PREFACE.

In 1876 the Mission grape sold in California for from $7.50 to $10 per ton, and foreign varieties for from $14 to $18 per ton, and consequently many vineyardists in districts remote from the market turned their hogs into the vineyard to gather the fruit. At this time farmers concluded that it would not pay to grow grapes, and the vines were rooted out of many vineyards, and the land devoted to the production of more profitable crops. In 1878, however, the prices were better, and the Mission grape brought from $12 to $14 per ton, and the foreign varieties from $22 to $26, and under a growing demand for California wines, the wine makers in the counties of Sonoma and Napa have paid during the past three seasons of 1880, 1881, and 1882, prices ranging from $16 to $22 per ton for Mission, and from $22 to $35 for other foreign varieties, and in some cases even as high as $40 per ton for wine grapes of the best varieties; the extremes in prices depending upon the activity of the competition in the different localities. Although in California we are accustomed to speak of the “Mission grape” and the “foreign varieties” in contradistinction, it may not be amiss to state for the benefit of other than California readers, that the “Mission” is undoubtedly a grape of European origin, and was cultivated by the Spanish priests at the missions existing in the country at the advent of the Americans, and hence the name. And notwithstanding the existence of our grape, Vitis Californica, the names “native” and “California grape” have been applied to the Mission, but the word “foreign” is never used in describing it.

The increase in the price of grapes has followed closely upon the increase in the demand for our wines, and the production has kept pace with the demand.

The annual shipments of wine and brandy from California, commencing with 1875, according to the reports published from time to time, are as follows, in gallons:

Year.	Wine.	Brandy.
1875	1,031,507	42,318
1876	1,115,045	59,993
1877	1,462,792	138,992
1878	1,812,159	129,119
1879	2,155,944	163,892
1880	2,487,353	189,098
1881	2,845,365	209,677

The figures for 1882, as published, are larger than those for 1881, but the figures furnished by Mr. Stone, the statistician of the Merchants Exchange, give wine 2,721,428, brandy, 218,792; from which I am led to believe that those for 1881 are too large.

The total production of wine for 1878 has been stated to be from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 gallons, for 1879, 7,790,000, for 1880, 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 gallons. Notwithstanding the increased acreage of our vineyards, the product in 1881 fell off one or two million gallons, and in the second annual report of the State Viticultural Commission, just published, the loss is estimated at one-third of the crop, making the product 9,000,000 gallons, or a little less. That of 1882 is about 10,000,000 gallons.

In 1880 we had about 60,000 acres of vineyards in the State, and according to Mr. Haraszthy’s report as President of the Viticultural Commission, contained in the report of the commission last mentioned, the increase during the first two years after the first organization of the commission in 1880, amounts to 40,000 acres. Since the date of his report, April 19, 1882, the acreage must have been largely increased, and making a liberal allowance for errors, we must have at least 100,000 acres in vineyards in the State at the present time, which ought to produce, at a small estimate, 20,000,000 gallons of wine in five years from now, and in five years more, with the increased product from the greater age of the vines, and from those planted in the meantime, the yield ought to be doubled.

Among those who are now planting vineyards are many who have had no experience in wine making; and in order that such may have the advantage of the experience of those of other countries who have spent their whole lives in perfecting the art, and have had the benefit of the knowledge derived from generations before them, the author has prepared the following work, in which he has attempted to lay before the reader an account of the methods followed in those portions of Europe, especially France, where the finest wines of the world are produced.

What is here given is the result of research on the part of the author chiefly for his own benefit; and in going over the literature of the subject of wine making, he failed to find a work in the English language which is adequate to the needs of the practical wine maker, or one who intends to become such. There are many good books in the French language, and, in fact, the principal works on the subject are to be found in that language. But the authors of many of them have hobbies, and the practice indicated in a certain connection by one often differs from that pointed out by another. It, therefore, became necessary to compare the writings of various authors, and where they differed in points of practice, to try and find out the reason therefor. This was not always an easy task; but the author confidently hopes that the beginner will always find a safe course pointed out to him in the following pages, and that the experienced viniculturist will have brought to his mind many things forgotten in the multitude of affairs, and the experimentalist, to whom we all are looking for further light, will here find many hints which may assist him in finding out what are the best methods under the conditions in which we find ourselves in the infancy of this absorbing industry.

What forcibly strikes one in reading the works of different authors on the subject of vinification is, that, notwithstanding the variations in the methods, there are but few material differences in the practices in different localities in making a given kind of wine. It is true that one method makes a red wine, a different one makes a white wine, that grapes of one degree of ripeness and the corresponding practice in vinification produces a sweet wine, and another a dry wine, but the author is convinced that the method and practice which will produce the best result in a given case in one locality will also produce the best result in any other.

If it is found that in the northern and central portions of France it is insisted that the casks be always kept full, and that in Spain they are left with a vacant space, it will also be found that this practice depends upon the alcoholic strength and robustness of the wine. When the grapes of the more northern regions are artificially matured till their saccharine strength approaches that of grapes of more southern climes, then the wine made from their must may safely be treated according to methods prevailing in the latter regions. If, on the other hand, the grapes of hot countries are gathered as soon as their must indicates a density of 20 to 24 per cent., the wine made from them would be absolutely ruined, if treated as the wine from overripe grapes, and it must be cared for as the weaker wines of the northern climes.

The essentials, then, of good wine making, which include the treatment in the cellar, are everywhere the same, and they only vary with the varieties of wine that are to be produced.

The general climate of California corresponds in many respects with that of the more southern wine-producing regions of Europe; and the percentage of sugar carried in the grapes grown in the southern and interior portions of our State is about the same as that of the musts of those regions. The musts produced in the central coast counties and the bay counties of the State, in average seasons, equal, if they do not exceed, in density the musts of the central and northern portions of France in their very best seasons.

The following tables will afford the figures necessary for a comparison between our wines and those of other countries, as to alcoholic strength and acidity. The first table is useful as illustrating an advance in wine making in this State. The earlier wine makers, guided by the experience derived from residence in the northern viticultural regions of Europe, or by the information from writers of those countries, allowed their grapes to arrive at an advanced state of maturity without considering the different conditions of climate. Musts, therefore, that were fit only for sweet wines, were treated according to dry wine methods, and no wonder they were found heady, used as table wines, with so high a percentage of alcohol.

The second table shows that we have learned to produce lighter wines, which means, not only that we are growing grapes that carry less sugar than the Mission, but chiefly that we do not allow the berries to become overripe, dried up, under the ardent rays of our constant sun.

The first figures are from a paper read by the late Major Snyder before the Napa Wine Growers’ Association, and published in the Rural Press, August 3, 1871, Vol. IV, p. 66.

Color.	Name of Maker.	Year.	Vol. per cent. of Alcohol.
White	Craig	1867	Foreign grapes	14.4
“	“	1870	Mission	13.4
“	Dresel & Gundlach	1861		14.4
“	“	1870		13.3
“	“	1862		12.5
“	“	1867		13.6
“	J. R. Snyder	1865	Mission	12.5
“	“	1860		12.6
“	“	1867		13.3
“	“	1868		12.8
“	A. F. Haraszthy	1871	Foreign	11.5
“	“	1870	“	12.6
Red	Buena Vista Ass’n	1866		16.5
White	““	1871		11.5
Red	““	1871		12.6
White	H. Winkle	1869	Mission	13.2
“	“	1871	“	12.5
“	“	1871	Zinfandel	12.8

The following figures are from the Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture of the United States, for 1880, report of the Chemist. It will be observed that where the name is followed by a †, it is that of the Eastern dealer, and not that of the maker.

DRY RED WINES.
Name.	Per cent. by vol. of alcohol.	Glucose.	Total acid as tartaric.	Maker.
Sonoma Mission, ’79	10.03	None	.722	Gretsch & Mayer.†
“ Zinfandel, ’79	9.78	Trace	.693	““
Mission	9.29	do	.917	B. Dreyfus & Co.
Zinfandel	11.35	do	.768	““
Zinfandel, ’78	10.30	do	.825	Dresel & Co.
Zinfandel, ’79	11.08	do	.798	““
Zinfandel	12.31	do	.814	Geo. Hamlin & Co.†
California Claret	10.56	do	.903
Zinfandel	13.24	0.18	.726
DRY WHITE WINES.
White Hock	17.37	0.09	.855
White Hock	12.87	0.09	.767
Muscatel	13.34	0.12	.767
Sonoma Hock	12.05	0.13	.422	Perkins, Stern & Co.†
Riesling	11.26	Trace	.846	Dresel & Co.
Hock	11.35	do	.785	““
Dry Muscat	11.44	do	.619	Dreyfus & Co.
Zinfandel	11.26	do	.590	““
Riesling	12.05	do	.696	““
Gutedel	11.70	do	.756	““
Hock	9.70	do	.723	““
Sonoma Mission, ’78	10.56	do	.619	Gretsch & Mayer.†
“ Riesling, ’77(?)	13.15	do	.695	““
““’79	13.15	do	.575	““
“ Mission, ’79	10.38	do	.619	““
“ Gutedel, ’79	11.87	do	.589	““
Dry Muscat ’74(?)	12.40	do	.816	““
Zinfandel, ’78	11.96	do	.761	““
“’79	11.00	do	.740	““
SWEET WINES.
PORT.
California Port	21.89	8.60	.790
“ “	20.89	5.78	.510	Kohler & Frohling.
“ “	18.88	4.49	.755	Dreyfus & Co.
“ “	19.87	5.88	.370	““
“ “	15.49	8.60	.486	Perkins, Stern & Co.
“Sunny Slope“	15.12	11.57	.433	““
Los Angeles	16.52	11.39	.508	Gretsch & Mayer.†
SHERRY.
California Sherry.	17.96	.61	.532
““	16.15	2.45	.721	Dreyfus & Co.
““	16.80	2.20	.573	““
CHAMPAGNES.
“Grand Prize“ med. dry	12.49	8.21	.821	Arpad Haraszthy.
“Eclipse,“ extra dry	11.87	6.51	.885	““
MISCELLANEOUS.
Gerke’s White	14.74	2.21	.673	Henry Gerke.
Sweet Muscatel	18.58	25.37	.753	Perkins, Stern & Co.
““	22.36	11.59	.366	Dreyfus & Co.
““	22.46	16.94	.331	““
Los Angeles Muscatel	17.08	13.44	.533	Gretsch & Mayer.†
Angelica	11.79	12.48	.489
“	13.90	13.25	.347	Perkins, Stern & Co.
“	18.14	14.81	.430	Dreyfus & Co.
“	18.78	16.20	.466	Gretsch & Mayer.†
California Malaga	17.70	8.59	.659	Henry Gerke.

