Have always enjoyed Matt’s writing (though I have NOT followed him from the very start, Tom!!!). This piece is great - and really is a lead in to a more in depth discussion about wine myths that continue to live on in our current wine culture.
http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/47742
Enjoy! ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
I’ve always loved Matt’s view of things. He has a no-BS perspective. N
Well…ahem…I have followed MattKramer from the very start, Larry. No surprise there, though.
The one thing that really stuck out to me in that article was:
…finally, the sheer impossibility of predicting the life trajectory of any wine.
Do you suppose that Laube or Molesworth or any Monktown attourneys would go along w/ that sort of blather??
Not only would they argue their ability to do so w/ unerring accuracy…they claim to be able to accurately assign
a number to the quality of a wine when it’s at that peak. “Accurately” is, of course, subject to some debate amongst learned
people like you and me.
As for the “myth” about structure being an accurate indicator of ageability of (red) wine…that’s only one part of the equation.
As he points (quite correctly) out, we usually don’t apply the term “structure” to white wines. Yet the wine world is replete
w/ examples of white wines that age brilliantly.
For reds…“structure” (and I’m not just talking about tannin levels here) is merely a part of the equation. For me, “structure”
not only includes tannin levels, but acid levels as well. And I think “balance” also plays a role in there as well. Alas, my cellar
is loaded w/ wines that I was certain had the “structure” to carry them out long-term. Wrongo/dongo.
Tom
I have been saying the same thing about humidity for years. Nobody seems to listen or care about basic physics in the wine community, apparently.
One gripe, though…Kramer decries the price-quality correlation, but for decades has been trumpeting the virtues of Barolo and Burgundy, both of which are off-the-charts absurd in that department.
What is the general sense of his comments regarding humidity in the cellar? I’ve never really zoned in on that argument, does it hold water???
Well…I care about physics, Nate…basic or otherwise. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
I agree that humidity plays a very minor, if any, role in cellaring a wine. Here in NM, our humidities are typically pretty low. And the wines seem to age just fine, thank you.
I’ve a friend who has an underground (dirt & concrete block) cellar that he takes great pains to keep humid. His wines age just fine as best I can tell. But it has its cost.
His (bottles…not the wine itself) pick up the smell of his damp cellar. I can smell a btl of his (cellared) wine from 5’ away from said btl. And when I try to save
the label for my collection (don’t ask), the label just disintegrates when I put it to soak.
One gripe, though…Kramer decries the price-quality correlation, but for decades has been trumpeting the virtues of Barolo and Burgundy, both of which are off-the-charts absurd in that department.
Yeah, Nate…that was a glaringly exception that I noted as well.
Kramer, whom I’ve followed from the very start, seems compelled to trot out yet another article in which he debunks certain wine myths every few yrs. This is yet another
one in the continuing saga.
Tom
So is that a fact-based piece of literature or simply an opinion piece?
So, I could’ve spent that Eurocave money on wine (and a thermal-hacked old fridge or two)?
Completely agree w/r/t humidity, but the price issue is more complicated than he suggests.
First, he says, correctly, that there are regions where great wine comes relatively cheap. True enough. But that does not mean that everything else being equal – like the region and kind of wine – the price is meaningless. The fact that you can buy a cru Beaujolais for a lot less than a grand cru burg, and that both can be really fine, does not mean that price is irrelevant when looking at burgs.
Here too, he would have a point. Just because Maya and Screaming Eagle are many multiples more expensive than Monte Bello doesn’t make them better. But to say,as he does, that above $30 price is meaningless is just wrong.
It costs money to have someone with some training go through the clusters and pick out the garbage and to cull all the bruised fruit. And the best vineyards cost more than ones with lousy exposition and unsuitable drainage.
So if you are bound and determined to make the best possible wine, it is going to cost money, and that is going to increase the price of the wine. That is far from a guarantee that more expensive = better (far from it), but it is also demonstrably false to say that money is irrelevant.
If his point is that you don’t have to spend a lot of money to drink well, that is the philosophy that has built my cellar, so I surely will agree with that
Not really. Having done it, I can train a normal human in about 60 seconds. It would probably take about 120 seconds for an attorney.
I said “some training,” not an advanced degree. I take your point, but it is more labor (and therefore $$) intensive to make good stuff than it is to make crap.
What you’re paying for is someone that can look at the fruit on the vine and understand what the final wine will turn out like.
One point about humidity not discussed here is that fact that the level of humidity will alter, albeit slightly, the alcohol level in a wine. Too high a humidity and ethanol evaporates at a higher rate relative to water, and at lower humidity levels, water will evaporate faster relative to ethanol, increasing the alcohol levels of the subsequent wine.
This data is taken from barrel storage under differing conditions - and I have not seen any research data on wine stored at different humidity levels, but my guess is that there will be some correlation there.
Cheers.
I thought low humidity can also dry out the cork. Also there is a reason why FGs can afford to make better wine than the rest, ie price.
It would have been nice if he’d made a positive argument about longevity in addition to debunking some myths (since, of course, some wines are doing better than others with age), as well as explained why corks crack, break, or leak when humidity is low.
I know that’s a factor with barrels because they are slightly porous (Scotch gets less alcoholic, Bourbon gets more alcoholic, as I recall). But does that have any applicability to wine aged in bottle?
