Evaluation of Eastern European W

Evaluation of Eastern European Wine Grape Cultivars for Kentucky - 2006
Joe Masabni, John Strang, Dwight Wolfe, Chris Smigell

Introduction

There are four types of grapes grown in the United States for wine: American (Vitis labrusca), Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), European (Vitis vinifera), and American French hybrids (Vitis labrusca x V. vinifera). Generally, Muscadine grapes are not well adapted to Kentucky’s climate, and European grapes can survive Kentucky weather only with extra care in vine management. American grapes grow well, but fruit quality for wine is usually substandard. Many American French hybrids grow well, and fruit quality for wine is intermediate between the American and French parents. The majority of wines from Europe and the West Coast of the United States are made from European grapes.

European grapes are not well suited for the cold climate of northern Europe. Vines are usually buried with soil or mulch to prevent winter injury, a very labor-intensive operation. Northern Europeans have crossed the vinifera with different Vitis species, including some from China. The resulting cultivars have shown improved hardiness as well as outstanding fruit quality in Eastern Europe. The late Dr. Bob Goodman of the University of Missouri evaluated these cultivars in Eastern Europe and selected several, based on winter hardiness, disease resistance, and fruit quality. These selections were brought to the U.S. and grown in Missouri under post-entry quarantine. In 1998, the first of these selections were distributed to selected land-grant institutions in the U.S., including the University of Kentucky. This project is being conducted in cooperation with the Missouri State Fruit Experiment Station of Southern Missouri State University, Mountain Grove, Missouri.

The objective of the project is to evaluate these selections in different regions of the U.S. To participate in this project, the University of Kentucky signed an agreement specifying that no one could collect bud wood from this planting.

Material and Methods

Eighteen advanced selections were released from post-entry quarantine in the spring of 1998 and planted at the University of Kentucky Research and Education Center, Princeton, Kentucky (UKREC). The vines were set 8 ft within rows spaced 12 ft apart. The planting stock was small potted cuttings. These were trained to two leaders and tied to 5 ft bamboo canes during the first year. During the second year, vines were trained to a high bilateral cordon system. The planting is trickle irrigated, and a 4 ft wide herbicide strip is maintained beneath the vines with mowed sod alleyways. The vines were balance pruned according to the previous year’s yields. When balance pruning, the number of buds left on a vine is determined by the vine vigor and growth in the previous season as measured by the weight of the wood removed.

Beginning in 2000, the yield, cluster weight, berry weight, pH, and Brix (% soluble solids) were recorded for each selection. The harvested grapes were then distributed to cooperating wine makers, and the quality of the wines produced from these selections was evaluated beginning in 2001. Wines collected from these wine makers are all stored on their sides in constant darkness at 55°F. The American Wine Society evaluation form was used. Each white wine vintage is evaluated at one and two years after harvest; the red wine vintages will be evaluated at one through five years after harvest. Vintages that do not rate well are omitted from future evaluations.

During the spring of 2001, an additional advanced selection of nine varieties was released from post-entry quarantine and planted at UKREC. The planting was established in an area previously used for a high density apple planting. The remaining end posts were left in place and used for the grape trellising. Consequently, vines were spaced 8 ft apart in rows 16 ft apart. Other aspects of planting and training were similar to those of the 1998 planting described above. A number of the vines were killed during a late spring freeze. The surviving plants were trained to two trunks and tied to 5 ft bamboo canes during the first year. Vines were not balance-pruned in 2003 because they did not have a crop in the previous season due to their poor growth after the late spring freeze.

Beginning in 2003, the same yield and berry measurements were recorded, and wines were made, as described for the vines planted in 1998.

