, which is to say spur-pruned close to the ground, as can be seen in the photo above of a 100-year-old Tempranillo vine in Rioja.  It can be either staked or allowed to grow free-standing.

One ought to bear in mind that the vine-training system does not necessarily follow the design of the trellis so much as the trellis should be selected for a given training system.  Often the training system takes the name of the trellis, but it doesn’t necessarily follow.

The trellis is merely the arrangement of the posts, stakes, and wires, while there can be multiple variations to how a given trellis is used for training.  The trellis, in other words, is merely a support for the training system.   The very simplest trellis is merely a stake in the ground to which a vine is tied with minimal training; the simplest training system is the Gobelet or vase, discussed above, which requires no trellis.

One more factor to be taken into consideration is the species and varieties that are to be trellised.  Native American vines (e.g., V. labrusca) and hybrids (vinifera x non-vinifera) tend to be down-growing, whereas V. vinifera varieties grown naturally upwards.  The training should therefore follow the natural inclinations of the vines and trellises should be chosen for their suitability to the variety.

Getting back to Wölffer’s, if one walks around the building from the patio, the first of the seven trellis samples encountered is the pergola, the origins of which are Italian, shown below:

Wolffer trellising sampler, 01The Pergola is largely found in Argentina, Italy, and Spain.  The sign tells us that its advantages are, “Shades ground in hot, arid climates to preserve moisture.  Shades fruit from direct sunlight.” (The word comes from the Late Latin pergula, or projecting eave, but comes into English usage via Italian.)  This kind of pergola (closed) is also called tendone.

It’s also good for picnics and as an ornamental device to provide shade, cover a walkway, or offer a processional path for a wedding.  Usually, for that kind of function it’s referred to as an “arbor”.

The pergola is designed for making the vines grow well in hot, arid climates, Pergola mechanical harvesterand the fruit grows directly overhead, awkward for harvesting by hand—imagine how tiring it would be—but if the fruit has been trained to hang down far enough, it is also amenable to machine harvesting, as can be seen in the diagram opposite:

 

Wolffer trellising sampler, 03Next is the Geneva Double Curtain / GDC (above), which, according to its sign, is found in “New York State [originally for] Concord grapes, and for table and juice grapes worldwide.”  Actually, the GDC can be used for wine grapes, but its special advantage is that grape bunches can hang free, which is desirable for table grapes.  Table grape clusters are also larger and heavier than vinifera ones, so the GDP makes more sense for those grapes.  (It is called Geneva because it was developed at the Geneva–New York–Agriculture Experimental Station in the 1960s.)

The system shown in Fig. 1 (below) utilizes a 4-foot cross arm on the trellis to double the amount of canopy per row and a single wire about 3 feet high to support the trunk. Vines are trained to alternVine training on Geneva 2-curtainate sides of the 6-foot high trellis.  Each vine has a 6-8 foot cordon (a permanent branch on either side of the main trunk, or trunks that are secured by two to four wraps around the support wire with a wire tie at its end. Each cordon has 10-12 short (4-6 bud) canes evenly spaced along its length. A renewal spur should be kept as next year’s replacement for each of the short canes.

Wolffer trellising sampler, 05The Lyre trellis is a variation on the Geneva Double Curtain and the Scott Henry (spur-training).  As the sign tells us, its use is rare (and confined to the New World), but it has the advantage of opening up the canopy.  It accommodates overly-vigorous vines that would have problems with respect to shade, by allowing good air circulation and sunlight penetration.  Vine vigor, by the way, refers to the growth of foliage or canopy.

Wolffer trellising sampler, 08The Hill Post/Mosel (or Mosel Arch) trellis is very simple.  As the sign says, “Found:  On the steep slopes in Germany and the Rhône Valley of France.  Advantage:  Supports vines on terrain that cannot be trellised [otherwise].”  Each vine has its own stake and two canes bent into a heart shape.  Cane training is used with this.

Wolffer trellises, Hi-wire cordonThe High-wire Cordon is a very simple stake-and-wire system in which the shoots are draped over the top wire to hang over and allow the fruit to hang pendulously.  It is fine for table and juice grapes and native American wine-grape varieties.  Its primary advantage is low cost and maintenance.

Wolffer trellising sampler, 13Pendelbogen (aka European Loop or Arch-Cane) is a training system that is used in Germany and Austria as well as the Northwest of the US.  It offers the advantages of easy tying and of condensing the number of shoots.  A variant of the Guyot Double system, it promotes better sap distribution with more fruit-bearing shoots consolidated on the center buds.

Wolffer trellising sampler, 12Scott Henry/Smart-Dyson are two variations on a training system that’s used most widely in Oregon and Australia.  Its advantage is that it “Opens up the canopy and improves fruit quality and yield from over-vigorous vines.”  The names are as interesting as the systems, which differ significantly from all the other trellises in the Wölffer sampler.  Smart-Dyson (S-D) is named after international viticulturist Richard Smart and John Dyson, a well-known grape grower with vineyards in New York (Millbrook) and California. Scott Henry is named for the Oregon grape grower and former aerospace engineer who developed it. Henry’s technology is basically a system of two vines in one location, one high, and one low. Smart-Dyson uses the same high-low approach, but with a single, spur-pruned cordon-trained vine.  The differences are shown in the diagrams below:

Vine trellis Smart-Dyson explained

 

 

 

Vine trellis Scott Henry diagram

 

 

 

Wolffer trellising sampler, 14

The three rows shown above represent the Meter by Meter trellis, which is found in “Bordeaux, Burgundy, and other regions of France.”  These are used for high-density (1 m. x 1 m.) plantings that are required by the AOC laws that define almost everything that is permitted in the vineyards of the various regions of France.  Such density would be highly problematic for machinery but works well for manually working the vines.

Umbrella Kniffin diagramBefore Long Island vineyards began to use Vertical Shoot Positioning (VSP, discussed immediately below) most used the Umbrella Kniffin system to train the vine with a single or double trunk extending to the upper wire. After the second growing season, the vineyardist would select two or four canes growing from near the top of the trunk for arms and prune them to 10 to 20 buds. That was followed by cutting back two other canes to 2 or 3 buds for renewal spurs. The arms would be looped over the top wire, bringing them down obliquely to the bottom wire and tied. Each following winter the arms would be replaced by canes from the renewal spurs.  The system proved not to be good for harvesting the grapes, for the bunches would not be hanging at a uniform level.

The training system used in the Wölffer vineyards is called VSP (Vertical Shoot Positioning)  Virtually all the vineyards in Long Island use it.  It employs a Vertical Trellis, which is essentially three wires running the length of a row.  The bottom wire is called the cordon wire, to which the trunk cordons or arms of the vine are tied, and the upper two wires are used to tie the vertical shoots.  This is ideal for vinifera varieties as they tend to grow upwards.   In the picture below, the bare canes and shoots make it easy to see how the vines are trained, in this case a double cordon, with all the shoots rising vertically.  While the VSP can be either cane or spur-trained, the version we see here is spur trained.

Wolffer Estate, VSP vines

One can see that the cordon, or part of the trunk that is trained horizontally in two directions, is tied to the bottom wire, while the shoots are trained to go vertically up, tied to the send and third wires, the topmost having been set at a height of between 60” and 70” (150 to 175 cm.)  This makes it easier to pull leaves and thin the clusters, while the fruit zone will run along the cordon level, at a level that makes it easy to either hand-pick or machine-pick the clusters at harvest time.

Wolffer VSP fruit zone The picture above shows the fruit zone as it looks when the first buds appear.

VSP is used primarily in coastal regions like Long Island where the expected vigor of the vines is low to moderate.  However, it is widely used wherever vinifera is grown, including Bordeaux, Burgundy, Alsace, Germany, and New Zealand.  Nevertheless, with a bit of effort many hybrids can be trained to VSP as happens in the Hudson River Region.

As shown in the diagram at right, the fruit zone can be shaped hVine trellis diagram, VSPorizontally just above the cordon wire, with the shoot growing straight up above them so that their leaves get the best exposure to the sun, while trimming back some of the leaves that might otherwise cover the bunches in the fruit zone so that the grapes get some solar exposure.

Mechanical harvesting is possible with VSP systems and special machines are designed for this.  They are virtually the direct opposite of the pergola harvesters, which fit beneath and within the pergola.  Harvesters of this kind require very taut wires to keep the fruit at an even level; there are even computerized wire tightener machines.  (These, of course, are very expensive in the aggregate, as there must be one for each row; only very large mechanized operations can afford them).

For VSP, the machine straddles the rows and can be adjusted for the height of the fruit zone (this machine illustrated below is not used at Wölffer’s, which only uses hand harvesting):

Palmer, Merlot harvest, 14The spacing between rows is critical for using machinery.  But it’s very important for a number of other reasons.  For optimum exposure to sunlight, the height of the vines will affect the amount of sun that falls on the rows behind.  Therefore the spacing should be such that the vines’ shadows never cover the canopy or fruit zone.  Another determinant for row spacing is the use of machinery.  Rows should be wide enough to accommodate a harvester, a tractor, or any other machinery that may be used in a vineyard.  The meter by meter system is scarcely amenable to machine work, whereas the VSP system clearly is.  (Note: in Europe and elsewhere, this is usually known as the vertical trellis.)

Wolffer Estate, views, endpostsAn important part of nearly all trellis systems is the end post, usually of wood, about 4 to 6” in diameter and about 6 to 7 feet tall for VSP.  As can be seen in the picture, the end post is put in the ground to a depth of about three feet and canted away from the row it ends.  This is one approach.  The post is given further rigidity by the use of a guy wire the terminus of which is staked deeply into the ground, the better to resist the very strong pull of a properly-taut series of shoot and cordon wires.  The posts are also used for identifying the variety planted in a given row, usually with just the initial letter or two, as in CH for Chardonnay, CB for Chenin Blanc, etc.

At Wölffer’s roses are planted at the ends of each row, not merely for the obvious aesthetic result, but for the very practical reason that roses attract not just bees but other insects that also prey on vineyard pests.

The wires running from post to post and to the stakes in between will slacken and need to be tightened from time to time—to the end posts, not the stakes.  There are even special tools for that.  The vines are then tied to the wires—trained vineyard workers are needed for that.

It should be apparent that the preparation and planting of a vineyard is very demanding of time, expense, and labor.  Preparing the ground first is a topic worth discussing separately, but it isn’t necessarily visible to the casual eye.  The trellis, laden with its vines and fruit, is the most visible component of the vineyard.  The maintenance of the vines is itself only visible when a visitor sees workers or machines in the rows, spraying, thinning, harvesting, and so on.  It is one of the most demanding forms of horticulture that there is, but the rewards, in the form of the wine made from the fruit grown in the vineyard and the money to be made from its sale make it all worth the effort.

It is for these reasons that a skilled and experienced vineyard manager is needed to obtain the best fruit possible from so elaborate a system.

While the trellis and training systems shown and discussed above include the most important and widely-used, there are far more than this.  Others are, for the most part, merely variations on the themes set out above.

References:

Cornell University Cooperative Extension Nassau County, “Home Grounds Fact Sheet-Grapes:  Culture and Pruning.”  January 2009.  This is a downloadable PDF that focuses on using the Four-Armed Kniffin and Umbrella Kniffin systems.

Cox, Jeff.  From Vines to Wines:  The Complete Guide to Growing Grapes and Making Your Own Wine.  North Adams, MA:  Storey Press, 1999.

Robinson, Jancis, MW, editor.  The Oxford Companion to Wine, 3rd edition.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2006

Stevenson, Tom.  The Sotheby’s Wine Encyclopedia:  The Classic Reference to the Wines of the World, 5th edition.  New York:  Dorling Kindersley, 2011.

See also my post on Wölffer Estate, published in July 2013.

 

Viniculture in LI, Part II: background.

In exploring vinicultural practices in Long Island, I intend to particularly examine the practice of sustainable farming, which includes organic and Biodynamic® agriculture.  My original, first posting on 15 June 2010, Can 100% Organic Grapes be Grown in Long Island?, provoked some interesting and even useful responses.  I have since renamed it The Challenge of Growing Certified Organic Grapes in Long Island,  given the developments at Shinn Estate and The Farrm that have taken place since that 2010 posting.  The series now continues with this posting (now updated to April 2015 to include new developments and information, particularly with the Long Island Sustainable Winegrowing [LISW] program established in 2012). 

This Part II post serves as an introduction to the Part III articles devoted to the individual vineyards and wineries of Long Island.

NY Wine Regions Map 1To put things in perspective, one should bear in mind that New York State is the 3rd-largest producer of grapes by volume in the United States, after California and Washington.  Admittedly, most NY vineyards grow table grapes, but as of 2014 there were, according to the NY Wine & Grape Foundation (NYWGF), 373 wineries in the State, of which of which one in six are in Long Island.  Of all the wine regions of the State, Long Island is the one that is most committed to growing Vitis vinifera varieties, with very little planting of French-American hybrid vines and no Native American grapes at all.

I want to point out some factors that I believe appertain to most of the vineyards that I’ll be writing about—which is to say, all of the ones in Long Island, of which there are sixty-six bonded wineries, all but a handful of which are on the North Fork, as well as seven vineyards that sell their fruit to others.  They comprise, by my own calculation, about 2,565 acres of planted vines (the NYGWF calculates 2,041 acres.)

Geology & Soils

Geologically, Long Island is extensively formed by two glacial moraine spines, with a large, sandy outwash plain extending south to the Atlantic Ocean.  These moraines consist largely of gravel and loose rock that would become part of the island’s soils during the two most recent extensions of Wisconsin glaciation during the Ice Age some 21,000 years ago (19,000 BCE).  The northern, or Harbor Hill, moraine, directly runs along the North Shore of Long Island at points.  The more southerly moraine, called the Ronkonkoma moraine, forms the “backbone” of Long Island; it runs primarily through the very center of Long Island.  The land to the south of the Ronkonkoma, running to the South Shore, is the outwash plain of the last glacier. When the glaciers melted and receded northward around 11,000 BCE, their moraines and outwash produced the differences between the North Shore and the South Shore soils and beaches.

A General Soil Map (below), devised by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station in 1972, shows the different kinds of soils that dominate the East End of Suffolk County, the part of Long Island that is home to most of the vineyards there.

East End, General Soil Map

The soil associations (or types) for Suffolk County as listed in the General Soil Map (and relevant to viniculture) are as follows:

  1. “Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead association [N. shore of the North Fork, extending across the Fork at Mattituck and then running East along the S. shore of Great Peconic Bay to Southold]:  Deep, rolling, excessively drained and well-drained, coarse-textured and moderately coarse-textured soils on moraines
  2. “Haven-Riverhead association [running from Brookhaven along the southern edge of 1 (above).  With an interruption at Mattituck, then extending as far as Orient Point; this is the dominant soil of the North Fork]:  Deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained, medium-textured and moderately coarse-textured soils on outwash plains
  3. “Plymouth-Carver association [runs across the middle of the West-East axis of the county, encompassing Riverhead just south of 2.  It then extends into the Hamptons or South Fork as far as East Hampton but at no point touches the south shore.]  rolling and hilly:  Deep, excessively-drained, coarse-textured soils on moraines [the Ronkonkoma Moraine].
  4. “Bridgehampton-Haven association [actually runs immediately adjacent to, and south of, 3.]: Deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained to moderately well-drained, medium-textured soils on outwash plains”

“Textures refer to surface layer in major soils of each association.”  [A caveat regarding the use of the map says,] “The map is . . . meant for general planning rather than a basis for decisions on the use of specific tracts.”

