During the first three years, from 1986 to 1989, we devoted our energies to vine installation, terracing, plantation, trellising, building the joint winery … In 1989 we had the first harvest but it could not be included in the DO because it did not reach the minimum required alcohol by volume (ABV), it was only 12.5º. If my memory serves me right, we adopted the recommendations from the Department of Agriculture, which advised us to use improving varieties (Merlot, Cabernet…) and keep alcohol volume not too high, like Rioja wines, which sold well …
This first drawback forced us to reconsider our project. We wanted our wines to be part of the D.O. Priorat, we wanted our work to have a positive effect on the region. We learnt our lesson; either we adapted to the norms of D.O. Priorat or we had to make wine somewhere else. We also learnt that in order to make an excellent wine, the grapes had to be mature and I still remember the Grenache Rosé grapes we separated because they did not have the quality we wanted. And this we did in the first three years.
When, in 1992, the partners in the initial project broke up so that each of us could find their own path, I felt somehow relieved. Subconsciously, when we were together, I could not give full expression to my ideas and I could not make the other take some risks I would have taken on my own. On the other hand, René knew a lot about wine and I was just beginning and I still had so many things to learn. I am convinced that the break was the correct step to take because we all had and still have our own and different personalities and, this way, we could transmit it to the wine, which helped to diversify and enrich the wine market.
I needed to start my own line of wines but, in order to get that; I could not do it any old how. I am a biologist and had a scientific university education. That is the reason why in my career I am always trying to find some justification for the importance of applying scientific methods in favour of wine quality. My impression is that the production of great wines is incompatible with science. It seems that the terms “science” and “technique” can only be used in relation to technological and commercial wines and that only if we work according to tradition and the way it has always been done, can we join the group of mythic wines …
I hope you can forgive me but I do no agree with this. I believe that the evolution of our knowledge can be compared to a relay race, where each generation has to make improvements and these, at the same time, will be used by future generations. This is what justifies our intellectual ability as human beings.
On one occasion I attended a speech given by a very well-known owner of a winery in our country, a winery that deserves great respect for its products and its trajectory. He claimed that the fact that some wines were excellent had to do with their origin, with the plot of land chosen by some medieval monastic order, he also praised the weather in that specific place. He even said oenologists have to be very careful and try not to spoil what nature offers them. This truly shows contempt for any type of human participation, and willingness to absolutely connect quality with land. A good plot of land is, needless to say, important but man has intelligence and sensitivity and he is the one taking decisions and implementing them.
In spite of everything, we know not everybody agrees with this and there are people who are central figures and have largely contributed to the evolution of viticulture. There is a very interesting and old document written by the owner of Romanée Conti in Burgundy. And although the vineyard with a specific type of soil and climate that give the wines some particular characteristics, one can see the indomitable will to make everything possible to produce quality wines.






