What's wrong with Merlot?

[Elissa]

one way to learn what you like about merlot is by comparing bordeaux wines from the right bank and the left bank. on the left bank, further west, more cabernet sauvignon than merlot is grown and used in the blend. cab's thicker skin and bigger tannins need proximity to the sea and stronger sun to ripen; they also need more time in the bottle to unfurl.

on bordeaux's right bank, east in st. emilion and pomerol, merlot's thinner skin means it has an easier time ripening with less intense light. merlot imparts character as much as cab can structure. cab franc brings a balancing element to the bordeaux blend, a suspension in which the two other grapes converse. what any of this has to do with chardonnay i do not know, since chard is the grape used to make exquisite white wines in Burgundy and Champagne.

Edited July 11, 2003 by lissome (log)

[KatieLoeb]

cab franc brings a balancing element to the bordeaux blend, providing a suspension in which the two other grapes converse.

Oooooohhhh! I LOVE that description! Fabulous, evocative and spot on turn of phrase Lissome! You go!

[malachi]

Taste an Andrew Will merlot from Washington State's Klipsun Vineyard and then tell me Merlot is a blank slate.

A "blank slate" is hardly an insult.

"Insipid" is an insult.

I'll clarify... saying "merlot is bad" is stupid. There are great merlots.

Many people have decided they don't like Merlot (as a wine) based on their experiences with the current common style of Merlot wines produced in the US.

Thus... "blank slate" as in "without anything written on it" as in "nothing to judge."

Merlot is a grape -- it can be made into great wine but currently in the US is (to a large extend) made into crap.

Oh - and Andrew Will's Merlots are quite good (though no Angelus).

[Nevan]

It seems to me it's not about "merlot" or "chardonnay," it's about how some people make merlot and chardonnay, and how some people prefer merlot and chardonnay to taste. If all you've ever had is the predominant style of California-made merlot (fat and oaky) or chardonnay (fat and buttery), then you may like that style only because you've never tasted these varietals made in different styles. Nothing wrong with that: trust your own taste--if you like it, you like it, and good for you!

But DO try to taste widely in order to learn what your taste really is because there are all kinds of merlot and chardonnay styles out there.

There is nothing inherent in either of these grapes that make them lesser or greater than any other grape--only growing location and winemaking style can determine whether one merlot wine is "better" (i.e., more to your taste) than another. So the key is, don't be daunted by what's "in" or "out" but rather go out and purposefully try different styles to see which ones you like. Read the critic's comments (not their ratings) to find which producers are making different styles and then go taste them. Find the kind you like, and damn the critics and hipsters if they don't agree!

(Speaking of agreement, eatingmike is right on: find an Andrew Will Klipsun Vineyard Merlot to see how different merlot can be, and find a good crisp chablis to see the other side of chardonnay's character).

[KatieLoeb]

I'll clarify... saying "merlot is bad" is stupid. There are great merlots.

Many people have decided they don't like Merlot (as a wine) based on their experiences with the current common style of Merlot wines produced in the US.

Thus... "blank slate" as in "without anything written on it" as in "nothing to judge."

Merlot is a grape -- it can be made into great wine but currently in the US is (to a large extend) made into crap.

Chardonnay could be easily substituted into this argument. Less blank slate, more two-by-four, though...

[malachi]

I prefer the comparison between Chardonnay in the US and India Pale Ale in the US. In both cases, the majority of producers seem to be focusing on one of the flavour components and pursuing the "more is better" philosophy. They have, as a result, entirely lost sight of any concept of balance in flavour. None the less, the US population as a whole seem to happily embrace this new style, resulting in ever-more extreme versions and ever-increasing sales.

Sigh.

[Craig Camp]

OK, I'll admit it: I didn't know that St. Emilion was merlot.

St. Emilion wines tend to be predominately blends of cabernet franc and merlot. More often than not cabernet franc is the predominate varietal.

Merlot stars only in Pomerol where the cool clay soils and the early ripening merlot match perfectly.

Cheap Bordeaux from lesser appellations tend to have a very high percentage of merlot.

[Craig Camp]

My feelings on merlot are neatly summed up by Willie Gluckstern in his book The Wine Avenger, so I might as well make a small quote:

- As a red grape, Merlot is the "un-red wine," the twin to Chardonnay in its use as a neutral, low-acid base for oak flavoring.

- Like Chardonnay, Merlot has a one-dimensional flavor profile (some nonspecific melange of plumlike fruits liberally dosed with chocolaty oak).