(There are ten soil types shown on the map, but we list only the four that form part of the terroir of the vineyards of the East End.)

With respect to the soil types in the North Fork and Hamptons AVAs, Louisa Thomas Hargrave wrote an article, “The Dirt Below Our Feet,” in the Spring 2011 issue of Edible East End, in which she made some important observations:

Every discussion of a wine region’s quality begins with the soil.  Going back to ancient Roman times, around ad 50, Lucius Columella advised, in his treatise on viticulture, De Re Rustica (“On Agriculture”), “Before you plant a piece of ground with vines, you should examine what sort of flavor it has; for it will give the wine a similar taste. The flavor can be ascertained…if you soak the earth in water and taste the water when the earth has [g]one to the bottom.  Sandy soil under which there is sweet moisture is the most suitable for vines…any soil which is split during the summer is useless for vines and trees.”

The “useless” soil that splits is clay, a colloidal suspension of particles similar to Jell-O. Clay retains too much moisture when it rains, making the tender roots of wine grapevines rot; it withholds nutrients from the vine when the weather is dry.

There is little clay on the East End of Long Island, except in specific and easily identified veins. We have remarkably uniform sandy soils here that vary in available topsoil (loamy organic matter), but all contain the same fundamental yet complex mixture of minerals.  These soils are ranked by the U.S. Soils Conservation Service as “1-1,” the most auspicious rating for agriculture. Any single handful of Long Island soil will show the reflective glint of mica; the dull gray of granite; the mellow pink, salmon and white of quartz; the red and ochre of sandstone; and black bits of volcanic matter. To describe them simply as “sandy loam” fails to acknowledge the profound effect that having this mixture of minerals must have on the vibrancy and dynamic quality of Long Island’s wines.

Richard Olsen-Harbich, the author of the two AVA applications for the Hamptons and the North Fork, published a two-part series on the soils of Long Island for Bedell Cellars, where he is winemaker:  the first, The Soil of Long Island. Part 1 – Ice Age: The Meltdown, published on April 12, 2011, and the second, more recent piece, The Soil of Long Island. Part 2 – There’s No Place Like Loam, published Sept. 6, 2013, which are useful and lucid explanations of how the glaciers of the Ice Age left Long Island with the soils that grow the vines today.

It should also be pointed out that Long Island soil, regardless of its composition, tends to have a rather low pH, which is to say too acidic for Vitis vinifera vines to grow well as it weakens the vines’ ability to assimilate nutrients from the soil.  The vines need the addition of lime to balance the pH and is something that nearly every vineyard must do to get itself established for vinifera.  It can take years—Paumanok Vineyards was adding lime to its vineyards every year for twenty years before it was able to relax the practice.  It nevertheless has to be done again every few years when the pH gets too low again, as it appears that the added lime may get leached out of the soil over time.

Climate

Overall, Long Island displays a cool maritime climate.  The brutal summer heat seen in the Iberian Peninsula, which is at the same latitude, is tempered in the Hamptons AVA by the Labrador Current which moves up the eastern Atlantic Ocean.  Summer temperatures are also moderated by Little Peconic Bay to its north.  The North Fork enjoys the moderating influences of Long Island Sound.  These same bodies of water help to temper the effects of the Canadian air masses that move in during the winter.  The influence of these waters helps prevent late spring frosts which can kill young grape buds.  The cumulative effect is a lengthening of the growing season to approximately 210-220 days.  Wine-grape varieties can thrive here, as they can grow better and ripen further than just about anywhere in the U.S. outside of California.  The North Fork is such a narrow band of farmland, situated between the bay and the sound that virtually all of the vineyards or near or on the water.  According to the Appellation American Website:

Despite being next door to each other, there are notable differences between the South Fork and the warmer North Fork. The South Fork is more exposed to onshore Atlantic breezes, delaying bud-break by as much as three weeks. Even after bud-break, the area is frequently foggy, keeping early season temperatures and sunshine hours lower than on the North Fork. By the end of the growing season, the seemingly subtle weather differences between the Forks add up to quite different overall climates. The Hamptons are generally very cold to moderately cool, while the North Fork is moderately cool to relatively warm. The damper silt and loam soils of The Hamptons, along with climactic differences, create a unique style, with wines from The Hamptons generally being more restrained and less fruit-forward than wines from the North Fork.

Wineries & Vineyards

By my own count, as of March 2015, there are a total of 76 wine production entities in Long Island, of which:

  • 21 are wineries with vineyards, though they may also buy fruit from others
  • 3 are wineries without vineyards that buy their fruit from growers
  • 11 are wine producers that have neither a winery nor a vineyard, but outsource their production, having their wine made to their specifications from purchased grapes
  • 33 are vineyards without a winery, but use an outside facility to make wine to their specifications  from their grapes
  • 1 is a crush facility that makes wine from fruit, provided by others, to the providers’ specifications
  • 7 are vineyards that sell their fruit to wine producers
  • In all, there are 58 tasting rooms in Long Island

Vinicultural Practices

Regardless of the different terroirs of either Fork, the first point that I’d like to make is that, based on my visits, so far–to Wölffer Estate and Channing Daughters in the Hamptons AVA, and to Bedell Cellars, Castello Borghese, Diliberty, Gramercy, Jamesport, Lieb, Lenz, Macari, Martha Clara, McCalls, Mudd Vineyard, The Old Field Vineyards, Osprey’s Dominion, Palmer, Paumanok, Peconic Bay, Raphael, Kontakosta Winery, Sherwood House, and Shinn Estate in the North Fork AVA–the standards of vineyard management are of a very high order.  The neatness of the rows of vines, their careful pruning and training (most, if not all, are using Double Cordon trained on two wires with Vertical Shoot Positioning, or VSP, and cane pruning), the use of cover crops between rows, and much else besides, attest to the high standards and sustainable practices to which the vineyard managers aspire. 

A handful of vineyards are endeavoring to farm organically and/or Biodynamically, though only a single vineyard, Shinn Estate, is actually working to obtain actual certification for both.  Then there is The Farrm, in Calverton, run by fruit and vegetable grower Rex Farr, who obtained full organic certification in 1990 and planted vinifera vines in 2005–thus harvesting the first certified-organic grapes on LI in 2012.  It is expected that the first wine to be made from its fruit will be produced in 2013 by a newly-established winery on the North Fork.  None of this is to say that a vineyard that does not seek to grow organic or Biodynamic grapes is the lesser for it, though all should seek to farm sustainably.  Excellent, even great wines have been and shall continue to be produced whether farmed organically or not.  Indeed, as I pointed out at the beginning of my first post, there is no proven correlation of quality of a wine because it is made with organic or Biodynamic grapes.  (A case in point is the famous and incredibly expensive wine of the Domaine de la Romanée Conti, in Burgundy.  It has been long acknowledged as the source of some of the greatest red and white wines of all of France, and this was the case before it was converted to Biodynamic farming, and continues to be the case today.)  Part of what makes it so difficult to quantify the quality of a wine made by either method is that fact that there is vintage variation every year, due primarily to factors of weather and climate.  Thus, there is no objective way of being sure that viticultural practice was the dominant reason for the quality of a particular vintage, rather than the weather of a particular season.  Nevertheless, those who practice organic/Biodynamic viniculture do aver that it is reflected in the wine and there are consumers who do think that they can detect the difference.

By now virtually all of the vineyards on the two forks are attempting some form of sustainable farming, though the kind of sustainable work can vary considerably across the gamut of over sixty vineyards.   Along these lines, an important development took place when a new accreditation authority was created in May 2012:  Long Island Sustainable Winegrowing, Inc., with the intent of setting out the guidelines for sustainable viticultural practices for all wineries in the region.  Membership is voluntary, but already, as of April 2015, there are sixteen vineyards that have joined, with thirteen already certified and three in transition.  Others are giving membership serious consideration.  A post devoted to the LI Sustainable Winegrowing authority was published on this blog in April 2012 (since updated as of 21 June 2013).

Another important factor to keep in mind is the role of clone selection for the vineyards.  A very useful article about the significance of clones was posted by Richard Olsen-Harbich of Bedell Cellars on March 19, 2013:  Revenge of the Clones.  The piece is well worth reading in its entirety, but there are two salient paragraphs that are worth quoting:

Over the past 10 years, grapevine clones have shown themselves to be of increasing importance in our vineyards. Simply put, clones are a genetic variant of a particular variety. The Chardonnay grown on Long Island decades ago is not the same vine we have today. Plantings since that time – especially in the past 10-15 years, have benefited from a wider selection of available plant material. Back in 1990, if you wanted to plant Chardonnay, you had one choice. Today there are more than 70 registered clones of this noble white grape being grown throughout the world and they all have their particular nuances and characteristics. Many of these clones are already in existence in Long Island vineyards – from the tropical and aromatic Musqué to the classic and alluring Dijon clones from Burgundy. Although these are all Chardonnays, each exhibits their own distinctive character.

This fact is also true of grapes like Merlot and Cabernet Franc, where profound differences in wine quality can be seen between clones grown in the same vineyard, on the same soils. Over 50 clones of Merlot have been identified in Bordeaux. Pomerol alone has over 35 clones of Cabernet Franc. Newer French clones, long kept overseas as tightly held trade secrets, are finding their way into the United States. In most cases these new clones are better suited to our maritime climate. Often these clones will ripen earlier than the older selections we used to have. Some are more resistant to disease. The ultimate result is higher quality wines. I’ve seen clones so different from each other that you would think the wines were made from another variety entirely.

In other words, when the first vinifera vines were planted in the 70s and 80s most of the clones came from California.  Many of these clones had been developed at the University of California at Davis (UCD) but of course were created with California vineyards in mind.  This meant that the clones were less suitable for the very different, maritime climate of Long Island.  For example, the Sauvignon Blanc clone 1 (the ‘Wente clone’) was very vigorous and produced large clusters but it was also very susceptible to rot in LI.  Only in the 90s were new clones planted to replace clone 1, and all of these came not from California but France (primarily from Bordeaux, in the case of the Sauvignon Blanc.)  This process was true for several other varieties.  In other words, the new clones are part of what makes Long Island the most ‘European’ of the wine-growing regions of the United States.

As a matter of fact, the Long Island Wine Region, which includes both the North Fork and the Hamptons AVAs, in 2010 became signatory to the Declaration to Protect Wine Place and Origin that was first enacted in 2005 in Napa (it is also known as the Napa Declaration on Place).  The original signers included not only the Napa AVA but also Washington and Oregon State AVAs, and Champagne, Jerez/Sherry, and Oporto/Port in the EU, among others. (The point of this, of course, is to control the use of place names and prevent the misuse of the name ‘Champagne’ for example, on any sparkling wine that is not from there.  Chablis, Port, and Burgundy were also place names that were widely abused around the world.)

There is no intention whatsoever in my series to judge a vineyard because it does or does not grow or intend to grow organically or Biodynamically.  (Indeed, wineries that are technically organic can still choose not to be certified.  Among the many reasons for this, for example, are that a winery may not want the added costs and the bureaucracy entailed in registering, or a winery may disagree with the government standards.  Whatever the case, such wineries are not allowed to use the term organic on their labels.)

In any event, the point of this series is to understand the reasons for choosing a particular approach to grape production over another.  We want to understand why Long Island vineyards do what they do before we go on to explore their methods of vinification, for between what is done in the vineyard and what happens in the winery is what determines the quality of the wine that is produced.  The wines from Long Island have long been improving since those first, tentative years going back to 1973 (when the Hargraves planted the first vinifera vines in LI) and in recent years are receiving their due recognition in the form of positive reviews, awards, and high scores for individual bottlings.

Important Terms Defined

  • AVA or American Viticultural Area: An area defined by a unique geology and climate that is distinctive from other vine-growing areas and hence that produces wines of a distinctive overall character.  There are none of the restrictions as to varieties planted, vine density, allowable harvest per acre, or any of the other limitations that exist in European appellations, such as the French Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC).  Long Island has three AVAs, all applied for to the TTB (Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau) which administers the program, in the mid-1980s: The Hamptons (South Fork), the North Fork AVA, and the Long Island AVA.
  • Biodynamic®, or Demeter USA, certification; also, Demeter USA, FAQ, Biodynamic wine (PDF file).  Also, see an excellent discussion in a 5-part series beginning with New York Cork Report, Biodynamics, Part I, by Tom Mansell, along with the ensuing debate in the comments that follow each of the postings.  There is also a controversial series against Biodynamics by Stuart Smith, a winemaker in California, called Biodynamics is a Hoax, a polemic that is worth reading, along with the comments in response.
  • Bordeaux Mix:  A widely-used type of fungicide that mixes copper sulfate and lime, first used in Bordeaux in the 1880s; see Univ. of Calif., Davis, Pesticide notes
  • Compost Tea:  A type of natural compost mixed with water for distribution in liquid form (it may be seen as agricultural homeopathy); see National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, Compost Tea Notes
  • Copper Sulfate:  A widely-used industrial pesticide, allowed in both organic and Biodynamic farming within specified limits: see  Cornell Extension Toxicology Network (ExToxNet), Pesticide Information Profile, copper sulfate
  • Cover crops: Vegetation that is either deliberately planted between vineyard rows (e.g., clover, to replenish nitrogen in the soil) or weeds that are naturally allowed to grow between and into rows (the Biodynamic approach); see UC Davis, Cover Crop Selection and Management for Vineyards
  • Integrated Pest Management (IPM):  A major component of sustainable agriculture, it is labor-intensive but effectively reduces the need for certain kinds of pesticides; pheronome ties are a typical method of disrupting the reproduction cycle of some insect; see EPA, Factsheet on IPM
  • Macroclimate:  The climate of a large area or region, such as that of all of Long Island, or perhaps just the East End of LI.
  • Mesoclimate:  The distinct climate of a smaller area, such as that of a single vineyard or a parcel thereof.
  • Microclimate:  The climate of a very small area; it could be as small as a single vine or a distinctive climate of a tiny part of a vineyard, such as a depression in a row of vines.  (NOTE:  These terms are often used interchangeably, but most often microclimate may be used to refer to the mesoclimate of a vineyard.)
  • Organic Certification:  USDA, National Organic Program, Organic Certification
  • Regalia:  A biologically-based pesticide; see Marrone Bio-Innovations, Products, Regalia
  • Serenade: A biologically-based pesticide; see PAN Pesticide Database, Products–Serenade
  • Stylet oil:  defined in the industry as a Technical Grade White Mineral Oil, it is used as a biodegradable fungicide and insecticide in integrated pest management programs.  It also serves as as a substitute for sulfur, reducing or eliminating the need for that application, according to Steve Mudd, a LI vineyard owner and consultant.
  • Sustainable agriculture:  according to Mary V. Gold, on the USDA Website, “Some terms defy definition. ‘Sustainable agriculture’ has become one of them. In such a quickly changing world, can anything be sustainable? What do we want to sustain? How can we implement such a nebulous goal? . . . If nothing else, the term ‘sustainable agriculture’ has provided talking points, a sense of direction, and an urgency, that has sparked much excitement and innovative thinking in the agricultural world.”  Follow this interesting, full explanation of the term at USDA, Sustainable Agriculture definition.  Another excellent source for information about sustainable agriculture is to be found on the NY State VineBalance Program website, which is dedicated to sustainable practices in NY State vineyards, and as mentioned above, the Long Island Sustainable Winegrowing certification program, with sixteen vineyards already committed to its regulations and guidelines.
  • Variety vs. Varietal:  not to be pedantic (though I can be), Variety is the term applied to a particular kind of vine and its grape; e.g., Cabernet Franc or Riesling; Varietal is the wine made from a variety or a blend of different varieties.  The terms are often used interchangeably but shouldn’t be.
  • Vertical Shoot Positioning:  is a training system used with single or double Guyot, cane-pruned training, or with a Cordon, spur-pruned system.  VSP is very common in cool and/or humid climate regions with low to moderate vigorous growth, as it encourages better air flow through the vine.  This is accomplished by making all the shoots grow vertically, with no vegetative vine growth allowed below the cordon/cane.  The increase in air flow helps prevent problems associated with disease and also allows the fruit to dry out more quickly after it rains.

      Both cluster thinning and harvesting are generally made easier using VSP, given that there is better access to the fruit.  The objective is to train the shoots so as to create a narrow layer that provides good sunlight exposure and air flow in the fruiting zone of the canopy.  Each shoot is thus trained to grow vertically by attaching it to movable catch wires.  The shoot’s length can easily be controlled by pruning any growth above the top catch wire.  The fruiting zone is generally kept at waist height, which makes it more convenient for the vineyard workers, given that the vineyard rows are worked throughout the season.)

For a full explanation of VSP, see Cornell Univ. Agriculture Extension, Training, and Trellising Vinifera Vines.

Viticulture vs. Viniculture:  again my pedantic side will out–Viticulture is the general term for the growing of any kind of grape vine, whether intended for the table or for wine; Viniculture refers to the raising of wine grapes in particular.

_________________________

The vineyards that I intend to write about are listed below in alphabetical order (those wineries that have no vineyard but purchase their grapes from others will not be part of the vinicultural survey– these are shown in gray; the ones that have already had articles posted on this blog are shown in purple; those that have been ‘indirectly interviewed’ are shown in light purple.  If the vineyard has been certified by the Long Island Sustainable Winegrowing Group (LISW), that is indicated:

  • Ackerly Ponds, North Fork AVA (85 acres) is now part of Sannino’s Bella Vita Vineyards (which see)
  • Anthony Nappa (no vineyard) posted 6/14
  • Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyard, North Fork AVA (11 acres)
  • Bedell Cellars, North Fork AVA (78 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); Rich Olsen-Harbich interviewed on May 12, 2011; posted June 2, 2011
  • Bouké Wines (no vineyard)
  • Castello di Borghese Vineyard & Winery [formerly Hargrave Vineyard], North Fork AVA (85 acres); Giovanni & Allegra Borghese interviewed on Nov. 18, 2014 and Mar. 27, 2015, to be posted
  • Channing Daughters Winery, Hamptons AVA (25 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); Larry Perrine interviewed on April 30 & May 21, 2012; posted January 22, 2013
  • Clovis Point, North Fork AVA (20 acres); see Bill Ackerman interview
  • Coffee Pot Cellars (no vineyard)
  • Corey Creek Vineyards, North Fork AVA (30 acres, LISW sustainable-certified), owned by Bedell Cellars; posted June 2, 2011
  • Corwith Vineyards, Hamptons AVA (3 acres; LISW sustainable-certified); Dave Corwith interviewed May 20, 2014 and Nov. 16, 2015; posted Oct. 15, 2014, updated Nov. 19, 2015.
  • Croteaux Vineyards, North Fork AVA (10.5 acres); see Steve Mudd interview
  • Deseo de Michael, North Fork AVA (.3 acres)
  • Diliberto Winery, North Fork AVA (4 acres); Sal Diliberto interviewed Mar. 28, 2015, to be posted
  • Duck Walk Vineyards, Hamptons AVA, and Duck Walk Vineyards North, North Fork AVA (130 acres; LISW candidate); Ed Lovaas, winemaker, on Nov. 16, 2015.  to be posted.
  • Gramercy Vineyards, North Fork AVA (3.5 acres); Carol Sullivan, owner, interviewed October 2, 2012; posted; as of June 2015 the vineyard is leased out; no longer making wine
  • The Grapes of Roth (no vineyard)
  • Harbes Family Farm & Vineyard, North Fork AVA (5 acres, LISW sustainable-certified)
  • Harmony Vineyards, LI AVA (7 acres); see Steve Mudd interview
  • Influence Wines (no vineyard); Erik Bilka interviewed 6/15; to be posted
  • Jamesport Vineyards, North Fork AVA (60 acres); Ron Goerler, Jr. interviewed on April 14, 2014; posted Sept. 9, 2014.
  • Jason’s Vineyard, North Fork AVA (20 acres)
  • Kings Mile, North Fork AVA (leased vineyard); Rob Hansult interviewed on Sept. 26, 2013; posted same day
  • Kontokosta Winery (23 acres, LISW sustainable-in transition); Michael K. interviewed Nov. 18, 2014, Gilles Martin interviewed Mar. 28, 2015; to be posted
  • Laurel Lake Vineyards, North Fork AVA (21 acres); Juan Sepúlveda interviewed Sep. 26, 2015
  • Lenz Winery, North Fork AVA (65 acres); Sam McCullough interviewed April 20 & 27, 2011; posted May 16, 2011; Eric Fry interviewed Mar. 27, 2015, to be added to original Lenz post
  • Leo Family Wines; John Leo interviewed for PWG on October 3, 2012; posted February 11, 2013
  • Lieb Family Cellars, North Fork AVA (50 acres, LISW sustainable-in transition); Logan Kingston, Sarah Kane, & Jildo Vázquez interviewed June 6, 2013; posted October 4, 2013
  • Loughlin Vineyards, Long Island AVA (6 acres)
  • Macari Vineyards & Winery, North Fork AVA (200 acres); Joe Macari, Jr. interviewed July 9, 2009 & June 17 2010; posted June 30, 2010
  • Martha Clara Vineyards, North Fork AVA  (101 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); Jim Thompson & Juan Micieli-Diaz interviewed Feb. 3 & March 27, 2012; posted May 3, 2012
  • Mattebella Vineyards, North Fork AVA (22 acres, LISW sustainable-in transition)
  • McCall Vineyards, North Fork AVA (22 acres); see Steve Mudd interview
  • Mudd Vineyards, North Fork AVA (50 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); Steve Mudd interviewed; posted September 18, 2012
  • The Old Field Vineyards, North Fork AVA (12 acres); Ros & Christian Baiz & Perry Weiss interviewed on May 12, 2011; posted on June 7, 2011
  • Onabay Vineyard, North Fork AVA (180 acres total, not all with vines): see Bill Ackerman interview
  • One Woman Vineyards, North Fork AVA (12 acres, LISW sustainable-certified)
  • Osprey’s Dominion Vineyards, North Fork AVA (90 acres); Adam Suprenant interviewed April 23 & May 8, 2012; posted February 3, 2013
  • Palmer Vineyards, North Fork AVA (100 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); Miguel Martín interviewed October 12 & 22, 2010; posted November 13, 2010
  • Paumanok Vineyards, North Fork AVA (72 acres planted, LISW sustanble-certified); Kareem Massoud interviewed May 3, 2011; posted May 23, 2011
  • Peconic Bay Winery, North Fork AVA (58 acres); Jim Silver & Charles Hargrave interviewed; posted May 9, 2011;  winery is now closed but see interviews with Steve Mudd & Bill Ackerman, since Peconic Bay’s vineyards have been turned over to Lieb Cellars as of January 2013
  • Pellegrini Vineyards, North Fork AVA (72 acres); see Steve Mudd interview
  • Pindar Vineyards, North Fork AVA (500 acres; LISW candidate); Pindar Damianos interviewed Sept. 26, Ed Lovaas on Nov. 16, 2015.  to be posted.
  • Pugliese Vineyards, North Fork AVA (45 acres); Pat Pugliese interviewed Jan. 19, 2015
  • Raphael, North Fork AVA (55 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); Leslie Howard & Steve Mudd interviewed May 21 & June 13; posted September 17, 2012; Anthony Nappa interviewed
  • Roanoke Vineyards, North Fork AVA (10 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); interviewed Richard Pisacano, owner; posted July 10, 2013
  • Sannino’s Bella Vita Vineyard (5.25 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); interviewed Jan. 30, 2015; to be posted
  • Sherwood House Vineyards, North Fork AVA (36 acres); interviewed Bill Ackerman on September 26, 2012; posted
  • Shinn Estate Vineyard, North Fork AVA (20 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); Barbara Shinn & David Paige interviewed June 18, 2010; posted July 12, 2010
  • Southold Farm+Cellar, North Fork AVA (9 acres; as of Sept. 2014 just entering production); Regan Meador interviewed Jan. 30 & Nov. 16, 2015; to be posted
  • Sparkling Pointe (29 acres, LISW sustainable-certified)
  • Suhru Wines (no vineyard); Russell Hearn, owner, interviewed for PWG on October 3, 2012
  • Surrey Lane Vineyards, North Fork AVA (25 acres, LISW sustainable-in transition); see Steve Mudd interview
  • T’Jara Vineyard, North Fork AVA (14 acres); Russell Hearn , owner, interviewed for PWG
  • Vineyard 48, North Fork AVA (28 acres planted)
  • Waters Crest Winery (no vineyard); interviewed Nov. 17, 2014, to be posted
  • Whisper Vineyards, Long Island AVA (17 acres); interviewed Steve Gallagher on Mar. 27, 2015, to be posted.
  • Wölffer Estate, Hamptons AVA (174 acres, LISW sustainable-certified); interviewed Roman Roth & Rich Pisacano on April 30, 2012 & June 20, 2013, updated and posted on July 10, 2013

Three very useful links that serve as portals to most of these vineyards are 1) Long Island Wine Country which lists only those wineries and vineyards that are members of the LI Wine Council; 2) Uncork New York! (aka the New York Wine and Grape Foundation) which provides links to all wineries and wine vineyards in New York State.  Also indispensable for New York State wines is the New York Cork Report by Lenn Thompson, with its many interviews, coverage of wine tastings, reviews, and more.

A framable 24 by 36-inch map of the wineries and vineyards of the East End of Long Island, by Steve De Long, can be purchased on Amazon:

LI Wine Map

 

The Challenge of Growing Certified Organic Grapes in Long Island.

Virtually every wine grape vineyardist in Long Island wants to work his fields as organically as possible, though very few ever actually intend to become fully organic or certified organic.  Most of them farm sustainably, and about twenty vineyards are practicing Certified Sustainable Winegrowers.  Shinn Estate in September 2010, succeeded when it harvested its first entirely organic grapes, 2.6 acres of Sauvignon Blanc, but it has been a struggle to maintain organic practices from season to seaason, given the disease pressures on Long Island.  a year later the first certified-organic grapes were harvested by a little-known farm with a vineyard in Calverton.  The Farrm, owned by Rex Farr, has been organically-certified since 1990, growing various vegetable crops such as heirloom tomatoes, leeks, and lettuce.  Its first vinifera grapes were planted in 2005 though its first successful grape harvest took place in October of 2011.  On August 28, 2013, Southold Farm announced on its Website that it plans to produce the first Long Island wine made from certified organic grapes purchased from The Farrm’s 2013 harvest.[1]

The challenge has been met, but as Ron Goerler, Jr., former president of the Long Island Wine Council has said, “it’s extremely challenging” and other farmers have tried and failed at it.  Nevertheless, several East End gardeners and farmers of other crops have been using organic and biodynamic methods with some success for years now.  An excellent article, “Farming to a Different Beat” by Geraldine Pluenneke, published in April 2011, [2] discusses in a very fair-minded way the issues of biodynamic farming and viniculture in Long Island.  It points out the success that some of the practitioners have had, such as Amy Pink, a backyard vegetable gardener, or K.K. Haspel, who grows “legendary tomato seedlings,”  or Mary Wolz, a beekeeper in Southold who maintains a hundred hives on both forks of the island.

Kareem Massoud, of Paumanok Vineyards, is cited in Pluenneke’s article as saying that “Whatever viticultural methodology allows me to achieve the healthiest, ripest grapes possible is the course that I shall pursue, regardless of whether that method is known as conventional, IPM, sustainable, practicing organic, organic, biodynamic or any other name.”  In a separate interview that I had with Louisa Hargrave a years ago, the doyen of Long Island wine vineyards made clear that if she had to do it all over again, she’d consider using Biodynamic® practices.

There is a series of posts in this blog that deals with the individual vineyards and takes off from this piece (now updated to April 2014).  So far, twenty of the vineyards of the East End have been written about in Wine, Seriously.

Both the sustainable and organic/Biodynamic®  movements in winegrowing are among the most important developments in the wine world in recent years.  Whether or not it results in superior wines is difficult to say with any certainty, but that is a separate argument that will not be pursued here.  Rather, the focus is on the challenge not only to produce organic wine in Long Island, which represents a special challenge, but also to look at the issue of sustainability in viticulture as a whole.

Let us begin by looking at two excellent wineries:  Channing Daughters Winery and Wölffer Estate Vineyards, both in the Hamptons Long Island AVA, which is to say the South Fork of the island, which has fields of Bridgehampton loam—sandy and well-drained—and a Bordeaux-like maritime climate, with Atlantic breezes that ward off frost until late in the harvest season.  The two forks, or East End–as they are collectively known, also enjoy the most days of sunshine and longest growing season of all of New York State, though the South Fork has a slightly later onset of spring and a somewhat longer season than the North, as well as a less windy clime.  All of the East End has high humidity and, potentially, a great deal of rain right into harvest time.

In discussions with Larry Perrine of Channing Daughters and Richard Pisacano of Wölffer’s, I learned that both had decided against seeking organic certification, though they do practice sustainable viticulture as far as is possible.[3] Their primary reason for rejecting the organic certification route was that the climate conditions—cool and very humid—seriously militates against organic farming.  As Perrine pointed out:  “Organic is virtually impossible in rainy climates like Bordeaux, Friuli, and LI; downy mildew and black rot cannot be contained by using organic methods.”  In Pisacano’s view, “organic certification is too demanding and expensive, apart from the fact that the level of humidity in the area is just too high to allow for organic practices for preventing the control of diseases and molds like powdery mildew and botrytis.”[4] Both want to be able to use conventional pesticides as a fallback if needed, and they also find that added sulfites are needed in the wineries, and these are precluded by USDA Organic Certification;[5] nevertheless, both vineyards do participate in the New York Sustainable Viticulture Program, or VineBalance, as well as in the Long Island Sustainable Winegrowers program, which is itself based on VineBalance and provides a different kind of certification for sustainable (not organic) practices.[6]  But all of this was said back in 2009.

