Talk:Norton (grape)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.


Wine WikiProject Norton (grape) is part of WikiProject Wine, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of wines, grapes, wine producers and wine growing regions. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page where you can join the project and find other ways of helping.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale within WikiProject Wine.

Contents

[edit] Henry Vizetelly

Is the Henry Vizetelly referenced in this article the same one referenced elsewhere? Gregmg 19:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic makeup

It seems strange that no one has yet performed a DNA analysis on Norton to determine its origins. I've searched the web a number of times for any mention of DNA testing of this grape, but I can find nothing. Anyone having such information should definitely share it. Gregmg 19:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done, except to determine that it is indeed identical to Cynthiana. I'm working on it, but it's not a high priority project Elakazal 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cherokee usage

I'm not going to put it back because I haven't read the cited reference to know what it said, but it's important to note that A) it said something to the effect of "Norton or a related grape", and B) Cherokee religious ceremonies continue to this day. At the time of Dr. Norton's development, the Cherokees were still living in their homeland, which was not far from Virginia. It's perfectly plausible that the Cherokee's used Norton in ceremonies. It's also possible that they used V. aestivalis, which would be "a related grape". Perhaps they had historically used V. aestivalis, then switched to using Norton when it became available because it was similar to their traditional fruit, while the self-fertile nature of it meant far more of it. Elakazal 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It maybe true that they used Norton (unlikely), but more likely that they used v. aestivalis, so I moved the claim to the v. aestivalis page some time ago.Ryandaum 01:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Among those who have seriously researched the Norton grape, there seems to be a concensus that it is an accidental three-way hybrid, first grown in Dr. Norton's garden. That would prevent it from being the original grape used in Cherokee traditions. The reference is better left in the v. aestivalis article. Gregmg 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I haven't read the specific Cherokee reference, so I can't comment on specifically what has happened, but there have been nearly 200 years of Cherokee religious practice since the creation of Norton. Just because it's not the original grape used ceremonially wouldn't necessarily mean that it wasn't or isn't used. If some one has read the cited reference, I'd like to know if Norton is actually mentioned. Elakazal 09:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving this page

I'm no expert on Norton (can't get any to taste here in Ontario) or southeastern North American viticulture, but I have read quite a bit about this grape here and there. If someone wants to take a crack at improving this page, I would be willing to help. Here are some places I have seen to start from:

I think the page needs:

  • more extended description of the grape & plant itself (leaf description, grape size, info on norton's peculiar propagation requirements, etc.)
  • more history
  • more explanation of relevance of the grape
  • notable wine examples (stone hill, etc.)

Ryandaum 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. Remember the Wikipedia credo... Be Bold. Make whatever edits you believe are necessary or beneficial. Gregmg 13:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)