Traditional (Non-Global) Wines

[mikeycook]

It seems to me that there have been a lot of posts in this forum about the demise of traditional winemaking methods and the tendency towards global wines and those that appeal to Robert Parker's tastes. Over the last ten years, I have read numerous stories of wineries changing their approach, such as Domaine de Romanee-Conti, to a more global style. I thought it might be worthwhile to note as many wineries as possible that are still clinging to tradition and "older" styles of winemaking.

The first example I thought of is, ironically, a favorite of Parker's, namely Chateau Rayas. Rayas had remained traditional in a number of ways, particularly the continued use of foudres (as opposed to aging in barriques) and continuing to use 100% Grenache in Rayas (as opposed to the much more common Syrah-Grenache blends that have become more common).

Anyone have candidates that leap out at them?

[Brad Ballinger]

Short answer -- more "traditional" winemaking takes place worldwide than "modern" winemaking. Of course, an overwhelming majority of those never make it to the global consumer market.

[mikeycook]

Maybe I should have been more specific. What about so-called "world class wines", i.e. the wines that would typically be reviewed or rated by a Wine Spectator or Robert Parker. What percentage of those wines would you say have moved to a more modern type of winemaking rather than traditional? From the many articles and posts I've seen, you would think traditional wines have already become rare.

[JohnL]

It seems to me that there have been a lot of posts in this forum about the demise of traditional winemaking methods and the tendency towards global wines and those that appeal to Robert Parker's tastes.  Over the last ten years, I have read numerous stories of wineries changing their approach, such as Domaine de Romanee-Conti, to a more global style.  I thought it might be worthwhile to note as many wineries as possible that are still clinging to tradition and "older" styles of winemaking.

The first example I thought of is, ironically, a favorite of Parker's, namely Chateau Rayas.  Rayas had remained traditional in a number of ways, particularly the continued use of foudres (as opposed to aging in barriques) and continuing to use 100% Grenache in Rayas (as opposed to the much more common Syrah-Grenache blends that have become more common).

Anyone have candidates that leap out at them?

←

Mikey

First, you are to be commended for actually including a specific example--Rayas.

It is no coincidence that the example you provide actually runs counter to the conventional wisdom. About both Parker and globalism.

You might want to look at the thread re: "Der Spiegle."

Globalization is so over hyped and overheated a term it has lost any real meaning.

Right now one can go into a local wine shop and find more wines from more places in more different styles than ever before.-- Handcrafted wines, biodynamically produced wines, oaked, non oaked, -- are all these wines made the same way? do all these wines taste the same?

If that is "globalization" --then what is wrong with globalization?

Also--what exactly does traditional mean?

Traditions have been changing and evolving ever since wine was 'invented" or "discovered."

A true traditionalist would be someone who would have their wine contained only in a ceramic amphora--none of that new fangled glass bottling for me!!!

Or maybe a traditionalist is someone who longs for Burgundy labled Pommard and blended with some nice Algerian wine.

If by traditional one means the Bordeaux made in the sixties--where "old methods" could only produce two even decent vintages in the decade vs more recent decades...

Or the days when wines were often tainted and unclean........

As for Parker--he is like the elephant who is described by the blind men. That is people "see" what they want to see not what is.

If Parker only likes one type of wine I would ask how is it that he rates highly such a wide variety of wines? How is it he has a love for the Rhone, especially CNdP--where "tradition" abounds?

Why does he extoll the virtues of wines by Giacomo Conterno and Paolo Scavino two extreme ends of the style spectrum in Barolo?

Take Bordeaux--is every wine he rates highly a wine that "tastes the same?"

How can he love LeRoy wines so much--she is as "hands off" a winemaker as one can possibly be?

The thing is, Parker has been blown up into a near mythical creature with superhuman powers--he is a wine writer and critic--good or bad --that's all.

What is true I believe is--rather than "sameness" we have more distinctive wines in more styles, from more places and more terroirs available than ever.

Just visit your local wineshop!

[Brad Ballinger]

Maybe I should have been more specific.  What about so-called "world class wines", i.e. the wines that would typically be reviewed or rated by a Wine Spectator or Robert Parker.  What percentage of those wines would you say have moved to a more modern type of winemaking rather than traditional?  From the many articles and posts I've seen, you would think traditional wines have already become rare.

←

It's a complicated issue that has crept up in a number of threads in this forum, and has been the cause for starting others (such as this one).

What makes winemaking modern rather than traditional? You'll get a lot of different answers to that question. For example, if technological advances are such that winemakers can control malolactic fermentation, is it modern winemaking if they choose to do that if there wines struggle to undergo malo naturally? I honestly don't know.