The North Fork Long Island AVA shares much of the same terroir as the Hamptons AVA, but it is affected more by its proximity to Long Island Sound than to the Atlantic, and it suffers from similar issues.  Only one of its fifty-six vineyards are yet organically certified (The Farrm, as mentioned above), although a number of them, such as Macari Vineyards and Palmer Vineyard work their land as organically and sustainably as possible, as do other vineyards, such as Peconic Bay.[7] In 2009 Joe Macari told me that he no longer believed that 100% organic viticulture is possible in the North Fork, though he practices sustainable farming to the extent possible, using only organic fertilizers and soil work, for example.  Back then Jim Silver of Peconic Bay Winery had said flatly that any idea of producing organic grapes in Long Island is simply impossible—the stuff of dreams.[8]

On the other hand, Shinn Estate has been working on conversion to full organic USDA certification and Demeter certification for the last thirteen years.  It is now 100% organic in soil work and pest control, and as noted above, has harvested the first (albeit not certified) organic/Biodynamic® grapes in Long Island.  If Shinn could have grown 100% organic/ Biodynamic® grapes for three successive years, the Estate would then have become certified, and that would be a major achievement for the East End.[9] Unfortunately despite continued and dedicate effort, disease pressure due to high humidity was such that it did not happen.  Instead, Shinn has chosen to join the Long Island Sustainable Winegrowers program, established in 2012 and based on Cornell’s VineBalance.  This is a far more viable approach for most if not all vineyards on the Island.  (The sole exception has been Rex Farr, who has been growing certified organic produce since 1990 (certification came through the Northeast Organic Farming Association or NOFA).  His vines were planted in 2005, with the first harvest taking place in October 2011.  Farr sells his fruit to wine producers.)

The discussions mentioned above have taken place over a period of six years and it is clear that the perceptions and ideas about organic/sustainable viniculture in Long Island are still evolving.

What is it that makes it so challenging to grow certified organic wine grapes in Long Island?

Let us then look at what is required to produce certified organic grapes:  of first importance is how the chosen method will affect the quality of the wine made from organic grapes, along with the cost of the conversion to a new viticultural regimen, as well as the long-term operating costs—a determining factor with respect to profit.  Much literature has been devoted to the advantages of organic or sustainable viticulture, despite the significant obstacles that need to be overcome.

In the United States, the various forms of sustainable grape-growing are:[10]

  1. Organic (certified, which is to say, 100% organic as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture, [USDA] and its National Organic Program [NOP])
  2. Organic (but not USDA certified, falling under categories 2,3, and 4, listed further below)
  3. Biodynamic® (a special category of organic, but following the tenets of Demeter; not recognized by the USDA)
  4. Sustainable or natural (incorporating organic viticulture, but not completely)

Organic farming is defined by the USDA, as explained by the Organic Consumers Association Web page: [11]

[In 1990] . . . along came the National Organic Program (NOP), also part of the USDA.  The NOP’s goal has been to set guidelines for the processing and labeling of organic products and to maintain the “National List” of allowed and prohibited substances.  According to the NOP and the ATF . . . there are four categories that organic products can claim:

  1. 100% Organic
  2. Organic [95%+]
  3. Made With Organic Ingredients [70-95%]
  4. Some Organic Ingredients; i.e., less than 70%.[12]

As can be seen, the range of choices is wide, the ramifications of any particular approach daunting.  Time and cost are important considerations in the process of converting from conventional to organic/sustainable practice, and these vary according to the chosen option.  In the case of the USDA organic certification, at least 3 years is required to convert a vineyard for certification;[13] if Biodynamic®, the transition is the same as for USDA certification and, in fact, overlaps it.[14]

A comparative study performed by Gerald B. White, of Cornell University, ca 1995, broke out the costs of conventional vs. organic viticulture, and provides a basis for projecting those to be sustained after conversion.[15] The study concluded that the costs of organic farming could be considerably higher than it would be for conventional, but it was conducted in 1995 at a vineyard in the Finger Lakes, using very different varieties (one labrusca & two hybrids) from the vinifera ones grown in Long Island.[16] However, the fact that the three varieties in the experiment each had different issues, results, and costs, suggests that the same may be true with different vinifera varieties.[17] An article in the October 2007 issue of Wines & Vines Magazine, tells of wineries that have had some success with the transition to organic viticulture, including Shinn Estate.  Though more an anecdote than a scientific study, it captures much of what has changed since the 1995 Cornell study.[18]

Nevertheless, the choices remain dauntingly complex, for the issue is not merely to choose between USDA-certified organic or non-certified, or between Demeter certification or ACA-only certification[19], but there are different degrees or types of sustainable farming that go beyond standard certification (“natural” winemaking vs. conventional [or interventionist] winemaking as well as socially-responsible viticulture are two matters beyond the purview of this essay, as they are not directly concerned with viticulture proper[20]).

Clearly, a three-year transition period is really a minimum period, as was the case with Shinn Estate, where the process took much more time, before they finally decided to not try to be certified.[21] For certification, the transition needs considerable preparation, including establishing a USDA-mandated buffer zone of at least 25 feet (8 meters) to separate organic transition fields from those farmed conventionally.[22] The conversion also entails some significant adjustments:  there can be no chemical sprays, herbicides, and pesticides, or use artificial fertilizer for the vineyard plot, replacing them instead with natural pesticides and herbicides, foliate sprays, and organic manure or compost, which are all more expensive than the industrial versions.[23] On the other hand, fixed costs should not change, nor wage levels, but more manual field work would be necessary, especially if machine harvesting were not used, which would be the case a vineyard went the “natural” route.[24]

As pointed out by Kingley Tobin, “The three main areas of vineyard management to focus on are Weeds, Disease, and Pests.”[25] For weed control, using ground cover is a good sustainable practice, and helps reduce the use of glyphosate-based herbicides that tend to shut down the main precursor to plant phenolics; the improved phenolic content of the grapes should result in a better product.[26]

For disease, as the soil returns to a more natural state and the vines are no longer exposed to industrial products that diminish their ability to resist bacterial and fungal infections, they should, over time, develop Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR).[27] Foliate inputs can be made organic by switching to highly-effective silicate applications such as the Demeter 500-series preparations (e.g., 501 horn-silica) or even horsetail tea, which has been used successfully upstate.[28] Periodic applications of chemical sprays may be needed until SAR has been induced, but the use of tunnel spraying apparatus should keep such sprays from entering the soil.  Even this may be avoidable if one applies safe, organic sprays such as sulphur for powdery mildew, while liquid seaweed, fatty acids, compost sprays can all be applied against botrytis.  Given the high humidity of the Long Island region, more frequent applications may make up for their general lack of toxicity as compared to industrial ones.

For pest control, properly-selected ground cover, such as clover, will attract bees and other beneficial insects.  Ladybugs can be purchased in quantity and released after flowering to prey on aphids, eggs, larvae, scale, and other parasites. [29] Pyrethrums (made from flowers) work naturally to deter wasps and yellow jackets that are attracted to the fruit.[30] Soil-borne pathogens that feed on the root damage caused by phylloxera may be controlled by measured use of hydrogen peroxide, as well as by application of harpins (e.g., Messenger®) on the grapes, while BTH can be used to help increase resistance to Botrytis.[31] All this means much more attention must be paid to the condition of the vineyard throughout the season, compared to a conventional approach.  This is essentially the practice of Integrated Pest Management (IPM).[32]

This can all be accomplished over time, though much experimentation as well as trial-and-error will usually be necessary, as every vineyard will have unique issues of its own.  The bottom line is that organic viticulture is more labor-intensive, but with potentially lower supply-and-materials costs, so that the fruit that results should be of higher quality, entirely free of industrial residue or traces, safer for consumption, and better for the land.  The question:  can 100% certified organic grapes, as stipulated in the USDA guidelines, be grown long-term in the Long Island AVAs, or is sustainable viticulture the best that can be hoped for?  The Farrm has been raising organically-certified fruit and vegetables since 1990, and vinifera grapes since 2005.  He has achieved this in part because he has been willing to accept smaller crops when the disease pressure is very strong, and that depends on the weather from year to year.

___________________________________

Endnotes

[2] Geraldine Pluenneke, “On Good Land: Farming to a Different Beat,” Edible East End, Spring 2011.

[3] Telephone interviews with Richard Pisacano of Wölffer Estate and Larry Perrine of Channing Daughters, both on 17 April 2009

[4] Ibid.

[5] United States Department of Agriculture, National Organic Program, “Labeling: Regulatory Text,” § 205.303 (5).  (Henceforth referred to as USDA, NOP, Labeling:)

[6] New York Guide to Sustainable Viticulture Practices: Grower Self-Assessment Workbook, “[the Program] . . . is designed to encourage practices with low environmental impact that maintain or improve soil.”  Also see Channing Daughters Winery, “A Vineyard With a Purpose” Web page.

[7] Interviews with Alejandra Macari and Barbara Shinn, 20 April 2009, with Jim Silver at Peconic Bay Winery, 7 July 2009, and with Miguel Martín of Palmer Vineyards, 12 October 2010.

[8] Interview with Jim Silver, 7 July 2009.

[9] Despite Shinn’s involvement with VineBalance, she does take issue with the term “sustainable,” holding that it can mean anything that a practitioner wants it to, and prefers to speak of “natural viticulture.”

[10] The five categories are my summation of several sources:  USDA, NOP, Labeling: § 205.301; Monty Waldin, “organic viticulture” The Oxford Companion to Wine, p. 498; Jon Bonné, “A fresh take on sustainable winemaking”; also, Sustainability in Practice (SIP) ™ Vineyard Certification Program, FAQ PDF.

[11] Organic Consumers Association, “Clearing up the confusion about Organic Wine,” introduction.  Also see the USDA, NOP, and Labeling: § 205.301a-d, the source for the list.  Only the first two items on the list (a & b) are of concern to us.

[12] USDA, NOP, Labeling: § 205.301-304 passim.

[13] Vincent Russo and Merritt Taylor.  “Yield and Quality of Vegetable Crops in Conventional and Organic Production Systems,” USDA Agricultural Research Service, n.p.

[14] Demeter USA, “Get Certified.”

[15] Gerald B. White, “The Economics of Growing Grapes Organically,” 19white.pdf.  This and other studies to be found at the http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/pool/ website were all part of a project funded by the federal Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension program (SARE) from 1991-95.

[16] White.

[17] White.

[18] Suzanne Gannon, “Extreme Viticulture: How Northeast growers farm vinifera organically and sustainably,” Wine & Vines Magazine, online, sections on Shinn Estate Vineyards (Long Island) and Cornell’s Program (n.p.)

[19] The need for certifying agents is mentioned in passing in the USDA, NOP, Labeling: § 205.303 (5).  For a discussion of Accredited Certifying Agents (ACA) see Renée L. Robin, “Defining Organic Practices for Wines and Grapes,” in Wine Business Monthly online, section on “Getting Certified: What Rules Apply?”:

These ACAs can be private, public or non-profit entities that have received authorization to certify from the USDA. As of January 2006, there are 53 domestic ACAs and 40 foreign-based ACAs. Currently 11 of these ACAs are located in California.

[20] Joe Dressner, “Natural Wine,” The Wine Importer, speaks of the “French Natural Wine Movement,” whose members refer to themselves, “. . .  as the sans soufistres” because they refuse to add sulfur to their wine when vinifying.  The movement to make wine without sulfites has spread to the United States and has, indeed, been incorporated into the USDA certification standard for 100% organic (USDA, NOP, Labeling: § 205.302).  The issue of what actually constitutes “natural” winemaking is open to debate, as pointed out in Pameladevi Govinda’s “Natural Progression: The Real Dirt on Natural Wine,” Imbibe Magazine online.

[21] Actually, practically speaking, it is more like ten to fifteen years, according to my interview with Barbara Shinn.

[22] See Russo and Taylor’s “Yield and Quality of Vegetable Crops . . .” Technical Abstract, which set up such a 70-meter buffer zone for their experiment.

[23] According to an article by Renée L. Robin, “Defining Organic Practices for Wines and Grapes,” in Wine Business Monthly online, production cost increases can be “as much as 5 to 10 percent” during the period of transition, after which such costs should be about the same or even less that conventional methods.

[24] Jancou, Pierre.  MoreThanOrganic.com:  French Natural Wine, “As it is picked, the fruit must be collected into small containers, to avoid being crushed under its own weight, and taken to the winery as quickly as possible.”

[25] Kingsley Tobin, “Organic Viticulture & Winemaking: Changing New Zealand Grapegrowing and Winemaking to an Organic Philosophy,” section on Solution to Problems, n.p.

[26] Don Lotter, “Wine quality, organic viticulture and vine systemic acquired resistance to pests,” section on “Vine systemic acquired resistance and wine phenolics” (n.p.).  Lotter states that “SAR is induced by low to moderate levels of insect and pathogen attack, the ability of plants, particularly organically managed plants, to induce a type of situation-responsive immunity to attack by diseases and pests is known as systemic acquired resistance (SAR), in which defensive compounds, mostly phenolics, are produced.”

[27] Lotter.

[28] Lotter.

[29] GardenInsects.com, “Natural Pest Control with Ladybugs,” Web page.  (Ladybugs are also called Ladybird beetles.)

[30] Lisa Anderson, “Organic Winemaking, Northwest Style,” under heading, “Challenges of Organic Viticulture,” from WineSquire.com.

[31] Lotter.

[32] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Web site, “Integrated Pest Management (IPM)  Principles.”

[33] Barbara Shinn e-mail to me, 7 June 2010.  She further asserts that “This is a huge success for the region and a big tipping point. Hopefully the region will take comfort that it can indeed be done and done well.”

References

Anderson, Lisa.  “Organic Winemaking, Northwest Style,” WineSquire.com, at http://winesquire.com/articles/2001/wnw0107.htm, accessed 25 March 2009.

Asimov, Eric. “The Pour: Natural Wines Redux,” New York Times, 16 March 2007.

Bonné, Jon.  “A fresh take on sustainable winemaking,” 5 April 2009, SFGate.com, at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/05/FD0H16NPIS.DTL&hw=wine&sn=003&sc=628

Brix, Samantha, “Calverton farmer boasts Long Island’s first crop of certified organic grapes,” Suffolk Times, 7 October 2011, at http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2011/10/21449/calverton-farmer-boasts-long-islands-first-crop-of-certified-organic-grapes/

Channing Daughters, “A Vineyard With a Purpose”: http://www.channingdaughters.com/

Cox, Jeff. “Organic Winegrowing Goes Mainstream,” Wine News Magazine, Aug/Sep 2000

Demeter-International e. V., International Certification Office.  List of Fees, Lizenz-&- Gebührenordnung.PDF, as at January 1st 2006 [in English], at http://demeter.net/certification/ce_procedures_fees.pdf?languagechoice=en&languageadmin=0

Demeter, USA.  “Get Certified,” Demeter-USA.org, at http://demeter-usa.org/get-certified/, accessed 8 April 2009.

Dressner, Joe.  “Natural Wines,” from the wine importer blog, 28 April 2007. from http://www.datamantic.com/joedressner/?2331.

Gahagan, Richard M.  “Use of Term ‘Organic’ on Wine Labels,” New York Agricultural Extension Program at Cornell University, at http://nysaes.cals.cornell.edu/research-extension/grapes-and-wine, accessed 8 April 2009.

Gannon, Suzanne.  “Extreme Viticulture: Now Northeast growers farm vinifera organically and sustainably,” Wines & Vines Magazine, October 2007.

Govinda, Pameladevi.  “Natural Progression,” Imbibe Magazine, Sept/Oct 2008.

Jancou, Pierre.  MoreThanOrganic.com:  “French Natural Wine” at http://www.morethanorganic.com/definition-of-natural-wine, accessed 21 April 2009.

Kolpan, Steven.  “Biodynamic Wines: Beyond Organic,” Steven Kolpan on Wine, November 2008, at http://stevenkolpanonwine.blogspot.com/2008/11/biodynamic-wines-beyond-organic.html.

Lotter, Don, Ph.D.  “Wine quality, organic viticulture and vine systemic acquired resistance to pests,” Organic Wine Journal, 11 November 2008, at http://www.organicwinejournal.com/index.php/2008/11/wine-quality-organic-viticulture-and-vine-systemic-acquired-resistance-to-pests/

Macari, Alexandra, of Macari Vineyard, telephone interview conducted on 20 April 2009.

Natural Process Alliance Home Page, The.  http://www.naturalprocessalliance.us/home, accessed 8 April 2009.

Organic Consumers Association, “Clearing up the Confusion about Organic Wines,” from http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/OrganicWine.cfm, accessed 6 April 2009

Organic Viticulture, “Organic and Biodynamic Viticulture,” Tuscany-in-a-Bottle.com, from http://www.tuscany-in-a-bottle.com/organic.htm, accessed 25 March 2009

Organic Wine Company. “Organic Wines,” EcoWine.com, at http://ecowine.com/organic.html, accessed 25 March 2009.

Peterson, Walter.  “Marketing Organic Wines in New York,” New York Agricultural Extension Program at Cornell University, at http://nysaes.cals.cornell.edu/research-extension/grapes-and-wine, accessed 8 April 2009.

Pluenneke, Geraldine.  “On Good Land: Farming to a Different Beat,” Edible East End, Spring 2011; published online on 25 April 2001 at:  http://www.edibleeastend.com/online_magazine/farming-to-a-different-beat/

Railey, Raven J.  “Wine with a conscience:  How three local wineries go green,” San Luis Obispo’s website, 4 April 2009, at http://www.sanluisobispo.com/183/story/674260.html

Robin, Renée L.  “Defining Organic Practices for Wine and Grapes,” Wine Business Monthly, 15 April 2006.

Robinson, Jancis, MW, editor.  The Oxford Companion to Wine, 3rd edition.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2006

Robinson, Jancis, MW, “More French Wineries go Biodynamic,” SFGate.com, home of The San Francisco Chronicle, 2 February 2006.

Russo, Vincent and Merritt Taylor.  “Yield and Quality of Vegetable Crops in Conventional and Organic Production Systems,” USDA Agricultural Research Service, at http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=194264, 1 December 2006; last modified 14 April 2009.  [NOTE: this is an interpretive summary and technical abstract of a 2006 article: “Soil amendments in transition to organic vegetable production with comparison to conventional methods: Yields and economics.”  HortScience, 41(7):1576-1583.]

Shinn, Barbara, Vineyard Manager, Shinn Estate, telephone interview conducted on 20 April 2009.

Sustainability in Practice (SIP) ™ Vineyard Certification Program, “Frequently Asked Questions” [FAQ], PDF file downloaded from http://www.vineyardteam.org, accessed 8 April 8, 2009.

Tobin, Kinsley. “Organic Viticulture & Winemaking: Changing New Zealand Grapegrowing and Winemaking to an Organic Philosophy”, at http://organicnz.vibrantplanet.com/page/2020-18, accessed 25 March 2009.

United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Web site, “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles.”  From http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/ipm.htm, accessed 21 April 2009.

United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, National Organic Program, “Labeling: Regulatory Text,” PDF file available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3003511, accessed 7 April 2009

VineBalance, New York Guide to Sustainable Viticulture Practices: Grower Self-Assessment Workbook. PDF file, at http://www.vinebalance.com/pdf/intro.pdf

White, Gerald B.  “The Economics of Growing Grapes Organically,” Department of Agriculture, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, at http://nysaes.cals.cornell.edu/research-extension/grapes-and-wine, accessed 8 April 2009.

Wölffer Estate Vineyard, “Vineyards and Winemaking” Web page, at http://www.wolffer.com/store/

 

2013 Assessment of Long Island Winery Websites

As of July 2016, despite a much-needed reassessment, as so many of the sites have been significantly updated and improved, I have had no time to do a full re-evaluation.  My book, The Wines of Long Island, 3rd edition, has just been turned in to my publisher, SUNY Press. After  a period of decompression, I shall revisit all the Websites and update this post.

In an article published in Wines & Vines, “What Visitors Want from Wine Sites” (June 2011), Kent Benson explained what information he thought serious visitors to wine sites (specifically winery and vineyard ones) should provide.  I thought that his ideas were worth serious consideration and decided to try and apply those criteria to the websites of the region that I am most familiar with:  Long Island.  Benson’s original article is accessible at Wines & Vines 6/11.

The Criteria

In order to assess the quality of the Long Island winery/vineyard websites, I have chosen to evaluate them on the basis of both the historical and technical information that they provide.  Below is my adaptation (mostly a reorganization) of Kent Bensons’ wish list for wine websites:

  1. Identify type of operation up front:  Winery &/or Vineyard &/or Tasting Room
  2. History: frank and honest, including founder, subsequent owners and corporate owners: (don’t pretend you’re a “family” winery when you’re not)
  3. Winemaker, vineyard manager, and owner: names, pictures and bios
    1. Technical information (viniculture)
      1. Vineyard information:  acreage, vine density, vinicultural practices, yields, maps
      2. Wine grape source locations, soil types, vine ages
      3. List of all grape varieties in the vineyard with acreage
      4. Vintage report
      5. Technical information (vinification)
        1. Forthright, step-by-step, detailed description of the winemaking process: (tell all); e.g., details of aging regimen:  proportion aged in wood, proportions of French & American oak, proportions of new, one-year, two-year, etc., oak alternatives employed

        b.   Technical data: degrees Brix at harvest, actual ABV, TA, pH, RS, dry extract, disgorgement date: (for sparkling wine) [this set data is for wine geeks; most others may not care]

        1. Estimated drinkability range from vintage date
        2. Purchase information (Online/Wine Club)
          1. Available current releases and at least two previous vintages
          2. Pairing and serving temperature suggestions
          3. Bottle and label shots: (keep them current, show front & back labels)
          4. Pictures of estate or controlled vineyards and of winery

    In addition, I would like to see Winery websites that are easy to navigate and do not require that a visitor need dig for information or other data.  All features should be easily accessible, which means that navigation options should not be embedded more than a level or two down from the main menu or home page.Blogs are very nice to have and can be extremely informative: Bedell Cellars, Channing Daughters, and Shinn Estate have particularly useful ones.  However, they are not scored for this assessment, as most sites have no blogs.

    Events and event calendars are an essential part of nearly any retail winery, but these are not scored individually in the assessments that follow, as they are mostly about entertainment and social matters, and information on winegrowing and winemaking is our real concern.

  4. Consequently, I have also added a new criterion, for ‘general’ features.  These are scored by the number of features listed above that appear on the Website, thus 10 ‘yes’ answers (features present) is complete. If a feature is not applicable (n/a) the score is not reduced.  Furthermore, if a newsletter is available, I score the newsletter for quality of its information—if no newsletter is offered, it is not scored.

    About the Assessments

    NOTE:  The assessments on the following pages are based on my version of Benson’s wish list.  They are my own, and therefore subjective.  Poor scores may sometimes reflect a deliberate desire on the part of the winery not to provide the kind of information that is being looked for here, possibly due to the time and cost of including it on the Web.  In no case do these scores reflect on the wines offered on these sites.

    The purpose of this assessment is both informational for visitors and, hopefully, a prod to the web designers and the site owners to add or improve features, if possible.  Naturally, many of the wineries are very small and may not have the wherewithal to spend money on a better website than they already have.  Some don’t appear to have the means to keep their sites up-to-date, or at least certain features such as blogs, which are time-consuming to maintain.  It would be helpful if all sites provided a ‘last time updated’ on their home pages.

    It shall be updated from time-to-time as enough changes to the websites so warrant. Assigning scores to the websites

    Listed alphabetically, the assessments of the websites carry no imputations regarding a winery’s products.  Major features are graded on a scale of 1 to 5:

    1 = inadequate/little or no information
    2 = fair/some information, albeit cursory
    3 = adequate/basic relevant information, but lacking depth
    4 = very good/most relevant information
    5 = excellent/all relevant information
    n/a = not applicable (e.g., no viniculture information because no vineyard)

    The highest score possible for a website is 5.0 points out of 5. Nominally, the lowest score should be 1.0 point out of 5, but there is one site that has a blog about money and dogs and nothing about wine—an aberration, to be sure, but listed nevertheless for the sake of completeness.

    The Sixty-two Websites (as of 11 June 2013)

NOTE:  In May 2012 there were fifty-five Websites that were evaluated.  As of July 2016 there are over seventy sites to be assessed.

Anthony Nappa Wines / Winemakers Studio: (3.9 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: No; no grape source info either
  • Winery: No (uses Raphael facilities)
  • Winemaker: Anthony Nappa
  • Tasting Room: The Winemaker Studio, Peconic (see Web assessment below)
  • History / background: (4/5) Very good
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Excellent bios on both sites
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (n/a)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5) No notes, but adequate descriptions with food pairing suggestions on both sites
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (3/5) No; brief descriptions of wines, but purchase can only be made by phone at Winemakers Studio; there is also a resellers listing
  • Wine Club: Anthony Nappa: No; The Winemaker Studio: Yes, but the membership form must be printed and mailed in—a tad inconvenient.
  • Contact: phone, snail mail, or e-mail for both Nappa & the Studio
  • Directions: Yes, for Winemaker Studio, with map
  • News/reviews link: Yes, and up to date.
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: n/a
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (4/5) Elegant, easy to navigate, but link to The Winemaker Studio takes you to a very different style and layout (see assessment below)
  • General feature set:  5 out of 10 (2.5/5)
  • Additional features: Resellers option; link to Anthony Nappa Wine’s Facebook page.
  • Up-to-date: Nappa: Mostly, but there is no mention of Anthony’s hire by Raphael to be its winemaker; Studio: OK.

Anthony Nappa Wines

Comment:  Two linked websites, one for Anthony Nappa Wines, another for the tasting room at The Winemaker Studio; information about the vineyards that source the grapes would be very welcome (and so interesting to the geeks among us).

NOTE: The Winemaker Studio features and sells wines by Anthony Nappa, Roman Roth (Grapes of Roth), Russell Hearn (Suhru Wines & T’Jara Vineyards), Erik Bilka (Influence Wines), John Leo (Leo Family Wines), and Adam Suprenant (Coffeepot Wines)

Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyards: (3.6 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No (PWG)
  • Winemaker:  Tom Drozd using PWG facilities
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) Personal, family focused
  • About / Biographies: (4/5) Personal, no staff biographies
  • Vineyard /viniculture information: (3/5) Succinct, no maps, no mention of terroir; focus on sustainability, but few specifics
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) very good, but not all wines are fully commented
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (3/5) Many choices, brief descriptions, food pairing suggestions; gift baskets
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact:  e-mail & phone
  • Directions: Yes, with map
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes; focus on Rock & Roll and Bluegrass performances; weddings
  • Tours: Virtual (online)
  • Photo gallery: Yes, and video of horses and games as well
  • Website design: (4/5) Attractive if a bit busy-looking, with many options
  • General feature set:  7 of 10 (3.5/5)
  • Additional features: Virtual tour, rescue-horse farm & pony rides, corporate ideas, entertainment schedule
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Baiting Hollow Farm Vineyard

Comment:  Greeted by a picture of a child with a horse, one knows immediately that this is a family-oriented; the vineyard and its wines itself needs more attention.  The BHFV Horse Rescue operation, by the way, a 501 (c) (3) non-profit corporation, devoted to the rescue of horses.

Bedell Cellars: (5.0 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  •  Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Richard Harbich-Olsen
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (5/5) Excellent account of sustainability & its practice
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Excellent, full biographies of all staff
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (5/5) Excellent, full description and parcel maps, discussion of  terroir, sustainable practices (member of Long Island Sustainable Winegrowers [henceforth LISW])
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Excellent, complete notes: (PDFs)
  • Technical wine data: Yes, in PDFs
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Very good descriptions, many choices, including sets
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact:  e-mail, phone & fax
  • Directions: Yes, with map
  • News/reviews link: Yes, many links to reviews in NYT
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: (5/5) Yes, by far the most informative and interesting newsletter of all, with keen and thoughtful observations about wine, viniculture, terroir, and so on.  Issued from time to time.
  • Wine Blog: Yes, highly informative with both wit and humor.
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: Yes, by prior arrangement
  • Photo gallery: Yes, and video as well
  • Website design / usability: (5/5) Excellent, elegant design (by Cro2), art is featured
  • General feature set:  10 of 10 (5/5)
  • Additional features: Excellent explanation of sustainable farming; art gallery; various wedding options
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Bedell Cellars

Comment:  An elegant site, easy to navigate, many useful options, thoughtful design, exceptionally informative and complete. A plausible standard for winery websites with respect to the content that they could provide.  Elegant design helps too, of course.  The newsletter is a model as well—every issue is worth reading (though they do come out irregularly).

Bouké Wines: (4.2 4.6 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: No; purchases fruit from N. Fork & Finger Lakes vineyards
  • Winery: No (PWG)
  • Winemaker: No; Gilles Martin, consultant
  • Tasting Room: Tasting Room, Peconic
  • History / background: (5/5) Full & complete, well-organized
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Excellent bios
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (n/a)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Excellent, good technical info, PDFs
  • Technical wine data: Yes
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Good, brief descriptions, but dig down for full wine notes
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact:  e-mail & phone
  • Directions: No
  • News/reviews link: Yes, including a list of awards
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: Yes, via a small icon at the bottom of the page
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: n/a
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (5/5) Attractive, clean design, unusual navigation in places
  • General feature set:  4 of 10 (2/5)
  • Additional features: Links to responsible drinking sites (AIM & Century); Jazz recommended listening; boutique for wine accessories; the blog is really just a series of links; blogroll is a set of links to blogs by others
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Bouké Wines

Comment:  Attractive and easy to use, it reflects well on the products offered; much improved design  with excellent navigation; it could mention the vineyards sourcing the grapes; the list of NYC retailers selling the wines is confined to Brooklyn.

Brooklyn Oenology (3.7 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: No
  • Winery: No; PWG makes the wine
  • Winemaker: Yes, Alie Shaper
  • Tasting Room: Yes, offers BOE wines and a selection of other LI and Finger Lakes wines
  • History / background: (5/5) Complete
  • About / Biographies: (1/5) None
  • Vineyard/viniculture information: (n/a)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Succinct but complete and clearly presented
  • Technical wine data: Spotty
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Yes, now BOE’s own online system
  •  Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: Yes
  • News/reviews link: Eventually
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: Yes, but the last post was in Sept. 2012
  • Events / calendar: Yes; but no functional links to some events that could use them
  • Tours: n/a
  • Photo gallery: Mostly of the artist labels; art an emphasis of site
  • Website design: (4/5) Slick, sophisticated, but home page is rather busy in consequence
  • General feature set:  6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: Artists’ labels a focus
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Brooklyn Oenology

Comment: Site functions like a work in progress; the wine links don’t work properly if you select, for example, White Wines, as it takes you to an empty page.  You must select a particular white wine, but it means that making comparisons a bit more difficult.

Brooklyn Winery (4.2 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: No
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes; Conor McCormack
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) Complete
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Interesting and amusing
  • Vineyard/viniculture information: (n/a)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Complete and clearly presented
  • Technical wine data: Yes
  • Purchase online: (n/a) Online sales are apparently pending; for now, purchase at retail or at the winery
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: Yes
  • News/reviews link: Presently there are no complete reviews; PDFs are awkward to use
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: Yes
  • Events / calendar: Yes; but no links to some events that could use them
  • Tours: n/a
  • Photo gallery: Mostly of the artist labels; art an emphasis of site
  • Website design: (4/5) Slick, sophisticated
  • General feature set: 8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Artists’ labels a focus
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Brooklyn Winery

Comment: Site may still be a work in progress, given that though it shows a shopping cart and checkout, in fact online purchases cannot be made.

 Castello di Borghese: (2.2 2.6 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Erik Bilka
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (3/5) Adequate, but one has to read the press releases to learn that this was originally Hargrave Vineyard, the first on LI, which the Borgheses purchased in 1999.
  • About / Biographies: (3/5) ) Adequate, with emphasis on aristocratic Italian heritage, but if one digs deeply there is a press article that provides some
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (1/5) Inadequate, with nothing about viniculture
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (2/5) Adequate, praiseful adjectives
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (3/5) Good, but too much navigation is required
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact:  by phone, snail mail, and email via info@castellodiborghese.com
  • Directions: Yes, text.
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: (1/5) Yes; the newsletter, issued regularly, is largely confined to events at the winery and various links; there is no news about winemaking or viniculture
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: Yes, including a vineyard tour
  • Photo gallery:  Yes
  • Website design /usability: (3/5) busy-looking, keeps viewer jumping around, awkward navigation in places
  • General feature set:  8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Olive oil for sale; local beer on offer; Tour: ‘Winemaker’s Walk’ by appointment
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Castello di Borghese

Comment: Web focus is on winery’s prestige and social events as well as its wine; no staff bios, not even of the owners, unless you find the press releases—so the info is available, albeit in a desultory way.

Channing Daughters: (4.8 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Christopher Tracy
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (5/5) Excellent, especially with regard to its philosophy
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Excellent, with full biographies
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (4/5) Excellent, lacking only parcel maps, sustainable practices (member LISW)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Excellent: detailed and complete
  • Technical wine data: Embedded in the description/notes
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent, wines are full described
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: Yes
  • News/reviews link:  Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: Yes, articles posted on East End by Christopher Tracy (not updated since 9/2011).
  • Events / calendar: Yes, but no entertainment or weddings, but rather for tasting classes.
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery:  Yes
  • Website design /usability: (5/5) Excellent, elegant, easy to use (by Cro2)
  • General feature set: 8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Art gallery featuring Walter Channing’s wood sculpture
  • Up-to-date: Yes, ‘Where to buy’ option shows the wines are offered in many states and are available in some of the best restaurants in the country, including Daniel in NYC, The French Laundry in Napa, as well as eateries in Montreal and Quebec City.

Channing Daughters

Comment: Elegant and very well-designed, easy to navigate; unusual range of wines, a Website by a very serious winery

Clovis Point: (3.2 3.7 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: Yes; John Leo at PWG
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) Very good
  • About / Biographies: (1/5) Just names and contact info
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (1/5) practically none
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) Very good: detailed
  • Technical wine data: Not much
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Very good, abbreviated tasting notes accompany the wine list
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact:  phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, with map option
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes, for entertainment events
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes, of the tasting room for those interested in holding a party there
  • Website design /usability: (5/5) Excellent, easy to use (by EG Creative Group)
  • General feature set:  8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Vintage notes for 2004-2011, by John Leo.  Book a party
  • Up-to-date: Yes; last vintage notes are for 2011, latest vintage for sale, 2011.

Clovis Point Wines

Comment: Lacks staff bio details, offers nothing about the vineyard or its vinicultural practices, but the vintage notes shine.

 Coffee Pot Cellars: (4.2 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: No, but sources are identified
  • Winery: No; uses Osprey’s Dominion facilities
  • Winemaker: Yes, Adam Suprenant
  • Tasting Room: Yes, just opened in 2013
  • History / background: (4/5) Succinct and to the point
  • About / Biographies: (4/5) part of History / background, more can be found under Press
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (n/a) Sam McCullough supplies the fruit from his premium vineyard
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) Provides the most vital information
  • Technical wine data: Some
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Easy to use, with complete descriptions available under “Read more . . .”
  • Wine Club: Yes, with 3 categories
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, to the new tasting room (as of 2013)
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Not yet functional
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: n/a
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design /usability: (5/5) Simple, direct, easy to use (by Janet Esquirol)
  • General feature set:  6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: No
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Coffee Pot Cellars

Comment: Straightforward website, no frills, it’s all about the wine.

Croteaux Rosé Vineyards (3.0 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: No; consulting winemaker is Gilles Martin, using PWG facilities
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (2/5) Barely adequate
  • About / Biographies: (0/5) No information
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (4/5) Good but brief; includes aerial photo; no mention of sustainable practices
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) A very good explanation of winegrowing Rosé wines; good descriptions
  • Technical wine data: Some
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent, wines are well-described for purchaser
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact:  phone, e-mail, snail-mail
  • Directions: text & map
  • Photo gallery: No
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar:  No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design /usability: (5/5) Excellent, very clean design, but limited options
  • General feature set:  4 of 10 (2/5)
  • Additional features: Farmhouse Kitchen, a linked website, offers cooking lessons
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Croteaux Vineyards

Comment: Attractive and easy to use, but lacks Background and About info, no bios

Diliberto Winery: (2.3 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: Sal Diliberto
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) Very good, on the personal side, but must read reviews by others to get most of the information
  • About / Biographies: (3/5) Good, focus on Italian background; for fuller info one needs to go to the Newsroom option and read an interview in the LI Wine Press link
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (n/a) No info about outsourced vineyard
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (2/5) Adequate
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (0/5) Nothing; though not indicated, wines can be purchased by e-mail or by phone or at the tasting room.
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail-mail
  • Directions: text & Google map
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design /usability: (3/5) Good, easy to use, but must “dig” for some info
  • General feature set:  4 of 10 (2/5)
  • Additional features: Weddings; tasting menu (in lieu of a wine list); winery apartment on offer
  • Up-to-date: Press info up to Jan. 2012; most recent wine listed is 2009.

Diliberto Winery

Comment: A very basic website; no online purchasing

Duckwalk Vineyards / Duckwalk North: (3.4 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes
  • Tasting Room: Yes, at both sites
  • History / background: (4/5) Very good
  • About / Biographies: (4/5) Very good, focus on Italian background
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (2/5) Sustainable practices claimed, but little detail
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5) Good, but little about vinification
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Good, but prices don’t show with wine choices
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Phone, fax, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: No, just the address
  • News/reviews link: Not yet
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes, devoted to entertainment
  • Tours: Yes, according to LI Wine Country, but it doesn’t appear to be the case according to the winery Website
  • Photo gallery: No, but a slide show of ten images includes one of goldfish (?).  A picture of a duck would make more sense for Duckwalk, one would think.
  • Website design /usability: (4/5) Very easy to use; home page is dominated by pictures of its scheduled entertainers
  • General feature set:  5 of 10 (2.5/5)
  • Additional features: About Duck Walk’s supported causes; there used to be an option to choose any of four languages other than English:  French German, Italian, and Spanish, but that appears to have been removed since the site was reviewed last year (2012)
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Duck Walk

Comment: What?  No directions on how to get there?  No newsletter?  A rather basic site, it could also use more information about viniculture, especially given the claim to sustainable practices, and more about the wines, as well.

Grapes of Roth by Wölffer Estate: (4.4 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: No; grape sources are identified—incidentally—in a review
  • Winery: No, uses Wölffer’s facilities, as he’s its winemaker
  • Winemaker: Yes, Roman Roth
  • Tasting Room:  Wölffer Estate and The Winemaker Studio, Peconic
  • History / background: (4/5) Very good
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Excellent:  full biography, in chapters
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (3/5) Good, about outsourced vineyard
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Excellent: detailed and complete
  • Technical wine data: Yes, very detailed and complete
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent, wines are full described
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: in small print at bottom of Home page: e-mail, snail mail, and phone
  • Directions: n/a
  • News/reviews link: Yes, but it isn’t up-to-date.
  • Newsletter / Mailing List:  No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: External events are listed and are up-to-date, but no calendar
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes, in connection with Roth’s bio in chapters
  • Website design /usability: (5/5) Elegant and straightforward design (in a glass), very easy to navigate (by ZGDG)
  • General feature set:  6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: No, but you may need to get used to the puns.
  • Up-to-date: Events, yes, but the reviews page has nothing later than 2010

The Grapes of Roth

Comment: Elegant design, if a tad idiosyncratic, very complete info about wines and Roth.

NOTE:  Now that Roth has been named a partner in Wölffer Estate, where he has been winemaker for over 20 years, Grapes of Roth will be part of the Wölffer brand.

Harbes Farm & Vineyard: (3.2 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: Edward Harbes IV
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / Background: (2/5) Adequate, focused on family & farm
  • About / Biographies: (2/5) Adequate, but no biographies
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (3/5) Good, though brief; sustainable practices (member LISW)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5) brief, offers food pairing suggestions
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (3/5) Easy to use, wine descriptions brief but to the point
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: phone, fax, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: text and map
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, but it appears not to be functional as of 5/16/12
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: Yes
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design / usability: (4/5) Newly redesigned, attractive, easy to navigate
  • General feature set:  7 of 10 (3.5/5)
  • Additional features: Other farms, Farm Market, Family fun, Maze adventures, Groups & Parties, Weddings
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Harbes Farm & Vineyard

Comment:  A wine website with a split personality:  fun & games for kids; wine for adults, even a farm market; there are three different farms, only the one in Mattituck has a vineyard

Harmony Vineyards (1.8 2.2 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: No; uses Eric Fry of Lenz
  • Tasting Room: No
  • History / background: (1/5)
  • About / Biographies: (1/5)
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: ( 2/5) little is said in text, but some pictures are worth a few more words
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (2/5) actually, all wines are commented on by quoting reviews, but there are further notes when one goes to purchase online.
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (3/5) easy to use, adequate wine notes
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: address and map
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (3/5) Attractive and straightforward
  • General feature set:  5 of 10 (2.5/5)
  • Additional features: Art gallery (text, no images!), We Support (list of causes & charities); video of house moved to new site, accompanied by music; promotions
  • Up-to-date:  wines of the 2010 vintage are on offer

Harmony Vineyards

Comment: Very limited options, focus is on worthy causes and charities

Influence Wines (4.3 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: No
  • Winery: PWG
  • Winemaker: Eric Bilka at PWG
  • Tasting Room: No
  • History / background: (5/5)
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Minimal
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (5/5) Excellent
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Excellent, very complete
  • Technical wine data: Yes
  • Purchase online: No
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: n/a
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Photo gallery:  No
  • Website design: (5/5) Minimalist; though not slick or pretty, it is clean, clear, and easy to navigate
  • General feature set:  2 of 5 (1/5)
  • Additional features: None
  • Up-to-date: 2010 is last vintage mentioned

Influence Wines

Comment: Production winemaker at PWG makes but one wine:  Riesling, sourced from the Finger Lakes.  As straightforward a website as one can find

Jamesport Vineyards (4.3 4.6 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Dean Barbiar
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (5/5) Excellent, very thorough
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Excellent, though the biographies could be given more flesh
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (4/5) Good description; sustainable claims, but lacks detail
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description (4/5) Very good, little about vinification
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent; labels, full wine description, easy to use
  • Wine Club / Subscription:  Yes
  • Contact: Phone/fax, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Google map
  • News/reviews link: List of awards, but no links to articles or reviews
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar:  Yes
  • Tours: Yes
  • Photo gallery: A combination photo gallery  and video with musical accompaniment which provides some interesting and useful information
  • Website design: (5/5) Excellent, attractive, easy to navigate (by Cro2)
  • General feature set:  8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Wine bottles recycling rewards program; Wholesale inquiries; Futures purchases
  • Up-to-date: Events, Retail & restaurants list needs updating

Jamesport-Vineyards

Comment:  An informative and attractive website that needs a real News/Reviews link; it supports the Southold Project in Aquaculture Training (SPAT), for sustainable fishing.

Jason’s Vineyard (2.8 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: Yes, Jason Damianos
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (3/5)
  • About / Biographies: (4/5)
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (2/5) Just adequate, but little about sustainability
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (2/5) Adequate, but barely
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (n/a) Wines are listed and briefly described, but cannot be purchased online.
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes
  • News/reviews link:  No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: TBA, according to the Website
  • Tours:  No
  • Photo gallery: Yes, but limited
  • Website design: (4/5) Pleasant design with a Greek theme, easy to navigate and use.
  • General feature set:  3 of 10 (1.5/5)
  • Additional features: No
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Jason’s Vineyard

Comment: A basic website.

 Kontokosta Winery (under construction)

Laurel Lake Vineyard: (3.0 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Juan Sepúlveda
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / Background: (2/5) Very brief
  • About / Biographies: (1/5) Inadequate, no biographies
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (3/5) Succinct
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5) Very good for some wines, but spotty
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: Phone, fax, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, with Google map
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: Yes
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design / usability: (5/5) Excellent
  • General feature set:  8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: No
  • Up-to-date: Yes for the wines, but reviews only go up to 2007.

Laurel Lake Wines

Comment: An attractive site lacking important information, including bios

Lenz Winery: (3.3 3.4 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Eric Fry
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / Background / About / Biographies: (2/5) Adequate, no bios
  • About / Biographies: (1/5) Inadequate, no biographies
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (3/5) Succinct; no parcel maps
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) Complete description, no notes
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent
  • Wine Club:  Yes; 3-level club program
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, address and map
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes, and not just parties, but serious tastings of wines from around the world; Weddings (however, as of May 2013 the link to the events page is broken).
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design / usability: (5/5) Sophisticated, minimalist look and functionality
  • General feature set:  7 of 10 (3.5)
  • Additional features: Tours; “Petrus tasting” notes to emphasize quality by comparison to  French equivalents; prior tasting results yet to be posted; Lenz cottage stays available for wine club subscribers
  • Up-to-date: hard to tell; latest wines offered date to 2009; the latest reviews were in 2006

Lenz Winery

Comment: An attractive, useful, and interesting site lacking some basic information, including bios

Lieb Cellars / Bridge Lane Wines: (4.0 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No, uses PWG
  • Winemaker: Yes, Russell Hearn is an owner and a winemaker/owner at Premium Wine Group
  • Tasting Room: Yes, at PWG
  • History / Background (4/5) Good, found under the rubric Our Vineyard.
  • About / Biographies: (3/5) Good, limited bio about owners
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (3/5) Good, but incidental to the overall story; no maps; sustainable practices (member LISW)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) Very good; inconsistent from wine to wine
  • Technical wine data:  Though indicated as available, trying to open the wine spec sheets and tasting note PDFs produces a “Error 404 Page not found.”
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, from different directions and a map to boot
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design / usability: (5/5) Excellent and very attractively designed.
  • General feature set:  6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: Featured restaurants that offer Lieb Cellars wine, particularly a link to Craft Restaurant, given that Lieb makes a sparkling wine for Craft’s private label as well as a link for Lieb’s Summer Rosé for Park Ave. Restaurant’s private label.  (Both restaurants are in NYC.)
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Lieb Cellars

Comment:  An attractive and largely well-designed site that is mostly easy to get around; though there are two separate labels—Lieb Cellars and Bridge Lane, the distinction between them is not made clear.  The inability for users of opening the wine tasting notes and spec sheets is frustrating; apart from the error message, clicking on the Continue button simply takes one back to the wines page—in other words, a circular routing.

