Trends in wine consumption are nothing new. Indeed I have jumped on pretty much any band wagon that has gone past in the last 10 years – the “anything but Chardonnay” trend of the late 1990s, followed by the “actually Chardonnay is very nice can we have it back please?” trend of the early 2000s (sort of how we flirted with cargo pants around 1999 as an alternative to jeans, before we realised that pockets on the outside of trousers was patently ridiculous, and that you can wear the same jeans for more than four days without needing to write a song about it – I think I’ve had mine on for about 3 weeks now without anyone noticing – and came running back to jeans and have been wearing them ever since); then there was the “Viognier” trend, the “Pinot” trend after the film Sideways came out, and now the “South America” and "Low Alcohol Wines" trends. (Incidentally, Mosel Riesling and Hunter Semillon have always been 'low alcohol' - it wasn't invented in the lab down at Tesco, as much as they would like you to believe it was). All very good trends, excellent, keep them coming.
But pink wine? The wine press has been quick to sing the praises of pink wine with all sorts of articles along the lines of “you thought pink wine was shit – well you’re wrong, it can actually be quite nice.”
Well, this piece takes the opposite view – pink wine is shit, the masses are wrong, and there are structural reasons why pink wine cannot be serious.
One such pro-pink article (at least half heartedly) is ‘Can Rosé ever be a serious wine?’ by Joanna Simon in the August edition of Decanter magazine. Her argument is that people dismiss pink wine because it is rarely oaked, designed to be drunk young, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration; but that because there are plenty of serious unoaked, drink-now wines (e.g. Sancerre) we should not dismiss pink wine on these bases. That is perfectly fine, and I agree that these are not reasons why pink wine should be derided. But it does not follow that there are not other reasons why pink wine is no good – Simon does not cover the field of reasons why pink wine is, well, not as good as proper red and white wine.
My main argument would be that pink wine can never be serious because it is pink. This is not some sort of joke. Pink wine is not made from pink grapes. It is made by either adding red and white grapes together, or squeezing red grapes without letting the pigment in the skin colour the wine beyond the desired level of pinkness.
Basically, pink wine arises because the natural process of winemaking that results in the best expression of any particular grape has been interfered with, either by adding to or subtracting from the normal course of winemaking. And that pretty much always comes at a cost. In the case of pink wine, the cost is that the resultant wine not only rarely has any varietal definition, but this Frankenstein of wines doesn’t even provide us with a product that does a job not already done by some other wine.
There are, of course, several wines that rely on interfering with the natural course of wine making but that are nevertheless masterpieces – Champagne, Amarone, Sherry, or any fortified wine for that matter. But there are usually good reasons why these gimmicks work. They originally put bubbles in Champagne by accident, and if you tried flat wine from Champagne it would turn your face inside out, so the bubbles are an improvement. In making Valpolicella, the technique of drying part of the harvest so that some of the wine is effectively made from raisins has resulted in a wine far superior in intensity and flavour than the relatively insipid stuff that results when this method is not employed. Similar reasons exist for fortifieds – for example the Palomino grape is very bland so making it into Sherry makes sense; Pedro Ximénez only shines as a fortified wine.
But to my mind there isn’t a similar excuse for Rose. It is neither geographically necessary, nor the best expression of any grape from which it is made, nor a delightful accident.
Pink supporters will probably rejoin with some cant about how, technicality aside, in summer time it is just nice to drink chilled pink wine that is zingy and fresh but with some nice red fruity, lolly water characters to it. Well, point number one is that if you want a wine to taste like lolly water you already agree that pink wine is crap. (I don't mind if you like crap - I do mind if you claim it to be a serious contribution to the wine portfolio though). But moreover, I just don’t think it’s possible to combine the zingy acidity of crisp whites with the red fruit of light reds and have a product that combines the two. The moment you introduce the characteristics of red wine to white, you are shackling the ability of white wine to do what it does best. It would be like putting a brick in Margot Fonteyn’s underpants, or asking Barney Gumble to sing the ‘mad’ scene from Lucia di Lammermoor. As much as we might want to combine the best of two things we like, this can’t always be done. As Simon Marchmant from Posh Nosh would say: “Never buy anything that calls itself shampoo and conditioner. It won’t do either.” Mixing white and red doesn’t make some sort of ‘super wine’ – it is the worst of both worlds.
I don’t doubt for a minute that within the pink wine genre, there are some that are better than others, and some very skilled winemakers plying their trade. I just think it’s a waste of time. I shouldn't complain though - it leaves more of the good stuff for the rest of us, I suppose.
3 comments:
Gareth, you know so much more than I do about wine that I comment with trepidation. But it was my understanding that red wine was made red by macerating the red grapes during fermentation. It was also my understanding that rose is not some mixture of two wines but simply either (a) white (unmacerated) wine made from very dark red or black grapes or (b) wine made with a very short maceration process.
