Robert -
It’s more or less a bullshit term that was coined years ago by people who liked several grapes more than others. There’s no “official” definition anywhere and it’s only recently that things like Tempranillo would be included, much less things like Pinot Grigio.
Basically, the term came from a time around WWI and WW2 when the French wine industry was the only one really important on the world market, the industries of other countries having been bombed back into the last century.
From the great Emile Peynaud:
“. . . There are noble varieties which are the only ones capable of producing wines of refinement and longevity, recognizable for their fine flavor and the power and individuality of their aromas. Some of these have become so well adapted to their original production zones that, transplanted elsewhere, they become virtually unrecognizable. Such is the case with Pinot and Merlot. Other noble varieties such as Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon have a more stable character and their more general success has meant that they are planted worldwide.
There are also semi-noble varieties which can produce and excellent wine in a particular area, but which yield something very ordinary elsewhere. Example of these are the Tempranillo in Rioja, the Palomino in Jerez, the Nebbiolo in Piedmont, the Sangiovese in Chianti, the Grenache in Chateauneuf du Pape, Navarre or Sardinia, and many others.
Finally, there are the common grape varieties with produce neutral table wines of little quality. They are grown purely for their high yield which makes an indifferent product profitable; often, alas, all to profitable.”
He gives a tip of the hat to Riesling, which in his youth made some of the most expensive wines in the world, and he notes Palomino, because that too was very important in the British market of the Victorian era.
But his context is clearly France and he included only six grapes. Most importantly, he spoke before the death of Franco, the fall of the Iron Curtain, the death of Pinochet, the end of Argentine dictatorship, the rise of Australia, and the end of apartheid, not to mention the explosion of interest in the US. Washington and Oregon didn’t even exist as serious wine making regions when he spoke, much less New York, New Zealand, and Michigan, and places like Greece, Austria, Portugal, Hungary, Romania, and Croatia were losing centuries of tradition, some of it pre-dating wine production in France.
People use the term as if it means something, but it doesn’t. Garnacha in Priorat? Well that came along in the 1990s. The grape planted for high yield all over the south of France? Carignan, which people have since learned can make profound, age-worthy wines.
So IMO, it’s really a term that does nothing except show ignorance. For all his knowledge, he was, and had to be, ignorant of the revolution in the wine world that was going to take place in the next fifty years. One can forgive him because he was a serious and passionate student of grapes and wine and given the circumstances of the time, he was probably quite correct. But it’s flat out dumb for people to keep using the term today. There’s no reason to suppose that the entire planet has been planted with every possible type of grape that can ever exist and of those, only six merit attention. And it’s even more ridiculous for people to suggest that no, it’s not six, it’s now sixteen! They need to learn more, taste more, and be less dismissive of things they don’t know.
And I agree that there’s nothing wrong with Zin! I also agree with Oliver except that I wouldn’t add Fiano and since I don’t care for Pinot Noir in general, I’d kill that too. See how pointless it gets?
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}