Macari Vineyards: (4.0 4.4 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Kelly Urbanik, also Helmut Gangl, consultant
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) Sufficient history & background
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Excellent, especially on the backgrounds of the winemakers
  • Vineyard / viniculture information 4/5: Useful information about vinicultural practices; no parcel maps
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description 4/5: Professionally-written descriptions, no notes
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Easy to use
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Addresses with maps
  • News/reviews link: Yes, including many recent reviews for 2013
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: Virtual (online), tells much of the story of the winery and vineyards
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (5/5) Very attractive and easy to navigate
  • General feature set: 9 of 10 (4.5/5)
  • Additional features:  Weddings, Private parties
  • Up-to-date: Yes, includes 2012 wines on offer and up-to-date reviews

Macari Wines

Comment: The virtual tour that I so highly recommended in 2012 is, alas, no more.

Martha Clara Vineyards (3.5 3.9 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No, uses Premium Wine Group
  • Winemaker: Yes, Juan Micieli-Martinez uses  PWG
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (3/5) Brief, focuses on family
  •  About / Biographies: (5/5) Full bios of owners & winemaker/manager
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (1/5) Virtually no information, but uses sustainable practices (member LISW)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description (5/5) Full, rich descriptions; click on bottle illustration for more information, including . . .
  • Technical wine data: Yes, also via downloadable PDF.
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Store is a catchall for wine, gifts, and events; minimal descriptions of wines with food-pairing notes; full wine information is found under ‘Wines’
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: phone & e-mail.  Also Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and BlogSpot.
  • Directions: Yes, text and Google map.
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No, it has been eliminated.
  • Tours: Yes
  • Events / calendar: Yes; encourages large parties, weddings, meetings, etc.  Calendar shows upcoming events through Sept. 2013, including concerts, dinners, other.  Does not mention special viniculture class led by vineyard manager, Jim Thompson, held once a year.
  • Photo gallery: Ample, nicely presented; videos offered, but apparently disabled as of 4/9/2012
  • Website design: (4/5) Front page busy & unattractive, the rest of the pages use a minimalist design & are easy on the eyes; navigation is mostly straightforward; home page uses functional Table of Contents (with fake page numbers—a tad confusing)
  • General feature set: 8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Strong emphasis on community involvement & charity support; also offers horse & carriage rides.  Videos offered, but no longer accessible.  Small zoo for children.Up-to-date: Yes

Martha Clara Vineyards

Comment:  Other than the opening page, an attractive site; however, to read about the wines involves using a display of pictures of wine bottles—to select click on the image to read about the wine; the media feature is, quirkily, not quotations or links from the press or reviewers, but rather, videos that are no longer accessible.

Mattebella Vineyards (3.3 3.6 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No, PWG
  • Winemaker: No, PWG
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (1/5) No real information
  • About / Biographies: (2/5)  Just adequate
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (5/5) Good, with emphasis on sustainability (member LISW)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description (5/5) Good, clear expression of philosophy
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent, with adequate wine descriptions and an interesting variety of purchase option
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail
  • Directions: Option is not functional as of 5/4/13
  • News/reviews link: Yes, but usually cited without dates
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: Yes, but not updated since 2009
  • Events / calendar: No, you can request information via a Gmail link.
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes, with many family pictures in all categories; e.g., Vineyard
  • Website design: (4/5) Attractive and easy to navigate, but a few too many mouse clicks needed here and there; some features are not yet active, such as a list of retailers and restaurants that offer the wines
  • General feature set: 6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: You can view the front & back labels of the wines, the only site that provides this
  • Up-to-date: The blog and some other sections seem to be spottily up to date.

Mattebella Vineyards

Comment:  In most respects a good winery site, but lack of detail, particularly the About and Background features, frustrates

McCall Vineyards (3.7 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: No: Gilles Martin for Merlot @ PWG; Millbrook Winery for Pinot Noir
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (5/5) Complete
  • About / Biographies: (4/5) Bios are limited to McCall family members, no staff
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (3/5) No parcel maps; general, brief notes on sustainability
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5) Tasting notes
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Simple, direct, with tasting notes
  • Wine Club: Yes, 3 levels
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: Yes
  • News/reviews links: Yes; not all links work but otherwise it is up to date.
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes; embedded in the page headers and then streamed
  • Website design: (4/5) Simple, attractive, easy to navigate
  • General feature set: 6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: Ranch: Charolais cattle; Conservation
  • Up-to-date: Yes

McCall Wines

Comment:  A very attractive site to visit, but it could offer more information

Medolla Vineyards (2.0 2.2 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No, use Lenz
  • Winemaker: Yes, John Medolla with Eric Fry at Lenz
  • Tasting Room: No; Winemakers Studio; Empire State Cellars
  • History / background: (3/5) Family history, little else
  • About / Biographies: (1/5) Practically nothing
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (1/5) Insignificant about either
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (2/5) Minimal
  • Technical wine data: None
  • Purchase online: (n/a)
  • Wine Club: No
  • News/reviews link:  Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List:  No
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: No
  • News/reviews links: Yes; best source for further background on Medolla, but the most recent reviews date to
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (3/5) Basic, clean pages, little offered, the home page greets one with mandolin music
  • General feature set: 6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Up-to-date: Unclear; was the 2007 the last wine Medolla made?
  • Additional features: None

Medolla Vineyards

Comment: Very basic website

Old Field Vineyards (2.5 2.8 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No, use Lenz Winery
  • Winemaker: Roz  Baiz, with Eric Fry at Lenz Winery
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) Quite a bit of family/farm history
  • About / Biographies: (1/5) Very general information
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (1/5) No details; though sustainable practices are used, no information is given
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) No notes, but decent descriptions
  • Technical wine data: None
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Easy to use, notes are interesting but could provide more information
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes; can use Google or Yahoo! maps
  • Newsletter / Mailing List:  Yes, but last newsletter dates to October 2010
  • News/reviews link: Yes, includes a few videos
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes, as part of each option; especially large for weddings section
  • Website design: (4/5) Attractive, easy to navigate
  • General feature set: 8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Weddings; Newsletter (2005-2010)
  • Up-to-date: Yes

The Old Field

Comment: An attractively-designed site that could use more information about the vineyard and the winemaking; fuller biographies would be welcome too.

Onabay Vineyards (3.5 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: No; consulting winemaker John Leo at PWG
  • Tasting Room: No
  • History / background: (3/5)
  • About / Biographies: (2/5) Some information, no biographies
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (3/5) no vinicultural info; aerial photo
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description (5/5) Very useful and complete
  • Technical wine data: Yes, can be downloaded
  • Purchase online: n/a; the wines are available from restaurants and retailers, for which there is a list
  • Wine Club / Subscription: No
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail via Gmail, snail mail
  • Directions: No, without a street address either
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes to both, though I’ve not received a newsletter since I signed up months ago
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (5/5) Elegant, easy to use, conveys the seriousness of the owners
  • General feature set: 4 of 10 (2/5)
  • Additional features: None
  • Up-to-date: Yes, but a reverence to Steve Mudd as vineyard manager is no long valid; since 2012 it has been Bill Ackerman

Onabay Vineyards

Comment:  Beautiful website, needs to provide more information

One Woman’s Wines: (2.0 2.1 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Claudia Purita
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (2/5) Some personal background.
  • About / Biographies: (2/5) Some personal background
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (1/5) passing mention
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description (3/5) Adequate description, no notes
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Yes, but one must first create an online account.
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Text
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, the newsletter is limited to visitor’s information and upcoming events
  • News/reviews link: Yes, but no dates are shown with the links; however, the most recent review was published in 2011
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes, but limited info
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (4/5) Attractive and straightforward; navigation is easy.
  • General feature set: 4 of 10 (2/5)
  • Additional features: No
  • Up-to-date: probably, but not entirely clear if it is.

One Woman’s Wines

Comment: Basic website, but then, Claudia is a one-woman operation (plus her daughter who works in the office).

Osprey’s Dominion: (1.8/5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Adam Suprenant
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (0/5) Completely ignored.
  • About / Biographies: (0/5) Completely ignored
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (0/5) none
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description 2/5 Sometimes uses quotations from critics, but no notes
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent, the site’s major focus, to the detriment of other options
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, with map
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, but I’ve received nothing since signing up a year ago
  • News/reviews link: Yes, as part of the blog, Fishhawk News
  • Wine Blog: Yes, but little about viniculture or winemaking, not updated since April 2012
  • Events / calendar: Yes, focused on entertainment at the winery
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (3/5) Good, functional but not attractive; navigation is OK. (by Cro2)
  • General feature set: 5 of 10 (2.5/5)
  • Additional features: List of wine competition awards
  • Up-to-date: Up to 2012.

Ospreys Dominion

Comment: It’s apparent that this website was designed for other than informational purposes.

Palmer Vineyards: (3.0 1.0 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Miguel Martín
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (0/5) No longer, though it used to tell about the founder, Bob Palmer
  • About / Biographies: (0/5) No staff bios, but pictures of the staff
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (0/5) Nothing
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description 5/5 Excellent; some notes very complete
  • Technical wine data:  For some wines
  • Purchase online: (4/5) With the new makeover it is not presently functional (but it had been very good, easy to use, brief descriptions of wines).  Let’s hope that it will be as good as the former version (212)
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, via MapQuest
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes; also a video promo
  • Website design: (3/5) OK, easy to use and navigate, but many useful features and options have been eliminated [the site was created using Vistaprint, a do-it-yourself Website application; previously it had been done by Cro2, a professional site designer
  • General feature set: 5 of 10 (2/5)
  • Additional features: None
  • Up-to-date: Apparently, given that it’s a new design, but there is no datable information, though this should be corrected once the online-purchase feature is enabled.

Palmer Vineyards

Comment:  A brand-new look and feel, with the home page emphasizing “Live Music Every Weekend”; the site that feels incomplete and lacks the most basic information on the winery, vineyard, or staff.  A shame, but the site will be regularly revisited to see what it will become once completed.

 Paumanok Vineyards: (4.6 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Kareem Massoud
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) Very good
  • About / Biographies: (4/5) Very Good, no complete bios
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (5/5) Excellent
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description 5/5 Excellent; complete notes
  • Technical wine data: Yes, but only for their top red wines
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Excellent, full wine notes and reviews are quoted
  • Wine Club:  Yes
  • Contact:  phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, with GPS coordinates & MapQuest
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, issued regularly to announce wine dinners, reviews of their wines, and the occasional entertainment event
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Wine Blog: Yes, many interesting posts and links to articles, and it’s up to date.
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: Yes
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (5/5) An attractive and well-organized site, easy to use (by Cro2)
  • General feature set: 9 of 10 (4.5/5)
  • Additional features: Quotes Walt Whitman on Paumanok’s name; lists all the restaurants and wine stores at which their wines can be found, as well as a full selection of lodgings in the East End, plus a helpful list of related wine Web sites
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Paumanok

Comment: An excellent site that needs just a little improvement in the History & About sections, including staff bios

Pellegrini Vineyards (4.2 4.3 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes
  • Tasting Room: Yes, Zander Hargrave
  • History / background: (5/5)
  • About / Biographies: (3/5) Lacks biographical information
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (5/5) Full description of the vineyards; no parcel maps; useful notes on viniculture
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Adequate on the Tasting Notes option, but much more complete if one goes to the Trade Support option (2001 through 2008)
  • Technical wine data: Yes, but one has to use the Trade Support option to get to them.
  • Purchase online: (4/5) No wine descriptions accompany purchase options, so one has to go the Tasting Notes option to read them
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: Text & map
  • News/reviews link: Yes, excerpts only
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, but since signing up 13 months ago, I’ve not received a single newsletter
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (5/5) Very attractive, straightforward to use, though one has to dig through some options; Tasting Notes aren’t also viewable in Purchase section; full wine notes are accessible through Trade Support option
  • General feature set:6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: In Trade Support there are images of both the front and back labels of the wines.
  • Up-to-date: Yes, for events and tasting notes (up to the 2011 vintage); Trade Support info only goes up to the 2008 vintage, as was the case when the Web site was reviewed in May 2012.  There is no mention of the fact that Russell Hearn, the winemaker, recently left the winery.

Pellegrini Vineyards

Comment: An attractive and interesting site to use, but lack of biographies and unusual options can frustrate

Pindar Vineyards (3.2 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes, Edward Lovaas
  • Winemaker: Yes
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) No history about the site pre-Pindar
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Includes biographies of all staff, including the dog
  • Vineyard information: (1/5) Very little other than the background history
  • Viniculture: (3/5) Info included in the Green section, including sustainable practices; general, not just about the vineyard
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5) No notes, just description
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Many choices besides wine; no additional wine descriptions
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: Yes
  • News/reviews link: Yes, but media all dates to 2005-2007; no updates since.
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (3/5) Attractive, but retrieving info can be complicated by unusual options, can require some digging around
  • General feature set:5 of 10 (2.5/5)
  • Additional features: Green, Making Wine with Wind, Pindar Giving
  • Up-to-date: Yes, but not news/reviews; Mother’s Day notice still up on 5/18/12

Pindar.net

Comment:  Excellent background and history, but could use more information about viniculture and winemaking philosophies.

Pugliese Vineyards (1.7 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Peter Pugliese
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (1/5) Almost no information
  • About / Biographies: (1/5) Almost no information
  • Vineyard information: (1/5) Virtually no information
  • Viniculture: (0/5) No information
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (2/5) Brief descriptions, food-pairing suggestions
  • Technical wine data: None
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Straightforward, suggests food pairings
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: No
  • News/reviews link: Awards list only
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (4/5) Easy to use but limited features
  • General feature set:2 of 10 (1/5)
  • Additional features: Painted glassware
  • Up-to-date: Recent wines are listed up to 2011, but awards listed date back to 2001-2002

Pugliese Vineyards

Comment: The site is strictly devoted to selling the wine; otherwise there is little or no info.

Queens County Farm Museum Vineyard (1.8 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No, PWG makes their wines
  • Winemaker: No, Russell Hearn @ PWG
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (3) A long history, briefly dispatched; no mention of vineyard
  • About / Biographies: (3) No bios
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (0) Nothing at all.
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (0) Nada.
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (n/a)
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: Yes, text only
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Tours: Yes
  • Events / calendar: Yes, up-to-date and covers 2013-14
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (3) Easy navigation but run-of-the-mill.
  • General feature set:4 of 10 (2/5)
  • Additional features: map of farm PDF, but vineyard is not apparent from the layout.
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Queens County Vineyard

Comment: Vines and wines are an afterthought on the website of this museum-farm operation.