- Like Chardonnay, they all taste virtually the same -- like wood.

Mr. Gluckstern's book takes an extremely oversimplified approach more reflective of his own palate (which is very good) than the realities of the wine world.

For instance see Jean Fisch's review of the extraordinary Merlot from Miani HERE

"Merlot" is not one type of wine but many. Ranging from the powerful Petrus to thin weedy wines from northeastern Italy.

[Craig Camp]

Merlot is simply the Red equivalent to Chardonnay. Its over oaked to death. Same deal with most Cabernet Sauvignon.

Willie definitely has got it right.

The vast majority of merlot wines on the market see little or no oak and certainly no barriques. The commercial success of merlot is based on the fact it is easy to grow, soft and easy to like and the fact that consumers seem to love the name.

The ocean of merlot selling for under $15, which accounts for most of the world production are not oaky wines.

You have to pay big bucks for the privilege of drinking over-oaked merlot.

[DaleW]

St. Emilion wines tend to be predominately blends of cabernet franc and merlot. More often than not cabernet franc is the predominate varietal.

Craig, are you sure about that? Cheval Blanc is predominantly Cab Franc I think, and Figeac usually has lots of Cabernet Sauvignon as well as Cab Franc. Ausone I think is about 50/50. But I think the majority of St. Emilions (especially when you get below the Premier Grand Cru Classe) tend to have at least as much Merlot as Cab Franc. I'll try to look up %s tonight.

Edited July 11, 2003 by DaleW (log)

[redwinegulper]

Ch. Petrus is merlot, and I don't hear anyone calling that a crappy wine. Yes there are a lot of ho-hum merlots, but there are also some good ones. As some of the above posters said, if you find a merlot that you like...drink it and enjoy!

[GordonCooks]

Maybe the thread should be called "What's wrong with Domestic Merlot :except Lewis. Pahlmeyer, Leonetti, Duckhorn, Clos Pegasse, Pride & Arrowwood ?"

[Craig Camp]

St. Emilion wines tend to be predominately blends of cabernet franc and merlot. More often than not cabernet franc is the predominate varietal.

Craig, are you sure about that? Cheval Blanc is predominantly Cab Franc I think, and Figeac usually has lots of Cabernet Sauvignon as well as Cab Franc. Ausone I think is about 50/50. But I think the majority of St. Emilions (especially when you get below the Premier Grand Cru Classe) tend to have at least as much Merlot as Cab Franc. I'll try to look up %s tonight.

If you don't believe me:

Berry Bros.:

Cabernet Franc is widely planted in Bordeaux and is the most important black grape grown in the Loire. In the Médoc it may constitute up to 15% of a typical vineyard - it is always blended with Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot and is used to add bouquet and complexity to the wines. It is more widely used in St.Emilion where it adapts well to the cooler and moister clay soils - Cheval Blanc is the most famous Cabernet Franc wine in the world, with the final blend consisting of up to 65% of the grape.

Cabernet Franc thrives in the Loire where the cooler growing conditions serve to accentuate the grape's herbaceous, grassy, lead pencil aromas. The best wines come from the tuffeaux limestone slopes of Chinon where growers such as Charles Joguet produce intense well-structured wines that possess excellent cellaring potential.

Cabernet Franc, while languishing in the shadow of the more revered Cabernet Sauvignon, is capable of producing truly great wines in St.-Emilion and the middle Loire. It is also widely planted in Italy. Cabernet Franc is a more vigorous producer than Sauvignon, ripens earlier, and can be produced in a larger variety of soils than Cabernet Sauvignon.

and HERE

While merlot it the most widley planted grape in St. Emilion as it is in all of Bordeaux except in Graves and the Medoc, it is St. Emilion along with the Loire where cabernet franc makes its most important impact and dominates in many important blends - if not always in exact percentage but in character.

[vengroff]

I totally agree with the posters who have suggested that we should concentrate on what growers and winemakers do with the grape, as opposed to the specific grape. Suppose we had an analogous discussion about beef. I might say that I've tried McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's, and I didn't like any of them, so I'm not going to eat any more beef. But a corporate fast food burger is not the only thing you can do with beef.

[Craig Camp]

I totally agree with the posters who have suggested that we should concentrate on what growers and winemakers do with the grape, as opposed to the specific grape.  Suppose we had an analogous discussion about beef.  I might say that I've tried McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's, and I didn't like any of them, so I'm not going to eat any more beef.  But a corporate fast food burger is not the only thing you can do with beef.

Exactly. Just because most of the merlot on the planet is managed by people who would be just as happy working at McDonald's does not mean some great wine is not made from the varietal.

Like all food and wine products - only a small percentage of what is produced is great. Why should merlot be any different.

[Elissa]

99 bordeaux well express merlot and

taste good young for not much dough

or as Resident Expert CC (chocolate city?) said:

In my opinion, the last great value vintage was 1999. Well made wines,  very forward.  The distributors in this part of the country (Washington, DC) dumped these wines on the market at 50% markdowns to make room for the 2000s.

Edited July 11, 2003 by lissome (log)

[carswell]

I totally agree with the posters who have suggested that we should concentrate on what growers and winemakers do with the grape, as opposed to the specific grape.  Suppose we had an analogous discussion about beef.  I might say that I've tried McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's, and I didn't like any of them, so I'm not going to eat any more beef.  But a corporate fast food burger is not the only thing you can do with beef.

Your point is well taken, but there are plenty of wine lovers who contend that merlot is an inferior grape, not in the same league as pinot noir and cabernet sauvignon, and that the relatively few great wines made from it are the exceptions that prove the rule. "Merlot's plus points -- its fruitiness, its forwardness and its productivity -- are turned to its disadvantage in the eyes of wine drinkers. All over the world, the highest red varietal pedestal is reserved for Cabernet. Almost every wine region outside France is peopled by winemakers trying to prove they can give Château Latour a run for its money, yet hardly any of them take Bordeaux's other great red variety seriously" (Jancis Robinson in Vines, Grapes and Wines). I've heard many an experienced Bordeaux drinker argue that Pétrus, Angélus and kin are seriously overrated and overpriced wines, that merlot is a fine grape for blending but also one that shines less brightly on its own, especially compared with the "truly" noble varieties, cabernet sauvignon, pinot noir and (according to some) syrah.

Melot's forwardness and fruitiness -- and maybe the fact that its name is easy to remember and pronounce -- are what make it popular with people who don't take wine seriously (the vast majority of wine buyers), and its productivity and salability endear it to wine growers. But these "plus points" are also the problem. To make great merlot, a wine with backbone and stuffing, requires suitable terroir, high quality, well-established vines, low yields, optimally ripe grapes and careful vinification. In places like California (and I'm generalizing here), the notion of terroir does not carry much weight; vines have been grafted over to merlot only recently in response to the wine's recent popularity; irrigation and greed encourage overproduction; blends of less than 75% merlot are shunned because they no longer qualify as varietals and lose the cachet of the name; grapes are often overripe and harvested mechanically; manipulation (acidification, oak chips, enzymes, commercial yeasts, etc.) is rampant; and so on. The result is an ocean of plonk.

Unlike, say, cabernet sauvignon, great merlot is grown and made in very few places around the world. In fact, is there a noble red variety with a lower ratio of great wines to overall production?

The parallels between merlot and chardonnay are intriguing. Compared with many other grapes (say cabernet sauvignon, pinot noir, syrah and zinfandel for merlot; riesling, gewurztraminer and sauvignon blanc for chardonnay) both are relatively bland, characterless. Both produce great wines in only a handful of locations and those mainly in France. Most of the wine made from both is insipid or worse. And yet they are the most popular varietals in North America.

Edited July 11, 2003 by carswell (log)

[Mark Sommelier]

The single greatest, most haunting wine I have tasted in the last 10 years was a 1961 Petrus at a '61 vs.'82 tasting. At the same tasting, the '61 Cheval Blanc was a close runner up. They both left the '61 first growths in the dust.

[Elissa]

it is kinda funny that in spite of all the prices and years, cheval blanc becomes such good wine

Edited July 11, 2003 by lissome (log)

[Carema]

I love merlot. This proves that I'm not a snooty sommelier. 

yeah me too. The little blackbird. I love it so much that when I can detect it in a wine, when its loamy plum heart reveals itself to me, I must smile. People love American Merlot because it wears its heart on its sleeve, like a teenager with a crush. here I am, I am easy drink me. French merlot is a different animal. hard, fruit tied up in a big knot, a drop kick finish, ready to explode but only when it wants to or you force it hard enough. The two really cannot be compared. People do not believe me when I tell them how heavily merlot is planted in Bordeaux. They say "I always thought of Bordeaux as cab" But I would venture to say that the core of Bordeaux, well it is Merlot.

