The basic argument here is that The Great Wines of the World used to be at least within the reach of the likes of you and I, even if we chose not to reach out, and actually pay the money. That is, we had a choice: "middle-class wine lovers could still afford to experience ... drinking a truly great wine, not simply to enjoy it, but to understand what qualities made it exceptional in the eyes of history." These days, this choice is no longer the case, so that Millennials will not be able to experience fine wines the way their Baby Boomer parents are alleged to have done. (See my post on: The outrageous prices of modern high-quality wines)
Well, I grew up in Australia. In Australia, even the Baby Boomers found it difficult — we could get good Australian wines, but the stuff from elsewhere was financially out of bounds, even back in the early 1980s. I got thoroughly sick of hearing about them, especially from a bunch of wine writers who usually got to taste them for free. Since I never got to experience these things, my daughter (a Millennial) and I (a Boomer) have more in common than you thought.
Far more importantly, though, I feel that this is all beside the point. Indeed, it smacks of wine snobbery. Wealth has always been the arbiter as to what are The Great Wines of the World. Are these wines expensive because they are great, or great because they are expensive? Neither I nor the Millennials will ever find out.
Obviously, I have had a long time to think about this, and work out what to do about my wine education. I could move down-market (Can’t afford the finest wines from Burgundy and Bordeaux? Try these instead), but that somewhat defeats the purpose. So, I decided that a far more useful yardstick of wine quality is likely to be modern comparative tastings. There are plenty of them; and they often seem to involve wines that we could all afford. Why not get the experience of drinking some of them, and find out why they did so well in head-to-head competition?
The answer to that question is, of course, that many of these tastings are not as objective as we might like. Indeed, some of them are downright suspicious — you pay your entry fee and you get your award. So, we need to tread carefully. In this regard, it has been said that: "The International Wine Challenge [is] the world’s most influential and rigorously judged wine competition". So, we could do worse than start by having a look at the IWC winners.
Conveniently, the IWC has recently announced its 2020 best wines from around the world. The full list of results is on their website, but the top 30 wines have been reported around the media (eg. here and here).
What I have done for these wines is use Wine-Searcher (and some other sources, when that failed) to collate the average $US price per standard bottle, excluding sales tax. The results for 29 out of the 30 wines are shown in this graph (the Chinese wine proved to be elusive). Each dot represents the price of one wine.
These prices are not as bad as they might be, although the increase in price across the wines is exponential (as expected). Clearly, some of them are not much better priced than The Great Wines, but others are very affordable. Indeed, a bit of a splurge (up to $100) would get you almost all of them.
So, my suggestion is that the Millennials can approach their wine education this way, rather than by adopting the ways of their forefathers. There is nothing either remarkable or new about this suggestion, but it seems to need to be pointed out again. The Old Way is not always the best way.
The ultimate objective of wine education, as I see it, is well expressed by Tom Maresca (Some good everyday wines): "I long ago decided that life is too short to ever drink mediocre wine, so even though I could never afford those legendary, crème de la crème bottles that headline so many ads, I’ve worked hard to ensure that the wines that accompany my daily bread are pleasurable".
I am always suspicious of wine competitions for two reasons;1. The judging process - dramatic wines stand out from wines of subtlety and balance. 2. The entry process - DRC has nothing to gain, so why enter?
ReplyDeletePrice to some extent has always been an arbitrator. The 1855 Bordeaux classification was based upon price.But even over time, this has been surpassed as some of the wines in this list have fallen in value (and expected position) and unknowns (Pomerols and St. Emilions have risen in value and expected position.
Tone Kelly
It is with mixed emotions that I compose this comment.
ReplyDeleteI am not by nature a "humble bragger." Through my work in the wine industry, I have become friends with individuals who I consider to be "wine luminaries." First among equals: the peerless Darrell Corti whose prowess and accomplishments awe me.
"A Connoisseur's Connoisseur: Darrell Corti probably knows more about food [and wine] than anybody else in the state [of California]"
URL: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-12-18-ca-762-story.html
Where I have some noteworthy experience to draw upon is tasting thousands of wines across decades.
Some from attending scores of wine industry trade tastings in Los Angeles.
Others from personally organizing over 100 sit-down winetasting luncheons . . . arguably second only in stature to those organized by the acclaimed Dr. Bipin Desai here in Los Angeles. (I invite you to "Google" the good professor.)
The format was eminently fair: single blind tastings where no participant -- including myself as organizer/host -- knew the pour order of the wines. As level a playing field as could be achieved through anonymous-looking brown paper bagged bottles poured in 6-wine flights/typically 18 wines total.
