|This essay has produced a storm of controversy with over 120 posts on wine-pages UK Wine Forum in two days, half of them looking to lynch Stuart, half of them wanting him canonised.|
Plenty of interesting responses by email too from around the world, a broad selection of which
are printed below. Where Stuart had something to add to the debate I have also included his replies.
Slow Death by Boring Wine - part II
|Stuart's response to Geoff:|
Geoff - You put the point very elegantly, and it is a case I agree with wholeheartedly. It may seem to be so uncontroversial as to command general assent, and yet not so - in the UK, at least. Here our wine writers are only too happy to keep plugging the mass-produced industrial wines that constitute the meat and drink of the high-street trade, and have wilfully forgotten the love and pride that go into the best wines not only of Europe, but of the quality-conscious producers of the USA, and - to a lesser extent - New Zealand and Chile. If I seem to be disproportionately beastly to the Australians, it is because their wine industry (more than any of the other non-European countries) is so in hock to lowest-common-denominator wines, 'industrial wines' as you rightly call them. To the large combines, wine is not an appreciably different commodity to beer, hence their childish over-reliance on never-varying sweet Chardonnay and jammy Shiraz. This is not, I'm sure, destined to be the ultimate fate of Australia as a wine producer, but until they grow up, and until the scales fall from the British wine writers' eyes on this matter, they do not deserve to sit at the top table.
|Stuart's response to J.F:|
You make my point for me with great eloquence, JF. New World wine is beginner's wine (or kids' stuff, as I have called it in my column), while those who can be bothered to learn that Puligny-Montrachet Les Combettes is oaky Chardonnay will have grown into their adult palates in style.
Bill Nanson, Switzerland
New World producers are making their wines in the style that their local terrior allows - which is not to say they make wines that are as good as Montrachet. There's no reason to suggest that one group (old or new world) are less professional or committed. Hence, they each produce wines of at least the same 'class' in terms of what is possible given their raw materials.
|Stuart's response to Bill:|
Yes, I wouldn't disagree with any of that.
David Pearce, UK
Dear Stuart, I'd like to come back on some of your replies to my earlier response to the esay (see below). Your comments are in red: "I always take issue with the thought that unlike things cannot be compared with each other". I'd say they can be compared against each other but should not be judged. "What would be the point of comparing things that were the same anyway?" Are you saying that all Puligny-Montrachets are the same and should not be compared to one another? "Of course, Australian and French wines are made in different styles, and the French are better". In terms of absolute quality (complexity, structure and acidity) then I would have to agree with you. But wine is a commodity that is consumed in (hopefully) pleasurable circumstances. A great French wine does not always fit the circumstance and in those cases would not be better. What you state is a preference and not an absolute. Who is better Chanel or Versace? There is no definitive answer. Lastly, "Sitting on the fence in the middle of the road is not my style. Offered either a glass of Côte-Rôtie or a glass of Barossa Valley Shiraz at the end of a tasting, you may well opt for the former, in which you have made a comparison and declared a preference. Simple." At the beginning of my reply to your article I stated "I appreciate and love the wines of the Old World as much as the New" I didn't declare a preference as I like them both equally. If you define this as "sitting on the fence" then you are mistaken - it is merely an appreciation of both styles.
|Stuart's response to David:|
Unlike things should not be judged against each other? Why not? Have New Labour made it illegal? I think you should learn to trust your opinions more David: If you truly like New World/Old World equally, then great. Most people would find they prefer one to the other, when given a choice of two commodities. That may not necessarily mean disliking the less liked one, merely that one has managed to make a discriminating judgment between them.
Russ Sainty, UK
Stuart has hit a nerve which I'm sure he intended. My main take on this is "the best wine is the one in my glass", by which I mean that I celebrate the wide range of wine available. I have in my cellar wines from 5 old world countries and from 4 new world countries. Isn't it wonderful? You may have similar or different ranges and enjoy different styles - great, next time we meet, convince me about your preferences. Stuart piece asks what we want to drink in place of the dullard wines he critised last time. Well, we all want something different, but with one thing in common: that it's very good, well made, and with some class. I hope any list of wines people would come up with wouldn't just include old world classics as Stuart suggests, but a broad range of the best from anywhere in the world
|Tom's response to Russ:|
My own cellar has a definite bias towards the Old World, but I have many bottles from Australia, California, New Zealand and South Africa, as well as a few posh South Americans. I think what you are saying is that it is good to have an open mind, and approach each new wine without preconceptions. Whether one is a died-in-the-wool Old Worlder, or a fan of the New, I'd totally agree with you that you risk missing out if you don't remain open-minded and willing to try new wine experiences when they come along.