[slkinsey]

It seems to me it's not about "merlot" or "chardonnay," it's about how some people make merlot and chardonnay....

Well, exactly... and 99% of it is one dimensional, low-acid, over oaked crap.

One would have to be very naive about wine to suggest that there are no first-rate merlots of chardonnays. But these are the exeptions rather than the rule and one will end up spending an arm and a leg for most such examples.

The unhipness of merlot and chardonnay, needless to say, is founded upon the popularity of the quotidian crap, not the rare treasures. Willie was, in my understanding, directing his comments to the ubiquitous bottlings of merlot. I also wonder how many 100% merlots there are out there that are any good. I'm guessing not many. There is no question that merlot is a valuable grape for blends.

[hotle]

imo only......

the general wine-swilling public (of which i count myself) drink at least some brands of bulk merlot because:

1. it's fruity. you don't have to pucker up your mouth to get rid of the tannin, you don't have to ponder when it'll be ready to drink, you don't sit back and begin a soliloquy on the virtures of the glass. it's a $10 bottle of columbia crest! which brings me to.....

2. it's cheap. at least, relatively cheap. i'm not rich, and can't afford to buy a couple cases of petrus or duckhorn. i still remember the days when i was drinking los vascos merlot, santa rita cab, and long flat red as an everyday drinker. i've got a pretty well-paying gig, but i can't afford a $50 bottle (or an $x50 bottle) of wine every night. the general wine-swilling public can't, either.

3. it's available. at virtually every restaurant, liquor store, wine shop (at least, the major brands like columbia crest et al are). i don't have time to run down to sam's wines here in chicago every week to search. besides, i have an excellent wine shop here in my town, and prefer to do business with them. but, for the general wine-swilling public, the availability of the major brands is a distinct advantage, because they don't have to search 'em out.

4. it's consistent. yeah, it's usually one-dimensional. nope it won't give you chills the way a wonderful aged bordeaux or burgundy will. but, no matter where you are, no matter what year it is, you can pretty much depend on finding a drinkable bottle somewhere.

some of this thread got me thinking about my visit to cannes last year. i ate 4 nights in the same cafe in the city. 3 of the nights, i was with collegues. we bought bordeaux off the menu, drank it like 'real' wine people in 'real' wine glasses, swirling and sniffing. it struck me that the locals were drinking local wines out of water glasses. it also seemed as they were enjoying their meal, and their wine (which was probably 1/3 of the cost of ours, and as i recall, made from gamay, not cab or merlot) as much as we were.

this is kinda like the thread on 'moral eating' on another forum. if people wanna drink bulk merlot, and they like it, then more power to 'em!

fwiw,

matt

[russ parsons]

interesting point hotle. let me take it one step further .... and maybe too far. are our expectations for american wines artificially high? here's where i'm going with this: go to italy and drink the local wines and you rarely hear anyone complain that they're not petrus or cheval blanc (same, in fact, in france). we love village level wines of other countries for their forwardness, their fruitiness, their "simple rustic charm" (veering off into peter mayles land here). we don't seem to cut american wines the same slack. of course, there is the whole character thing as well....

[slkinsey]

2.  it's cheap.  at least, relatively cheap.  i'm not rich, and can't afford to buy a couple cases of petrus or duckhorn.

I'll take a 10 dollar bottle of Barbera d'Asti over a 20 dollar bottle of merlot every time. The fact is that there are plenty of reasonably-priced excellent non-merlot red wines out there. Nancy's wines here in NYC has five reds at under $20/bottle in their "perfect case sampler. They feature over 180 excellent wines, both red and white, priced under $10.

[hotle]

slk,

1. what if i don't like barbera?

2. what if it's not on the wine list?

3. what happens if the local jewel/osco doesn't carry it 'cause the liquor buyer there can't spell it, or (more likely) thinks it's a import sports car?

4. most importantly, what if i don't know what the heck barbera d'Asti is?

not everyone wants to spend their the majority of their time researching wines. they want basic wine to drink with dinner, or to serve to their (likewise uninformed) guests. you may find that deplorable, and rage against the machine that makes this type of wine available. i shrug, and say 'so, what?'. that's capitalism for ya.

btw, i'm not arguing the merits of bulk merlots. i think they (mostly) suck, and i don't drink 'em. i do have some pegase and some krug reserve downstairs, though. what i guess i was trying to work around was what russ brought up.......not all wines can be petrus. however, some people DO like them. that's their taste, and if they enjoy it, i say drink it.

matt