Furthermore, your "geographic necessity" arguments for Sherry are a bit ridiculous. Is it really your argument that sherry is good not because it tastes nice but because it's the best thing that can be done with a Palomino grape, and that without Sherry the people who grew such grapes would have been left with a rather shit wine? Or that Champagne is nice not because the bubbles are fun and the flavour a surprisingly good match for smoked almonds but because ordinary white wine from Champagne is so inferior to that produced in the rest of France?
The best expression of a grape idea is also surprising. Perhaps you can thus clarify whether Shiraz/Syrah/Hermitage is a grape best served neat, or with Cab Sauv, or with a Grenache Mourvedre combination. Once so clarified, presumably you will want winemakers to ditch the combinations that are not the best expression of the grape. Ditto all other grapes. This might pose a problem if Shiraz is best done solo but Mourvedre is best done with Shiraz. But let's worry about that when the time comes.
Most cautiously of all, I must say that I disagree that you can't combine the attributes of white and red to some degree. You may be right to say that "zingy acidity" doesn't go perfectly with red fruitiness. But that just means that most roses avoid too much zingy acidity or too much fruitiness. The colour is of course nice (particularly where it's at the paler end of pink). And the result is an interestingly balanced light essentially whitish wine that is neither particularly acidic nor particularly sweet (thank god) with a touch of extra fruit body. Many clever and sophisticated people like the stuff.
Aren't you perhaps being just a bit contrarian? It doesn't even "leave more good stuff for the rest of us really" as there is honestly enough to go around without diverting a section of the market into rose!
Interesting ideas, Sam, but I would reply as follows.
1. As to how rose is made, there are indeed two techniques. It is certainly true that it can be made from black grapes with a short maceration process, however I said that already in my post, along with my view that this deprives the wine of important structural characteristics that would be present if maceration for the proper length of time took place. As to blending red and white wine - I should have made that clearer. They certainly do blend red and white wine in Champagne, but in other areas it is red and white grapes rather than red and white wine that are blended. I don't think anything turns on this. My point is that I don't think there are any (or maybe there's a tiny few) grapes that naturally make a pink wine without interference, and certainly the most acclaimed pink wines are not made from such grapes.
2. Geographic necessity - this is not ridiculous at all. My point is that given the resources you have (climate, grapes of a particular variety, soil types) presumably you want to make the best wine you can. In Champagne, which is extremely northerly and cold, they add bubbles to do so, and yes, the fizzy wine from Champagne is superior to the flat. In Sherry, the fortified wines are not only nice in their own right, but also far nicer than any table wine made from the Palomino grape. Do not forget that the Jerez region is probably the hottest of any wine growing area in Europe. I doubt they could get the necessary balance of acid and fruit to make good quality table wine in any economical quantity.
3. Best expression of the grape. The best expression of the grape is often in a blend, and I would not call for this abolition at all. However, one cannot forget that the best expression of a grape is not an abstract thing, it must be contextualised in its climate/terroir. Hence why in Bordeaux the blends from the left bank are Cabernet dominant, and blends from the right Merlot dominant - that is the best expression because of the varied soil types, and it takes each property a long long time to figure out what the best expression is. It is also why regional specialities emerge like unoaked Hunter Semillon. And further, there are some truly ridiculous blends out there that, yes, I think would make better wines unblended. But I don't believe that for one second that winemakers in Bordeaux have had some sort of Road to Damascus and discovered that actually pink is the best expression of cabernet or merlot and that that is why some respectable houses in Bordeaux have added pinks to their portfolios. I'm quite convinced it is just for the purpose of cashing in on the trend. (You can't blame them for this, but you can ask consumers why they like it, hence my post in the first place).
4. Combining white and red. I think this is your best point actually. Personally I just don't understand the appeal of rose - if it really is Goldilocks logic ('not too sweet, not too dry') then it's almost certainly likely to be too close to the middle of the road for me to enjoy.
5. Leaving more for the rest of us. I make this point with complete seriousness. In my opening paragraph I point out that non-wine drinkers are turning to rose. You yourself add that clever and sophisticated people (presumably those with disposable income) like it. Basic economics tells you that if these people were drinking Riesling and not Rose, either the price of Riesling would go up, or more Riesling would be supplied (which would presumably require higher yields leading to lower quality wine). Either way I am happy that you can still get good quality, cheap Riesling that is far better than any competing Rose.
Seconded. I live down the road from Domaines Ott - supposedly one of the best expressions of rose in the world - and it still tastes of lolly water.
Certainly quaffable - in the same way as a white wine spritzer - but not something which engages the intellect or the soul.
xx Lucy M
Post a Comment