Browse Month

October 2007

Noval idea

Quinta do Noval 1997 “Late Bottled Vintage” Porto (Douro) – Still quite primary, with big, juicy berries in a fine fruit syrup plus a dense layer of ripe tannin and surprisingly vivid acidity. There’s absolutely no reason to open this one now. (9/07)

You cannot be serious!

[caged bottles]

I got into a discussion the other day about the word “serious” in relation to wine. The person who used the word was setting it in opposition to what he termed “quaffable”; specifically, Beaujolais was the latter, while Burgundy and Bordeaux were the former.

There was some objection to both characterizations on my part — the best cru Beaujolais is hardly quaffable, while the worst mass-market Burgundy and Bordeaux are hardly serious — but it got me thinking about how I might actually apply the word “serious” to wine, were I to do so.

The first, and most obvious, use would be a characterization of the wine in the glass…a stern, solemn wine that lacks any sense of joy, frivolity or fun. And indeed, many a top Bordeaux might qualify. This isn’t to say that one can’t derive joy/frivolity/fun from such a wine (drinking will to that to a person), only that the wine itself doesn’t bring those characteristics to the party. Or any party. This sort of wine doesn’t party.

But that’s not what the person who originally used the word intended. He was talking about something else, a quality that might otherwise be identified as “noble” or “fine” vs. something more prosaic. I understand this use of the word, but I don’t endorse it, because it smacks of faith in hierarchies over intrinsic qualities. While I might agree that, on balance and for my palate, certain wines regularly reach greater heights than other wines, I think to imply that the best efforts among that latter group are somehow “unserious” is to unwisely and unfairly denigrate their qualities. I’m not arguing for vinous socialism, nor am I embracing the often-abused refrain “all that matters is what’s in the glass” as a way to take down the high and mighty of the wine world, I just think that to divide up the world of wine into “serious” and “unserious” categories is dangerously reductive thinking. The qualities of individual wines really do matter. “Serious” wines are to be found everywhere, not just where one expects to find them.

So if my interlocutor was using the word in a fashion I didn’t like, how would I use the word? For me, a serious wine is:

  • A wine made to the highest quality possible given the restrictions in place. These include terroir, cépage, climate, typicity…any or all of which may or may not be legally mandated…and more external concerns like available money, etc. The wine would be made without marketability or price point as the primary consideration, though this is not to say that they can’t be strongly considered; winemaking isn’t a charitable pursuit.
  • A wine that is “serious” in intent, made to be the best it can be and not something merely acceptable or only good enough for uncritical quaffing. This doesn’t, however, mean that serious wines can’t also be quaffable. For example, the best Bugey Cerdon or brachetto d’Acqui can be serious, if they’re made with maximum care and attention. Both are, obviously, “fun” wines. But they’re made with a seriousness of purpose and a laser-like focus on quality, not simply because winemaking is what Dad and Great-Great-Great-Grandad did for a living, or because any idiot can sell Central Coast pinot (not true, of course) given the success of Sideways, or because there happens to be a perceived market for a drinkable $10 Bordeaux and a supply of grapes to fill that market.
  • It’s also important to note that these requirements say nothing about style. A serious wine might be resolutely traditional or employ every modernizing trick in the book. Again, it’s the intent that matters.

The opposite term — unserious — would apply to wines that are made with a primary consideration other than the highest possible quality. This would include price-point wines, wines made with compromises (which is not necessarily a value judgment) along the way, and wines made simply because they’re fun, or experimental, or in any non-qualitative way entertaining (e.g. Marilyn Merlot).

There’s a need for both types of wine, serious and unserious, in our modern marketplace. Who wants to be serious all the time? But it’s important to understand what seriousness really is. It’s not a pedigree, or a shockingly elevated price, or a reputation, or a bunch of points, or even the chorused acclaim of the oenogeek masses. It’s an expression of passion and skill, fired by intent, and given birth in a glass.

