Thoughts on Vintage
Courtesy of
30 Second Wine Advisor
By
Robin GarrBefore I grew up to become a wine "geek," I
thought one of the most confusing things about wine appreciation was
all that business about vintages. Good years, bad years, even
mediocre years ... how can you keep all that information straight in
your head, I used to wonder ... and does it really matter anyway?
Now that I've been writing about wine for more
than 20 years, I've found that there's no better way to learn
vintages than simply letting nature take its course: Every year,
trailing the calendar by a few months (Beaujolais Nouveau) to
several years (Bordeaux, Chianti Classico Riserva), each new vintage
comes through the pipeline, bringing its own surprises and teaching
us its particular lessons through tasting. Live through a few
vintages, learn them in your glass, and before long you realize that
you do have a lot of that info in your head. (But there's still no
harm in supplementing your memory by looking it up.)
Now the 2003 vintage is working its way through the commercial
wine- distribution system like an undigested meal passing through a
python, and the idiosyncratic wines of this most peculiar summer
offer a good opportunity to make a few points about vintage and its
place in wine appreciation.
Before I get to today's tasting report on a particularly fetching
Northwestern Italian red that provides compelling testimony that
2003 was not entirely bad, let's tick off a few random "bullet
points" about some ways that wine lovers use - and abuse -
information about vintage.
* Vintage, the year shown on the bottle of most fine wines,
reflects the year in which the grapes were picked. This is important
because wine grapes are an agricultural product, and weather
conditions can have a significant effect on the wine, whether it's
vine-killing winter freeze, bud-killing spring frost, summer storms
and hail, or rains at harvest time. A year of perfect weather may
yield exceptional wine, and there's something of a parable in that.
The extreme heat of 2003 fostered very ripe fruit in much of Europe,
a reality that's not necessarily a blessing, as over-ripe grapes
tend to make fat, lower-acid wines more typical of the New World
than Burgundy, the Loire or the Northern Rhone.
* Weather is local. One region's terrible vintage may be decent
in another and excellent in a third. Consider 1989, a lackluster
year in Napa but very good in Bordeaux, compared with 1991, which
was rather fine in Napa and absolutely terrible in Bordeaux. Indeed,
when we talk about 2003's intense heat, it's important to specify
that we're talking only about Europe. It was an excellent year in
South Africa, and "difficult" in much of California and Down Under.
* Vintage quality works only as a broad generalization. Some
producers make excellent wines in "poor" vintages, and a few make
stinkers in "can't miss" years. Moreover, the storm or frost that
devastated vines in one village may have missed its neighbor. It's
rare to have a vintage so poor that it's reasonable for consumers to
write it off entirely. The 1991 vintage in Bordeaux comes close to
this mark, and 2002 in the Southern Rhone. But now and then the wine
contrarian can find value by cherry-picking better wines from
vintages that the conventional wisdom says to avoid.
* Trust your own taste buds more than vintage charts. Bear in
mind that even wine professionals don't always agree. Robert M.
Parker Jr. has highly rated many of the big, strong and ripe French
2003s, for example, an endorsement that's driving prices but also
fostering controversy among those who don't share his affection for
atypical French wines that taste like California or Australian
blockbusters.
That should be enough food for thought for today's meal. Stay
tuned, I have a few more notes on surprising 2003s lined up for
reporting soon. |