Raphael Wine (4.1 out of 5 points)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Anthony Nappa
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5)
  • About / Biographies: (3/5) No bios
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (3/5) Minimal on vineyard, no maps; viniculture is mentioned under several options
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Complete with vintage information for each wine, though the comments are a bit self-promoting
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Easy to use, full information on each wine by clicking its label
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Yes
  • Directions: Yes
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar:  Yes
  • Tours: Yes
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (5/5) Elegant, easy to use and navigate
  • General feature set:7 of 10 (3.5/5)
  • Additional features: None noted
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Raphael Wine

Comment:  A nice, clean design featuring an elevation drawing of the façade of the Raphael winery, it is notable in part for what it doesn’t have as well as what it does:  No quotations or links from the news media or reviewers.  It also lacks any biographical information on staff, and tells a visitor little about the vineyard.  One the other hand, it offers excellent wine notes.

 Red Fern Cellars (1.8 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: No
  • Winery:  Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Aaron Munk
  • Tasting Room: No
  • History / background: (0/5) No
  • About / Biographies: (0/5) No
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (n/a)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) No notes, ample descriptions
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (n/a) e-mail or phone orders only
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact:  only by snail mail or e-mail; no phone listed
  • Directions: No; visits must be arranged in advance
  • News/reviews link: ; link to WineLoversPage.com; Jewish Week (2008, though it reviews 2005 wines)
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (3/5) Adequate and straightforward, but few options
  • General feature set:4 of 10 (2/5)
  • Additional features: LI Wine links; option for custom labeling
  • Up-to-date: No; it doesn’t appear to have been updated since 2008; latest wines listed are 2005; it hasn’t changed since last year’s assessment (2012)

Red Fern Cellars

Comment: Functional, but with minimal information; is it even up-to-date?

Red Hook Winery (1.4 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: No
  • Winery:  Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Abe Schoener, Robert Foley
  • Tasting Room:Yes
  • History / background: (1/5) Bare minimum to be useful
  • About / Biographies: (0/5) Minimal info, no bios
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (n/a) buy grapes from many sources
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (0/5) No notes, descriptions
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (3/5) OK, but no information on the wines
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact:  by phone, snail mail or e-mail
  • Directions: Address only
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (3/5) Adequate and straightforward, but few options
  • General feature set:1 of 10 (0.5/5)
  • Additional features: None
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Red Hook Winery

Comment: Functional, but with minimal information

Roanoke Vineyard (4.4 out of 5) [updated 11-16-13]

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: Roman Roth at Wölffer Estate
  • Tasting Room: Yes, both at the vineyard and on Love Lane in Mattituck
  • History / background: (5/5)
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Good info and full bios of all staff
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (3/5) Little vineyard info or maps; though an adequate, brief note on viniculture (strange, given that the Owner, Rich Pisacano is a “vineyardist” and his father, Gabby, is the vineyard manager.)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) Brief, sometimes more complete, often less, and just a tad tongue-in-cheek in the self-promoting phrases; e.g., a ‘wild fermentation’ Chardonnay “Quite simply . . . leaps out of your glass!”’
  • Technical wine data: Yes, but some more, some less
  • Purchase online: (n/a) Order by phone, then arrange for pickup or delivery on one’s own.
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Yes, phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, uses Google Maps
  • News/reviews link: Yes, via the option, ‘Judgment of Riverhead’
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, they are mostly about wines and tastings, often in cahoots with restaurants, some with themes, such as “how to be a Wine Snob”; issued weekly
  • Wine Blog: Of sorts (‘Judgment of Riverhead’ again) but informative, amusing, and well worth reading.
  • Events / calendar: Yes, and it’s all about wine, like the Smackdown tastings
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Not as such, but many pages are well-illustrated
  • Website design: (4/5) The opening page looks crowded but as a whole the site is easy to use and very functional.  Some features require a bit of clicking around.
  • General feature set:9 of 10 (4.5/5)
  • Additional features: Wine library, Winemakers’ Smackdowns
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Roanoke Vineyards

Comment:  A website that doesn’t take itself too seriously, but provides a good deal of serious information in a sometimes light-hearted way.  It is, in its way, rather endearing.  However, it’s a vineyard, so why is there not more information about the vineyard proper?

Sannino-Bella Vita Vineyard (2.5 3.4 out of 5 points)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Anthony Sannino; also with his vine-to-wine students
  • Tasting Room: Yes, at Ackerly Pond’s barn
  • History / background: (3/5) Adequate
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Full bios
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (2/5) Little information, as a member of the LISW, it practices sustainable viniculture, but a nice video of the vineyard with pleasant musical accompaniment
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5) Descriptions with food-pairing suggestions
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (3/5) Yes, with brief wine descriptions
  • Wine Club: Yes, through vine-to-wine program
  • Contact: Yes, phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, with map
  • News/reviews link: Yes, this is where one can find more information about the wines.
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, but I’ve received none since I signed up a year ago
  • Wine Blog: Option is not functional
  • Events / calendar: Yes, including music, tours, and classes
  • Tours: Yes
  • Photo gallery: Yes, several that are thematically based
  • Website design: (3/5) Not unattractive but busy yet functional, though to find the video one needs to select the B&B option
  • General feature set: 9 of 10 (4.5/5)
  • Additional features: Bed-and-Breakfast (reservations can be made online); Vine-to-Wine experience; virtual tour of the vineyard and slide presentation of the Tuscan Suite guest house.
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Sannino Vineyard/Bella-Vita-Vineyard

Comment: website with focus on the Vine-to-Wine program; several interesting options but little about the vineyard; considerably improved over the version assessed last year.

Scarola Vineyards (3.6 3.9 points out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: No; uses Roman Roth at Wölffer Estate
  • Tasting Room: No, planned but not yet open to public
  • History / background: (5/5) Complete
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Complete, with brief bio sketches of all the staff
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (1/5)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Full notes and description at Trade option
  • Technical wine data: Yes, via For the Trade option
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Limited wine descriptions, with no direct link to the Trade option; order by phone, e-mail, or online
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: No, only the street address
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: Yes
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (4/5) Attractive enough, but there are some navigational challenges
  • General feature set:6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: link to Cedar House on Sound B&B, owned by Scarola family
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Scarola Vineyards

Comment: Strongly family-oriented and emphatically Italian.  Given that the Scarolas have a vineyard and no winery, it is frustrating to find that the site scrimps on vinicultural information yet has plenty to say about its wines (made Roman Roth).

Sherwood House Vineyards (3.6 points out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: No; Gilles Martin is the contract winemaker
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (5/5)
  • About / Biographies: (5/5), full biographies of the owners and Gilles Martin
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (1/5) Very little mentioned
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5)  no notes, pairing suggestions
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (4/5) Very easy to use, but limited wine information; wines sold online are available in a minimum of 2-bottle lots (or 4, 6, or 12)
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, with MapQuest to the vineyards, tasting stand, and tasting room
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, sent monthly
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes, and up to date.
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (4/5) Elegant, very easy to navigate
  • General feature set:7 of 10 (3.5/5)
  • Additional features: Private events information
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Sherwood House Vineyards

Comment:  Very attractive site that tells too little about the vineyard or viniculture

Shinn Estate: (3.7 4.1 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Patrick Caserta
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (4/5) Yes, and blog fills some gaps
  • About / Biographies: (4/5) Bios of the owners
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (4/5) Very good, but no maps, block info
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5) Adequate description with food-pairing suggestions
  • Technical wine data:  No
  • Purchase online: (4/5)  Yes, good wine descriptions, easy to use
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, and a Google photo map
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: Yes, fun and informative, regularly updated
  • Events / calendar: Yes; mostly about wine, but also features palm readings on Friday; dinners on occasional Saturdays
  • Tours: Yes
  • Photo gallery: Yes
  • Website design: (5/5) Excellent, very easy to navigate and use.
  • General feature set: 8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: B&B, Distillery
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Shinn Estate Vineyards

Comment: Newly redesigned website, much improved and easier to navigate than the old one; much useful information but short on tasting notes, which used to be much more complete and included technical notes as well.  That’s a loss.

Southold Farm + Cellar:

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: uses Raphael Winery facilities
  • Winemaker: not yet
  • Tasting Room: not yet
  • History / background: (2/5)  At present a brief story, with much hope for the future
  • About / Biographies: (2/5) owners don’t even mention their surnames
  • Vineyard / viniculture information: (n/a)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (n/a)
  • Technical wine data:  n/a
  • Purchase online: (n/a)
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: No
  • News/reviews link: No
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, but a newsletter may be a while off
  • Wine Blog: n/a
  • Events / calendar: n/a
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (n/a) Under development.
  • Additional features: No
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Southold Farm + Cellar

Comment: Brand-new site still under development., but it does tell the story of the renovation the farm building that will become its tasting room

Sparkling Pointe: Méthode Champenoise (3.7 3.9 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No
  • Winemaker: No; Gilles Martin is the exclusive contract winemaker
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (5/5) told as a charming story
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) bios for owners and winemaker
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (1/5)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Excellent
  • Technical wine data: Yes
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Well-designed, with direct access to wine info
  • Wine Club: Yes, but how to join is not clear as it is not available as an option
  • Contact: Phone, snail mail (can’t find e-mail option)
  • Directions: Yes, and a Google photo map
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, issued weekly
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: Yes, but virtual tour feature doesn’t work
  • Photo gallery: Virtual tour of the VIP space isn’t functional
  • Website design: (3/5) Home page is rather busy; but generally is easy to navigate. Somewhat improved over version of 2012
  • General feature set: 8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Weddings
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Sparkling Pointe

Comment: I find the design too forward and distracting.  Still, it has its good points: detailed information about important things such as its history, the biographies, notes; bad point: almost nothing about the vineyard or viniculture.

Suhru Wines (4.6 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: No
  • Winery: No; uses PWG, of which owner Russell Hearn is a partner
  • Winemaker: Yes, Russell Hearn
  • Tasting Room: Winemakers Studio
  • History / background: (5/5) Excellent
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Bios of the owners and the sales manager
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (n/a)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5)
  • Technical wine data: Yes, if one clicks on the Wine for the Trade option
  • Purchase online: (4/5) with full descriptions, but one must go to the Trade option to see the notes & tech information before purchasing
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail via Gmail, snail mail
  • Directions: n/a
  • News/reviews link: Yes, though not up to date
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes, sent monthly
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: n/a
  • Tours: n/a
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (4/5) Well-designed and attractive, if rather busy, but mostly easy to navigate
  • General feature set: 5 of 7 (4/5)
  • Additional features: None
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Suhru Wines

Comment:  A really serious website. The focus is entirely on the wine.  Premises are not open to the public.

T’Jara Vineyards (4.1 out of 5)

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: No; uses PWG, of which owner Russell Hearn is a partner
  • Winemaker: Yes, Russell Hearn in cahoots with Jed Beitler, co-owner
  • Tasting Room: Winemakers Studio
  • History / background: (5/5) Excellent, via a 12-page PDF
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Very complete with a curious omission:  the owner’s last names aren’t mentioned, but they can be found in the contact information.
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (2/5)  Some excellent description, including a parcel map, but no mention of practices
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5)
  • Technical wine data: Yes
  • Purchase online: (4/5) It would be nice if it would allow one to click and see the notes & tech information before purchasing; 3-bottle minimum
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: No, but there is an address
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: No
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: No
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (5/5) Well-designed and attractive, easy to navigate
  • General feature set: 5 of 10 (2.5/5)
  • Additional features: None
  • Up-to-date: Yes, for the wines, but the last news entry dates to 2012

T’Jara Vineyards

Comment:  A serious but engaging website. The focus is on the history and the wine.  Premises are not open to the public.

Vineyard 48

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (1/5)
  • About / Biographies: (1/5)
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (1/5)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (3/5)
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (3/5)
  • Wine Club: No
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • News/reviews link: Yes
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes, all music
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (2/5) Some navigation choices are in very small text at the bottom of the page; not intuitive or easy to figure out
  • Additional features: Row of Vines Dedication, Weddings and Private parties
  • Up-to-date:

Vineyard 48

Comment: There are links for reviews if one does a search for it.  (It had been a minimalist approach to providing access—the focus was strongly centered on purchases and events.  Little information, even about the wine.)  NOTE:  online reviews tend to trash the place as a party venue out of control; other reviews extoll it as a party venue

Waters Crest (2.0 points out of 5)

  • Vineyard: No
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Jim Waters
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (2/5) No history, a little background in About section
  • About / Biographies: (3/5) Good overview, but no bios per se
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (n/a)
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (4/5) Good description but no notes
  • Technical wine data: No
  • Purchase online: (1/5) Apparently not, but perhaps through wine club; not clear; one has to fill out a PDF application and send it in
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Phone, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Only the street address
  • News/reviews link: Yes, but very limited
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: follow on Facebook
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: No
  • Photo gallery: No
  • Website design: (4/5) Attractive, mostly straightforward to use.
  • General feature set: 6 of 10 (3/5)
  • Additional features: Link to LI Wine Country Places to eat & stay.
  • Up-to-date: Yes, clearly indicated on each page.

Waters Crest Winery

Comment:  In some ways its functions can be frustrating, but this is the only website in this survey that gives a page’s most recent update

Winemakers Studio

Comment: see Anthony Nappa Wines, for they share a Website.

Wölffer Estate (4.7 4.9 out of 5)

As of January 2016 it has been substantially updated, but not yet reassessed.

  • Vineyard: Yes
  • Winery: Yes
  • Winemaker: Yes, Roman Roth
  • Tasting Room: Yes
  • History / background: (5/5)
  • About / Biographies: (5/5) Good biographies of all the staff
  • Vineyard / Viniculture information: (5/5) Mostly general observations, with focus on terroir; for viniculture info one needs to dig into the News feature, but as of 2013 there is now a link to the LISW Web site, which details the sustainable practices followed by Wölffer.
  • Winemaker’s notes / wine description: (5/5) Very complete and full
  • Technical wine data: Yes, very complete, one could not ask for more
  • Purchase online: (5/5) Full notes and descriptions immediately accessible to buyer, but not all wines are provided with notes &/or descriptions—an odd inconsistency; they also offer verjus and vinegar
  • Wine Club: Yes
  • Contact: Phone, fax, e-mail, snail mail
  • Directions: Yes, text with a painted map (not Google or MapQuest)
  • News/reviews link: Yes, though a 2013 review by Howard G. Goldberg has no link.
  • Newsletter / Mailing List: Yes
  • Wine Blog: No
  • Events / calendar: Yes
  • Tours: None appear to be offered
  • Photo gallery: Yes, on Flcker
  • Website design: (5/5) Newly updated, clean and attractive, mostly straightforward navigation, but why should one have to dig for the vinicultural information?
  • General feature set: 8 of 10 (4/5)
  • Additional features: Weddings & Private events, Wölffer Estate Stables
  • Up-to-date: Yes

Wölffer

Comment: One needs to dig a bit for some features.  Very complete information in many areas, but strangely lacking in details about the vineyard—no map, mention of acreage, etc.; read Wine & Vineyard and you then have a link to another page, The Vineyard & Winemaking, where one can find out about viniculture.  Some inconsistencies with regard to wine notes (very full for some wines, no information at all for others).