Frontline Wine: World-beating Cocktails

I’d imagine it to be an incredibly complex task requiring months of preparation. A heady blend of exotic fruits, spirits distilled by nomads living in glacial outposts in Iceland; botanicals, stolen in the night from Kew gardens…

The deserved winner would have created something unbelievably unique: a masterclass in complexity. It would be a deserved gold medal winner. The hard work that went into its creation would have paid off.

What if, in the same contest, an entrant submitted a Lime Bacardi Breezer to the judges which went on to win a bronze medal? Would anybody care? How would those who had put months of effort into the winning cocktails feel? My guess is the entrant would be thrown out in disgrace before it got that far or the judges would never be allowed to work in a bar again, never mind judge.

So why aren’t these principles applied to the wine awards in this country. Why are so many mediocre to poor wines in New Zealand gaining silver and bronze accolades or 3 stars in the media? Machine-harvested fruit juices, their only saving characteristic being the small influence the minerality in the soil is allowed to exert on the wine, are being trumpeted as also-rans against the very best wines in the country (as if they had actually almost challenged for the top spot).

Consumers lap it up. It has a medal. It must be good. Let’s buy it.

Mediocrity is a scourge on the New Zealand boutique wine industry. Think back to the last time you heard a negative review about a Kiwi wine. Have you ever seen a wine writer in New Zealand give no stars and call a wine rubbish? Probably never. Winemakers are now being encouraged by their bulk ‘piss-merchants’ to send samples to particular wine writers who won’t say bad things. Just ok things at the very least.

People must understand that wine evaluation isn’t about the fact you can ‘sense aromas of blackcurrant and goat’s undercarriage’. Also, wine writers cannot hide bad wines behind a description of its nuances and pass it off as a three star wine.

All good wines share one thing: balance. If a wine doesn’t have balance, it’s crap. Full stop. No stars. No medals. Crap. If it shows good balance it is a good wine and then evaluation is necessary to ascertain just how good it is. The acidity, the structure, the texture, length and minerality must be considered next. Fruit character, floral notes and the like are secondary. They help differentiate between wines, not evaluate their quality.

Wine is a beautiful expression of the area where it is grown. It is indicative of the care and attention to the vines by the viticulturist and the work of the winemaker to coax out its best qualities with as little interference as possible. It is an affront to those making good wine in this country not to diss the rubbish, be it by wine writer or judging panel. Mediocrity simply isn’t good enough anymore and those who encourage it by their actions or inaction should hang their heads. Consumers who want to drink good wine need guidance or they risk being misled into relying on a wine’s fruitiness to make decisions on their purchases. Unfortunately for the New Zealand wine trade, those bad consumer decisions play right into the hands of bulk wine producers who are driven by money, not quality.

Tasted this week: Three big reds

Laffont Labranche Vielles Vignes Madiran 2005

A wine so robust you can write in Japanese with you tongue after you drink it. It is enjoyable because it is still manages to a retain elegance and texture even though it is BIG. Great value. $55

Chateau Margaux 1986

Youthful, wonderful balance with a spritely, acidity. The depth is incredible. Think of an entire orchestra playing the same note. The length just keeps going. Beautiful, but not ready. $$$!

Heron’s Flight Dolcetto 2005

An outstandingly good wine and a real surprise. Real depth and flavour with a piercing backbone of acidity holding everything together. The silky fine texture is memorable.

$40

http://www.rumbles.co.nz/

© Scoop Media