No, nature is the standard.
I’d never suggest that myself…truly…I wouldn’t. 
I think it’s fair to say that I put my efforts and energies toward supporting the classification and standards system in Burgundy to a small degree. 
my comment was just that things don’t need to be so rigid. I have said for a while now, especially after working in Burgundy for a very short time that it is easy to notice that there are great opportunities in The New World to move in a positive direction, leaving many doors open. I just feel that it is much too early to close these very same doors due to preconceived notions on what should and should not be expected from these growing regions.
Anyhow, like I mentioned in my post. My energy is on the swift decline of labouring a point through. I’m much more interested in learning something new and having fun. This of course is much more entertaining with a glass in hand, if not close by.
I guess so, Ray. I’m certainly not suggesting we take an axe to a barrel of Siduri or anything, but our relativism has reduced all conversations about aesthetic value in wine to simple personal preference. But there really is such a thing as “too much” or “not enough.” And those aesthetic limitations are set by the material.
Hi Greg
This isn’t medieval Europe, but I believe one of the first famous wines, Falerian, from southern Italy, was regarded as being better with age - ‘in 37 BC, Varro wrote in Res Rusticae that Falernian increased in value as it matured’ (nicked from Wikipedia).
There is also the issue of wine stabilsation - until the discovery that sulphur could be used to prevent oxidisation, which apparently was used by the Romans, then forgotten, then re-used by English and Dutch merchants, but only for transportation in barrel (burning a sulphur candle inside a barrel before filling it). I think the late 1400s was when it became legal and much more commonplace.
I agree whole-heartidly. With that said, I am totally open and happy that others think differently than I do. I believe it creates much more interesting outcomes and I wouldnt dare do something that may hinder someone else’s opinion. So, I have my thoughts but I prefer the sound of other’s voices.
I was under the impression that the first two vintages were from KB which would make the difference between years less stark.
BTW, RN74 DOES have Cali Pinot and Chardonnay that exceed 14% so I wish writers and posters would stop posting such inaccurate information.
I like both styles of wines. If I am not having food i prefer a richer tasting wine but that’s me.
This debate is silly; it’s not an either or world, there is room for both styles.
I don’t think he’s been sensitive at all. There were a lot of assertions by people that didn’t know what they were talking about that needed to be questioned, discussed, fleshed out.
My admittedly limited understanding of Kant’s Aesthetics suggests that judgments of taste require a measure of disinterest, thereby requiring one to conclude that he, for example, finds pleasure in a given wine because he finds it beautiful, as opposed to judging a given wine beautiful because it gives pleasure. The latter situation seems more appropos for a wine drinker, but I don’t believe it is a judgment based on aesthetic standards - thus, the oft-quoted canary wine example.
Us wimpy, low-alcohol-pandering acid lovers were lurking there all along.
A brief history, as I see it from the perspective of someone who has followed this since the early 80s:
– The late 70s saw a lot of very high alcohol wines in California – on a par with today’s, though there was no syrah and little pinot in those days. Zin was the big wine of choice.
– This was followed by a much-discussed shift among winemakers in the early and mid-80s toward “food wines” with lower alcohols.
– Things began to swing back toward riper wines in the 80s as Parker gained more influence and as his palate shifted markedly toward quite ripe wines. And this time the ripeness thing hit Europe as well.
– This caused a bit of a polarization, with a small minority of people liking cooler climate, lower alcohol, higher acid wines (e.g., Burgundy, Loire) that didn’t win much favor with Parker. When he dissed Burgundy (why drink Burgundy when you can drink Chateauneuf, he asked) and raved about flabby, overripe Zind-Humbrechts with no acid and residual sugar, the minority scratched its collective head.
– Kermit Lynch, Neal Rosenthal and Joe Dressner went on importing the minority’s kind of wines, and eventually Allen Meadows became the market-maker for Burgundy, because Parker had no credibility there. But the market at large became increasingly Parker-driven. Acid lovers remained effectively marginalized.
– Over the past decade, the acid-loving alcohol-shunners started to find one another and lend each other moral support. The web was a big factor. The eBob board showed even the most diehard Parker fans that Parker didn’t have a monopoly on informed opinion about wine. In addition, there were writers like Claude Kolm and John Gilman here in the US with very different palates, and the British wine writers took issue with some of Parker’s raves about over-the-top wines like some of the 2003 Bordeaux.
– In NYC, I would say the symbolic beginning of the Fruit Bomb Resistance movement was the opening of Chambers Street in 2001. If there is one defining feature of their eclectic range of wines, including the New World ones, it’s that they aren’t overripe and they tend to have refreshing acid levels. Jamie Wolfe and David Lilly found there was a market for these wines.
– Gradually Parker’s preferences began to be counterbalanced by other points of view, Eric Asimov most prominently.
And that’s where we are today.
Hope that was a relatively neutral account.
Gene,
You have to stop this talk - LOGIC has no place in this discussion . . . ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Go away to Napa for a lunch meeting and an entire thread breaks out (or as Jamie would have us believe, from the thread title, a great moral uprising against an occupying army and their unimaginable horrors – ![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
)
Since I’ve been oft mentioned, let me jump in directly.
Michael, I apologize if you have found my comments to be too sensitive. Forgive me if I go briefly astray, but let me give you some of my personal background. The classes in college where I learned the most were always small group History classes (13 students or so). We debated Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kierkergaard, etc. as if they held real sway over our lives – and we never failed to challenge any assumption or hypothesis made by a fellow classmate. For a young man raised Southern Baptist, who was taught to see the world in black and white, this was incredibly liberating (continuing with the resistance theme). Rarely were the real disagreements about the meat of the issue, but around the edges is where all of our theories became more tenuous. — I’ve continued down this path in life and in wine, questioning all — and hope others question me as well, with no animus by either party. ---- What is often missed is that which is hidden, which are very kind emails between me and Jamie, Kevin, and others with which I take issue philosophically. —So, again, I apologize if I have appeared overly sensitive by expressing positions that I hold and by questioning others.
That being said, I don’t intend to stop. I think that in this age of wine writer power dissemination, it is increasingly important to question statements that are being thrown around as if they were fact. In Jordan’s piece, for example, he does state that Raj Paar “refuses to stock new-world pinot noirs and chardonnays that clock in at higher than 14 percent.” A look at only the first page of the RN74 wine list online shows the Tyler Chardonnay (14.2 on the label) and the Neyers Pinot Noir (14.4 on the label). Shouldn’t something like that investigated for its veracity before being printed?
As far as my specific comment on Jordan’s article — his assertion was that as wine becomes a mealtime staple then people will turn to lower alcohol wines. I don’t necessarily agree. First off, Americans eat differently (preferring sweeter beverages, spicier foods, etc) than Europeans. But more than that, for wine to become a mealtime staple it will have to become significantly less expensive, something that neither those making lower alcohol wines nor those making higher alcohol wines have found a way to do.
As to the heart of the matter, on alcohol, — I find myself consistently disappointed that the focus is on alcohol rather than ripeness. Look, Jamie’s alcohol numbers are lower and lower, but are those grapes riper if the vineyard is in a cooler setting (btw, doesn’t Jamie make several Pinot Noirs? Aren’t those numbers from differing vineyards — if so, so what? – I could say I picked at 30.7. 27.8, 25.7, 23.8, and 20.2 all in 2010)? Honestly, I have made overripe Pinot Noir at less than 22 brix and less than ripe Pinot at 33 brix. – The alcohol thing is, IMHO, an overly simplified way of looking at ripeness.
Finally, as much as Jim’s call to nature as the arbitrer of aesthetic standards might pull at the heartstrings, I think it is unduly vague. To what degree does the sugar of a grape which is allowed to hang on the vine fight against nature?
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
So you’re saying that if Paso Robles (for example) had been the birthplace of winemaking, that would have been the “standard”? Paso has its style, after all, and it’s as much “nature” as is Hermitage. The fact that many of the historically “classic” wines come from France is really nothing more than historical serendipity (and the fact that most vineyard land isn’t suitable for food crops). Mind you, I’m largely a proponent of “less is more,” so I’m not here to defend the Albans and Mollydookers of the world. But the “nature” argument misses the point that it’s simply about choice for the winemaker and wine consumer. As Brian, Adam, Ray and others have said, live and let live, there is no right or wrong, just personal choice.
Regards
Adam, I always appreciate your comments, and I totally agree that an alcohol number alone is not a guide. (I had a D’Arenberg GSM blend Friday that clocked in at 15% yet didn’t show it at all and the fruit wasn’t cooked or pruney.)
But, while I can understand less than ripe at 33 brix, overripe at 22 brix??? Please discuss.
The vineyard is planted on 5C rootstock which needs to be watered fairly regularly or it will shut down. It was not watered in this way, and thus the plant shut down. Sugars were stubborn and never made it past 22 brix, but pHs started going up – reaching the 3.9 range, and the fruit became overripe tasting, almost even raisined, although sugars were quite low. Declassified it all into the Sonoma County blend.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Sometimes I accept the premise that wines are being made with too much alcohol and it is affecting the taste of the wine! At other times I wonder whether we aren’t constantly in search of something new… and then trying to turn it into the same old thing we really like! Is there such a thing as a low alcohol wine that evidences a character of fruit purity that is new under the sun!?!
I am open to the notion that there is a possibility of something new that is also intrinsically … for lack of a better word… good!!!
On the other hand, is anyone else familiar with the lore of Scandinavian (Danish/Carlsberg perhaps) beer culture that eventually their beer ended up having such a high level of alcohol that they held a national referendum to reduce the level of alcohol in their beer so that it didn’t simply taste like a beer with a shot of 'shine in it? To this day they make a “special export” for sale largely in Ireland and Australian markets.
And, in a completely different direction, does anyone else hold the belief as I do that a wine with a high alcohol content makes it less palatable in the short term than one that is lower is alcohol and easier to drink!?! I find that I tend to prefer to decant “fruit bombs” to blow off the alcohol and get a hint of what they might be in a decade or three (assuming they won’t simply fall apart)!
Is it unusual to say that on one night, I might like to eat a New York strip where I use butter on the grill with a rich Dungeness Oscar on top, and the following night a frisee salad with a seared scallop? Sometimes I order Thai food so spicy that it makes my eyes water, and others I just get rice paper salad rolls.
That is the nature of this discussion. Asking people to take a side, or insinuating that they should, as Andrew points out, sells magazines and gets blog hits, but really doesn’t advance enjoyment or education about wine.
To the point about the somm who won’t carry 14% wine, no Chateauneuf, no Barolo, no Barbaresco, doesn’t sound like a restaurant that I’d like to eat in.
Grapes grow differently all over the world.
At harvest time, when these decisions are being made, there are so many factors- ripeness, weather, crew availablity, tank space, etc. I personally, am striving to make wines that are lower in alcohol. Many of us are. But It’s difficult to hold yourself to that standard, as a winemaker, year in and year out. There are years like this year, when the fruit was really ripe at 24 brix or lower at our estate vineyards, with all of the characters I normally don’t get until 25+. I wish every year was like that. Other years, the seeds, pulp, and stems are still stalky tasting and green at that point, and you feel you have to wait it out, for better or worse.
I personally like the different styles out there, and am happy to see more and more divercity.
“You can’t put the same suit on every man”.
Diversity is good. I would like for more American producers to tone down the ripeness though to balance things out. Too many ripe, soft early drinkers IMO. I think thats a valid style and clearly has a following but there could be more wines at the other end of the spectrum.