Aspiring winemaker seeking to calibrate my palate with the wine aficionados that I trust most - the Wineberserkers Community.
The feedback I’m seeking from the group is in regards to “balance” in new world style wines. I’m specifically looking for your thoughts on reference wines that exemplify walking that tight wire of having density, richness, and extraction without losing depth, complexity, and a sense of terrior or varietal character. Ideally seeking wines that push the upper limits of “balance” without teetering over the edge and becoming too big.
I will shamelessly admit that I’m a sucker for new world style wines - Saxum for example.
However, the challenge with bigger new world style wines is that some versions (as hedonistic and pleasurable as they might be) become so over the top that they seem almost indistinguishable. My reference point would be something like an Epoch Tempranillo. Nothing at all against Epoch with this particular example. Their version of Tempranillo is a pleasurable wine that I thoroughly enjoyed and would happily drink again. However, I would not necessarily pick it out of a lineup as a Tempranillo in a blind tasting.
My ask of you is this… Identify new world style wines that you perceive to be model examples of walking that razor’s edge between being bigger in style while also maintaining some resemblance of balance.
I’m looking to acquire some model examples to help calibrate my palate. There are no parameters for wine varietals/blends or place of origin. Everything is fair game.
Thanks in advance for any guidance this community can provide.
A few wineries that I believe are definitely there. New world wines that retain the complexity of their terrior with balance and great with both food and just drinking.
Can’t. The whole thing sounds like an oxymoron. If the wine is being as big as possible, it is not in balance. The only balanced new world style wines I find balanced are those that aren’t as huge, ripe and overoaked as possible.
I think they are rare birds. I’m not as set as Otto but I would agree with his take in general. The point of a big fruited wine isn’t balance. It’s fruit delivery.
I haven’t drank Saxum in a long time but I think in certain vintages those wines definitely were balanced. It likely has to do with the vineyards being grown into limestone. That region gets pretty hot and the fruit was always big yet in certain vintages I think there was a nice underlying backbone of acidity that didn’t standout as tart from tartaric acid additions. Alas I am unfamiliar with most of the wines of the last decade.
Another wine that I consider to often be big of fruit yet balanced would be some of the Rivers Marie Pinots. There is usually great expression and even complexity without seeming gloppy and overdone.
Sometimes Pinots from Pisoni/Lucia fit this mold for me also. Big fruited but I can still drink more than half a glass without wanting to move on.
However, the challenge with bigger new world style wines is that some versions (as hedonistic and pleasurable as they might be) become so over the top that they seem almost indistinguishable
You are asking the question wrong: anything that is “too” is not in balance. Pace Otto, you can have enormous, densely-fruited wines that are still in balance. Too many people use “balance” as a synonym for medium-bodied, even delicate wines, like where all the dials are set at “5” (humor me on the metaphor: I know that’s not how winemaking works). However, you can have a Spinal Tap wine, where all the dials are set at “11,” and it will still be in balance… because everything is at “11.” The readings don’t have to be all “5” for it to be in balance.
I have some huge, powerful wines, such as Bevan or Lail, that are nonetheless totally in balance. For disclosure purposes, I also like many wines that are much more delicate, where all the dials are set at “5” or even “3.” The point is, almost any top wine will be in balance. Whether it appeals to you is a different matter. Maybe you prefer everything set at “8.”
Chris I’m with you on this. I was struggling to put this idea that balance is really independent of wine “style” into words myself. I recently experienced a ballsy 2002 Aussie Shiraz that I would describe as balanced. The “dials” were turned up pretty high, but for me everything played together nicely to make for a very enjoyable wine drinking experience. In contrast and to your point I have had many tamer wines that were disjointed and not in balance because something stood out in an unfavorable way. FWIW
Also, it’s curious you chose tempranillo as your example (incidentally, I just took delivery of some Epoch tempranillo, and I’m looking forward to trying it). Spanish tempranillo has a wide range of expression. Even in Rioja, tempranillo is very different comparing a La Rioja Alta gran reserva 904 to an Artadi El Pison (the latter being one of my favorite wines in the world). Both are top-notch expressions, but they are not similar to each other. Other than being in balance, ha! When you take into account all of the often heavily-oaked versions from Ribera del Duero, there are just a lot of versions of the grape out there. So when you say that the Epoch doesn’t strike you as being a tempranillo, which version do you have in mind?
Thanks for helping to dial in the language and articulate the intended target in a much more comprehensible manner.
Saxum is an ideal reference (IMO). Enormous, densely-fruited wines that somehow manage to retain some remnants of depth, complexity, and identity.
I’m essentially looking to identify new world style wines on the bigger end of the spectrum that somehow manage to avoid coming off as completely over-ripe, oaky, syrupy glop.
My comment was half in jest, as I’ve actually had some huge blockbusters that have come across as surprisingly balanced for what they are - i.e. they’ve not collapsed under their own weight into a blowzy, flabby mess. However, most if not all of these wines have not been balanced in the sense that they might be very impressive for a sip or a small glass, but drinking them on their own becomes a chore rather quickly and they are often so excessive that pairing them with anything becomes nigh impossible.
For example I’ve often enjoyed a small tasting sample of Aalto P.S. from Ribera del Duero, since it is a textbook example of a wine that has all the dials set at eleven yet it manages to keep the balance somehow. Yet it definitely is not a wine I’d buy for my cellar. So while these wines might be in balance, I still wouldn’t call them balanced wines. But that only reduces to the perception of what one considers as balanced wines. While I wouldn’t say my “balanced” wines are not wines where everything is set at “5” (heavens no! sounds very boring and dull, actually), I think there are many people who’d consider wines I think are balanced as thin, bland and insipid. Different strokes for different folks, &c.
I think there are a lot of examples of wines that I think are really big and hedonistic, but in balance (i.e., has interesting contrasting elements counterbalancing each other). I think Aubert is a great example of a wine that delivers great power and boldness, but also great complexity, structure and overall balance. I also think Almaviva has great balance, especially for a more polished and hedonistic red. A lot of Saxums have impressive balance as well despite being very hedonistic.
I once saw a comment somewhere about a New World wine that said something akin to “it achieves a balance like everyone yelling at the top of their lungs at the same time”. Forget where, but it seems worth mentioning in this thread.
When I opened a 2017 it had a big, rich flavor, but was also finely balanced. Not really a “fruit bomb” but about as “big” as I like & still showing signs of balance.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
![[pwn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/3/3d5d493eaefe29f8a37971ea1ffbb65a4e2b21aa.gif "pwn"){kind=small}