Rioja has traditionally been made with American oak. If a producer uses French oak (which for some makes the wines appear less "woody" and not more), does that mean the producer is more modern even though the wine might come across as less "global"? Again, I don't know.

But what I understand globalization to mean is that a wine is produced in such a style that it could come from anywhere on the planet. And some would build on that to add "and made from any grape." I would say that globalization almost certainly requires using "modern" winemaking techniques, but that using "modern" winemaking techniques does not de facto produce a globally-styled wine (if that makes any sense).

As to you question of what percentage have "moved" from traditional to modern, I can only answer an ever-increasing amount. But we also need to factor in that the majority of most new labels on the market are made in a more global style comparatively. But there are still plenty of wines on the market to appeal to all tastes. And I suspect it will continue to be that way for a long time.

Some people use an acid test of modern looking label + heavy glass and/or odd shaped bottle = must be modern. That probably works more often than not.

[JohnL]

Short answer -- more "traditional" winemaking takes place worldwide than "modern" winemaking.  Of course, an overwhelming majority of those never make it to the global consumer market.

←

Brad

good point.

Do you think that many of these "traditional" wines --those that "never make it to the global consumer market" do not make it--because of "poor quality?"

They are obviously consumed locally or regionally.

So is the fear also that with wines from elsewhere in the world becoming available in these local markets that these wines will not be able to compete at home either?

Thus the "panic."

Also--I think that this is not about wines tasting the same but rather basic quality--ripe fruit--good flavors and general pleasantness. (boy is it hard to verbalize here).

Thoughts?

[JohnL]

Maybe I should have been more specific.  What about so-called "world class wines", i.e. the wines that would typically be reviewed or rated by a Wine Spectator or Robert Parker.  What percentage of those wines would you say have moved to a more modern type of winemaking rather than traditional?  From the many articles and posts I've seen, you would think traditional wines have already become rare.

←

Mikey

Maybe what would be interesting are people's thoughts on wines "of distinction"

that is wines that are so unique and "distinctive" that they simply do not taste like any other wines or at least stand out in some unique way.

By the way there are some great books available right now that attempt to do this.

One is Parker's "The World's Greatest Wine Estates."

Even those that disagree with him or even dislike him would benefit from reading the opening Chapters where he addresses many of the issues of globalization, terroir, wine styles and what he thinks determines a '"great wine" many people would be very suprised by what he writes.

also

Oz Clark's --"New Classic Wines" and Andrew Jefford's "The New France"

both earlier publications.

[mikeycook]

I think one of the central questions here is what is a "modern" technique and what isn't, as well as what is an objectionable modern technique and what isn't? Is there more concern about techniques used in winemaking as opposed to techniques used in viticulture?

For example, the use of oak, particularly the use of more new oak, seems to be a "modern" technique that is objected to, however, prior to the early 90s, Spain was known for using oak extensively, which limited the popularity of their wines worldwide, despite the preference that the Spanish wine-drinking consumer had for oak (try drinking an early 90s Rioja from an average producer, for example, the oak will almost make your mouth burn). So, what is "modern" about the use of oak?

Another example is low yields. Prior to the last 20 years or so, very few wineries paid close attention to reducing yields, even though the wineries that did turned out a much better product. While widespread thinning of crops to reduce yields has been a growing trend, is this a "modern" technique (it is just basic farming, after all)? If so, is it objectionable?

What about the fining and filtering of wine? This is a practice that Parker objects to and, to a certain extent, has led to more wineries in California (where the practice seems to be more rampant) to bottle their wines unfiltered. So, is making unfiltered wines a modern practice? Or, is fining and filtering the modern practice?

There are numerous other techniques one could mention (bio-dynamic farming, for instance) that is a modern technique that really isn't, but that is besides the point. I would be curious to find out what specific techniques people object to and why, particularly in the concern about creating wines that are too global or Parker-like.

My personal feeling is that the market will dictate the wines that are produced. If the market wants it, there will be a variety of wines, made in both modern and traditional styles, to drink. If a traditional wine cannot find buyers for a few thousand cases of its wine then, no matter the style, perhaps this wine should either reduce production or not be made at all.

While I do not think that wineries should change their style of winemaking just to please Parker, I am not completely convinced that this is the only reason they do (although certainly many of them do.) Romanee-Conti got great scores from Parker in the late 80s and early 90s prior to the change in style and had gotten great scores for the 2003s as well (post-change). One would not look at the Parker ratings of Romanee-Conti's wines prior to the change and think that it was an influence on the decision to change styles. Perhaps they decided that consumers, as well, preferred wines in the newer style.