What is particularly striking in the figures last quoted, is the remarkably high percentage of acid, which far exceeds what we had hitherto supposed the acidity of our wines to be. Yet as a large proportion of the total acids was volatile, it may be that the wines had contracted acidity from improper methods of keeping.

From Prof. Hilgard’s report of the work done in the viticultural laboratory of the College of Agriculture of the University of California, during the years 1881 and 1882, we extract Table V given in the appendix. The figures for the averages are our own. This report contains much valuable and interesting information regarding the work done in the laboratory, and gives many details of the analyses of these wines, which the limits of this volume will not permit us to give in full. And those who wish to see the results of the most complete analysis of California wines ever before made, are referred to the report itself.

It will be noticed that the average total acidity of the different wines mentioned in the table is much lower than that found by the chemist of the Department of Agriculture. The wines in this table were furnished by the producer in nearly every case, a few of them having been produced at the University, and were undoubtedly pure, and in a fair condition, as samples of badly kept wine would not likely be furnished by the maker for the purpose of analysis; and the condition of those analyzed by the chemist at Washington is, at least, doubtful.

From analyses by R. Fresenius and E. Borgman, tabulated in the Journal of the Chemical Society, London, for April, 1883, from Zeits. Anal. Chem., XXII, 46-58, we extract the following figures, the alcoholic strength being reduced to volume per cent. as nearly as could be done from the per cent. by weight in volume without the specific gravity:

		Red Main.	White Main.	Hocks.	White French.	Red French.	Moselle.
Alcohol	Max.	11.76	12.54	12.77	12.17	11.52	10.77
	Min.	11.73	11.00	8.00	11.18	9.91	8.77
	Aver.	11.75	11.76	10.83	11.67	10.58	10.02
Acid	Max.	.62	.80	1.01	.71	.58	.95
	Min.	.54	.54	.48	.54	.48	.64
	Aver.	.58	.69	.66	.62	.54	.79

And from the analyses given in the work of Thudichum and Dupré, we deduce the following:

THIRTY-FIVE GERMAN WINES.
Vol. per cent. Alcohol.	Maximum	14.45	Acid as tartaric.	Maximum	.823
	Minimum	9.15		Minimum	.416
	Average	10.00		Average	.543
SIX FRENCH CLARETS.
Alcohol.	Maximum	12.38	Acid	Maximum	.645
	Minimum	10.42		Minimum	.548
	Average	10.95		Average	.593
FOUR BURGUNDIES.
Alcohol.	Maximum	14.97	Acid	Maximum	.668
	Minimum	11.54		Minimum	.495
	Average	12.78		Average	.562
ELEVEN SHERRIES.
Alcohol.	Maximum	22.75	Acid	Maximum	.626
	Minimum	17.03		Minimum	.372
	Average	20.93		Average	.476
SIX SO-CALLED NATURAL SHERRIES.
Alcohol.	Maximum	18.87	Acid	Maximum	.510
	Minimum	16.60		Minimum	.397
	Average	17.37		Average	.454
ELEVEN PORT WINES.
Alcohol.	Maximum	23.34	Acid	Maximum	.510
	Minimum	18.04		Minimum	.398
	Average	21.50		Average	.424
TEN HUNGARIAN WINES.
Alcohol.	Maximum	14.55	Acid	Maximum	.716
	Minimum	11.55		Minimum	.570
	Average	12.85		Average	.637

The analyses of many other wines are given, and many other details which would be of little use to the practical man, belonging rather to the domain of the chemistry of wines.