Results and Discussion

Yield and fruit quality components for the 2006 harvest of the 2001 planting are listed in Table 1. These vines are in their sixth year and have been slow to produce economically viable yields. Only Plai had an increased pruning weight from 2005 to 2006, increasing from 1.0 to 1.1lbs. Pruning weights for L4-9-1-8, I 55/8, Nero and Golubok were the same in both years, and were all less than one pound, and thus would not have been cropped in a commercial setting. Pruning weights for Bromariu and Demetra decreased from 1.2 and 1.7lbs, respectively, in 2005, to 1.0 and 1.3 lbs, respectively, in 2006. In 2005, Bromariu, II 70/21, Demetra, and IR 26/5 produced at least 4 tons/A. This year their yields decreased to 2.2, 1.1, 1.0 and 1.0 tons/A, respectively. Yield decreases were due, in part, to bird feeding, in spite of net application. In 2004 Golubok, II 70/21, Bromariu, and IR 26/5 yielded enough to make wines. In 2005 and 2006 eight of the nine (Golubok excluded) yielded enough to make wines.

Table 2 compares the fruit yields, % soluble solids, and pH for 2003-2005 from the 1998 planting. This experiment was terminated in 2005, so no yield data was collected in 2006. Table 3 compares the same parameters for 2004-2006 from the 2001 planting. Malverina, Toldi, and Rubin Tairovski averaged the highest yields for the last three years that the older planting was evaluated. Demetra, Bromariu, and II 70/21 have been the highest yielding varieties in the 2001 planting, but all three yielded less than half of what any of the top three in the older planting yielded. Vine age and growing seasons being compared are not the same between these two plantings, but for all years, the vines were at least into their 4^th year. This is the first year in which a vine can be expected to produce a full crop. The three-year average soluble solids percentages for the 1998 planting varieties ranged from 17-21%, and their three-year average pH values ranged from 3.2 to 3.4. The three-year average soluble solids percentages for the 2001 planting varieties ranged from 18-21%, and their three-year average pH values ranged from 3.1 to 3.5.

Table 4 lists the white wine tasting results for the 2001-2004 vintages. Each white wine was evaluated approximately one to six months after bottling and again about a year later. Table 5 lists all the red wine tasting results. Red wines are being evaluated at approximately bottling, and for four years afterward. Members of the Kentucky Vineyard Society have evaluate the wines. Average ratings for each wine are listed as well as the range of ratings between tasters and the comments from the most recent tasting. Comments for previous tasting evaluations are found in last year’s report.

Prior to the 2006 tasting, several of the 2004 vintage wines, and some of earlier vintage, were eliminated from the full panel wine evaluation by a preliminary wine evaluation, led by the University of Kentucky enologist, Dr. Tom Cottrell. This was done primarily to reduce the number of wines to be evaluated by the full panel of tasters. In this year’s evaluation, the five highest rated wines, in descending order, were the 2003 II 70/21 (red), the 2004 IR 26/5 (red), the 2003 XIV-186 (white) and the 2003 Laurot and M 39-9-74 (both red). The 2003 XIV-186 was the highest rated white in last year’s evaluation. The 2003 II 70/21, Laurot, and M 39-9/74 were among the four highest rated reds last year.

Table 6 summarizes the wine evaluations. The II 70/21, the French-American hybrid wine Chambourcin, and the American Norton have received the highest average cumulative ratings so far. The latter two have been included for standards to compare by and are non-vinifera grapes in demand by Kentucky wineries. These top three are followed by 34-4-49, M 39-9/74, Nero, Laurot, Vidal blanc (standard), XIV-186, and Malverina. Thus, the top rated wines are pretty evenly divided among white and red varieties.

Most red wines have received lower ratings as they have aged. This year, seven red wines (two to four years old) received higher ratings this year versus last year, and five received lower ratings this year. The two highest rated 2003 whites received higher ratings in this year’s evaluation. An extra bottle of 2001 Malverina was available, and appeared to be stable, so it was evaluated. It received a higher rating than it did two and four years ago.

The individuals who made these wines and some professional winemakers feel that some of these varieties could make decent wines or at least good blenders.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their appreciation for all the help that they received in this study from the many Kentucky Vineyard Society members who cooperated in making and evaluating these wines.

Table 1. 2006 yield and fruit quality results from the 2001 Eastern European wine grape cultivar trial at UKREC, Princeton, Ky.