[JohnL]

I think one of the central questions here is what is a "modern" technique and what isn't, as well as what is an objectionable modern technique and what isn't?  Is there more concern about techniques used in winemaking as opposed to techniques used in viticulture?

For example, the use of oak, particularly the use of more new oak, seems to be a "modern" technique that is objected to, however, prior to the early 90s, Spain was known for using oak extensively, which limited the popularity of their wines worldwide, despite the preference that the Spanish wine-drinking consumer had for oak (try drinking an early 90s Rioja from an average producer, for example, the oak will almost make your mouth burn).  So, what is "modern" about the use of oak?

Another example is low yields.  Prior to the last 20 years or so, very few wineries paid close attention to reducing yields, even though the wineries that did turned out a much better product.  While widespread thinning of crops to reduce yields has been a growing trend, is this a "modern" technique (it is just basic farming, after all)?  If so, is it objectionable?

What about the fining and filtering of wine?  This is a practice that Parker objects to and, to a certain extent, has led to more wineries in California (where the practice seems to be more rampant) to bottle their wines unfiltered.  So, is making unfiltered wines a modern practice?  Or, is fining and filtering the modern practice?

There are numerous other techniques one could mention (bio-dynamic farming, for instance) that is a modern technique that really isn't, but that is besides the point.  I would be curious to find out what specific techniques people object to and why, particularly in the concern about creating wines that are too global or Parker-like.

My personal feeling is that the market will dictate the wines that are produced.  If the market wants it, there will be a variety of wines, made in both modern and traditional styles, to drink.  If a traditional wine cannot find buyers for a few thousand cases of its wine then, no matter the style, perhaps this wine should either reduce production or not be made at all.

While I do not think that wineries should change their style of winemaking just to please Parker, I am not completely convinced that this is the only reason they do (although certainly many of them do.)  Romanee-Conti got great scores from Parker in the late 80s and early 90s prior to the change in style and had gotten great scores for the 2003s as well (post-change).  One would not look at the Parker ratings of Romanee-Conti's wines prior to the change and think that it was an influence on the decision to change styles.  Perhaps they decided that consumers, as well, preferred wines in the newer style.

←

Mikey

I enjoyed reading this post. I gotta say though--most of these issues existed before Robert Parker was born--they certainly exist regardless of him.

For example--Parker has at times made a case against fining and filtration but this case was being made by people like Bobby Kacher and Kermit Lynch long ago. In fact many importers have suggested--even dictated to wine makers what techniques should be used or not used to produce wines they (and their customers) would like.

For the record--Parker is against the misuse or abuse of fining and filtration. He has scored favorably wines that have been fined and filtered. He notes in his current book that Leoville Las Cases has been doing this for several years and he notices no differences in their wine's quality.

As for the oak issues--again it is not the technique but the result that is an issue. One can abuse oak. Jean Marie Guffens said: "never has a wine been over oaked..it has been underwined."

The question is how well integrated is the oak. Even new oak can be difficult to detect in many wines that are balanced and have well integrated flavors.

Some people like the flavors of oak. Some do not. There are wines for each.

Many Spaniards like the taste of oak--they also seem to have a high tolerance for salt IMOP.

(I do like their food and wines though)

If the "global" trend is toward oaky wines how is it that when I recently dined at a major chain restaurant "Legal Seafoods" their list offered "Oaked" and "unoaked" chardonnays!?

As for "Biodynamic" farming. Again--there is no absolute here. There are good and bad wines made from these grapes. Biodynamic is no more a guarantee of quality in wine than it is for vegetables. If this technique is important to you for other reasons --that is fine.

reducing yields?

This has been long recognized as a major factor in producing fine wines. (or the grapes that make fine wines). In fact, many governments (France for eg) dictate yields to farmers/winemakers for their fine wines.

Yet, there are good wines made from high yields.

There are far too many generalizatrions about wine. Too many agendas. winemakers are always experimenting with all sorts of things/techniques. It is almost impossible to ascertain what is "tradition" what is not. It seems to depend on the particular axe being ground or ox being gored!

with wine there are no absolutes (or few)

[Rebel Rose]

Fining and filtration would make an interesting subject for our Wine 101 essays. Although maybe it's time we should start on some Wine 201 themes! Another topic . . .

For now, let's keep to the spirit of the original post in this thread, which is to identify wines (preferably recognized by reviewers) that you would declare as having artisanal character.

Let's not overthink it initially. I think mikeycook has something here. Simply identifying wines that we believe have unique character will give us something to work with if and when we discuss artisan vs. globalized styles. Otherwise, we're just chewing air.

So your choices would be?