Interesting post. I am guilty of using structure in part describing a wine but never thought I was solely referring to tannins as suggested, structure is more complete than that to me, I would think it includes all the flavonoids for instance?
Most interesting was the post on ullage:
What is being lost is water. (Wine is 70 percent to 80 percent water.) Water molecules are only half the size of oxygen molecules. So while water molecules can slip past along the sides of a cork that is slowly, microscopically, losing its grip, the larger oxygen molecules still can’t get in.
It would seem it is better to store wine upright and have less risk of the water molecules leaking, the oxygen molecules would still not get in. This would explain why a cheap 1968 Chianti stored upright since purchase had no ullage and tasted great after 44 years.
John,
I asked the question because I truly do not know for sure. We know that corks do slightly change shape as they age, and if given the right opportunity, they will ‘shrink’ and therefore allow for increased ullage . . . and therefore this could, in theory, effect the alcohol levels.
Not sure I’ve seen any research on this, but it would be interesting for sure . . .
Cheers
I generally enjoy Kramer’s articles, but I think this one is a stretch, written without sufficient supporting evidence and with an atypical thoughtlessness and oversimplification of his purported “myths.”
Structure is not simply a matter of tannins, as he suggests. Note that Matt refers to rieslings, white burgundy, barbera, etc. as wines that happen to age well despite having lover levels of tannins. Kramer uses structure and tannins as a synonym, which is inappropriate. Structure can refer to acidity, sugar, alcohol, etc., each of which are preservatives that can ward off oxidation and decay. A fat riesling will not age as well as a riesling with great balance and crisp acidity. The acid provides strucutre and is a preservative. Those with experience can ignore tannins, but still understand that structure contributes to ageworthiness. Barbera is a grape with extremely low tannins, but with exceptional levels of acid. Again, the acid contributes to structure, and we can generally guess which Barbera are best suited to age. The same is true for white burgundy, which generally have higher levels of acid, see time in oak, and still have some latent tannins. All of the wines he mentioned are loaded with natural preservatives that provide noticeable structure to the wines. Kramer should have specified that TANNINS, not structure, are not the only determinative factor of a wine’s ability to age.
Price does have some correlation to quality in wine, as in every consumer product. Do you know why a Porsche costs more than a Chevy Malibu? To a large degree, cost of production. It has better engineering, more expensive parts, higher quality construction, more invested in design, aerodynamics, etc., resulting in a car that can outperform the Malibu in nearly every aspect. Do you know why Brioni suits cost more than Van Huesen? Brionis use Super 150s, and Van Huesen uses Super 80s, and the effort that goes into crafting and tailoring the suits is extremely different. The burdens of production are most often placed on consumers. Kramer seeks to address that point by using the $30 threshold argument. I suppose to him, that satisfies the cost of production for even the most expensive wine. That probably is pretty close. Even so, we should factor in vineyard competition, competition for best winemakers, staff, chemists, etc., and when push comes to shove, some of the most expensive wines simply act like the Yankees and pay more to get more. In addition, demand and market pressure also dictates price. Terrible wine for $100 will have eventually suffer on the market, and either fold or be forced to reconcile cost and demand. If Kramer truly wants to discuss cost, he must also do so in context. I’d be willing to bet that most $100 white burgs out perform $30 white burgs from the same vintage. I’d also make that bet in Napa cabernet. If he wants to argue that the best $30 zinfandel relatively outperforms the worst $100 cab, that’s fine, but it’s a comparison of apples to oranges. I think every human being is aware that good wines can be had for less money, but for the most part, price belies intra-varietal hierarchy.
Humidity is the one point that I am not able to dispute for lack of knowledge. What I can say is that Kramer’s arguments are severely flawed. Kramer argues that the cork is compressed, and creates an airtight seal. As a result, what’s a little dry air going to really do to a cork? First, we’ve all had corks disentigrate while opening, even if the cork had been in contact with the wine on its side for years. That alone is evidence, to me, that corks really can dry out regardless of whether they’re in contact with wine. So, the argument that the cork contacts the wine, and so won’t dry out is inherently flawed. My concern is the proportional exposure of a cork to drying factors v. humidifying factors. If the tip of the cork is exposed to exceptional dryness for an extended period of time, it will dry out and shrink, even a microscopic amount. At that point, the perfect seal between the 1mm tip of the cork and the bottle is eliminated, and that same 1mm tip of the cork is now exposed to drying factors, which may cause additional dehydration. Continue that expirement until the moment in time where the entire seal is brokern, oxygen ingress occurs, a run on the cork occurs, the cork slips, etc. It simply makes sense, to me, that such a chain of events can occur. Will it take a considerable amount of time? Almost certainly. But then again we’re discussing humidity in the context of very-long-term cellaring. So, to me, Kramer’s logic is seriously flawed, and his speculation simply that. I’ll need more than wrote speculation to “bust” a myth.
As you can imagine from this post, I thought his article was complete shit, and to me it seemed like he wrote it over a cup of coffee with little serious analysis or thought.
I can’t wait to get the teal dear image.
I think most people would define structure as tannins. I agree with you that they shouldn’t. But you seem to completely agree with Kramer on the specifics of this point.
Blind tastings routinely support Kramer’s view, and rarely yours, IMHO. Within a single wine-type, less expensive wines often trounce their more expensive peers.
I agree with this point completely.