Wines You Can't Drink
In this month's Wine Spectator Matt Kramer has a article that got me thinking. I've always sort of liked Kramer, simply because he is the most reasonable of what I consider an unreasonable and ludicrous bunch, the wine press. He has real insight, although he seldom takes the argument all the way and I can't tell if it's because Marvin Shanken signs his paycheck or if he is quite literally a half-wit.
This month he writes that the 21st century world of wine will be divided into the wines we taste and the wines we drink. Even a generation ago First Growth Bordeaux and Grand Cru Burgundy were affordable enough to be consumed if not everyday, at least routinely. Now even those of us who work in the industry are lucky if we drink wine like that a few times a year, while the average wine lover may never taste a bottle of Haut Brion or Montrachet, and if they do it will be nothing more than a taste. Kramer writes that this tasting in place of actual drinking is a virtual wine experience, a virtual relationship with wine. I agree with him wholeheartedly as far as he goes, but then I got thinkin'. While it's sad that much of the great wine of the world has been relegated to the fringe of our drinking experience because of price, isn't it just as sad that much of the wine in the world was never MADE to be drunk, it was made only to be tasted.
Many times I've been to a friend's house for dinner and with great ceremony they show their hospitality by opening one of the stars of new wine, Numanthia, Quilceda Creek, Shafer Hillside, Kosta Browne etc, and my first thought is, "how the hell am I going to get through that?" Drinking those wines, actually drinking them is like marching through a swamp in heavy boots, a sticky exhausting affair. God forbid some poor chef has made great food only to have their work undone by the heavy hand of Chris Ringland, it's embarrassing. That is not to say that those wines don't deserve the scores that they get.
However, the 100 point score should be qualified with a disclaimer "100 points, this wine is an absolute marvel, it shows best when consumed in a single sip while standing on a loud synthetic carpet in a over-lit hotel banquet room. Ill-suited for food, the wine is both ponderous and awkward at the dinner table. Will contradict most cuisines and be undone by anything less inert than water."
In other words the wine has been created, from over-ripening in the vineyard, to over-extraction and over-oaking in the winery, to do nothing but garner scores from people who are not actually drinking them. This my friends is a problem.
This month he writes that the 21st century world of wine will be divided into the wines we taste and the wines we drink. Even a generation ago First Growth Bordeaux and Grand Cru Burgundy were affordable enough to be consumed if not everyday, at least routinely. Now even those of us who work in the industry are lucky if we drink wine like that a few times a year, while the average wine lover may never taste a bottle of Haut Brion or Montrachet, and if they do it will be nothing more than a taste. Kramer writes that this tasting in place of actual drinking is a virtual wine experience, a virtual relationship with wine. I agree with him wholeheartedly as far as he goes, but then I got thinkin'. While it's sad that much of the great wine of the world has been relegated to the fringe of our drinking experience because of price, isn't it just as sad that much of the wine in the world was never MADE to be drunk, it was made only to be tasted.
Many times I've been to a friend's house for dinner and with great ceremony they show their hospitality by opening one of the stars of new wine, Numanthia, Quilceda Creek, Shafer Hillside, Kosta Browne etc, and my first thought is, "how the hell am I going to get through that?" Drinking those wines, actually drinking them is like marching through a swamp in heavy boots, a sticky exhausting affair. God forbid some poor chef has made great food only to have their work undone by the heavy hand of Chris Ringland, it's embarrassing. That is not to say that those wines don't deserve the scores that they get.
However, the 100 point score should be qualified with a disclaimer "100 points, this wine is an absolute marvel, it shows best when consumed in a single sip while standing on a loud synthetic carpet in a over-lit hotel banquet room. Ill-suited for food, the wine is both ponderous and awkward at the dinner table. Will contradict most cuisines and be undone by anything less inert than water."
In other words the wine has been created, from over-ripening in the vineyard, to over-extraction and over-oaking in the winery, to do nothing but garner scores from people who are not actually drinking them. This my friends is a problem.
Labels: Chris Ringland, Robert Parker is a Fool, Wines You Can't Drink
posted by jim morrison at
7:12 AM
3 Comments:
You're right Jim, a major problem. The producers of this elite 100-point wines have lost sight of the consumers palate. They are able to cater to an exclusive mailing list and wine publications to drive up their price and their profits. It leaves the average Joe who loves good wine on the outside looking in at the finest of wines in the world. --John Felty
Elitism is the word. Again what bothers me most is that they are essentially making wines for the press, not the public, and making wines that because of their style and price are virtually impossible to enjoy in a normal setting. On another note I'm looking into buying some 2005 Lascombes. I agree with you, that is good wine. Thanks for the comment, and thank you for continuing to come to the tastings. Is there anything you are interested in trying?
Not off the top of my head. But my wife and I are always searching for terrific, reasonably priced wines, and we usually find them on Friday nights at Thames River. --John Felty
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home