Matt Kramer's "Manifesto 2010" column in the new Wine Spectator (March 31, 2010) hits on the theme of transparency in winemaking. Among all the talk about high alcohol levels; interventionist vs. natural winemaking; biodynamic farming; and the myriad of other topics surrounding the making of wine- I agree with Mr. Kramer that transparency is the centerpiece in the discussion.
At the same time, I'm not sure how much unsolicited information is owed by vintners about their winemaking techniques and philosophies. Accurate alcohol by volume seems like a no-brainer to me, but the 1% (on wines less than 14%) and 1.5% (on wines greater than 14%) leeway that US law allows on label is such a large range that you have to take the information with a grain of salt. You'd think this would be the most basic information that you could rely upon regarding the wine.
Outside of that, how much information is owed to the consumer? I've seen tech sheets detailing rootstock, clones, soil, yeasts, percentage of new oak, type of oak, size of barrel, farming methods, and everything in between. On the other side of the coin, I've seen only the most basic technical information given. I was looking on the website for Chateau La Tour Carnet the other evening and it couldn't tell me the percentage of new oak that was used in aging.
Is it more interesting to speculate whether a wine was watered back, or aged in what percentage of new oak, or fermented with natural yeast... or more interesting to know all this information going in? I like to get my own impressions and then see how they might be correct or mistaken. I'm not sure that any of the detailed technical information is owed to me- part of the onus is on me to find it out if I have an interest. I'm not sure what to read into the less detailed tech sheets and websites... as long is doesn't potentially affect the health of the consumer (i.e. alcohol, sulfites), then to me its proprietary information. If the winery thinks putting it out there is useful then I guess they do it. Maybe they just think if you or me is interested enough we'll find a way to get the information... maybe we ask the question in the tasting room or email the winery.
That's not to say that I don't appreciate full disclosure when it is offered- both positive and negative. I guess its easy to disclose that you farm biodynamically, or ferment with natural yeast, or don't filter or fine on your tech sheets if you think this is appealing to your target customers. What's impressive to me, as Matt Kramer mentioned in the column, is the concept of disclosing a potentially unfashionable detail about your wine. In New Classic Winemakers of California, Bill Wathen of Foxen mentions that some wines have to be watered back- but not something they like to do. I overheard Steve Beckmen of Beckmen Vineyards saying in their tasting room last year that the 2007 vintage didn't need to by acidified... I don't doubt the integrity of Foxen or Beckmen for these reasons. I'm sure there are plenty who avoid talking about that stuff, but in avoidance maybe the opportunity is missed for a meaningful discussion with perspective about hot-button winemaking issues.
It would be great to see a more open discussion, but I'm still unsure that I am owed any more from a winemaker than I would be from a musician, or an artist. Maybe the methods are essential to the final result, maybe the ends always justify the means. It's in the eye of the beholder I guess- from the winemaker to the consumer.
More info is better. Not all of it is useful, but I'd like to know at the very least ABV, TA, pH, % of new oak, Brix and maybe any acid, water, sugar, Mega Purple or oak chip additions. Based on the lab results and additions, one can get a sense for style and degree of manipulation. Clearly something is going on if there's a 30 Brix wine with 13.8% ABV.
ReplyDeleteI'm in the minority, though, as points are more important to most people.
I agree with you- that information is of interest to me when it's presented. I do have aesthetic ideas about how I think a wine should be made, but I'm open-minded if there is sound philosophy behind a different approach. Knowing either way is good to provoke critical thought.
ReplyDeleteI wish there was a common-practice set of information on tech sheets- it's frustrating to look something up and not be able to find basic info. Not something that I believe should be mandated- just an accepted standard to disclosure. Never going to happen though.
Speaking of points- have you heard about this crazy Syrah that's aged 58 months in French Oak casks? I saw something about this on twitter and looked it up on RP website. He rated it 98... you'll get a kick out of this description-
"Proprietors Pam and Pax Mahle have fashioned a 2004 Syrah called Agharta. Aged 58 months (that’s not a typo) in French oak casks (the 2005, 2006, and 2007 vintages will spend 45-48 months in cask), the extraordinary 2004 is a 475-case blend of 92% Syrah, 5% Grenache, and the rest Viognier, Marsanne, and Roussane. Most of the Syrah comes from the Alder Springs Vineyard in Mendocino. This profound wine’s inky/purple color is followed by aromas of smoky barbecue meats, grilled Provencal herbs, and exotic tropical fruits intermixed with blackberry, cassis, blueberry, and graphite. This super-rich effort tastes like the nectar of Syrah, yet it is dry, elegant, and remarkably fresh and precise. In the mouth, the impression is like that of a multilayered cake – everything is there. This is an amazing, very multi-dimensional wine that must be tasted to be believed. It can be drunk now or cellared for two decades."