Cultivar¹	Harvest Date	Number of Vines	Pruning Wt/Vine (lbs)	Yield (T/A)²	Cluster Weight (g)	Berry Weight (g)	Soluble Solids (%)	pH
Bromariu	30 Aug	9	1.0	2.2	168	1.7	20.4	3.5
Demetra	30 Aug	6	1.3	1.0	114	1.6	20.6	3.5
IR 26/5	28 Sept	9	1.1	1.0	96	1.7	20.4	3.3
II 70/21	21 Aug	11	1.1	0.9	249	2.7	18.4	3.4
Plai	22 Aug	8	1.3	0.6	125	1.6	18.8	3.5
L4-9-18	28 Sept	11	0.3	0.4	108	1.3	17.0	3.0
I 55/8	30 Aug	8	0.3	0.4	192	1.8	18.2	3.4
Nero	21 Aug	12	0.8	0.1	141	2.6	18.8	3.5
Golubok	-³	-	0.3	-	-	-	-	-
¹ Cultivars are arranged in descending order of yield. Bromariu is a white grape, all others are red. ² Tons per acre, calculated based on an 8 x 16 ft. vine spacing, equivalent to 340 vines per acre. ³ Crop size was insufficient to obtain representative samples.

Table 2. Yield summary for the 1998 Eastern European winegrape trial, 2003-2005.

	Yield (T/A)¹				Soluble Solids (%)				pH
Cultivar	2003	2004	2005	Avg	2003	2004	2005	Avg	2003	2004	2005	Avg
Whites
Bianca	8.1	2.7	6.5	5.8	18	20	18	19	3.1	3.3	3.3	3.2
Iskorka	1.5	0.3	-²	0.9	22	19	-	21	3.4	3.3	-	3.4
Liza	6.2	2.9	-	4.6	21	21	-	21	3.3	3.3	-	3.3
Malverina	9.7	3.7	9.0	7.5	19	19	17	18	3.2	3.4	3.3	3.3
Petra	1.6	0.5	-	1.1	21	21	-	21	3.3	3.3	-	3.3
Rani Riesling	10.3	1.9	-	6.1	18	21	-	20	3.2	3.4	-	3.3
Toldi	10.5	3.5	10.9	8.3	16	19	18	18	3.1	3.5	3.3	3.3
XIV-1-86	5.1	2.8	6.2	4.7	17	20	17	18	3.3	3.5	3.3	3.4
XX-15-51	6.1	2.3	5.3	4.6	18	20	21	20	3.2	3.3	3.5	3.3
34-4-49	4.9	2.3	5.1	4.1	20	19	18	19	3.2	3.3	3.1	3.2
Reds
Kozma 55	3.5	1.5	4.6	3.2	19	21	18	19	3.2	3.5	3.4	3.4
Kozma 525	6.1	1.1	2.8	3.3	19	20	17	19	3.3	3.5	3.2	3.3
Laurot	6.2	0.8	3.8	3.6	19	19	21	20	3.2	3.3	3.1	3.2
Rubin Tairovski	10.3	3.8	10.7	8.3	20	22	21	21	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.3
I 31/67	3.5	1.4	-	2.5	17	16	-	17	3.2	3.3	-	3.3
M 39-9/74	5.0	0.9	-	3.0	18	19	-	19	3.1	3.4	-	3.3
XIV-11-57	6.8	1.7	6.4	5.0	18	18	19	18	3.3	3.4	3.3	3.3
Overall Average	6.2	2.0	6.5	4.5	19	20	19	19	3.2	3.4	3.3	3.3
¹ Tons per acre, calculated based on an 8 x 12 ft. vine spacing, equivalent to 454 vines per acre. ² Varieties dropped in 2005 due to inadequate performance.

Table 3. Yield summary for the 2001 Eastern European winegrape trial, 2004-2006.

