Perhaps more than with any other area of gastronomy, an American consumer’s attitude toward wine could be described as “confusion infused with superstition” -- though, regrettably, it is often mistaken for “profundity infused with tradition.”
At one time or another, we have all been subjected to wine-related nonsense. For instance, “Thou Shault Not Drink Red Wine With Fish,” and other preposterous wine-food pairing dicta are commonplace. Or “Wine tastes better when drunk from a glass specifically shaped according to the character of the wine” – a quaint silly notion that has been successfully promoted and exploited by Riedel and other glassware manufacturing companies. Or the ubiquitous “vacuum pump” that is supposed to prolong the life of a bottle of wine once it’s been opened (but in reality is no more useful as an oenological implement than as a tire pump for your bicycle). Or the irrational insistence that plastic corks (which never go bad) are somehow inferior to the traditional wooden corks (which go bad on a regular basis, taking the wine inside along with them). But my favorite wine gibberish is this explanation of the Magic of Swirling, which can be overheard repeated in hushed tones in many a wine tasting room in Napa Valley: Vigorous swirling, you see, “breaks up the large flavor molecules in the wine” so they can more readily “release the aroma locked inside them.” If the respectful nodding of heads in response to such drivel is not a testament to the sorry state of science education in America, I don’t know what is!
As annoying as such wine nonsense could be, it hardly needs debunking, as any intelligent individual will readily recognize it for what it is: pure absurdity. But have you ever considered the less obvious deep-seated taboos that permeate the entire American wine industry? – I am guessing not, as they are so deeply embedded into our way of thinking about wine (shaped by decades of “tradition” fueled by the wine industry’s formidable marketing budgets) that we simply take them for granted without thinking. They are the proverbial elephant in the room. The emperor with no clothes. The deep-rooted misconceptions that are just waiting to be exposed!
The three fundamental taboos of the American wine industry are:
- Fetishistic obsession with vintage
- Stubborn aversion to blends in favor of varietals
- Irrational loathing of flavoring additives
Let the debunking begin!
Taboo Topic #1: Fetishistic obsession with vintage
It is undeniably true that many types of wine get better (more interesting, more complex, more balanced) as they age. It is also true that, through the confluence of weather and luck, some years produce outstanding grape harvests, while others yield just so-so grapes. Therefore, what the wine industry ought to be doing in order to maximize the overall wine quality on the market is to encourage the release of wine from the best years/producers as vintage wines, while blending the rest to ensure the product of consistent quality in the off years.
Unfortunately, while this strategy would maximize the overall wine quality and would thus benefit the consumers, it would not necessarily maximize the revenues for the wine industry. Winemakers would much rather release the wine made from every grape harvest – good or bad – as vintage wine, as it allows them to market their wine as a premium product. So the wine industry, using its marketing prowess to reinforce the fetishistic vintage convention, worked hard to associate “vintage” with “high-quality” – neglecting the obvious fact that this association is only true for good vintages, not for all vintages!
This PR campaign succeeded brilliantly. Consumers have been duped into paying a premium for vintage wines, expecting (mistakenly) a higher-quality product. As the consumer interest in more-expensive vintage wines started rising a decade ago (in response to the marketing efforts by the wine industry), it became the single largest contributing factor to the American wine industry’s sales growth. In 2004, premium wines in California accounted for 32% of the volume, yet 64% of the revenues, a sea change since less than a decade ago, when premium (vintage) wines were a relatively obscure sector of the wine industry.
What is to be done? – Consumer, educate thyself! Stop blindly equating “vintage” with “quality,” and use good judgment in making your wine purchases rather than obediently following the wine industry’s PR machine. Wine industry, take a cue from the Port makers, who got it right (and have had it right for centuries!) Only outstanding Port vintages are declared as Vintage Ports by the major port houses, while the rest are blended to keep a consistent taste. Here’s to Dow's 1963 Vintage Port!
Taboo Topic #2: Stubborn aversion to blends in favor of varietals
Before unraveling this taboo, I’d like to indulge your attention for a brief wine history lesson (borrowed from the 1988 edition of the Sotheby's World Wine Encyclopedia).
Historically, Old World producers stressed the importance of where the wine came from on the label, rather than what was in the bottle: Bordeaux, Burgundy, Chablis, Sancerre, Rioja, Port, Sherry, etc. The one thing that never appeared on the label was the grape variety. At first, the New World competed by simply "borrowing" famous names from the Old World: "Australian Burgundy" and "Californian Chablis" became commonplace. In 1939, however, Frank Schoonmaker, a New York writer and wine importer, started a revolution when he decided to add domestic American wines to his range, but refused to sell anything bearing these so-called "semi-generic" names and insisted that the wines be labeled as varietals. It was not the first time that Californian wines had been sold under varietals labels; examples of Cabernet, Riesling and Zinfandel were known in the nineteenth century. Such wines were, however, a relatively rare commodity. Schoonmaker increased the range of varietal wines by including Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Grenache Rose and many, many more, but the key to his success was the superb quality of the wines he selected. He did not “order” the wines, he simply tasted everything he could until he found the very best available. These wines were gems, and very popular with knowledgeable drinkers. The mass market followed suit, equating this new-found exciting quality with the varietal name. An increasing number of wineries realized what was happening and jumped on the varietal bandwagon.
Well, there you go: the fact that the vast majority of American wines sold today are pure varietals is a mere historical accident arising from a confluence of three factors: competition with Europe (the need to differentiate New World wine products from their Old World counterparts), discriminating taste of one talented individual (Frank Schoonmaker), and market forces (wineries jumping on the Varietal Boom bandwagon). However, the unintended consequence of the Varietal Boom is the resulting consumer aversion to blends, for today’s average American wine drinker equates “varietals” with high-quality wines and “blends” with generic table wine.
This situation is unfortunate, as it means that American wine industry is stuck with producing one-dimensional single-varietal wines, which deprives consumers from experiencing the potential richness and complexity of American varietal blends. Ironically, for consumers desiring to expand their wine drinking experience into the “blend dimension” at a reasonable price, the only recourse is to go back to the Old World wines such as Bordeaux (which, of course, is a blend of a number of varietals: Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc, Malbec, and Petit Verdot).
To its credit the American wine industry has tried repeatedly to free itself from its self-imposed (but now clearly outdated) single-varietal “golden handcuffs.” Probably the best-known such effort is the creation of Meritage. In the late ‘80s, a group of American vintners who were frustrated with the single-varietal limitations decided to create a special name for their high-quality blends of traditional Bordeaux varietals. The term “Meritage” was coined to identify these high quality wines and distinguish them from the more generic moniker “red table wine.” But establishing a whole new wine category proved to be very difficult indeed, as the American consumers’ aversion to blends turned out to be remarkably stubborn, government red tape and regulations proved to be a formidable challenge, and many vintners impatient with slow progress abandoned the Meritage label in favor of proprietary names for their wine blends (Phelps ‘Insignia,' Justin ‘Isosceles,’ etc.). (The Meritage Association is now making an attempt to revive the Meritage dream, but with only modest success so far.)
To this day, as the vast majority of American wine drinkers are happily supping their one-dimension single-varietal wines, the American-made blends are confined to the uppermost market segment of the industry (example: Opus One, which retails for $125-$300 a bottle). To experience an affordable high-quality wine blend, you have no choice but “go Old World.” What a shame – and how ironic, as competing with the Old World wines was the genesis of the Varietal Boom in the first place!
What is to be done? – Consumer, it’s time to shake off the stubborn aversion to blends and open your palate to the extra dimensions and complexities of wine beyond the single-varietal straightjacket. Wine industry, it’s time to start producing high-quality affordable varietal blends and continue the efforts to educate American consumers in their merits.
Taboo Topic #3: Irrational loathing of flavoring additives
How often do you read wine tasting notes (“light cherry nose, notes of chocolate and raspberry, licorice/blackberry dusty/earthy flavor, berry and slight herbal/funky finish,” and so on) and wonder: where do all those complex “notes” and “flavors” come from? On the surface, the answer is simple: some come from the fruit itself, some from the barrel, and others develop from the ageing process. But fundamentally, this is all just chemistry. And if that’s the case, it should be possible to “reverse-engineer” wine with high fidelity, such that the end results are indistinguishable from those achieved in the “natural” winemaking process. The net effect would be higher-quality better-tasting wine products at lower prices – and happier wine consumers!
Of course, this opens up a Pandora’s Box of epic proportions. In spite of dramatic technological advices of late, winemaking is still regarded as more art than science, with winemakers still using oak barrel ageing (American, French, Slovenian – you could use these barrels to teach a forestry lesson!) as a kind of spice rack. How primitive! – it’s as if fragrances were still made by milling herbs and flowers, or house paint manufactured by grinding seashells and other pigment into oil.
Fortunately, the flavor industry has come a long way in the last ten years, and has made several important technological advancements toward engineering flexible flavor solutions suitable even for a highly complex flavoring job needed to support winemaking. It is now up to the task of helping the winemaker achieve the desired flavor balance, reducing the reliance on the medieval “natural flavoring” techniques such as barrel ageing. For winemakers, this is an exciting development that opens up new avenues of self-expression, allowing them to create “designer wines” just like the fragrance industry flourished with advent of “designer perfumes.” For consumers, this means getting more varied, interesting and complex wine products at a better price.
What is to be done? – Wine industry, it’s time to lift the archaic taboo against additives and to join the rest of the food industry in reaping the benefits of the flavor revolution. Consumer, don’t be intimidated by the wine snobs swirling their wines and sticking their noses into the glass, and demand that the wine industry take advantage of available flavor technology to create higher quality products at a lower price!
