A bottle of 1811 Chateau d'Yquem was sold to a French wine collector yesterday for £75,000 pounds which set a record for a retail sale of fine white wine. You may think, how could a bottle of wine be worth that much? Well if it is still drinkable after 200 years, and it probably will be, then it will be worth it. Chateau d'Yquem is renowned for its longevity and longevity is one of the true measures of a fine wine. It will be interesting to see if some of the new pretenders on the investment wine market can last that long. I hope the buyer gets around to tasting his wine rather than holding it as a long term investment; wine can only really give pleasure when it is drunk with family or friends.
For people that cannot afford to pay so much for their sweet white wine, I recommend buying a really good bottle of Monbazillac of recent vintage and keeping it in an undisturbed cool dark place for about 8 years to 10 years. This "poor man's Sauternes" will not disappoint you, it is really great wine which improves in the bottle. My recommendation is wine from the Chateau Monbazillac itself. Better still buy half a case. Drink it with foie gras, dessert or blue cheeses.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
2010 Mollydooker Velvet Glove Shiraz
Recently a 462 case shipment of 2010 Mollydooker Velvet Glove Shiraz was dropped in by a faulty forklift truck leaving 461 cases smashed. That is 5532 bottles and each one was expected to retail at 200 USD a bottle. The loss is calculated to be over 1 million USD. The fact is most bottles of wine do not cost more than 16 USD each to produce, so maybe the losses were rather exaggerated. It is a good story however. I have never tasted Mollydooker Shiraz but is is probably a very good wine so it is a shame it was wasted.
You may ask why this wine is so expensive, well wines from this producer have been scored 99 out of 100 by a famous wine commentator. Fame, marketing and rarity value does the rest. This wine is produced in very small quantities. I do not know whether this wine is that much better than any of the other excellent wines produced in the Mclaren Vale. But I do know this, I regularly visit the Burgundy area of France and have tasted bottles of red which are of better quality, in my opinion, at 25 USD than wines from the region costing a lot, lot more. But the difference is not that great; one would expect a wine costing 150 bucks plus to be of high quality.
Many "boutique style wines" are now being used as investment instruments which causes their price to sky rocket further. My advice would be to taste before you buy especially if you are considering paying a very high price. The bottle of wine you are getting may disappoint you in comparison to the lower priced competitors. Even if you are investing for money only and are not really interested in the taste of wine, I still advise tasting first. There is nothing like the feel of a greenback to let you know what your investment is really worth.
You may ask why this wine is so expensive, well wines from this producer have been scored 99 out of 100 by a famous wine commentator. Fame, marketing and rarity value does the rest. This wine is produced in very small quantities. I do not know whether this wine is that much better than any of the other excellent wines produced in the Mclaren Vale. But I do know this, I regularly visit the Burgundy area of France and have tasted bottles of red which are of better quality, in my opinion, at 25 USD than wines from the region costing a lot, lot more. But the difference is not that great; one would expect a wine costing 150 bucks plus to be of high quality.
Many "boutique style wines" are now being used as investment instruments which causes their price to sky rocket further. My advice would be to taste before you buy especially if you are considering paying a very high price. The bottle of wine you are getting may disappoint you in comparison to the lower priced competitors. Even if you are investing for money only and are not really interested in the taste of wine, I still advise tasting first. There is nothing like the feel of a greenback to let you know what your investment is really worth.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
"Older Drinkers" and "Late on-set Reactors"
Now the Royal Society of Psychiatrists have got into the act by making drink recommendations. They are proposing that the government issue new recommendations for alcohol consumption for the over 65's. Men and women over sixty five should drink no more than 1.5 units of alcohol per day or no more than 11 per week. This is absurd to the point of being laughable. Where is the evidence upon which they base their assertions? They cannot even get their arithmetic right; which regime do you want to be on the 11 units a week one or the 1.5 units a day?
If you are a man of 64 years and 364 days, your recommendation is 21 units per week and if you are a woman it is 14 units per week. But all of a sudden and one day older you have become a geriatric "late on-set reactor" incapable of taking your alcohol. Before the age of 65 women are advised to drink less alcohol than men but at the magical age of 65 both sexes should drink the same amount. This advice is obviously bunkum and counterproductive; who, now, can take any advice seriously about how much alcohol they should consume.
The new recommendations mean that any man or woman over 65 who drinks two small glasses of wine or a pint of beer or a double scotch a day will be considered a problem drinker, despite their health. This will create a problem rather than provide a solution. There are problem drinkers in all age groups and little is being done to solve their predicament other than lowering the recommendations for "sensible" drinking. Identifying the real problem drinkers in the population is already like "finding a needle" in a haystack". What is the point of making the haystack bigger?
It has been obvious to everyone for centuries that if you drink too much you will damage your health. Most people who have reached the age of 65 are quite capable of deciding for themselves how much they should drink without being patronised by anyone, including members of the Royal Society of Psychiatrists. They are also sensible enough not to drink when they are taking certain types of drugs. They do not appreciate being accused of being substance abusers.
The following statements released by Age UK sums up attitudes nicely:
"It is very worrying that growing numbers of people in later life are drinking higher levels of alcohol, which is likely to lead to a rise in alcohol-related health problems.
"Age UK fully supports moves to encourage GPs to do more to identify people who are drinking too much and the importance of raising awareness among older people about safe drinking levels." This is PR waffle of the worst kind which will do nothing to solve the problems that some over 65's have with alcohol or any other aspect of their life.
If you are a man of 64 years and 364 days, your recommendation is 21 units per week and if you are a woman it is 14 units per week. But all of a sudden and one day older you have become a geriatric "late on-set reactor" incapable of taking your alcohol. Before the age of 65 women are advised to drink less alcohol than men but at the magical age of 65 both sexes should drink the same amount. This advice is obviously bunkum and counterproductive; who, now, can take any advice seriously about how much alcohol they should consume.
The new recommendations mean that any man or woman over 65 who drinks two small glasses of wine or a pint of beer or a double scotch a day will be considered a problem drinker, despite their health. This will create a problem rather than provide a solution. There are problem drinkers in all age groups and little is being done to solve their predicament other than lowering the recommendations for "sensible" drinking. Identifying the real problem drinkers in the population is already like "finding a needle" in a haystack". What is the point of making the haystack bigger?
It has been obvious to everyone for centuries that if you drink too much you will damage your health. Most people who have reached the age of 65 are quite capable of deciding for themselves how much they should drink without being patronised by anyone, including members of the Royal Society of Psychiatrists. They are also sensible enough not to drink when they are taking certain types of drugs. They do not appreciate being accused of being substance abusers.
The following statements released by Age UK sums up attitudes nicely:
"It is very worrying that growing numbers of people in later life are drinking higher levels of alcohol, which is likely to lead to a rise in alcohol-related health problems.
"Age UK fully supports moves to encourage GPs to do more to identify people who are drinking too much and the importance of raising awareness among older people about safe drinking levels." This is PR waffle of the worst kind which will do nothing to solve the problems that some over 65's have with alcohol or any other aspect of their life.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Natural Wine
Natural Wine? Get ready for a new trend and a new fashion - Natural Wine. Eventually, there was bound to be a reaction to the way many modern wines are being produced. The increasingly industrialised production of wine has lead to boring wines which all taste the same within their varietal band and brand. It is increasingly difficult to tell the difference between a commercialised "Merlot", "Cabernet Sauvignon" or "Chardonnay" no matter which country it comes from. What better way to improve the taste of wine than to return to more "natural" agriculture and wine making techniques. I am all in favour of drinking wine from smaller wine producers who intervene as little as possible to make wines which reflect the region in which they are produced; wines which have an individual character. I am prepared to pay a premium for such wine.
Wine makers fall into three broad and ill defined categories:
Traditional wine makers: who grow their grapes and maintain them without using organic or bio-dynamic techniques. They work to improve the yield of the grapes by trellising the vines, weeding them and using pesticides. Where economical they use machinery to tend the grapes and harvest them. Some farmers sell their grapes to a co-operative which produces the wine, whilst others produce the wines themselves. Whoever produces the wine, some or all of the interventions mentioned in the winemaker paragraphs below will be used. Good winemakers in the traditional mould will seek to minimise the intervention both in the vineyard and the winery. If a grower does not use organic or bio-dynamic techniques, it does not mean that he will produce inferior quality grapes or produce inferior quality wine. Traditional methods often match the grape variety to the soil type and the local climate and appellation rules often dictate which grapes can be used in which region. Some traditional winemakers are committed to "la lutte raisonée" or reasonable struggle which means that the vine grower will only intervene with a pesticide or herbicide when it is absolutely necessary for economic reasons. Most of the the world's finest tasting and high quality wines are made by traditional methods of agriculture and wine making.
Natural wine makers: It is difficult to nail down what is a natural wine producer. They will all, however, use "organic" or "bio-dynamic" growing techniques.
Organic farmers endeavour to maintain a farm in ecological balance with its surroundings and will not try to "import fertility" by usage of chemical fertilisers or pesticides.They allow "weeds" to grow in the vineyard to encourage natural predators and to provide natural fertilisers. Some farmers do not use tractors to plough their land as they feel that it damages the soil. But is using a horse drawn plough any more natural? Nature if left to itself has no use for a plough. Most organic producers will grow their products under the auspices of an approved scheme. I am all in favour of organic farming not because the products are intrinsically better but because it is less damaging to the environment in general.
All products of organic agriculture will be of bad quality if they have been damaged by "pests" disease or bad weather, so wine that is made from poor quality grapes will not produce good wine. The natural wine maker is limited , however, as to what he can do to improve the quality of the grape must. It may not be possible for him to produce a wine in a bad year. The economics of wine production lean towards the methods of the traditional wine maker.
Bio-dynamic farming of grapes involves the use of preparations specified by Rudolf Steiner an early twentieth century philosopher and scientist. One of the preparations involves the use of burying nettle leaves and digging them up later and using them as compost. Another preparation involves burying cow dung over winter enclosed in a cow horn - vegans take note. These types of preparation are controversial to say the least.
There is very little scientific evidence that organic or bio-dynamically produced grapes are of substantially better quality than traditionally produced grapes. But lower yields tend to indicate better quality grapes. The attention to detail of the farmer and the additional care of the vineyard might also improve the quality of the grapes. But what is an organic or bio-dynamic grower to do if his crop is spoilt by by a fungal infestation which is not controllable by natural techniques. I leave that for you to work out yourself. The use of sulphur is permitted in the vineyard to control pests.
Some natural wine producers are opposed to the use of any additives in the wine but some use sulphur di-oxide compounds to help sterilise equipment and prevent the oxidation of the grape must or wine. Natural wine producers do not approve of micro-oxygenation of wine or its filtration. Cultured yeasts are also prohibited. Some do not even fine the their wines or where fining is necessary they only use egg albumen. Some top wine producers are also turning to organic or bio-dynamic methods to produce their wines.
Industrial or Commercialised wine makers: These producers will use a whole panoply of technological and chemical techniques to improve the yield in the vineyard and rectify the wine with chemical additives and techniques such as filtration and micro-oxygenation and of course cultured yeast. The wine produced may not necessarily be harmful or even taste bad but it will taste as if it has been homogenised. How often have you drank a "Merlot" which could come from any country or continent for that matter? Such wine will not stimulate the taste buds. This sort of wine is OK for a barbecue or a party where you do not really care what you are going to drink. In general these wines are also cheaper. Industrial wine production can also ensure that a wine is made even in a bad or terrible year. Additives to and the manipulation of the wine making process can guarantee that a producer produces the same quality and tasting wine, year after year, no matter what is happening to the soil or the weather.
Issues
Now let us examine the issues surrounding the production of natural wine. Is "natural wine" superior to products which do not employ such stringent techniques? How do we define naatural wine? What do we mean by natural anyway? One could argue that a natural process is one where there is no intervention by mankind. If that is so then no product of human agriculture could be termed as natural. If one argues, the other way, that Human Beings are as much a part of nature as any other creature or plant, then humans and all their activities are natural; including the tools and techniques to improve food and beverage production. So where does that place wine production? It is on a sliding scale from where fermentation of wild grapes accidentally produces wine to where a completely industrialised process produces an homogenised varietal branded wine. We should be careful of a lot of the hype surrounding natural wine, it may not be as natural as you think but really just a name.
Wine was first discovered or invented about 8,000 years ago either in Georgia or the Near East, according to the archaeological evidence, but no-one knows its origin for certain. No doubt it was discovered when a farmer left some wild crushed grapes in vat or pot to ferment by accident. The original product would not have lasted long as the primitive wine would have quickly turned to vinegar when exposed to the air and contaminating bacteria. Ever since its first discovery wine producers have been intervening in the vineyard and the winery to improve the production of grapes or the wine making process. They have tried to both improve the quality of wine and its storage to protect it from the ravages of oxygen and heat. Up until the nineteenth century most improvements would have been made on the basis of trial and error.
The primary grape selected for wine production in Europe was the vitis vinifera species from which numerous varieties of black and white grapes were selected according to their suitability to produce red, white and rose wines. Such varieties, of vitis vinifera grapes, include Chardonnay, Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and all of the other grapes used for commercial production of wine.
Trial and error was also used to discover and invent fortified wine styles such as Sherry and Port.
The invention of the bottle was also a major step to improve the keeping qualities and transport of wine to export markets.
In the mid-nineteenth century, Louis Pasteur postulated his germ theories and discovered the cause of fermentation. Wine production was subjected to the rigours of scientific examination. Scientific methods started to be introduced in both the vineyard and the winery. The germ theory lead to the discovery that micro-organisms other than "brewer's yeast" were responsible for the spoilage of wines and beers and this lead to the usage of antiseptics such as sulphur di-oxide to preserve wine and other foods and beverages. Since then science and technology have made increasing contributions to the development of the wine industry.
Science possibly became the saviour of the wine industry during the latter part of the nineteenth century, when an outbreak of the phylloxera louse spread from the US throughout the world and completely threatened wine production from the vitis vinifera grapes. Vitis vinifera has virtually no resistance to the louse. The solution was to graft vitis vinifera shoots onto the root stocks of different species of vines from America which were resistant to the vine louse. This means that most of the world's vineyards are planted with vines that are an artificial creation. Where is the nature in that? At the time the alternative solution would have been to use insecticides. Some vineyards in the northern parts of Burgundy grow vines on sandy soils which are not suitable for the growth of the Phylloxera louse; they are therefore planted with purely original root stocks. I have tasted Cremant de Bourgogne produced in this way, from Chardonnay grapes, but I could not tell that it was markedly different from wine produced from grafted root stocks. Vineyards suitable for growing un-grafted grapes can also be found in South Australia, Chile and Portugal and there is debate amongst wine experts whether there is a marked difference in the quality and taste of the wine. A minority of vineyards, including organic and bio-dynamic ones, grow grapes which are uniquely based on un-grafted vitis vinifera scions. Most other vineyards would not remain commercially viable without the human intervention of grafting techniques.
Science and Technology have made further inroads into viticultural practises and techniques including:
Site surveys to find the best locations to plant new vineyards
Trellising techniques to improve yield and vineyard mechanisation
Technology to improve drainage and irrigation where necessary or allowable
Mechanisation of the harvest
Systemic Pesticides.
There have been equally important uses of science and technology in area of vinification including:
Cultured yeasts which are used to standardise the production of wine
The use of sulphur compounds to help prevent the oxidation of the wine
The use of sulphur compounds to sterilise the wine
Flushing the wine with nitrogen or carbon di-oxide to help prevent oxidation of the wine
Adjustments to the acidity of the wine
Adjustments to the sugar content of the wine
Micro-filtration of the wine to sterilise and clear it
Reverse osmosis to concentrate the grape must
Micro-oxygenation to mimic the effects of maturing the wine in wooden barrels
Use of fining agents to clarify the wine.
The ever increasing use of technology is a very controversial subject, especially in the winery where the use of additives and technology such as reverse osmosis can make up for bad quality grapes. One thing is certain, it has lead to the standardisation of wine which all tastes the same depending on the variety of grape used; the wine is clean, clear but sterile. Many many consumers enjoy these wines and so do I sometimes. But for something special, please choose wines which have not been tampered with to the same degree so that they show more character. They are worth the premium that has to be paid. Superior quality grapes produce superior quality wines without the excessive need for the type of adjustments listed above.
But what about some of the claims which are made for "natural wines" which are made by producers who forego even some of the techniques used by classic wine producers.
WINE MAKING
Wine making has come a long way during the last century as technology has had an increasing influence in the commercialisation of wine production.
Sulphur di-oxide or derived salts such as E224 potassium meta bisulphite are used by virtually all winemakers to sterilise the wine to prevent spoilage and to reduce the risk of the wine oxidising during the wine making process or after bottling. Some people are allergic to sulphur di-oxide so they cannot drink most wine. Excessive sulphur di-oxide can denature the colour of red wine and suppress the fruit character of the wine. Sulphur di-oxide is harmless to most people at the quantities allowed unless you have an allergy to it. It should also be noted that sulphites are a natural by product of fermentation by yeast. What difference does it make if man adds the bisulphite or yeast adds it? They are both products of nature. All good winemakers limit the quantity of sulphur di-oxide to a level that does not affect the quality or taste of the wine. Without this preservative some most wine will go off quickly.
Albumen or soluble protein which is usually obtained from egg whites or refined derivatives thereof. The EU has banned the use of albumen derived from ox blood because of the BSE scare. It is used to fine both red and white wines. Eggs whites mixed with a little wine can simply be added to the barrel. Vegans and some vegetarians would probably not want to drink wine fined with albumen but there is no list of ingredients on the bottle and it is difficult to find out whether the wine has been fined with an animal protein. Unless it is specifically stated on the bottle, it is probably better to assume that the wine is not "vegan compliant" .
Casein: this is derived from milk and is sometimes used to to remove colour taints from white wine.
Gelatine: this is made by boiling and treating animal skins and bones and it clarifies the wine by a simlar action to albumen. No doubt most vegans would be horrified if they knew that this was added to their wine. Gelatine is sometimes mixed with silica sol , which is a mineral to clarify white wine. Gelatine can also be added in combination with certain types of tannin to improve the efficacy of the clarification process.
Bentonite: this is a silica based clay used to remove certain types of protein. If it is over-used it can remove some of flavour components of a wine. Bentonite is also a used for cat's litter. Whatever happened to that cat's pee aroma in the white wine?
Isinglass: this is gelatine which has been obtained from the swim bladders of fish. It is used to fine white wines.
PVPP Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone: this is a water soluble synthetic substance invented in the 20th century and used for the fining of white wines. Why anyone should want to use this substance I do not know.
In conclusion, fining serves a useful purpose to help the effective clarification of wine but of course it should be used in moderation otherwise the flavour of the wine could be spoilt. A good quality wine can be stabilised and cleared without fining but of course this may not suit commercial convenience.
Filtration: Some winemakers argue that filtration ruins wine and should not be used at all. Others maintain that filtration, if correctly applied, has no adverse affect on the wine. A wine that has been allowed to stand in the cask before bottling will clear itself, given enough time, and any remaining solid matter will throw a slight and harmless deposit in the the bottle. Modern industrial processes demand filtration using depth and membrane filters to remove all solids before bottling. Some types of membrane can remove all micro-organisms from the wine rendering it sterile. It is debateable whether filtration is an "unnatural" process or not. I prefer to drink wines which either have no or minimal filtration. Good wine will stabilise and clear itself if left in the barrel for long enough. A well fermented wine will remove all nutrients which will prevent further fermentation in the bottle, this and the alcohol will further help to sterilise the wine. Good wine should not need to be filtered but filtration suits commercial convenience.
OTHER PROCESSES
Some wine makers do not confine themselves to additives, filtration and fining. As if that were not enough, there are some even more dubious processes.
Chaptalisation: What is wrong with adding sugar to the grape must before fermentation? Sugar, in the form of glucose and fructose, is after all a natural substance which occurs naturally in the grape. But, if the grape must has to be chaptalised by adding sugar (sucrose) to increase the alcohol level then the original quality of the grapes must have been found wanting. Grapes grown in cold conditions often do not ripen well enough to produce enough of their own sugars. They are poor quality grapes. So what is the wine maker to do destroy his crop? The addition of sugar is closely regulated; it is banned in Italy and Spain and is only allowed in the cooler regions of France. Some winemakers are tempted to bend the rules when there is a poor harvest. Quality wines should not be chaptalised as it dilutes the flavour of the wine.
Rectified Concentrated Grape Must, can also be used to add sugar (glucose and fructose) content to the pre-fermentation product. This practice is also tightly controlled but a good quality wine cannot possibly be made in this way. There really is no substitute for good qaulity grapes. One up, too, for the natural wine maker.
Must Concentration: This must be one of the most dubious practices of all. It is used when there is a poor harvest to artificially build up the concentration of sugars in the grape must. It is only carried out under strictly controlled conditions. The chances are you will end up with an industrialised tasting bulk wine. Perhaps it would be better not to produce wine but economics dictate that something must be done to improve a poor harvest.
FERMENTATION
You would think that that there would be no controversy about yeast, as natural yeast has been just as important as grapes ever since wine was first discovered or produced. The primary species for making wine is saccharomyces cerevisiae. This occurs naturally in the environment in general and on grape skins in particular. But, of course, the application of science has lead to the artificial selection of cultured yeasts to meet a particular taste or set of properties to improve the fermentation process and the economic production of wine. Needless to say, when cultured yeasts are used it has encouraged the standarisation of winemaking and the standardisation of taste. If you want an individual tasting wine it is better to leave it to nature even if this means a a more expensive means of production.
Wine makers fall into three broad and ill defined categories:
Traditional wine makers: who grow their grapes and maintain them without using organic or bio-dynamic techniques. They work to improve the yield of the grapes by trellising the vines, weeding them and using pesticides. Where economical they use machinery to tend the grapes and harvest them. Some farmers sell their grapes to a co-operative which produces the wine, whilst others produce the wines themselves. Whoever produces the wine, some or all of the interventions mentioned in the winemaker paragraphs below will be used. Good winemakers in the traditional mould will seek to minimise the intervention both in the vineyard and the winery. If a grower does not use organic or bio-dynamic techniques, it does not mean that he will produce inferior quality grapes or produce inferior quality wine. Traditional methods often match the grape variety to the soil type and the local climate and appellation rules often dictate which grapes can be used in which region. Some traditional winemakers are committed to "la lutte raisonée" or reasonable struggle which means that the vine grower will only intervene with a pesticide or herbicide when it is absolutely necessary for economic reasons. Most of the the world's finest tasting and high quality wines are made by traditional methods of agriculture and wine making.
Natural wine makers: It is difficult to nail down what is a natural wine producer. They will all, however, use "organic" or "bio-dynamic" growing techniques.
Organic farmers endeavour to maintain a farm in ecological balance with its surroundings and will not try to "import fertility" by usage of chemical fertilisers or pesticides.They allow "weeds" to grow in the vineyard to encourage natural predators and to provide natural fertilisers. Some farmers do not use tractors to plough their land as they feel that it damages the soil. But is using a horse drawn plough any more natural? Nature if left to itself has no use for a plough. Most organic producers will grow their products under the auspices of an approved scheme. I am all in favour of organic farming not because the products are intrinsically better but because it is less damaging to the environment in general.
All products of organic agriculture will be of bad quality if they have been damaged by "pests" disease or bad weather, so wine that is made from poor quality grapes will not produce good wine. The natural wine maker is limited , however, as to what he can do to improve the quality of the grape must. It may not be possible for him to produce a wine in a bad year. The economics of wine production lean towards the methods of the traditional wine maker.
Bio-dynamic farming of grapes involves the use of preparations specified by Rudolf Steiner an early twentieth century philosopher and scientist. One of the preparations involves the use of burying nettle leaves and digging them up later and using them as compost. Another preparation involves burying cow dung over winter enclosed in a cow horn - vegans take note. These types of preparation are controversial to say the least.
There is very little scientific evidence that organic or bio-dynamically produced grapes are of substantially better quality than traditionally produced grapes. But lower yields tend to indicate better quality grapes. The attention to detail of the farmer and the additional care of the vineyard might also improve the quality of the grapes. But what is an organic or bio-dynamic grower to do if his crop is spoilt by by a fungal infestation which is not controllable by natural techniques. I leave that for you to work out yourself. The use of sulphur is permitted in the vineyard to control pests.
Some natural wine producers are opposed to the use of any additives in the wine but some use sulphur di-oxide compounds to help sterilise equipment and prevent the oxidation of the grape must or wine. Natural wine producers do not approve of micro-oxygenation of wine or its filtration. Cultured yeasts are also prohibited. Some do not even fine the their wines or where fining is necessary they only use egg albumen. Some top wine producers are also turning to organic or bio-dynamic methods to produce their wines.
Industrial or Commercialised wine makers: These producers will use a whole panoply of technological and chemical techniques to improve the yield in the vineyard and rectify the wine with chemical additives and techniques such as filtration and micro-oxygenation and of course cultured yeast. The wine produced may not necessarily be harmful or even taste bad but it will taste as if it has been homogenised. How often have you drank a "Merlot" which could come from any country or continent for that matter? Such wine will not stimulate the taste buds. This sort of wine is OK for a barbecue or a party where you do not really care what you are going to drink. In general these wines are also cheaper. Industrial wine production can also ensure that a wine is made even in a bad or terrible year. Additives to and the manipulation of the wine making process can guarantee that a producer produces the same quality and tasting wine, year after year, no matter what is happening to the soil or the weather.
Issues
Now let us examine the issues surrounding the production of natural wine. Is "natural wine" superior to products which do not employ such stringent techniques? How do we define naatural wine? What do we mean by natural anyway? One could argue that a natural process is one where there is no intervention by mankind. If that is so then no product of human agriculture could be termed as natural. If one argues, the other way, that Human Beings are as much a part of nature as any other creature or plant, then humans and all their activities are natural; including the tools and techniques to improve food and beverage production. So where does that place wine production? It is on a sliding scale from where fermentation of wild grapes accidentally produces wine to where a completely industrialised process produces an homogenised varietal branded wine. We should be careful of a lot of the hype surrounding natural wine, it may not be as natural as you think but really just a name.
Wine was first discovered or invented about 8,000 years ago either in Georgia or the Near East, according to the archaeological evidence, but no-one knows its origin for certain. No doubt it was discovered when a farmer left some wild crushed grapes in vat or pot to ferment by accident. The original product would not have lasted long as the primitive wine would have quickly turned to vinegar when exposed to the air and contaminating bacteria. Ever since its first discovery wine producers have been intervening in the vineyard and the winery to improve the production of grapes or the wine making process. They have tried to both improve the quality of wine and its storage to protect it from the ravages of oxygen and heat. Up until the nineteenth century most improvements would have been made on the basis of trial and error.
The primary grape selected for wine production in Europe was the vitis vinifera species from which numerous varieties of black and white grapes were selected according to their suitability to produce red, white and rose wines. Such varieties, of vitis vinifera grapes, include Chardonnay, Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and all of the other grapes used for commercial production of wine.
Trial and error was also used to discover and invent fortified wine styles such as Sherry and Port.
The invention of the bottle was also a major step to improve the keeping qualities and transport of wine to export markets.
In the mid-nineteenth century, Louis Pasteur postulated his germ theories and discovered the cause of fermentation. Wine production was subjected to the rigours of scientific examination. Scientific methods started to be introduced in both the vineyard and the winery. The germ theory lead to the discovery that micro-organisms other than "brewer's yeast" were responsible for the spoilage of wines and beers and this lead to the usage of antiseptics such as sulphur di-oxide to preserve wine and other foods and beverages. Since then science and technology have made increasing contributions to the development of the wine industry.
Science possibly became the saviour of the wine industry during the latter part of the nineteenth century, when an outbreak of the phylloxera louse spread from the US throughout the world and completely threatened wine production from the vitis vinifera grapes. Vitis vinifera has virtually no resistance to the louse. The solution was to graft vitis vinifera shoots onto the root stocks of different species of vines from America which were resistant to the vine louse. This means that most of the world's vineyards are planted with vines that are an artificial creation. Where is the nature in that? At the time the alternative solution would have been to use insecticides. Some vineyards in the northern parts of Burgundy grow vines on sandy soils which are not suitable for the growth of the Phylloxera louse; they are therefore planted with purely original root stocks. I have tasted Cremant de Bourgogne produced in this way, from Chardonnay grapes, but I could not tell that it was markedly different from wine produced from grafted root stocks. Vineyards suitable for growing un-grafted grapes can also be found in South Australia, Chile and Portugal and there is debate amongst wine experts whether there is a marked difference in the quality and taste of the wine. A minority of vineyards, including organic and bio-dynamic ones, grow grapes which are uniquely based on un-grafted vitis vinifera scions. Most other vineyards would not remain commercially viable without the human intervention of grafting techniques.
Science and Technology have made further inroads into viticultural practises and techniques including:
Site surveys to find the best locations to plant new vineyards
Trellising techniques to improve yield and vineyard mechanisation
Technology to improve drainage and irrigation where necessary or allowable
Mechanisation of the harvest
Systemic Pesticides.
There have been equally important uses of science and technology in area of vinification including:
Cultured yeasts which are used to standardise the production of wine
The use of sulphur compounds to help prevent the oxidation of the wine
The use of sulphur compounds to sterilise the wine
Flushing the wine with nitrogen or carbon di-oxide to help prevent oxidation of the wine
Adjustments to the acidity of the wine
Adjustments to the sugar content of the wine
Micro-filtration of the wine to sterilise and clear it
Reverse osmosis to concentrate the grape must
Micro-oxygenation to mimic the effects of maturing the wine in wooden barrels
Use of fining agents to clarify the wine.
The ever increasing use of technology is a very controversial subject, especially in the winery where the use of additives and technology such as reverse osmosis can make up for bad quality grapes. One thing is certain, it has lead to the standardisation of wine which all tastes the same depending on the variety of grape used; the wine is clean, clear but sterile. Many many consumers enjoy these wines and so do I sometimes. But for something special, please choose wines which have not been tampered with to the same degree so that they show more character. They are worth the premium that has to be paid. Superior quality grapes produce superior quality wines without the excessive need for the type of adjustments listed above.
But what about some of the claims which are made for "natural wines" which are made by producers who forego even some of the techniques used by classic wine producers.
WINE MAKING
Wine making has come a long way during the last century as technology has had an increasing influence in the commercialisation of wine production.
ADDITIVES:
Sulphur di-oxide or derived salts such as E224 potassium meta bisulphite are used by virtually all winemakers to sterilise the wine to prevent spoilage and to reduce the risk of the wine oxidising during the wine making process or after bottling. Some people are allergic to sulphur di-oxide so they cannot drink most wine. Excessive sulphur di-oxide can denature the colour of red wine and suppress the fruit character of the wine. Sulphur di-oxide is harmless to most people at the quantities allowed unless you have an allergy to it. It should also be noted that sulphites are a natural by product of fermentation by yeast. What difference does it make if man adds the bisulphite or yeast adds it? They are both products of nature. All good winemakers limit the quantity of sulphur di-oxide to a level that does not affect the quality or taste of the wine. Without this preservative some most wine will go off quickly.
It should be possible to make a stable wine without the usage of sulphur di-oxide compounds if the wine is naturally allowed to complete fermentation and stabilise itself. The wine must then be bottled in aseptic conditions to ensure its preservation. Some natural winemakers can achieve this but it should be noted than organic and bio-dynamic approval bodies allow for the use of sulphur di-oxide compounds. It is up to you to decide why.
Ascorbic Acid or E300 : this is also used as a preservative and is another name for vitamin C. Vitamin C is supposed to be good for you. Ascorbic acid helps to keep the wine fresh but of course its use should be limited as some of the by-products of the oxidation of ascorbic acid can discolour the wine.
Copper Sulphate or E519: This is used to remove the taint of hydrogen sulphide in a wine which has not been made properly. So what is it doing there? Modern anaerobic wine making techniques stop any oxygen entering the wine making chain to prevent the reduction of sulphur di-oxide to make hydrogen sulphide. The copper sulphate is added to "cleanse" the wine. Some of the by-products of fermentation itself also produce hydrogen sulphide. Hydrogen sulphide smells of rotten eggs. Before the usage of stainless steel much of the pipework and pumps would have been made of bronze; the copper content of which would have been sufficient to remove small amounts of hydrogen sulphide. Not everything that is modern is better. Hydrogen sulphide is very poisonous; it is not a good substance to have in your wine.
Acacia Gum E414: This is used to fine or clear the wine. It is a naturally occurring substance. It can also alter the feel of the wine in the mouth.
Potassium Ferrocyanide E536: Cyanide, what is that doing in my wine? It shouldn't be there at all but, if it is absolutely necessary, its use should be controlled by a qualified chemist. Potassium ferrocyanide is used to control excessive levels of iron and copper in the wine. Excessive copper can be poisonous. Iron and copper compounds can cause wine to have a haze. The ferrocyanide removes this. Addition of potassium ferrocyanide is illegal in many countries for good reason. Prevention is better than cure so this is one up for natural wine makers!
Citric Acid or E330: Citric acid is a naturally occurring substance which to all intents is harmless. It is used as an alternative to potassium ferrocyanide to remove excess iron. Better than adding potassium ferrocyanide but once again prevention is better than cure. Citric acid is present in grapes at very low level. There should be no real need to add it to the wine making process.It is harmless but it will increase the acidity of the wine.
Sorbic Acid or Potassium Sorbate E200 and E202 respectively: Sorbic acid is used as a preservative to prevent yeast fermenting in the bottle. Its efficacy depends upon the alcoholic strength of the wine; more is need for wines which have a low alcohol level. Some people can taste the Ascorbic acid at levels lower than the EU permits. So what is it doing there? The use of Ascorbic acid can be obviated by good hygiene and effective fermentation. This is also one up for the natural winemakers.
Tartaric Acid E334: Some grapes grown in a hot climates such as Southern Europe , California and South Australia lack acidity. What better way to correct this "fault" than to add tartaric acid to the grape must before fermentation? I see no way that natural wine makers and growers can correct this fault other than breeding grapes that can produce more acid in the berry. But would this be natural? As the planet hots up (unnaturally of course) we can expect to see more and more wineries adding tartaric acid to the grape must. There really is no substitute for high quality grapes which have the right balance of acids and sugars. Perhaps some of the existing vineyard locations are now simply too hot for grapes and all winemakers including natural ones should pack up and move production elsewhere! I can even envisage some growers using huge air conditioned plastic cloches rather than shift location.
Calcium Carbonate E170 and Potassium Bi-carbonate E501: These are used to de-acidify the grape must. Grapes grown in cooler climates, where there is less sunshine, may produce too much acidity even in ripe grape berries. And what is the best solution? Why de-acidify the grape must before fermentation of course. But this process is quite difficult as the acid must really be neutralised rather than removed. Usually the excess acidity is caused by tartaric and malic acids. The addition of calcium carbonate potassium bi-carbonate mostly removes the tartaric acid which crystallises out as either calcium tartrate or potassium bi-tartrate. But these harmless crystals are un-attractive to most wine consumers so they are removed. Calcium tartrate is more difficult to remove from the wine. Excess malic acid is more difficult to remove so "double salt de-acidification" is used: the mind boggles at this one. Prevention is better than cure perhaps it is better not to make wine from grapes that have excess acidity at all. What chance is there therefore for the natural wine maker in, say, England?
In conclusion, a wine which needs to be tampered with by the use of too many additives is probably not worth drinking and it is a pity that wine makers are not compelled to list everything in their wine. If you really knew what was in your wine would you drink it? Most responsible makers of good quality wine will not tamper with their wine too much. The natural wine makers have got a good point; the best quality wines are those which are tampered with the least.
Fining Agents:ural Wine Fining has been used for centuries to clarify wine to remove certain types of protein and polyphenol (tannin) molecules which are held in a colloidal solution; as some of these colloids are unstable they cause the wine to go cloudy before bottling and they are removed by fining agents rather than filtration. Wine will stabilise and clarify itself if left long enough so there should be no need for fining, but some times a harmless deposit is produced in the bottle. Most consumers want to buy completely clear wines which do not throw a deposit. Fining is used to speed up the process of removing the colloids from the wine. Like all wine processes, however, the lesser intervention the better the results. Some commonly used fining agents are the following:
Albumen or soluble protein which is usually obtained from egg whites or refined derivatives thereof. The EU has banned the use of albumen derived from ox blood because of the BSE scare. It is used to fine both red and white wines. Eggs whites mixed with a little wine can simply be added to the barrel. Vegans and some vegetarians would probably not want to drink wine fined with albumen but there is no list of ingredients on the bottle and it is difficult to find out whether the wine has been fined with an animal protein. Unless it is specifically stated on the bottle, it is probably better to assume that the wine is not "vegan compliant" .
Casein: this is derived from milk and is sometimes used to to remove colour taints from white wine.
Gelatine: this is made by boiling and treating animal skins and bones and it clarifies the wine by a simlar action to albumen. No doubt most vegans would be horrified if they knew that this was added to their wine. Gelatine is sometimes mixed with silica sol , which is a mineral to clarify white wine. Gelatine can also be added in combination with certain types of tannin to improve the efficacy of the clarification process.
Bentonite: this is a silica based clay used to remove certain types of protein. If it is over-used it can remove some of flavour components of a wine. Bentonite is also a used for cat's litter. Whatever happened to that cat's pee aroma in the white wine?
Isinglass: this is gelatine which has been obtained from the swim bladders of fish. It is used to fine white wines.
PVPP Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone: this is a water soluble synthetic substance invented in the 20th century and used for the fining of white wines. Why anyone should want to use this substance I do not know.
In conclusion, fining serves a useful purpose to help the effective clarification of wine but of course it should be used in moderation otherwise the flavour of the wine could be spoilt. A good quality wine can be stabilised and cleared without fining but of course this may not suit commercial convenience.
Filtration: Some winemakers argue that filtration ruins wine and should not be used at all. Others maintain that filtration, if correctly applied, has no adverse affect on the wine. A wine that has been allowed to stand in the cask before bottling will clear itself, given enough time, and any remaining solid matter will throw a slight and harmless deposit in the the bottle. Modern industrial processes demand filtration using depth and membrane filters to remove all solids before bottling. Some types of membrane can remove all micro-organisms from the wine rendering it sterile. It is debateable whether filtration is an "unnatural" process or not. I prefer to drink wines which either have no or minimal filtration. Good wine will stabilise and clear itself if left in the barrel for long enough. A well fermented wine will remove all nutrients which will prevent further fermentation in the bottle, this and the alcohol will further help to sterilise the wine. Good wine should not need to be filtered but filtration suits commercial convenience.
OTHER PROCESSES
Some wine makers do not confine themselves to additives, filtration and fining. As if that were not enough, there are some even more dubious processes.
Chaptalisation: What is wrong with adding sugar to the grape must before fermentation? Sugar, in the form of glucose and fructose, is after all a natural substance which occurs naturally in the grape. But, if the grape must has to be chaptalised by adding sugar (sucrose) to increase the alcohol level then the original quality of the grapes must have been found wanting. Grapes grown in cold conditions often do not ripen well enough to produce enough of their own sugars. They are poor quality grapes. So what is the wine maker to do destroy his crop? The addition of sugar is closely regulated; it is banned in Italy and Spain and is only allowed in the cooler regions of France. Some winemakers are tempted to bend the rules when there is a poor harvest. Quality wines should not be chaptalised as it dilutes the flavour of the wine.
Rectified Concentrated Grape Must, can also be used to add sugar (glucose and fructose) content to the pre-fermentation product. This practice is also tightly controlled but a good quality wine cannot possibly be made in this way. There really is no substitute for good qaulity grapes. One up, too, for the natural wine maker.
Must Concentration: This must be one of the most dubious practices of all. It is used when there is a poor harvest to artificially build up the concentration of sugars in the grape must. It is only carried out under strictly controlled conditions. The chances are you will end up with an industrialised tasting bulk wine. Perhaps it would be better not to produce wine but economics dictate that something must be done to improve a poor harvest.
The three main techniques used are: Cryo-extraction which is a form of freeze drying; Vacuum Distillation which boils off the water at a low temperatures created by the vacuum and Reverse Osmosis where high pressure applied to one side of a membrane drives the water out of the solution in order to concentrate the grape must.
FERMENTATION
Fermentation is the most important process of all. Yeasts have evolved to have two methods of growth:
i) aerobically in the presence of oxygen where they convert the sugars present in the grape must to water and carbon di-oxide
ii) anaerobically in the absence of oxygen where they convert sugar to alcohol and carbon di-oxide. Aerobic fermentation is much more efficient so the yeast is able to grow quickly. But, of course, if aerobic fermentation were to continue until all the sugar was consumed no alcohol or wine would be produced. In a sealed container the oxygen is quickly used up and encouraged by the build up of carbon-dioxide the yeast starts to grow anaerobically to produce alcohol. If this process is allowed to continue "naturally" all the sugar is used up to produce a dry wine.
There are many ways of controlling the fermentation depending on whether a sweet or semi-sweet wine is the intended product. Industrial wine producers may wish to control the fermentation to suit economies of scale and to reduce unit costs or to fit in with delivery deadlines etc. The "natural" or traditional process of fermentation does not easily fit in with modern means of production.
Control of Temeperature: Fermentation produces heat and its control is essential to the type of wine being produced. Red wines require more skin contact with the must to extract colour and flavour compounds. A cooler temperature is required to preseve the flavour of volatile aromas. White wines do not rely upon the contact of the grape skins with the grape must so they are fermented at a lower temperature. There is an optimum temperature for the fermentation of every wine, and in traditional wineries this is achieved by the usage of smaller fermentation vats and barrels which have a high surface area to volume ratio which dissipates heat without the need for refrigeration. Where much larger vats are used, in an industrialised process, artificial cooling controlled by thermostats is necessary. Where there is excessive cooling undesirable volatile esters could be retained in a red wine leading to an excessive taste of artificial fruit flavours and homogenised tasting wine. If the grape must is cooled to around 5 degrees celcius fermentation is stopped.
Stopping the Fermentation: The main reason for stopping fermentation is to produce a sweet or semi-sweet wine before all the sugars in the grape must are depleted. The traditional method of stopping fermentation is by fortification with grape spirit or brandy and in France this is termed mutage. Port is produced by this method. Wines may also be fortified to preserve them and to prevent refermentation after the primary fermentation has been completed. Sherry is produced by this method.Fortification is a "natural " method of sterilising the the wine.
Industrialised processes have been invented to stop the fermentation according to the commercial convenience of the wine maker to produce cheaper sweet wines or sparkling wines or both. Some of the devices used are:
i) Sterilising the wine : Formerly cheap sweet wines were made by stopping the fermentation by killing the yeast with sulphur di-oxide but nowadays the additon of sulphur compounds is strictly limited. Other methods of stopping fermentation include the pasturisation of the wine must to kill the yeast. Why do this ? This is totally unnecessary. I can understand why one would need to pasteurise milk for health reasons but any one who has drunk real milk straight from the cow will realise what a difference pasteurisation makes to a beverage.
ii) Physical methods to remove yeast: Another way to stop the fermentation of the must is to use micro-filtration or centrifugation to remove the yeast. This is also unlikely to improve the quality of the wine and it is only really done for commercial reasons. Who wants to drink wine which has been subjected to micro-filtration or pasteurisation? If the public knew what was happening, I am sure they would not touch wine produced by these methods.
In conclusion, the best way of arresting the fermentation of the grape must is by fortification with brandy or grape spirit which also serves to preserve the wine and sterilise it. It should be noted that Asti (formerly Asti Spumante) is produced by artificially stopping fermentation by increasing the pressure of carbon di-oxide in a steel vat. This is sometimes referred to as the Charmat method of producing a sparkling wine. Asti is therefore a sweet sparkling wine with a low level of alcohol - glug glug - I think that most Asti is ghastly.
YEAST
You would think that that there would be no controversy about yeast, as natural yeast has been just as important as grapes ever since wine was first discovered or produced. The primary species for making wine is saccharomyces cerevisiae. This occurs naturally in the environment in general and on grape skins in particular. But, of course, the application of science has lead to the artificial selection of cultured yeasts to meet a particular taste or set of properties to improve the fermentation process and the economic production of wine. Needless to say, when cultured yeasts are used it has encouraged the standarisation of winemaking and the standardisation of taste. If you want an individual tasting wine it is better to leave it to nature even if this means a a more expensive means of production.
MALO-LACTIC CONVERSION or SECONDARY FERMENTATION
After alcoholic or primary fermentation, by yeast, some wines naturally undergo malic-lactic conversion, where bacteria, such as those from the Lactobacillus genus, convert the harsh malic acid in the wine to a softer lactic acid. This process can be artificially induced by injecting the bacteria into the wine. Once again, if this is overdone the wine can become tainted with a buttery or cheesy taste; after all there is plenty of lactic acid in cheese. Malic-lactic conversion is mostly applied to red wine. Malic acid, of course, gives apples their tart taste. Malo-lactic conversion should be completed before the wine is bottled as the process produces carbon di-oxide; this is unwanted in a still wine hence the use of sulphur di-oxide, and other meausures, by some wine makers to sterilise the wine.
CONCLUSIONS
By now you might be concluding that the least intervention there is in the vineyard and the wine making process the better. And to a certain extent you are right. But, if winemaking and viticulture were left to their own devices there would be no wine industry whatsoever. At most it would remain a cottage industry and we all know what auntie's wine tastes like even if it is produced from organically grown grapes from the back garden.
As to claims that natural wine is better for than other forms of wine please consider this; the most dangerous substance in our wine is alcohol. This is a perfectly natural substance but just like the toxin in ergot of rye, also natural, it will kill you if you consume too much in one go. It will also damage your physical or mental well being or both if too much is consumed over a long period.
The fact that it does not contain many of the additives allowed by the EU does not necessarily mean that natural wine is less toxic. For the average adult to be seriously affected by suphur di-oxide poisoning they would have to drink wine in such huge quantities that the alcohol would kill them first. If you drink too much of any sort of wine, one day you might wake up with more than a hangover.
Is natural wine better for your health if you drink it as a replacement for traditionally made wine or industrially made wine? There is no real evidence for this. This also raises the issue if wine is good for your health at all. There is some evidence that wine and other forms of alcohol might have beneficial effects on the cardo-vascular system but this is not definitive. No doubt there are substitutes for the health promoting ingredients found in wine, therefore wine is not uniquely a beneficial beverage.
So why drink wine at all? My reason for drinking wine is for the sociability and the conviviality that it generates. But, most of all, it is the perfect companion for good food. As far as taste is concerned, good wine is the best tasting drink. Wine should also reflect the taste and character of the region of where the grapes are grown. You are more likely to find these attributes in a well made traditional or natural wine. Traditional and natural wines should mature into a better product if they are stored properly. But, beware some of these wines are not as good as the marketing hype pretends them to be.
There is good reason to drink natural wine for the health of the environment - the farming techniques are less damaging.
So where does this place industrial or commercialised wine? Whilst some of it tastes quite good almost all of it tastes the same within the brand or grape variety on the label: and they are quite simply boring. Industrially produced wine is probably no worse or better for your health than any other wine so this is not grounds for dismissing it. One thing is certain - the farming techniques used for industrialised wine making do nothing for bio-diversity.
ECONOMICS
Industrialised wine production has brought down the cost of wine and introduced wine drinking to the public in general. Traditional and natural wines are more expensive to produce. There is now a huge demand for wine which could probably not be satisfied without industrialised wine production. What would happen if the public only had access to traditional and natural wine? Would the prices go up so much that ordinary wine drinkers would not be able to afford to drink wine regularly? There is a place for industrialised wine but the producers should be encouraged by the wine buying public to improve the quality of their product. They should be encouraged to reduce the additives and manipulation of their wine which are there just for production convenience. The general public could do this by drinking a lesser amount of good wine as opposed to drinking large quantities of plonk. They might also be doing a favour to their health and help improve the environment. There is not much room for industrial wine on my wine rack but there is some space for good natural wine.
Friday, 20 May 2011
Indication Géographique Protégée
From 2012 there will be a new system of classification of French Wines. Indication Géographique Protégée (IGP)will be replacing VDQS and from 2014 Appellation d'Origine Protégée (AOP) will be replacing AOC.
The rules for AOP will remain almost the same as for the old AOC so the grape varieties will still need to be approved for the region. There will now be quality and tasting tests applied to the wines as they are sold in the shops. The new rules for AOP should ensure the regional character of the wines which have this appellation. The wine maker is already allowed to put the variety of grape on the label- this has been allowed since 2009.
Wines which are denominated as IGP are already appearing in the shops and the new rules for this classification allow greater flexibility for the varieties of grapes used by the winemaker and flexibility for where the the grapes come from; so up to 15% of the grapes may come from another delimited region.
There will also be another category called Vins de France or Vignobles de France which will allow grapes from anywhere in France to be used but the wine will be allowed to show the vintage on the bottle. Vignobles de france wines will be allowed additives such as oak chips, tannin, sorbic acid and concentrated grape must for sweetening. This will be good reason to avoid these branded wines completely.
These changes to the wine laws are sponsored by the EU and apply to all wine producing countries, thus for example one might now see DOP (Denominazione di Origine Protetta) on bottles of Italian wine rather than DOCG (Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita) or DOC (Denominazione di Origine Controllata).
Italian wines which were designated IGT (Indicazione Geografica Tipica) will be replaced by IGP (Indicazione Geografica Protetta).
These wine rule changes are designed to enable European winemakers to compete with their counterparts from the New World who have not been restricted by bureaucracy. It is claimed that it will improve the quality of wine in general. I shall reserve my opinion about this. We have seen the increasing industrialisation of wine making techniques so much so that it is often the case that you cannot tell where a wine comes from and many wines all taste the same. How often have you been treated to an Australian Merlot which you cannot distinguish from a Chilean Merlot or an Italian or French one. Varietal labelling encourages the approach of making homogenised wines which all taste the same because they are made from the same additives in the same proportions and with the same yeast clones. These are not essentially poor quality wines but they are boring and nowadays they can cost seven or eight pounds a bottle: we all deserve something better than this industrialised ennui. I am of the opinion that the new rules will lead to the further industrialsation of European wines at the IGP and lesser levels.
The other day I was served a bottle of the new IGP Italian Cabernet Sauvignon in a South London pub which will remain nameless. It tasted like dishwater and was fit only to be thrown away. The waitress had no idea what types of wine were on the menu all she could offer was "Cabernet Sauvignon" or "Merlot" etc. She had no idea about wine. I should have known better for the beer that I tried previously , Westerham Bitter, was stale and tasted of wet grass. The publicans and their staff obviously knew nothing about their trade. For once I had found a pub where the food was better, but not much, than the the drinks. To complain would have been pointless. So, anyone who thinks that the food and drink in pubs and restaurants, in general, is now better in the UK than in Italy, France or Spain is fooling themselves. It only matches our continental cousins when you pay astronomical prices.
Hopefully, we shall not have to pay astronomical prices for good everyday drinking wine that has some individuality. This will be the test of the new wine laws.
The rules for AOP will remain almost the same as for the old AOC so the grape varieties will still need to be approved for the region. There will now be quality and tasting tests applied to the wines as they are sold in the shops. The new rules for AOP should ensure the regional character of the wines which have this appellation. The wine maker is already allowed to put the variety of grape on the label- this has been allowed since 2009.
Wines which are denominated as IGP are already appearing in the shops and the new rules for this classification allow greater flexibility for the varieties of grapes used by the winemaker and flexibility for where the the grapes come from; so up to 15% of the grapes may come from another delimited region.
There will also be another category called Vins de France or Vignobles de France which will allow grapes from anywhere in France to be used but the wine will be allowed to show the vintage on the bottle. Vignobles de france wines will be allowed additives such as oak chips, tannin, sorbic acid and concentrated grape must for sweetening. This will be good reason to avoid these branded wines completely.
These changes to the wine laws are sponsored by the EU and apply to all wine producing countries, thus for example one might now see DOP (Denominazione di Origine Protetta) on bottles of Italian wine rather than DOCG (Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita) or DOC (Denominazione di Origine Controllata).
Italian wines which were designated IGT (Indicazione Geografica Tipica) will be replaced by IGP (Indicazione Geografica Protetta).
These wine rule changes are designed to enable European winemakers to compete with their counterparts from the New World who have not been restricted by bureaucracy. It is claimed that it will improve the quality of wine in general. I shall reserve my opinion about this. We have seen the increasing industrialisation of wine making techniques so much so that it is often the case that you cannot tell where a wine comes from and many wines all taste the same. How often have you been treated to an Australian Merlot which you cannot distinguish from a Chilean Merlot or an Italian or French one. Varietal labelling encourages the approach of making homogenised wines which all taste the same because they are made from the same additives in the same proportions and with the same yeast clones. These are not essentially poor quality wines but they are boring and nowadays they can cost seven or eight pounds a bottle: we all deserve something better than this industrialised ennui. I am of the opinion that the new rules will lead to the further industrialsation of European wines at the IGP and lesser levels.
The other day I was served a bottle of the new IGP Italian Cabernet Sauvignon in a South London pub which will remain nameless. It tasted like dishwater and was fit only to be thrown away. The waitress had no idea what types of wine were on the menu all she could offer was "Cabernet Sauvignon" or "Merlot" etc. She had no idea about wine. I should have known better for the beer that I tried previously , Westerham Bitter, was stale and tasted of wet grass. The publicans and their staff obviously knew nothing about their trade. For once I had found a pub where the food was better, but not much, than the the drinks. To complain would have been pointless. So, anyone who thinks that the food and drink in pubs and restaurants, in general, is now better in the UK than in Italy, France or Spain is fooling themselves. It only matches our continental cousins when you pay astronomical prices.
Hopefully, we shall not have to pay astronomical prices for good everyday drinking wine that has some individuality. This will be the test of the new wine laws.
Four Red Wines
Recently I have tasted some great red wines which are very good value for money.
Anciano Tempranillo 2003 Gran Reserva, Valdepeñas from La Mancha, Spain. This is an exceptionally fruity wine which has been aged for two years in oak which lends a vanilla flavour. The tannins are beginning to soften nicely and the wine has all the spicy complexity and long length which characterises a good wine. This full bodied wine will keep longer and still improve in the bottle. A bargain at about 6 pounds a bottle from Waitrose Supermarket; no wonder it is now sold out on their website. We drank this with roast lamb, what else could it go best with?
Domaine de la Charité,Côtes du Rhône, Charité, 2009 I bought this wine from Wine Discoveries and it is very good value for money at about nine pounds a bottle. This wine is made from Grenach, Carignan and Syrah black grapes which are all suited to the soil and climate of the region. It has concentrated tastes of strawberries and blackberrie, it is a full bodied wine which is well balanced for tannin and acidity. This wine will keep much longer and improve in the bottle and like all the wines listed here should be consummed with food. I thought this wine went particulary well with french cheeses.
Whilst browsing in Laithwaites the other day I found this wine Le Prieuré de Vinsobres 2009. Vinsobres used to be classified as Côtes du Rhône Villages but within the last few years it has been awarded its own apellation. This wine is Grenach and Syrah based and once again has a concentrated and complex taste of red fruits and spices. This full bodied wine has the tannic structure which will enable it to improve in the bottle for five to ten years. At ten pounds it is exceptional value for money and it compares favourably in quality to good wines from anywhere in the world. It could certainly be saved for a special occasion and I would not be disappointed had I paid thirty pounds for a bottle. Laithwaites have found a winner here. Also, try Domaine Constant-Duquesnoy which is formerly Domaine les Aussellon if you can find it. I once stayed in a farm right next door to the Domaine Aussellon and what a wonderful location it was too.
Domaine Colinot Irancy, CĂ´te du Moutier 2005 AOC Irancy. This wine is produced from the Pinot Noir grape mixed with a small proportion of the local CĂ©sar. The vineyards are situated on the Kimmeridgian soils typical of the Yonne. If anyone doubts that a wine has a "gout de terroir" then they should try wines from this area. The taste of these wines reflects both the soil and the microclimate of the region. CĂ´te du Moutier is a fine and classic example of the Irancy appellation with a taste of Cherry, Stawberry and red fruits combined with a slight minerality typical of wines from the area. This wine has the tannic structure to convey longevity. The wines are medium bodied and have an elegance which befits the Pinot Noir grape grown in a cool environment.The local CĂ©sar contributes structure to the wine. I have seen Irancy wines on the menu in London restaurants for over 35 pounds a bottle, wines which I have obtained for less than ten euros a bottle form Auxerre, and no-one was complaining. CĂ´te du Moutier is available in Britain for around 17 euros a bottle but I paid a much lower price in the region. This is a great wine which reflects regional character; I recommend that you try a few bottles.
Anciano Tempranillo 2003 Gran Reserva, Valdepeñas from La Mancha, Spain. This is an exceptionally fruity wine which has been aged for two years in oak which lends a vanilla flavour. The tannins are beginning to soften nicely and the wine has all the spicy complexity and long length which characterises a good wine. This full bodied wine will keep longer and still improve in the bottle. A bargain at about 6 pounds a bottle from Waitrose Supermarket; no wonder it is now sold out on their website. We drank this with roast lamb, what else could it go best with?
Domaine de la Charité,Côtes du Rhône, Charité, 2009 I bought this wine from Wine Discoveries and it is very good value for money at about nine pounds a bottle. This wine is made from Grenach, Carignan and Syrah black grapes which are all suited to the soil and climate of the region. It has concentrated tastes of strawberries and blackberrie, it is a full bodied wine which is well balanced for tannin and acidity. This wine will keep much longer and improve in the bottle and like all the wines listed here should be consummed with food. I thought this wine went particulary well with french cheeses.
Whilst browsing in Laithwaites the other day I found this wine Le Prieuré de Vinsobres 2009. Vinsobres used to be classified as Côtes du Rhône Villages but within the last few years it has been awarded its own apellation. This wine is Grenach and Syrah based and once again has a concentrated and complex taste of red fruits and spices. This full bodied wine has the tannic structure which will enable it to improve in the bottle for five to ten years. At ten pounds it is exceptional value for money and it compares favourably in quality to good wines from anywhere in the world. It could certainly be saved for a special occasion and I would not be disappointed had I paid thirty pounds for a bottle. Laithwaites have found a winner here. Also, try Domaine Constant-Duquesnoy which is formerly Domaine les Aussellon if you can find it. I once stayed in a farm right next door to the Domaine Aussellon and what a wonderful location it was too.
Domaine Colinot Irancy, CĂ´te du Moutier 2005 AOC Irancy. This wine is produced from the Pinot Noir grape mixed with a small proportion of the local CĂ©sar. The vineyards are situated on the Kimmeridgian soils typical of the Yonne. If anyone doubts that a wine has a "gout de terroir" then they should try wines from this area. The taste of these wines reflects both the soil and the microclimate of the region. CĂ´te du Moutier is a fine and classic example of the Irancy appellation with a taste of Cherry, Stawberry and red fruits combined with a slight minerality typical of wines from the area. This wine has the tannic structure to convey longevity. The wines are medium bodied and have an elegance which befits the Pinot Noir grape grown in a cool environment.The local CĂ©sar contributes structure to the wine. I have seen Irancy wines on the menu in London restaurants for over 35 pounds a bottle, wines which I have obtained for less than ten euros a bottle form Auxerre, and no-one was complaining. CĂ´te du Moutier is available in Britain for around 17 euros a bottle but I paid a much lower price in the region. This is a great wine which reflects regional character; I recommend that you try a few bottles.
Friday, 13 May 2011
Scientific “Blind Tastings” and finding Quality wines
At the Edinburgh Science Festival in April 2011 the University of Hertfordshire invited 578 members of the public to a “Blind Tasting”. What a great idea and I wish I had been there. Each taster was given a range of red and white wines and was asked to judge which were the more expensive. The results were no better than chance. Fifty percent of the participants were unable to distinguish the cheap wines, costing less than £5 a bottle, from more expensive wines costing between £10 and £30 per bottle.
Psychologist Professor Richard Wiseman, from the University of Hertfordshire, who led the research, said: "These are remarkable results. People were unable to tell expensive from inexpensive wines, and so in these times of financial hardship the message is clear – the inexpensive wines we tested tasted the same as their expensive counterparts."
These results do not surprise me one bit. “Cheap” does not necessarily mean poor quality and “Expensive” does not necessarily mean better quality. The general public have also not been trained to identify higher quality wines. By higher quality, I mean wines that taste better, show regional character, complexity and the ability to age. Some wines which are produced to be long lasting may not fully reveal their fruit flavour and complexity until they have aged for a long time. The structure of the wine often masks the fruit flavours which only reveal themselves when the tannins have softened. This is true whether the wine is from a classical region such as Bordeaux or from a New World location such as South Australia. A premier cru Bordeaux wine will take a long time to reveal its qualities and a high quality South Australia wine such as Grange also needs to take a long time in the bottle to show its real class. This is why we pay a premium for such wines. Some expensive wines can also be faulty or of poor quality but I would have thought that the scientists conducting the tests would have weeded out the faulty wines. The general public cannot be expected to know all this but even so they are entitled to higher quality wines when they are paying a much higher price and this is not always the case.
I find “blind tastings” very interesting from the point of view of both suggestibility and to test an expert’s ability to really identify wine and select “quality” wines from inferior ones. We can also use a “blind tasting” to reflect upon what is a high quality wine, what is an inferior one and what is good value for money.
You can try this test yourself. Put the wine in a decanter and serve it "blind". Sometimes, but not often I judge, that a wine should be decanted to prevent sediment getting into the glasses or to allow it to breathe. Usually, I do this with the more expensive wines that I dish up when we have friends around for dinner. Sometimes, I serve one of Professor Wiseman’s cheaper wines in a decanter and ask my guests to gauge the quality of the wine – the decanter suggests quality and quite often my friends are fooled by this ploy. This test can also be tried on people who consider themselves wine experts and you will get interesting results.
When I was doing my wine exams some of my fellow students got themselves into a panic and at one “blind tasting” test one of my colleagues confused Rutherglen Muscat dessert wine with Port; this would simply not have happened to him when he was “blind tasting” in a more relaxed atmosphere. Being put on the spot had made him lose his senses and judgement, albeit temporarily. We should all be careful, then, when making judgements even at a science fair.
We once went to a wine tasting at Denbies vineyard in Dorking Surrey, I volunteered to drive so I spat out the wines. My wife swallowed all hers and I thought that her wine tasting judgement would be impaired. But at one “blind tasting” she was able to pick out the English “Champagne”, ok sparkling wine, against five other real Champagnes. She did this without consideration or hesitation she simply recognised her favourite tipple and having been being born in Champagne it helped. I confused the English Sparkler with one of the lighter champagnes but only after much consideration and hesitation; there is no shame in that. Perhaps, it is better to not think too much when wine tasting and just let your brain free to recognise the correct solution.
I think that Professor Wiseman’s experiment also exposes our expectations about value for money. Should a very expensive wine be expected to be substantially better in taste and quality and should this expectation be linked to price ratios. Thus should a wine costing three times more than a cheaper one be expected to taste three times better?
There is a certain minimum price at which a bottle of wine can be sold,when you consider fixed costs for production, duty, transport and retailing costs etc. This is around £3.50 a bottle. This price is the same for all table wines. Therefore, if you buy a £4 bottle of wine you are getting “50 pence worth of wine”. If you buy a £10 bottle you are getting “£6.50 worth of wine”. Will the £10 bottle taste 6 six better and will it be six times better quality – of course not and you are only fooling yourself if you think it does. You are hitting the law of diminishing returns. I am a wine lover and I am reluctant to pay more than £10 pounds a bottle. Any wine costing this much really should be something special but unfortunately they are often disappointing.
Why do some people pay more? I am a wine enthusiast and sometimes will pay much more than £10 a bottle to compare the qualities of expensive and cheaper wines. Tasting more expensive wines only confirms my opinion that the law of diminishing returns applies to wine quality much more than it does to the quality of other beverages and food. The best beers rarely cost much more than the worst ones. Perhaps beer drinkers are more down to earth and canny than wine drinkers; and perhaps they are not as easily fooled. The same applies to foods, such as cheese, where the price difference between a high quality cheddar and an every day eating one is not that great.
Another reason why there is such a difference in price between high quality wines and more “inferior” ones is the investment potential. Some of this investment potential stems from the fact that wines can improve in the bottle with age. But most of it comes from the brand name and the renown of a wine and of course its rarity value. Some of the wine producers of Bordeaux and Burgundy have conducted the best marketing campaigns ever to get their wines to fetch astronomical prices in the investment markets. They have kept up a relentless market and public relations effort over decades. Marketing and sales expertise is not the exclusive preserve of the Americans and Australians.
Consider this: I attended a lecture some five or six years ago by an economists turned wine maker who specialised in Burgundy wines. He drank the wines he tasted rather than spat them out but of course he was not an alcoholic. At that time he made the point that no wine costs more than about £6 a bottle to make. So what are you paying for if you buy a bottle of the most highly renowned Bordeaux or Burgundy? You are paying for the brand name and you are paying for the cost of buying the cost of the vineyard or how much the brand name owner or vineyard owner would lose if they sold their assets.
Further, consider this: fifteen years or so ago I found a bottle of 1983 Penfolds Grange in a wine merchant for £25. At that time few people had even heard of Grange so I snapped it up. I kept that bottle until 2009. During the intervening period Grange became a famous name and by the late nineties the price a bottle had risen considerably. By the time I opened the bottle it was worth over two hundred pounds a bottle. It is a great wine but was it worth eight times more than when I paid for it? Bottles of Grange from recent vintages are sold at very high prices. Grange has now become an investment wine so the price is being pushed up to a level where the ordinary wine lover cannot afford to buy it and appreciate it. Are investment wines worth that more when it comes to the actual taste and quality of the wine? Ask yourself the question what are you really paying for?
In the marketing of wine the power of suggestion is very strong and a brand name of an expensive wine may suggest a quality and taste which is not appreciably better than lesser known wines.
A similar principle applies to the marketing of other products such as audio equipment and cosmetics. I once had a work colleague who got himself into serious debt by spending tens of thousands of pounds on HIFI equipment. He was an “audiophile” who spent huge amounts of time studying the subject and even designed his living room around the listening experience. He was convinced that a record deck produced a far higher quality of sound than a CD player. My wife and I spent one evening listening to his music and of course the equipment produced a superior sound. But I was not convinced that his £30,000 set up was 30 times better than my set up which cost under £1,000 pounds, in fact it was not even twice as good. He could not convince my wife and I and his wife that the record player was better than the CD. It seemed to me that the record deck gave a perfect rendition of both the music and the snap crackle and pop that goes along with vinyl discs. The static ruined the music for me. He could not convince his wife that he was getting true value for money by buying more expensive equipment. We agreed with his wife that he was falling for marketing hyperbole. The same principle applies to cosmetics the more you pay the better the product must be.
So where does this leave us with the wine? For me it is horses for courses. If you are going to a party or barbecue a cheaper wine may be just as enjoyable as a much more expensive one and if you buy it from a supermarket it will be of perfect quality and it will fit its purpose exactly. At home, I usually drink everyday quality French wine with my meal. I drink this because I visit France so often that I can find bargains there. Some times I try wines from all over the world which I buy from my local wine merchants and supermarket. Usually I pay around six or seven pounds a bottle. For special occasions or once a week with a special meal at home alone with my wife or with friends I like to drink a higher quality wine which has regional character. This wine is usually from France but I like to try wines from all over the world as well. I do not expect to have to pay more than ten pounds to find a really good bottle. On the odd occasion I will splash out and buy a really good bottle of exceptional wine such as Qupe from California or Chateau Larose Perganson from Bordeaux. These wines are expensive but not excessively so and they are superb with good food. You can buy the latter for about 18 pounds a bottle and it tastes just as good as much more expensive wines from the region and it also has the potential to age well. The Qupe is more expensive still but it has rarity value in England; it is full of spicy Syrah flavour.
When buying wine we should also take into consideration the circumstances of its consumption. Is it at a party, is it in a pub or wine bar, or is it at dinner party or grand occasion? Some wines might taste better on their own whilst others taste better with food and this will affect our judgement about the taste and quality of the wine selected. Wine retailers could do more to inform the public about value for money and quality versus price considerations.
The secret of wine tasting is to allow you to find wines which are of superb quality and reflect value for money in their price range; wines which suit their purpose and which live up to their brand name. I urge all wine lovers to find out more about the wines they are buying and where possible to taste before buying.
Psychologist Professor Richard Wiseman, from the University of Hertfordshire, who led the research, said: "These are remarkable results. People were unable to tell expensive from inexpensive wines, and so in these times of financial hardship the message is clear – the inexpensive wines we tested tasted the same as their expensive counterparts."
These results do not surprise me one bit. “Cheap” does not necessarily mean poor quality and “Expensive” does not necessarily mean better quality. The general public have also not been trained to identify higher quality wines. By higher quality, I mean wines that taste better, show regional character, complexity and the ability to age. Some wines which are produced to be long lasting may not fully reveal their fruit flavour and complexity until they have aged for a long time. The structure of the wine often masks the fruit flavours which only reveal themselves when the tannins have softened. This is true whether the wine is from a classical region such as Bordeaux or from a New World location such as South Australia. A premier cru Bordeaux wine will take a long time to reveal its qualities and a high quality South Australia wine such as Grange also needs to take a long time in the bottle to show its real class. This is why we pay a premium for such wines. Some expensive wines can also be faulty or of poor quality but I would have thought that the scientists conducting the tests would have weeded out the faulty wines. The general public cannot be expected to know all this but even so they are entitled to higher quality wines when they are paying a much higher price and this is not always the case.
I find “blind tastings” very interesting from the point of view of both suggestibility and to test an expert’s ability to really identify wine and select “quality” wines from inferior ones. We can also use a “blind tasting” to reflect upon what is a high quality wine, what is an inferior one and what is good value for money.
You can try this test yourself. Put the wine in a decanter and serve it "blind". Sometimes, but not often I judge, that a wine should be decanted to prevent sediment getting into the glasses or to allow it to breathe. Usually, I do this with the more expensive wines that I dish up when we have friends around for dinner. Sometimes, I serve one of Professor Wiseman’s cheaper wines in a decanter and ask my guests to gauge the quality of the wine – the decanter suggests quality and quite often my friends are fooled by this ploy. This test can also be tried on people who consider themselves wine experts and you will get interesting results.
When I was doing my wine exams some of my fellow students got themselves into a panic and at one “blind tasting” test one of my colleagues confused Rutherglen Muscat dessert wine with Port; this would simply not have happened to him when he was “blind tasting” in a more relaxed atmosphere. Being put on the spot had made him lose his senses and judgement, albeit temporarily. We should all be careful, then, when making judgements even at a science fair.
We once went to a wine tasting at Denbies vineyard in Dorking Surrey, I volunteered to drive so I spat out the wines. My wife swallowed all hers and I thought that her wine tasting judgement would be impaired. But at one “blind tasting” she was able to pick out the English “Champagne”, ok sparkling wine, against five other real Champagnes. She did this without consideration or hesitation she simply recognised her favourite tipple and having been being born in Champagne it helped. I confused the English Sparkler with one of the lighter champagnes but only after much consideration and hesitation; there is no shame in that. Perhaps, it is better to not think too much when wine tasting and just let your brain free to recognise the correct solution.
I think that Professor Wiseman’s experiment also exposes our expectations about value for money. Should a very expensive wine be expected to be substantially better in taste and quality and should this expectation be linked to price ratios. Thus should a wine costing three times more than a cheaper one be expected to taste three times better?
There is a certain minimum price at which a bottle of wine can be sold,when you consider fixed costs for production, duty, transport and retailing costs etc. This is around £3.50 a bottle. This price is the same for all table wines. Therefore, if you buy a £4 bottle of wine you are getting “50 pence worth of wine”. If you buy a £10 bottle you are getting “£6.50 worth of wine”. Will the £10 bottle taste 6 six better and will it be six times better quality – of course not and you are only fooling yourself if you think it does. You are hitting the law of diminishing returns. I am a wine lover and I am reluctant to pay more than £10 pounds a bottle. Any wine costing this much really should be something special but unfortunately they are often disappointing.
Why do some people pay more? I am a wine enthusiast and sometimes will pay much more than £10 a bottle to compare the qualities of expensive and cheaper wines. Tasting more expensive wines only confirms my opinion that the law of diminishing returns applies to wine quality much more than it does to the quality of other beverages and food. The best beers rarely cost much more than the worst ones. Perhaps beer drinkers are more down to earth and canny than wine drinkers; and perhaps they are not as easily fooled. The same applies to foods, such as cheese, where the price difference between a high quality cheddar and an every day eating one is not that great.
Another reason why there is such a difference in price between high quality wines and more “inferior” ones is the investment potential. Some of this investment potential stems from the fact that wines can improve in the bottle with age. But most of it comes from the brand name and the renown of a wine and of course its rarity value. Some of the wine producers of Bordeaux and Burgundy have conducted the best marketing campaigns ever to get their wines to fetch astronomical prices in the investment markets. They have kept up a relentless market and public relations effort over decades. Marketing and sales expertise is not the exclusive preserve of the Americans and Australians.
Consider this: I attended a lecture some five or six years ago by an economists turned wine maker who specialised in Burgundy wines. He drank the wines he tasted rather than spat them out but of course he was not an alcoholic. At that time he made the point that no wine costs more than about £6 a bottle to make. So what are you paying for if you buy a bottle of the most highly renowned Bordeaux or Burgundy? You are paying for the brand name and you are paying for the cost of buying the cost of the vineyard or how much the brand name owner or vineyard owner would lose if they sold their assets.
Further, consider this: fifteen years or so ago I found a bottle of 1983 Penfolds Grange in a wine merchant for £25. At that time few people had even heard of Grange so I snapped it up. I kept that bottle until 2009. During the intervening period Grange became a famous name and by the late nineties the price a bottle had risen considerably. By the time I opened the bottle it was worth over two hundred pounds a bottle. It is a great wine but was it worth eight times more than when I paid for it? Bottles of Grange from recent vintages are sold at very high prices. Grange has now become an investment wine so the price is being pushed up to a level where the ordinary wine lover cannot afford to buy it and appreciate it. Are investment wines worth that more when it comes to the actual taste and quality of the wine? Ask yourself the question what are you really paying for?
In the marketing of wine the power of suggestion is very strong and a brand name of an expensive wine may suggest a quality and taste which is not appreciably better than lesser known wines.
A similar principle applies to the marketing of other products such as audio equipment and cosmetics. I once had a work colleague who got himself into serious debt by spending tens of thousands of pounds on HIFI equipment. He was an “audiophile” who spent huge amounts of time studying the subject and even designed his living room around the listening experience. He was convinced that a record deck produced a far higher quality of sound than a CD player. My wife and I spent one evening listening to his music and of course the equipment produced a superior sound. But I was not convinced that his £30,000 set up was 30 times better than my set up which cost under £1,000 pounds, in fact it was not even twice as good. He could not convince my wife and I and his wife that the record player was better than the CD. It seemed to me that the record deck gave a perfect rendition of both the music and the snap crackle and pop that goes along with vinyl discs. The static ruined the music for me. He could not convince his wife that he was getting true value for money by buying more expensive equipment. We agreed with his wife that he was falling for marketing hyperbole. The same principle applies to cosmetics the more you pay the better the product must be.
So where does this leave us with the wine? For me it is horses for courses. If you are going to a party or barbecue a cheaper wine may be just as enjoyable as a much more expensive one and if you buy it from a supermarket it will be of perfect quality and it will fit its purpose exactly. At home, I usually drink everyday quality French wine with my meal. I drink this because I visit France so often that I can find bargains there. Some times I try wines from all over the world which I buy from my local wine merchants and supermarket. Usually I pay around six or seven pounds a bottle. For special occasions or once a week with a special meal at home alone with my wife or with friends I like to drink a higher quality wine which has regional character. This wine is usually from France but I like to try wines from all over the world as well. I do not expect to have to pay more than ten pounds to find a really good bottle. On the odd occasion I will splash out and buy a really good bottle of exceptional wine such as Qupe from California or Chateau Larose Perganson from Bordeaux. These wines are expensive but not excessively so and they are superb with good food. You can buy the latter for about 18 pounds a bottle and it tastes just as good as much more expensive wines from the region and it also has the potential to age well. The Qupe is more expensive still but it has rarity value in England; it is full of spicy Syrah flavour.
When buying wine we should also take into consideration the circumstances of its consumption. Is it at a party, is it in a pub or wine bar, or is it at dinner party or grand occasion? Some wines might taste better on their own whilst others taste better with food and this will affect our judgement about the taste and quality of the wine selected. Wine retailers could do more to inform the public about value for money and quality versus price considerations.
The secret of wine tasting is to allow you to find wines which are of superb quality and reflect value for money in their price range; wines which suit their purpose and which live up to their brand name. I urge all wine lovers to find out more about the wines they are buying and where possible to taste before buying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)