	Yield (T/A)²				Soluble Solids (%)				pH
Cultivar¹	2004	2005	20064	Avg	2004	2005	2006	Avg	2004	2005	2006	Avg
Bromariu	1.9	6.1	2.9	3.6	21	21	20	21	3.5	3.4	3.5	3.5
Demetra	-2	5.7	1.3	3.5	-	19	21	20	-	3.4	3.5	3.5
Golubok	0.3	0.1	-	0.2	18	-5	-	18	3.4	-5	-	3.4
Nero	0.1	0.5	0.1	0.2	18	20	19	19	3.3	3.2	3.5	3.3
Plai	-2	4.4	0.8	2.6	-	20	19	20	-	3.5	3.6	3.6
IR 26/5	1.1	5.5	1.3	2.6	21	17	20	19	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3
L 4-9-18	-2	2.7	0.5	1.6	-	22	17	20	-	3.2	3.0	3.1
I 55/8	0.7	2.5	0.5	1.2	17	21	18	19	2.9	3.4	3.4	3.4
II 70/21	3.1	6.4	1.2	3.6	20	18	18	19	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.4
Overall Average	1.2	3.8	1.1	2.1	19	20	19	19	3.3	3.4	3.4	3.4
¹ Bromariu is a white grape, all others are red. ² Tons per acre, calculated based on an 8 x 16 ft. vine spacing, equivalent to 340 vines per acre.

Table 4. Wine tasting evaluation results for the 2001 through 2004 vintage years—white varieties.

Vintage Year and Cultivar¹	2002 Average Rating^3,4	2004 Average Rating^3,4	2005 Average Rating^3,4	2006 Average Rating^3,4	Range of Ratings⁵	Comments from Most Recent Tasting
2001 Whites
Bianca (sweet)	9.0	9.4			8-13	None
Bianca (dry)	9.2	8.8			6-11	Nail polish aroma; slight oxidation
Iskorka	3.1					None
Liza, (Cote des Blanc Yeast)	5.4					None
Liza, (Montrachet Yeast)	5.1					None
Malverina	10.9	12.4		12.6	8.5-15.5	Acidic; slight acidic; apricot aroma; light fruit taste; long aftertaste; well made; pleasant
Rani Riesling	10.5	12.5			3-18	Good aroma, acids; extremely poor
XIV-1-86	15.6	11.8			3-17	Slightly musty; good acid; heavy sulfur; nitrogen deficient
XX-15-51	2.8					None
34-4-49	14.1	12.2			6-18	None
Vidal blanc (std)	10.4					None
2002 Whites
Bianca		4.3			2-10	Poorly made; off taste
Liza		8.4	9.4		6.5-14	Slightly thin body, agreeable taste
Rani Riesling		9.7	9.1		2-14.5	Slightly thin body, tart taste
Toldi		7.6	9.1		7.5-11.5	Nearly correct finish, green taste
Toldi		4.0			1-7	None
Traminette (std)		6.2			1-11	High volatile acidity; off aroma; off odor
Vidal/Seyval blend (std)		10.7			3-17.5	Nice fruit; good balance; brilliantly clear; high total and volatile acidity
2003 Whites
Bianca			5.3		1-12.5	Very dry; harsh; too much sulfite; colorless
Bianca			7.1		0-13.5	Cleaning agent taste; stemmy taste; all around bad
Iskorka			2.6		0-7.5	Cloudy (2); very acidic; flawed
Liza			7.6		3.5-13.5	Excellent aroma; tart, thin, lacks flavor
Liza			4.1		0-5	Harsh, chemical taste, bitter