Modeled after the tastings conducted by The Vintners Club in San Francisco.
URL: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71PldtwZbHL.jpg
URL: https://www.amazon.com/Vintners-Club-Fourteen-Tastings-1973-1987/dp/0962036900
The "theme" tastings comprised a "Who's Who" of red Bordeaux and California "cult" wines.
And the take-away?
Amongst the red Bordeaux, the First Growths and Super Seconds acquitted themselves admirably. Yes, Petrus and Mouton and Lafite and Cheval Blanc and Margaux and La Conseillante and so many others are -- in stellar vintages -- as good as the wine critics exclaim.
(But the adjunct judgment "Are they worth the price?" is more subjective. As Cabernets and Cabernet-blends . . . not in my opinion, given the rarefied prices so many have climbed to. But by comparison, still "reasonable" compared to the nose-bleed prices garnered by acclaimed red Burgundies.)
The California "cult" Cabernets and Cabernet blends are mostly delightful. But arguably too fruity, too extracted, too alcoholic compared to their red Bordeaux counterparts. An observation made by leading British Masters of Wine in this circa 2001 article by Jancis Robinson MW:
“Is California dreaming? -- an extraordinary assessment of the cult wines that cost more than Bordeaux's first growths."
URL: https://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/california-cult-cabernets-ridge-monte-bello-is-the-steal
Some years ago, wine columnist Matt Kramer composed an opinion piece on the subject of exalted wines:
From Wine Spectator (dated December 16, 2014):
"The Museum-ification of Wine"
Subheadline: "Have ultrahigh prices distorted our understanding and enjoyment of wine?"
URL: https://www.winespectator.com/articles/the-museum-ification-of-wine-51012
I was lucky. I am old enough to have had the pleasure of tasting acclaimed wines while their retail selling prices were . . . ahem . . . "reasonable."
Today, I fear that Millennials will never have the opportunity to replicate the great good fortune of my wine self-education.
That nose bleed prices -- and bottle scarcity -- will forever put the touchstone wines of the world out of their reach.
My plea to Baby Boomers with wine cellars larded with these "treasures"?
Adopt some eager and grateful-to-learn Millennials (be they on staff at wine stores you patronage or restaurants you dine at) and share your bounty.
Take your knowledge and experience and "pay it forward" to the next generation.
Remember: someone . . . somewhere . . . at some time tutored YOU. Do the same for someone else.
~~ Bob
The easy answer to astronomical wine prices putting great wines out of reach of most of the wine-consuming public is to form a tasting group to purchase and taste the “Star” wines. The rub is getting enough people to agree on the wines to buy and to pony up sufficient capital to acquire said wines, the logistics of the actual tastings notwithstanding. The wine world is replete with judges, wine columnists, bloggers, so-called “experts” willing to weigh in for a no-cost sampling of “Star” wines. Down here on the ground, we poor folks have to pay for the privilege. So it is entirely possible to pool resources, possibly at a local wine bar, and “get the good ones”.
ReplyDeleteBut occasionally, a “Star” wine is within reach. The 2020 San Francisco Chronicle Wine Competition bestowed White Wine Sweepstakes Winner on Trader Joe’s 2018 Honey Moon Viognier. At $5.99 it gave us all an exceptional opportunity. It beat the $75 Chardonnays, the $50 Sauvignon Blancs, etc, towered above them all, at least at that judging. A rarity, indeed. Not to everyone’s taste, but then, what wine is? The point is that wine enjoyment is where you find it. Don’t waste time mourning that you may never taste a $400 bottle. Savor the $25 bottle in your hand, which you selected after careful research and can comfortably consume the whole thing. Better than just a pinch of $400, if you’re lucky.
Dear "Unknown":
DeleteI took a similar approach: pooling the financial resources of fellow enthusiasts and holding a comparison tasting.
Created "theme" tastings narrowly focused on one wine grape variety, one country/appellation, one vintage at a time.
And marched through the succeeding vintages to see if a quality or producer preference trend developed.
Drawing upon one's now firsthand knowledge of the wines, go out and buy just those that enthralled you . . . and sell off the other coveted mailing list wines that disappointed you.
And do the same thing all over again the next year with the next vintage.
(Postscript: those California "cult" wine comparison tastings comprised the "usual suspect" 100-point and 99-point and 98-point rated producers. But across the arc of succeeding vintages tasted, no producer was voted "Top Preference Wine" more than once. That underscored the time-tested advice to sample widely in any touted vintage . . . beyond the "usual suspects.")
~~ Bob