Sunday 1 December 2013

Varietal Incidental


It was late, and yet Adelaide’s burgeoning wine bar scene beckoned us forth and, in the interest of professional thoroughness, we complied.

For those of you not around in the eighties, and therefore not familiar with the work of the Sheffield new romantics-cum-popsters, Human League, the similarity of look between Phil Oakey and the current batch of hipster barmen will have escaped you. But, with head shaven on one side, floppy hair t’other and chin generously festooned with fluff, the similarity was unmistakeable. Wherever we went in Australia, the essential must-have for hipster mixters was a beard, the more like zz top the better.

This was one such establishment, the proprietor literally bristling with pride over his uniformly eclectic wine list and his equally eclectic taste in facial furniture. It was late, very late so my recall is perhaps a little hazy but I distinctly remember being poured a glass of Riesling that he had had a hand in making. It was, predictably, a natural wine, with deep colour, little in the way of neither varietal distinction nor character. Not downright bad but to my weary tastebuds, utterly pointless. We were even told that when he bottles the wine he sticks a matchstick down the side of the cork for some controlled (yeah right, controlled like a Toronto mayor in a crack den) oxidation. Not quite the low intervention, low input winemaking espoused by the naturalistas.

But, this did get me thinking about some of the recent articles written about the importance, or otherwise, of varieties. Andrew Jefford wrote an interesting article that questioned the use of the variety as the dominant feature of the language of wine communication. He argued that because the flavour and character of wines varies depending on where and how it has been grown, even when grown from the same variety, place has more relevance than variety in determining what the consumer should expect from a wine.

Some have gone even further, with the affable Steve Webber at De Bortoli espousing the “varietal incidental” theory that varietal character should be subdued. I would suggest that such theories, and those of Jefford, are somewhat elitest and expect a far higher degree of consumer interest and engagement than is the reality.

While many of us in the wider wine community are comfortable to lose the variety as the defining element of any wine, to suggest that the majority of consumers, most of whom have been taught to recognise and value variety over and above everything else, can or would like to spend the time learning about every single place that grows grapes, is preposterous.

What’s more, the argument is commercially arrogant in that it expects a far higher degree of consumer knowledge than would be expected for virtually any other product bought.

Take for instance beef. I’m quite happy talking about and recognising the difference between grain fed versus grass fed, wet aged versus dry aged and slow growing indigenous versus fast growing hybrid crosses – but are the majority of beef consumers? If we discount the virtues of varietal dominance, are we to describe all beef by where it came from first rather than the fact that it is beef first and foremost?

Even if you discount that argument as being too generalist, we could take it further. Let’s  accept the notion that if wine=beef then variety=breed. No doubt a Dexter tastes different whether it has been grown in the borders of Scotland on grass or in Ireland on grain but its small frame, and finely grained meat remain consistent throughout. Its basic genetic structure remains the consistent, defining and easily communicable feature – and so it is true of Cabernet Sauvignon, Sauvignon Blanc or Syrah.


I revel in the complexities and nuances of wine, positively froth at the subtle yet profound influence that provenance has on the end product but understand that for many, wine is an enjoyable drink to have with or without food. They are already baffled by the intricacies of wine so let’s not make it harder for them by tearing up the rule book.

No comments: