From The Mailbag

From The Mailbag (22 January)

Over the fast few weeks I have received some emails that are worth sharing with you.

The first is from Ben Allen who wrote, “I find your stuff very interesting but seldom have time to wade my way through it all.

As a passing mention, I hosted a Victorian Wine evening for a small group of WA enthusiasts. Amongst the wines I sourced were a number bought through Frank's Fine Wines. They included a bottle of 2001 Thomson Family Reserve from Best's and a bottle of 1994 Yarra Yering Dry Red #1 which were both corked. When I spoke to Frank afterwards he said he would mention it to the wineries. Shortly afterwards, I received a fresh bottle of 2001 Thomson Family Reserve from Bests with a very nice note. I have never heard a thing from Yarra Yering!”

In the case of corked wine, in Australia, by law the goods have to be of ‘merchandisable quality’ and fit for the purposes for which they were intended, so in short, if a wine is corked, it has to be replaced. According to NSW law (and it is probably the same in the rest of Oz) both the retailer and wholesale/importer/ or manufacturer are equally liable. That means that you can approach the retailer (provided you have proof of purchase) and ask them to replace the wine. So in this case, Frank’s Fine Wine should have replaced the wine for you, and then if he had a problem with obtaining a replacement from the producer, the retailer would be entitled to take action under the Trade Practices Act against the producer.

The second comes from “A French Wine Lover” in France (Bordeaux Classique) who wrote, in reference to one of my tasting notes, “Chateaux Meyney is not a classified growth. Just for information. It's a shame you don't have more of a chance to try French wine. I haven't tried the 2000 but have recently tried the 1990 is a standout and the 1988 which was a good solid and very enjoyable drop which continued to open as it was drunk.

The problem with a lot of Australian wines is that they are made to be showy from the start and develop into nothing wines.

I love reading your reports so keep at it but I thought you may want to correct this on the notes.”

Whilst our “Frog Wine Lover” (no offence intended – its just Oz humour) is correct when he states a lot of Oz wines develop into nothing wines, the comment cannot be left to stand alone. I could equally say that many French wines are nothing wines and not much better than swill, and it would be equally correct. However in both cases that is only part of the overall picture.

It is true that I am not an expert on French wines (understatement), and don’t profess to be, but then I suspect that our French Wine Lover is probably not an expert on Oz wines either. That being said, whilst I do know that much of the French wine is ‘vin bloody ordinary’ a reasonable percentage of their best wines are world class, indeed benchmarks. In the same way, much of the low end Oz wine is ‘plonk’ or ‘industrial swill’ and some of the medium range and even some of the top wines, are ‘show ponies.’ However, a reasonable percentage has been built to age and do develop well. They may not last as long as the top French stuff, but in their own way, they are just as good, and some of them are also benchmarks.

Dollar for dollar or franc for franc, I know which wines offer better value overall (in Oz) but that, in this debate is another story.

This next one from Brian Miller gives one cause for thought, and its in relation to the dreaded ‘t’ word. Brian provided a link to a story on Glug titled, “Wine Quality: Does Terroir Matter?”. The article, which makes some excellent points in relation to a recently completed study, in part said, “…Very good wines are produced in Chile, for example, but they lack terroir, and terroir is what makes everything. A wine that is well-produced is a good wine, but lacks complexity and other elements to which we are used."

Brian then goes onto state, “This is easily testable.

Mask a range of wines.

Ask experts to distinguish which wines have ‘terroir’ and which do not

Unmask them.

Are you any wiser?

If ‘terroir’ is not defined (somewhat more specifically than to date), then how can it be distinguished, or discounted?

The key (smoking gun) in the above statement is ‘ ... elements to which we are used ...’"

This is always a very contentious subject. Whilst Brian is correct in his analysis, and I agree with him, there is another side to the story. The supporters of terroir are normally the sort of people who are very much into the romance of wine and as such, are unlikely to be so gouache as to drink that has been masked. It’s like being at a masked ball and spotting someone that looks ‘sexy’ behind their mask. It is not till the mask comes off that the true beauty can be appreciated. So, the question should be, ‘what’s more important, beauty or sexiness.’

Now there is a debate that is worth exploring over a few bottles of good Sparkling Shiraz during our hot summer days.

From: Christian Maul - Friday 23 January

Feel free to submit your comments!

Funny question:
according to Glug... "an important question is whether good climatic conditions and specific choices of vines are sufficient to produce quality wines or whether, as the French have often claimed and still do, there is no good substitute for terroir." I think that question is a bit weird because you just add soil (topology, geological conditions, hydrology) and you have terroir.

You should ask the other way round: Can you produce good wine from hydroponics? And this question would be much easier to answer.
I insist that Chile, Agrentinia and Australia have their terroir too, whether they want it or not, it is just not the French terroir.
In the case of most Penfolds brands terroir is very dilute and averaged and in the the case of a particular vineyard wine it may be (but not necessarily) highly individual.

From: Murray Paterson - Friday 23 January

From the latest missive:-
(quote)
This is always a very contentious subject. Whilst Brian is correct in his analysis, and I agree with him, there is another side to the story. The supporters of terroir are normally the sort of people who are very much into the romance of wine and as such, are unlikely to be so gouache as to drink that has been masked. It’s like being at a masked ball and spotting someone that looks ‘sexy’ behind their mask. It is not till the mask comes off that the true beauty can be appreciated. So, the question should be, ‘what’s more important, beauty or sexiness.’
(unquote).

Well, you are intending to be contentious – in answer to the first part of the quote …… so there is no detectable difference between a McLaren Vale Shiraz and one from Victoria or WA? Of course that is regionality and not terroir, I forgot.

As to the second part of the quote … sexiness … as that is inner beauty.

	Snippet
Sydney Time Copyright © Ric Einstein 2009	From The Mailbag (22 January) Over the fast few weeks I have received some emails that are worth sharing with you. The first is from Ben Allen who wrote, “I find your stuff very interesting but seldom have time to wade my way through it all. As a passing mention, I hosted a Victorian Wine evening for a small group of WA enthusiasts. Amongst the wines I sourced were a number bought through Frank's Fine Wines. They included a bottle of 2001 Thomson Family Reserve from Best's and a bottle of 1994 Yarra Yering Dry Red #1 which were both corked. When I spoke to Frank afterwards he said he would mention it to the wineries. Shortly afterwards, I received a fresh bottle of 2001 Thomson Family Reserve from Bests with a very nice note. I have never heard a thing from Yarra Yering!” In the case of corked wine, in Australia, by law the goods have to be of ‘merchandisable quality’ and fit for the purposes for which they were intended, so in short, if a wine is corked, it has to be replaced. According to NSW law (and it is probably the same in the rest of Oz) both the retailer and wholesale/importer/ or manufacturer are equally liable. That means that you can approach the retailer (provided you have proof of purchase) and ask them to replace the wine. So in this case, Frank’s Fine Wine should have replaced the wine for you, and then if he had a problem with obtaining a replacement from the producer, the retailer would be entitled to take action under the Trade Practices Act against the producer. The second comes from “A French Wine Lover” in France (Bordeaux Classique) who wrote, in reference to one of my tasting notes, “Chateaux Meyney is not a classified growth. Just for information. It's a shame you don't have more of a chance to try French wine. I haven't tried the 2000 but have recently tried the 1990 is a standout and the 1988 which was a good solid and very enjoyable drop which continued to open as it was drunk. The problem with a lot of Australian wines is that they are made to be showy from the start and develop into nothing wines. I love reading your reports so keep at it but I thought you may want to correct this on the notes.” Whilst our “Frog Wine Lover” (no offence intended – its just Oz humour) is correct when he states a lot of Oz wines develop into nothing wines, the comment cannot be left to stand alone. I could equally say that many French wines are nothing wines and not much better than swill, and it would be equally correct. However in both cases that is only part of the overall picture. It is true that I am not an expert on French wines (understatement), and don’t profess to be, but then I suspect that our French Wine Lover is probably not an expert on Oz wines either. That being said, whilst I do know that much of the French wine is ‘vin bloody ordinary’ a reasonable percentage of their best wines are world class, indeed benchmarks. In the same way, much of the low end Oz wine is ‘plonk’ or ‘industrial swill’ and some of the medium range and even some of the top wines, are ‘show ponies.’ However, a reasonable percentage has been built to age and do develop well. They may not last as long as the top French stuff, but in their own way, they are just as good, and some of them are also benchmarks. Dollar for dollar or franc for franc, I know which wines offer better value overall (in Oz) but that, in this debate is another story. This next one from Brian Miller gives one cause for thought, and its in relation to the dreaded ‘t’ word. Brian provided a link to a story on Glug titled, “Wine Quality: Does Terroir Matter?”. The article, which makes some excellent points in relation to a recently completed study, in part said, “…Very good wines are produced in Chile, for example, but they lack terroir, and terroir is what makes everything. A wine that is well-produced is a good wine, but lacks complexity and other elements to which we are used." Brian then goes onto state, “This is easily testable. Mask a range of wines. Ask experts to distinguish which wines have ‘terroir’ and which do not Unmask them. Are you any wiser? If ‘terroir’ is not defined (somewhat more specifically than to date), then how can it be distinguished, or discounted? The key (smoking gun) in the above statement is ‘ ... elements to which we are used ...’" This is always a very contentious subject. Whilst Brian is correct in his analysis, and I agree with him, there is another side to the story. The supporters of terroir are normally the sort of people who are very much into the romance of wine and as such, are unlikely to be so gouache as to drink that has been masked. It’s like being at a masked ball and spotting someone that looks ‘sexy’ behind their mask. It is not till the mask comes off that the true beauty can be appreciated. So, the question should be, ‘what’s more important, beauty or sexiness.’ Now there is a debate that is worth exploring over a few bottles of good Sparkling Shiraz during our hot summer days. From: Christian Maul - Friday 23 January Feel free to submit your comments! Funny question: according to Glug... "an important question is whether good climatic conditions and specific choices of vines are sufficient to produce quality wines or whether, as the French have often claimed and still do, there is no good substitute for terroir." I think that question is a bit weird because you just add soil (topology, geological conditions, hydrology) and you have terroir. You should ask the other way round: Can you produce good wine from hydroponics? And this question would be much easier to answer. I insist that Chile, Agrentinia and Australia have their terroir too, whether they want it or not, it is just not the French terroir. In the case of most Penfolds brands terroir is very dilute and averaged and in the the case of a particular vineyard wine it may be (but not necessarily) highly individual. From: Murray Paterson - Friday 23 January From the latest missive:- (quote) This is always a very contentious subject. Whilst Brian is correct in his analysis, and I agree with him, there is another side to the story. The supporters of terroir are normally the sort of people who are very much into the romance of wine and as such, are unlikely to be so gouache as to drink that has been masked. It’s like being at a masked ball and spotting someone that looks ‘sexy’ behind their mask. It is not till the mask comes off that the true beauty can be appreciated. So, the question should be, ‘what’s more important, beauty or sexiness.’ (unquote). Well, you are intending to be contentious – in answer to the first part of the quote …… so there is no detectable difference between a McLaren Vale Shiraz and one from Victoria or WA? Of course that is regionality and not terroir, I forgot. As to the second part of the quote … sexiness … as that is inner beauty. TORB Copyright © Ric Einstein 2009