Bigger is Better?

This post is from Scott.

Americans and American wines are known throughout the world as adhering to the premise of Bigger is Better. Napa cabernets and chardonnays are in general the epitome of this, but in truth this has crept into wines up and down the west coast. Whether it is cab or syrah or pinot noir, or pick your favorite white, the story is the same – jammy, sappy, oaky, and/or high alcohol. But I’ve never been more shocked by this than when I tasted a rosé from a very well known PNW winery the other night. I know this isn’t exactly rosé season, but I was surprised to see it on the shelf so I bought it. I laughed on the first taste – it had tons of residual sugar, added acidity, and it was spritzy. Everything you would expect from an American rosé trying to emulate those refreshing rosés from France , but in an in-your-face, outrageously obvious kind of way. It was not refreshing, but I’m sure your kids would like it because it tasted just like strawberry soda.

I wondered, why would anyone make a rosé that tastes like that?

Tags: ,

  1. It’s not the size, it’s what you do with it. Last week I had a Cotes du Rhone that Kermit Lynch puts his label on. It was layered in aromas, kind of funky, and very deep in flavors. And it was so light and playful on the palate I could have had a bottle to myself instead of sharing with my wife. Later that week I had a glass from a producer across the river from you, operated by some of the kindest folks you could possibly meet, but their CdP copy is so sweet and oaky and out of whack, it brings tears to my eyes to think of the waste of fruit.

    I can just imagine what their wines would be like if they rejected the oak propaganda, or perhaps decided to forgo oak altogether in favor of concrete or older neutral barrels. Perhaps the mistake was made at harvest by allowing too much time to hang, but it just seemed so dark, so overdone.

    It seems odd that when these two wines are presented side by side, many consumers lean toward the deeper colored, perfumey wine from WA, but if presented the Lynch CdR on it’s own or with dinner, they flip their lids.

    The debate continues. And i will gladly put down my 12 dollars for the French wine over the 26 for the wine from my home state.

  2. hi andrew,
    watching our young son this AM choose from a box of strawberries, i noticed how he reached for and then selected the reddest ones. i couldn’t help but think about your comment, of what consumers tend toward. probably not a new idea, what i toss out now, but are we asking people to fight innate programming to select something that has less color, and less in-your-face ooo-la-la? because how would little less-than-two-years-old sam know to go for the richest color berries, which were the ripest? with that line of thought, that little dickens would for sure choose a jamma-slamma-ding-dong wine over ours!

  3. Andrew – thanks for your comments and I know exactly what you mean.

    Your statement about how your CdR was “light and playful on the palate” struck me as very interesting for two reasons. 1) light and playful is antithetical to how you hear red wines described, especially ones based on grenache/syrah, and 2) as mentioned by Stephanie, I am reading Hugh Johnson’s “A Life Uncorked” and that is exactly how he describes his favorite yet grandest (Bordeaux) of wines – this combination of being light, yet deeply flavorful, complex and lasting.

    I am not a believer that using new oak is fundamentally bad. It depends on the kind of oak and the style of wine. Many of the great red wines from Europe have been using a lot (or 100%) of new oak for generations, yet generally they are not overwhelmed by it. There’s Ridge Vineyards, too. As far as sweetness goes, ethanol is sweet, oak can taste sweet, fruit-forward flavors can seem sweet, and believe it or not, it is a known and accepted practice to add sugar to red wine prior to bottling to “bring out” the fruit flavors.

    I don’t know if you’ve read it, but Asimov has an interesting recent post (http://thepour.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/how-important-is-it-for-a-red-wine-to-be-a-dark-color/) on the importance of color in red wine.

    Anyway, these stylistic decisions are conscientious ones, and are made both in the vineyard and in the winery.

  4. Ahh, if this isn’t a philosophical can of worms. Your experience with the rose’ strikes at so very much throughout this industry: The meaning of AVA’s, how much manipulation is ok, winegrowing/winemaking choices. And Stephanie, what a great observation, never thought of it in such terms; instinctually programmed to select ripeness.
    The Columbia Valley is a very generous winegrowing region. We are blessed with ample sunlight, practically no humidity, no risk of rain, and plenty of water. This results in very intensely colored and flavored grapes and hence wines. To make a wine with low color/intensity would be atypical for the Columbia Valley AVA, akin to making black burgundy or 15% Chinon. The challenge of the AVA lies in crafting finesse into these resulting wines.

    As for tasting added acid I find this a difficult statement to accept. Many great wines have had acid added back, more than a few grand cru champagnes add citric to their dosage. The real issue lies in coming to terms with the level of manipulation that you are comfortable with. If adding acid is taboo what about water, yeast, nutrients, so2, fungicides in the vineyard, irrigation, compost…some would argue that all these destroy character and lead to sameness. I often find that people’s view of how much manipulation is acceptable depends entirely on the extent that they have to manipulate.

    The real goal of real wine then would be wine that reflects the character of the region in which it is grown, non-irrigated, no so2, uninoculated fermentation. A lofty ideal, but there are some interesting sites in the northwest showing some promise. All these subjects are controversial, edgy, and entertaining. For without opinion, renegades, and showman wine would be boring stuff.

  5. As a novice wine drinker I find this discussion interesting. My personal opinion of this is I would hope that the winery would make adjustments to make what they consider to be the best wine. I find it concerning that wineries might make adjustments to what Wine Spectator would consider to be the best wine, as suggested in MondoVino. As a novice what I look for is variety and convince me why your variety is better. Otherwise all the wine would be monochromatic and ultimately cost $9.99. It would be then left up to the marketing department to hawk your wine, with the creation of funny names or labels, ie. Bitch! Ultimately I am learning that as a novice it is up to me to keep track of the best wineries and not WS or RP.

  6. ron,
    welcome to the uncultivated life! thanks for joining the conversation. you say “variety,” we say “point of view,” and those wines that chase WS and critics’ palates lack both, in my opinion! i’m not the real technical wine person of this show, more like the technical whiner (ha!); i’m sure scott will respond once we get over this busy time for us. thanks again – best –
    stephanie

  7. Thanks for your interest Ron S. You talk like you are not too much of a novice…

    I don’t think the job of a winery or winemaker or winegrower is to convince anybody of anything. It’s not about making a better wine than someone else; it’s about staying true to your vision, the vineyard, and the season. I believe that is what Stephanie is saying by “point of view”.

    Sorry, that’s not technical at all, but everybody knows how to do technical these days.

Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *