# Norton (Cynthiana) vs. Chambourcin



## cbwine (Sep 20, 2010)

Hello All,
What are the big differences between these grapes? I have used Norton before but not Chambourcin yet they appear almost identical in size, color, sweetness, and juice?
Thanks


----------



## Midwest Vintner (Sep 20, 2010)

chambourcin is more like a zin or malbec with a bit of spicey flavors compared to the norton which is more similar to a merlot.


----------



## jet (Sep 20, 2010)

In my mind, norton = peppery.


----------



## cbwine (Sep 22, 2010)

Thanks thats what we were discussing. Also ....obviously there are several factors that determine the grapes sweetness. Does one or the other tend to be sweeter on average?


----------



## deboard (Sep 22, 2010)

To me, Norton has a very unique flavor compared to other grapes. I haven't found one that is similar. The party line is that it is an american wine grape that lacks the "foxiness" of other american grapes such as concord. Don't ask me what foxiness means. A dry concord does have an odd flavor that doesn't seem to be present in Norton. 

I'd agree with the peppery flavor comment, although not all Nortons I've had were peppery. 

I've only had one Chambourcin wine, and it was a semi-sweet, which I would say was better than concord but to me also fairly similar. Of course the sweetening would hide some of the more subtle flavors. 

I've tried 7 or 8 different Norton wines, and of all those the best were either very lightly oaked, or had none at all. To me, Norton doesn't take oaking as well as a Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, or Syrah. It may be that the flavor of Norton just hides under the smoky flavor. Never had a Chambourcin that was oaked.


----------



## jet (Sep 22, 2010)

deboard said:


> To me, Norton has a very unique flavor compared to other grapes. I haven't found one that is similar. The party line is that it is an american wine grape that lacks the "foxiness" of other american grapes such as concord. Don't ask me what foxiness means. A dry concord does have an odd flavor that doesn't seem to be present in Norton.
> ...



Concord and Norton are both American grapes but they're not the same species. As for the "foxy" taste in labrusca wines (like Concord), I've heard many explanations, each as worthless as the last.


----------



## jet (Sep 22, 2010)

cbwine said:


> Thanks thats what we were discussing. Also ....obviously there are several factors that determine the grapes sweetness. Does one or the other tend to be sweeter on average?



Of the MO wines I've tasted, I've never had either that wasn't dry.


----------



## deboard (Sep 23, 2010)

Jet, absolutely right, Norton is Vitis Aestivalis while concord is Vitis Labrusca. Some people believe that Norton is actually a hybrid of Vitis Aestivalis and Vitis Vinifera that either arose through Mr. Norton's efforts or through blind luck (people were planting vitis vinifera near wild american grapes and Mr. Norton found the hybrids).


----------



## cbwine (Sep 23, 2010)

Thanks everyone I will see what a Chambourcin tastes like Oaked this yr! I cant wait!


----------



## countrygirl (Sep 23, 2010)

deboard said:


> Jet, absolutely right, Norton is Vitis Aestivalis while concord is Vitis Labrusca. Some people believe that Norton is actually a hybrid of Vitis Aestivalis and Vitis Vinifera that either arose through Mr. Norton's efforts or through blind luck (people were planting vitis vinifera near wild american grapes and Mr. Norton found the hybrids).



i just finished "the wild vine" by todd kilman about the norton and the beginning of wine in america. very interesting reading. next chance i get, i will be buying a bottle of missouri norton...


----------



## Allen (Sep 24, 2010)

10 days ago I started a 6 gallon batch of Chambourcin, grown locally. Yesterday I started MaloLactic Fermentation on it, and added 4 oz of Med toast french oak. I will let the MLF go for about 6 weeks, then rack off the oak & lees, and stabilize. Pre MLF it already tastes decent.

I know, I should let it go until the MLF is done, but I don't have a test kit, so I am guessing about 6 weeks.

I also got a 5 gallon batch of Concord in secondary right now. I don't care much for the taste of it as-is, but I did a bench test and sweetened some of it, and it made it pretty tasty.


----------



## jet (Sep 24, 2010)

The mysterious "foxy" taste is supposed to be diminished by sugar, which is why most commercial concord wines are not dry.


----------



## Allen (Sep 24, 2010)

I was also told if you ferment Concord at 65-68ºF, it will not be as likely to develop the foxy taste. I emptied my wine fridge, took out the shelves, and set the thermo at 67º for the primary fermentation.


----------



## cbwine (Sep 25, 2010)

*Old School*

Well we have been making the Concord with a friend of ours for yrs. The old school way. A 4 day open air fermentation, natural air borne yeast, followed by 8 to 12 weeks in barrels then another 3 mo. in jugs in the frig. We have had great success and this is the way the old guys have done it down there for 100 yrs. Yes the wine is sweet and once in blue moon someone may lose a batch. We have discussed using yeast and additives but are flogged heavily for trying to modernize the process. A few yrs back when the Concords took a freeze hit we used the Norton which made a very good wine. Not using this grape before we went half the amount on the sugar and it a was a nice dry, semi-sweet wine. I needed to know the differences between Norton and Chambourcin to adjust the sugar this year. We are absolutely not allowed to use a hydrometer to determine it so it is always a shot in the dark. I know silly but this is the way they do it so we go with it. I will post the results when done.


----------



## jet (Sep 25, 2010)

cbwine said:


> ...
> We have discussed using yeast and additives but are flogged heavily for trying to modernize the process.
> ...
> We are absolutely not allowed to use a hydrometer to determine it so it is always a shot in the dark.
> ...


How about doing a black-op? What they don't know won't hurt anyone.


----------



## deboard (Sep 25, 2010)

The only "traditional" method that somewhat interests me is allowing the yeast from the grape skins to do the fermentation. Otherwise, I really don't understand how accurate measurements in any way subvert or cheapen traditional methods of making wine. I always imagine traditional winemaking as an art where the winemaker can taste a grape and understand what he/she needs to do to make a good wine from it. But that is a form of measurement as well, just maybe a more romantic one than a hydrometer and acid test kit!


----------



## cbwine (Sep 26, 2010)

The Black-Ops is not a bad idea?


----------