There is a vast field open to the wine maker of this State, for we have differences of soil and climate suitable for the production of a wonderful variety of wines. But every man must decide for himself what kind of wine his soil and situation are best adapted to produce, and his aim then should be to produce the best of that kind.

Thanks to the work of the State Viticultural Commission, we are beginning to learn what varieties of grapes are best suited to the different districts of the State. It is true that only a beginning has been made, and the actual work of experimenting in this direction can only be carried on by the practical viticulturists themselves. It is for the Commission to bring order out of chaos, and furnish for the information of the public the results of the labors of the experimenters in the field.

Through the endeavors of the Commission, and especially of its chief executive Viticultural officer, Mr. Charles A. Wetmore, who has an extended knowledge of the different varieties of grapes grown in the State, and where they are produced, the viticulturists are beginning to compare notes, and an exchange of knowledge is now going on, which without the Commission would be impossible.

It is not within the scope of this work to enter into the details of vine planting, or to point out what particular varieties of grapes should be planted in the different sections, and probably the time to produce a work which would convey definite and satisfactory information on the latter subject has not yet arrived. As fast as reliable information is acquired, it will undoubtedly be made known by the Commission, and every intended vine grower should carefully study its reports, as well as to keep himself familiar with the discussions of the local viticultural societies, and those of the general conventions.

If every grower in the State will only devote a portion of his ground to the cultivation of the choicest varieties of grapes, making sure that he knows what he is cultivating, will use the best methods of vinification, preserve each kind of wine by itself, or keep a careful record of his blends, and will age and rear the different products according to the best and most intelligent methods, the writer confidently expects that favored spots will be found in time which will produce wines that will compare favorably with the fine wines of Europe; and we may even venture to hope that some lucky individual will find that he is possessed of a vineyard that will make his name famous as the producer of a grand wine equal to the most renowned wines of the world.

The writer lays claim to but very little originality in the following pages. What the intended wine maker wants is not new, untried theories, but the results of the experience of others who have already labored in the field, in order that he may not spend his time in inventing methods which, later he learns, have already been tried by the laborers before him.

In this connection, the author makes his acknowledgments to the following authors and their productions, as well as to others mentioned in the body of the work. And if, in some cases, he has failed to give credit where it is due, it is because the information remains, but the source is forgotten.

A. Du Breuil, Les Vignobles et les Arbres et Fruits à Cidre, Paris, 1875.

Dr. Jules Guyot, Culture de la Vigne et Vinification, Paris, 1861.

Henri Machard, Traité Pratique sur les Vins, Bensançon, 1874.

Raimond Boireau, Culture de la Vigne, Traitement des Vins, Vinification, Distillation, etc., 2 vols., Bordeaux, 1876.

A. Haraszthy, Grape Culture, Wines, and Wine Making, New York, 1862, including translations of Johann Carl Leuchs on Wine Making, and Dr. L. Gall, Improvement in Wine Making.

L. Pasteur, on Fermentation, Annales de Chimie, 3 Series, Vol. LVIII, p. 330.

Joseph Boussingault, Sur la Fermentation des Fruits á Noyau Annales de Chimie, 4 Series, Vol. VIII, p. 210.

M. Boussingault, Expériences pour constater la perte en sucre dans le sucrage du moût de du marc de raisin. Annales de Chimie, 5 Series, Vol. VII, p. 433.

Andre Pellicot, Le Vigneron Provençal, Montpellier, 1866.

Henry Vizitelli, Facts about Sherry, London, 1876; Facts about Port and Madeira, London, 1880.

J. L. W. Thudichum and August Dupre, Origin, Nature, and Varieties of Wine, London, 1872.

N. Basset, Guide Théorique et Pratique du Frabricant d’Alcool et du Distillateur.

J. J. Griffin, Chemical Testing of Wines and Liquors, London.

L. F. Dubief, Traité Complet Théorique et Pratique de Vinification ou Art de Faire du Vin, 4 Ed., Paris.

P. Schutzenberger, On Fermentation, International Scientific Series, New York, 1876.

E. J. Maumene, Traité Théorique et Pratique du Travail des Vins, Paris, 1874.

M. W. Maigne, Nouveau Manuel Complet du Sommelier et du Marchand de Vins (Manuels-Roret), Paris, 1874.

Don Pedro Verdad, From Vineyard to Decanter, a Book about Sherry, London, 1876.

Gen. E. D. Keyes, Letter to Major J. R. Snyder, on Sherry making, published in San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, May 29, 1877.

Prof. E. W. Hilgard, Report of work done in the Viticultural Laboratory under the charge of F. W. Morse, University of California, College of Agriculture; Report of 1882, State Printer, Sacramento, 1883. August, 1883.