Malverina			10.1	12.3	9.5-15.5	Floral aroma, but not that nice; apple cider aroma; big nose; acidic; slightly oxidized; long aftertaste
Malverina			4.6		1-10	Too much oak (2); too little fruit
Petra			6.6		0-11.5	Needs sugar; shows potential; thin body; spicy aroma; slightly bitter
Rani Riesling			7.2		4.5-8.5	Burnt match aroma; off aroma
Toldi			4.8		0-9	Cleaning agent taste; off aroma (3)
XIV-1-86			13.4	14.1	11.5-17.5	Clear; crisp; nice flavor; apple, pear; Niagara?; lasting finish
XX-15-51			6.9		1-14	Low acidity
XX-15-51			6.6		0-9	Bitter (2); musty; sour apple taste; light oxidation
34-4-49			3.5		0-7	Off taste
Seyval (std)			11.0		8-16.5	High acid; no exceptional features
2004 Whites²
Bianca				6.3	4-10.5	Clear, straw color; sulfur smell; off nose; thin body in the middle; chemical taste; dry, tart and balanced;
XIV-186				6.8	4-13	Unpleasant aroma; off odor on front end; great color; fruity aroma; harsh taste; lacking sweetness (3); lacks body (3); short finish
Vidal blanc (std)				11.8	7.5-15	Straw color; slightly acidic; some fruit flavor; crisp taste; Niagara?
¹ Cayuga white, Traminette, Vidal/Seyval blend, and Vidal blanc were included as quality American and French-American wine standards for comparison. Each was only evaluated one year. ² Other 2004 whites were omitted from 2006 tasting in a preliminary evaluation. ³ Average rating: 0-5 = poor or objectionable, 6-8 = acceptable, 9-11 = pleasant, 12-14 = good, 15-17 = excellent, 18-20 = extraordinary. Each wine was evaluated by 7-10 tasters: (2002) Lynda Hogan, Elmer Klaber, Tom Kohler, Jerry Kushner, Marilyn Kushner, Butch Meyer, Dave Miller, Ben O’Daniel, Gari Thompson ,and James Wight; (2004) Jerry Kushner, Marilyn Kushner, Butch Meyer, Dave Miller, Frances Miller, Ben O’Daniel, Gari Thompson, and James Wight; (2005) Jerry Kushner, Jeffery Tatman, John Pitcock, Dave Miller, Butch Meyer, Ben O’Daniel, Mike Windhorn; (2006) Tom Cottrell, Jim Wight, Dave and Frances Miller; Butch Meyer; Gari Thompson, Jim Loyd, Mike & Sue Eisenback. ⁴ White wines are evaluated for two years, with the exception of 2001 Malverina. It was evaluated after four years because it appeared stable, and had rated highly previously. Where only one rating is shown, that wine was not re-evaluated due to very low score in previous evaluation. ⁵ Range: 1st number = lowest score received, 2nd number = highest score received from most recent tasting.

