Why aren't rosés taken more seriously?

I've been made aware, via email, that some of the latest findings are causing some winemakers to believe that tannin in red wine is not the stuff that helps it gracefully age, it is the acidity. The tannins appear to fall out sooner than the wine's aging potential.

I've got to look into that more deeply.

I remember reading somewhere, it would have been either Neil Martin or Michael Broadbent (I think Neil Martin), that either 1899 or 1900 Bordeaux (I think 1900) was noted as being light in tannins and high in acidity in its youth. And those are legendary vintages that have aged almost miraculously well.

Well, this gets to my question of why it's considered a fault.

Opening up a whole new can of savory beans here, Mark!

That's one of my often-asked head-scratchers too.[...]

But how, pray tell, is this "Flaws and Faults"? One wine has additional acid in it. Another has additional sugar. There might be other things induced, such as volatile acidity, brettanomyces, the effect of oxidation, or even cork taint.

But, as you pointed out, what's a "flaw" to one person may be a superior flavor to another. (Brett is probably the most debated, but oxidation is right up there with it as far as I'm concerned.)

"Ah, you're just nitpicker," I am told, "and everyone knows what we're talking about, so just leave it alone." But, I respond, we're supposed to be a professional society focused on wine education. We can't casually allow that "everyone knows what we're talking about." It is incumbent upon us to at least have more precision in what we call things.

I raised that point in anticipation of the response I expected from Thomas, citing VA and Brett. Let's take the issue of acidity in general. Like you, I am not unfond of wines with fairly low pHs that many would deride as "tart, shrill acidity" Is that acidity a flaw? A CA winemaker would probably consider their Cab Franc unbalanced if it had the acidity of a Chinon, yet I feel uncomfortable calling the '89 Raffault Picasses a faulty wine. I also can't help thinking of the recent study that added vinegar to beer and found that tasters preferred it provided they were unaware of the adulteration. It seems to me that a flaw, properly defined, should be a trait that compromises the enjoyment of the wine in a majority of tasters or which compromises the wine's stability.

Just my usual can o' annelida,
Mark Lipton

Re tannins and aging: it certainly seems some reds age well on acidity. I'm thinking some Burgundy, '79 Bdx, etc. But the idea that tannins also can't help seems wrong. Lots of ripe Bdx vintages ('47, '59, 71, '82) had lower than average acidity and aged well. Seems to me that red wine maybe can age on acidity OR tannins (or a combo, such as in Barolo).

The one thing I do notice is the winemakers who are quick to describe everything outside the ordinary as a flaw tend to make boring wine as a rule.

Thomas, no Scholium Project wines for your dinner table, noted.

On the subject of subjectivity, consensus, cultural differences and judging wine, I think this makes interesting reading:
http://www.wine-pages.com/features/georgia.htm
There's quite a bit of topical interest there too, but if you want to see specifically what I am referring to, skip down to "Judging the wines".

Steve, not to criticise the estimable Mr. