Steve Heimoff blogged today on the cool 2010 California vintage and how critics will rate it since it likely will produce few super ripe wines. I often like what Heimoff has to say, but I think he has it wrong here. I’ve seen over and over from Laube and Steiman at Wine Spectator that they, too, have it wrong. These guys seem to always equate super-ripe wine to big-flavored wine; and more restrained or balanced wines as lean, or light, or maybe even elegant, but all-in-all lacking in something comparatively. To me it’s ridiculous.
What you can get with well-made, non-super-ripe wines is complexity because one characteristic (e.g., sweet fruit) doesn’t overshadow the other many possible characteristics. A wine with complexity can deliver an intense experience for the nose, mouth and mind. There is power in complexity, but most of the wine journalist gurus find power, and therefore goodness, in ripeness.
A couple of recent notable articles would tend to agree with my point of view. One by Dan Berger, about overripe wines becoming a bad trend, and one in Saveur.
Our wines? The year gives us what the year gives us, and we do what we can in the vineyard and the winery to highlight complexity because that’s what interests us.
Tags: 2010 California vintage, Dan Berger, Laube, Saveur, Steiman, Steve Heimoff, Wine critic, Wine Spectator
-
A few years ago, I was talking with the wine buyer for the NY restaurant I Trulli– his ideas similar– he had just gotten back from a wine tasting and proclaimed that the wines had all tasted the same and that they were not, in his opinion, wine at all. Meaning, of course, that rather than reflecting a time and place, the wines had been manipulated ( Parkerized?) to be consistent with popular expectations. The conversation I had with him predated the release of Mondovino– which, if I recall it correctly, expressed a similar sentiment. I admire your integrity and hope it doesn’t carry too big a price– Jim
-
Jim,
Don’t get me wrong, people should drink what they like, but to have the gurus paint a style of wine as almost second class is a disservice to everyone. Heimoff’s point is the 2010 vintage will likely be very different from those of the last 2-3 decades and may disappoint, but isn’t that the exciting thing about wine – how the vagaries of weather and life place their indelible mark on what’s in the bottle?
I don’t know if it’s so much about integrity as it is about just sticking to what I think is the right way to do things for me. Most people that I’ve worked with in the wine industry so far think I’m crazy for doing things the way I do them. Hey, if the wine doesn’t represent me (and Stephanie) and that vineyard we farm, then what’s point?
Scott
The Grande Dalles -
Hi Scott, you don’t know how I’ll rate 2010 because I don’t know! I do have to assign vintage scores as part of my job, but the more important scoring is the individual bottle of wine. I assume that there will be many great 2010 California wines and I’m looking forward in particular to the Napa Cabernets, when they start to come out.
-
Steve – quite an honor to have someone like you post on Stephanie’s blog…and I’m not being facetious.
My point was you described or at least hinted at the 2010 season being suspect since it probably won’t produce super-ripe wines in general like many expect. I say so what. CA is certainly known for bombastic wines, but if a season won’t allow for that style should it be viewed with disappointment? I can’t imagine there will be many under ripe and out of balance wines made, can you?
Scott
The Grande Dalles
Reply
Live The Life
Subscribe to updates here
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.theuncultivatedlife.com/wp-trackback.php?p=772