Table 5. Wine tasting evaluation results for the 2000 through 2004 vintage years—red varieties.

Vintage Year and Cultivar¹	2001 Tasting Average Rating^3,4	2002 Tasting Average Rating^3,4	2004 Tasting Average Rating^3,4	2005 Tasting Average Rating^3,4	2006 Tasting Average Rating^3,4,5	Range of Ratings⁶	Comments from Most Recent Tasting
2000 Reds
I31/67	8.6	3.2					None
Kozma 55	8.8	12.2	12.1	10.5	10.3	6.5-15.5	Dark purple; nice color (2); spicy, licorice aroma; blackberry aroma; very floral aroma; bitter, green taste; needs acid and oak; thin
Kozma 525	11.2	10.5	11.0	6.3		3-12.5	None
Laurot	12.8	12.2	10.7	11.6		3.5-16	Harsh
M39-9/74	11.5	11.9	9.5			2-13	Dark; cloudy and spoiled; bitter aftertaste; flat, no tannins
Rubin Tairovski	11.2	10.2	8.7	7.6		1-12	Off aroma
XIV-11-57	10.4	7.2					None
Chambourcin (std)	14.3						None
2001 Reds
I 31/67		9.3	10.4	10.7	8.3	3-15	Orange color at edges; chocolate aroma; floral aroma; not balanced, harsh taste; raw taste; nice acids
Kozma 55		12.5	10.1	11.6		2.5-14.5	None
Kozma 525		13.0	11.3	9.1	11.7	8-15.5	Clear, orange color at edges; earthy aroma; not balanced, slightly bitter; light body, short finish; blackberry & licorice taste
Laurot		12.3	13.1	10.3		6-16.5	Green taste
M 39-9/74		11.7	12.0	8.4	12	10-13	Cherry red; light color; fruity aroma; nice nose; very flowery aroma; green taste; jammy finish; harsh finish
Rubin Tairovski		9.5	7.7			3-12	Poor density
Rubin Tairovski (blended)		9.8	8.8	8.3		3-12.5	Light color
XIV-11-57		11.5	7.7			4-11	Thin appearance; very light
Chambourcin (std)		13.4					None
2002 Reds
Kozma 55 blend			12.7	9.6	10.7	7.5-16.5	Light aroma; not balanced, bitter, no fruit; harsh taste, spritz
Kozma 525			9.7	5.1		2.5-8	None
Laurot			13.4	10.3		4-14	Too much oak; green
M 39-9/74			8.2	9.3	11.8	8-14.5	Purple color; fruity aroma; floral, licorice aroma; chocolate aroma (2); thin body; high alcohol
Rubin Tairovski			4.6			1-7.5	Oxidized taste
XIV-11-57			10.2	9.1		2-10.5	Light color; simple aroma
Chambourcin (std)			11.5			6.5-16	Perfume aroma; slight phenolic instability; good fruit, too sweet; a bit too high acidity
Norton (std)			14.9	15.6		9.5-17.5	Nice flowery aroma; tastes like Norton
2003 Reds
Demetra				9.5	11.5	7.5-15	Clear, purple
I 31/67				6.0		2-9.5	Oxidized
II70/21				13.8	16.2	13-20	Deep violet; spicy, thyme aroma; herbal aroma; slightly sweet; balanced; pepper taste; smooth;
Kozma 55				9.0	11.1	8.5-16	Cherry red with orange edges; Pinot, woodsy aroma; peanut butter aroma; off aroma
Kozma 525				12.0	11.6	9-15.5	Cherry red with orange edges
Laurot				15.3	13.1	9-16.5	Purple, thick
M 39-9/74				7.1	12.8	4-18	Harsh, off taste; clean, jammy taste; like it; nasty taste
Nero				12.6	12.3	5-16	Purple color; nice tannins; watery
Rubin Tairovski				0.5		0-2	Oxidized
Rubin Tairovski				12.4	9.1	3.5-12.5	Light finish, crisp
XIV-1157				0.6		0-2	Oxidized
2004 Reds²
Ir 26/5					14.4	11.5-17	Purple, clear; fruity taste
Rubin Tairovski					11.4	9.5-15	Light color; brick orange; Brettanomyces aroma; Pinot noir aroma; good mouth feel
2004 Norton (std)					12.2	4-15	Blackberry aroma (2); vinegar aroma; crisp taste; needs a little more fruit, dry finish, peppery;
¹ Chambourcin and Norton were included as quality French-American and American wine standards for comparison. ² Other 2004 reds were omitted from 2006 tasting in a preliminary evaluation. ³ Average rating: 0-5 = poor or objectionable, 6-8 = acceptable, 9-11 = pleasant, 12-14 = good, 15-17 = excellent, 18-20 = extraordinary. Each wine was evaluated by 7-10 tasters: (2002) Lynda Hogan, Elmer Klaber, Tom Kohler, Jerry Kushner, Marilyn Kushner, Butch Meyer, Dave Miller, Ben O’Daniel, Gari Thompson, and James Wight; (2004) Jerry Kushner, Marilyn Kushner, Butch Meyer, Dave Miller, Frances Miller, Ben O’Daniel, Gari Thompson, and James Wight; (2005) Jerry Kushner, Jeffery Tatman, John Pitcock, Dave Miller, Butch Meyer, Ben O’Daniel, Mike Windhorn; (2006) Tom Cottrell, Jim Wight, Dave and Frances Miller; Butch Meyer; Gari Thompson, Jim Loyd, Mike & Sue Eisenback. ⁴ Wines receiving low ratings were omitted from later tastings. ⁵ 2000 Laurot and 2001 Kozma 55 were not evaluated because supply of these was exhausted. ⁶ Range: 1st number = lowest score received, 2nd number = highest score received from most recent tasting.

Table 6. Wine evaluation summary.

Cultivar	2000 Vintage Ratings^{2, 5}	2001 Vintage Ratings²	2002 Vintage Ratings²	2003 Vintage Ratings²	2004 Vintage Ratings²	Cumulative Average
Whites
Bianca	9.7, 9.0	9.4, 9.2, 9.0, 8.8	4.3	7.1, 5.3	6.3	8.6
Iskorka	11.1, 9.9	3.1		2.6		10.5
Liza	15.0, 8.5	5.4	9.4, 8.4	7.6, 4.1		9.8
Malverina	12.7, 11.2, 10.4, 6.4	12.6, 12.4, 10.9		12.3, 10.1, 4.6		11.0
Petra	12.8, 10.2			6.6		9.9
Rani Riesling		12.5, 10.5	9.7, 9.1	7.2		9.8
Toldi	11.1, 10.8		9.1, 7.6, 4.0	4.8		9.7
XIV-1-86	15.2, 14.2, 10.8, 9.4, 7.6	15.6, 11.8		14.1, 13.4	6.8	11.9
XX-15-51	13.0, 10.4	2.8		6.9, 6.6		9.2
34-4-49	11.9, 11.6	14.1, 12.2		3.5		12.5
Cayuga white (std)	8.8
Vidal blanc (std)	14.8	10.4			11.8	12.3
Vidal/Seyval blend (std)			10.7
Traminette (std)			6.2
Seyval (std)				11.0
Reds
Demetra				11.5, 9.5		10.5
I 31/67	8.6, 3.2	10.7, 10.4, 9.3, 8.3		6.0		8.9
II 70/21				16.2, 13.8		15.0
IR 26/5					14.4
Kozma 55	12.2, 12.1, 10.5, 10.3, 8.8	12.5, 11.6, 10.1		11.1, 9.0		10.8
Kozma 55 blended³			12.7, 10.7, 9.6			11.0
Kozma 525	11.2, 11.0, 10.5, 6.3	13.0, 11.7, 11.3, 9.1	9.7, 5.1	12.0, 11.6		10.7
Laurot	12.8, 12.2, 11.6, 10.7	13.1, 12.3, 10.3	13.4, 10.3	15.3, 13.1		12.3
M 39-9/74	11.9, 11.5, 9.5	12.0, 12.0, 11.7, 8.4	11.8, 9.3, 8.2	12.8, 7.1		12.5
Nero				12.6, 12.3		12.5
Rubin Tairovski	11.2, 10.2, 8.7, 7.6	9.5, 7.7	4.6	12.4, 9.1, 0.5	11.4	9.8
Rubin Tairovski (blended)⁴		9.8, 8.8, 8.3				9.0
XIV-11-57	10.4, 7.2	11.5, 7.7	10.2, 9.1	0.6		9.4
Chambourcin (std.)	14.3	13.4	11.5			13.1
Norton (std)			15.6, 14.9		12.2	14.2
¹ Cayuga white, Chambourcin, Norton, Traminette, Vidal/Seyval blend, and Vidal blanc were included as high quality American and French-American wine standards for comparison. All standard comparison wines were only evaluated once, with the exception of 2002 Norton. ² Missing ratings are due to vintages being unsatisfactory and therefore not bottled or insufficient quantity of grapes to make wine; the 2000 whites were not rated in 2004 or 2005, due to their age. The 2001 whites were not rated in 2005, due to their age. The 2002 whites were not rated in 2006 due to their age. Several 2004 reds were omitted from 2006 tasting in a preliminary evaluation. ³ Blend of 50% Kozma 55 and 50% Laurot. ⁴ The small Rubin Tairovski yield wasn’t sufficient to make wine and thus was blended with Chambourcin. ⁵ Rating scale: 0-5 = poor or objectionable, 6-8 = acceptable, 9-11 = pleasant, 12-14 = good, 15-17 = excellent, 18-20 = extraordinary. ⁶ Cumulative average: Mean of all average ratings for a variety; however, ratings of less than six were not included in the cumulative average (i.e., where wine had obviously spoiled or where there was a winemaking problem).