Rocche & roll all night

Brovia 2001 Barolo Rocche dei Brovia (Piedmont) – Very young, of course, but already showing some qualities beyond the tarry primaries…mostly an expansion of the dried-floral aromatics and the emergent promontory of a dense, rocky core covered with a rich layer of brown loam. This is a wine with its roots deep in the earth. (8/07)

The Gaja hypothesis

[angelo gaja]Gaja 2004 Langhe “Sito Moresco” (Piedmont) – Nebbiolo, merlot & cabernet sauvignon. Maybe. Whatever it’s made from, a more overtly sexualized wine can scarcely be imagined. The fruit (mostly berries and spice) is velvety, rich, luxurious and utterly seductive, and what structure remains is softened and lotioned and polished to virtual invisibility, though it’s important to note that it isn’t actually absent. As I said: sexy, though in an obvious, impossible-to miss way. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that this wine had a pimp. Or, more appropriately, a high-class madam. Even though my natural inclination is to carp about the wine’s clearly internationalized intent, I find it absolutely impossible to dislike the wine. If all the goopy New World monstrosities were actually this good, I might have to reevaluate the genre. Unfortunately (or perhaps thankfully, depending on your vinous religion), they’re not. This, on the other hand, is spectacular. (9/07)

The Grasso is always greener

Giuseppe Grasso “La Granera” 2004 Barbera d’Alba (Piedmont) – Tasting this brings back memories. Because I remember when barbera used to taste like this: crisp, biting, all red-hued berries with a little bit of sizzle. This isn’t one of the really old style thin and linear versions, however; it’s richer and a little bit wider around the waist, with a lovely finish that seems to begin to fade, then re-emerges with an angular vengeance. Perhaps it’s lightly wooded, perhaps just the result of better fruit. In either case, it’s not one of the overworked, overwooded monstrosities that infect the appellation. It’s not a “great” wine, but then part of what makes it so good is that it recalls a time when barbera wasn’t supposed to aspire to greatness. Bring out your tomatoes! (9/07)

Phineas fog

[label]Ettore Germano 2005 Langhe Nebbiolo (Piedmont) – Uninspiring, with obvious and prosaic nebbiolo dominated by its tarry, rather than floral, side and very little promise of inner aromatics to come. The tannin is correspondingly dominant, though there’s plenty of acidity as well. More than a bit hollow. It needs age, certainly, but I’m not sure the result will ever be all that compelling, and balance will remain an area of concern. (9/07)

Don Bongiovanni

[bottle]Cascina Bongiovanni 2005 Dolcetto d’Alba (Piedmont) – Friendly, fresh raspberry and boysenberry bisected by a thick wall of slightly biting tannin. The wine isn’t out of balance, necessarily, but I’m not sure the fruit will win the ultimate race to the finish line. That said, there’s a lot to like here, with an appealing emergence of mixed peppercorns and something more baritone and earthen in the finish. It’s occasionally leafy as well. I like it. Not everyone will. (9/07)

The Gattinara in the hat

[vineyard]Travaglini 2001 Gattinara (Piedmont) – Tar, but not so much with the roses…though there is a vague floral element here. Mostly, however, this is about pleasant organic elements, autumnal and humid, floating over a moldering bed of moistened earth. It’s fairly tasty, but doesn’t bear any sort of close examination. And I don’t know that it will reward much aging, either. (8/07)

Universal sufferage

[label]Minnesota wine. The very idea is absurd. And yet, the lure of a trio of wines from Alexis Bailly of Hastings, Minnesota is, on a recent visit to the homeland, ultimately irresistible. “Where the grapes can suffer” is a frequently-appearing tagline on the labels, and having grown up in Minnesota, it certainly fits. Frankly, one has to have a severely masochistic streak to even attempt winemaking in the land of 10 trillion mosquitoes and endless sub-zero days.

See here for the gory details…which, actually, aren’t that gory, though the results are unexpected.