Daron Fincham, UK
Take a journalists jargon - generator (you know, flat-earther's, old chestnut) a picture of Roger Moore and a position that the writer may not truly bleive in and what have you got? A wind up. I can read this sort of stuff from Julie Burchill in the Grauniad but on the wine-pages? Don't make me laugh.
|Stuart's response to Daron:|
Dear Daron - Sorry to have wound you up. But please don't make the mistake of thinking that I don't really believe what I write. I leave that sort of dishonesty to those who make a living writing PR copy.
PS Roger Moore?
David Pearce, UK
A very interesting article and although I am a wine merchant specialising in Australia, I appreciate and love the wines of the Old World as much as the New. The difference between us (apart from your more educated wine knowledge) is that I see the wines of France and Australia as two totally different realms. If I was to use an analogy (which I have used before on the UK Forum) it would be that Aussie/New World wines are the Ferrari's, Porsche' s and Dodge Vipers of this world, whilst the French/Old World wines are Bentleys, Merc and Jags. Why compare the two of them. They are totally different types of product (although Southern Italy and France is doing a damn good job of trying to emulate them) and should be treated in their own right and not compared side by side. The Old World will always have it's precious AC's although I expect they will be updated in the next 10 years or so. Australia will have it's GI's and both will continue making excellent wines along side the crap ones. As you well know, adding the name of the vineyard on the bottle adds a couple of dollars.......... Keep up the good work.
|Stuart's response to David:|
David - Thank you for your comments, though I always take issue with the thought that unlike things cannot be compared with each other. What does the act of comparison consist in other than the relative evaluation of different commodities? What would be the point of comparing things that were the same anyway? Of course, Australian and French wines are made in different styles, and the French are better. Sitting on the fence in the middle of the road is not my style. Offered either a glass of Côte-Rôtie or a glass of Barossa Valley Shiraz at the end of a tasting, you may well opt for the former, in which you have made a comparison and declared a preference. Simple.
Murray Almond, Australia
Oh dear Stuart, so near, and yet so far. The core of your argument is that "the appellation regulations are responsible for the highest achievements of world wine". That assumption is wrong in my view; although the outcome has merit. The highest achievements of world wine were achieved before the appellation regulations came in. The achievement was in the recognition of the grape varieties and winemaking style that suited each portion of land. That's the achievement, the appellation controls only codified what was already there.
I also disagree that the vine thrives best in poor soils and marginal climates. It does not thrive there at all, it thrives best in nicely irrigated warm climates like the Riverina. I expect what you are saying is that vines produce the best quality grapes in poor soils and marginal areas. A concept with which I have no problems. However your implication of the concept of suiting vine to soil is only successful in the new world is also wrong. It has reached in zenith in the old world, however the new world is catching up fast. There is far greater emphasis in the analysis of the climatic and geographic factors in premium vineyard placement than ever before. A local winery to me has pulled out their cabernet vines and planted shiraz, as this a patently more suited to the area.
Sub-standard wine is made everywhere, but just because lakes of it are made in the new world mean that the monopoly of quality rests with the old. You say "Clare Valley Riesling will never in a month of Sundays be Wehlener Sonnenuhr", and neither should it, likewise A Chevalier-Montrachet will never match a Chablis Grand Cru, Les Clos, Raveneau, will in a month of Sundays either; because they are different expressions of the grape. And the sparkling sweet Cabernet/Champagne analogy has as much relevance as saying " Or Johnny Walker Black ever keep them awake in Cognac?". You may stylistically prefer the old world styles, however there are wines being made in the new world that, in their own style, reflect the same standards of excellence that has made the best of the old world earn the respect it deserves
|Stuart's response to Murray:|
"That assumption is wrong in my view; although the outcome has merit. The highest achievements of world wine were achieved before the appellation regulations came in. The achievement was in the recognition of the grape varieties and winemaking style that suited each portion of land. That's the achievement, the appellation controls only codified what was already there".
If the codification hadn't been drawn up, however, the achievement would never have been systematised. I think we're dancing on the head of a very small pin here.
"the new world is catching up fast. There is far greater emphasis in the analysis of the climatic and geographic factors in premium vineyard placement than ever before".
Which is why those (not yourself clearly) who argue that the 'new world' is free of the stranglehold of the appellation concept are on a very sticky wicket.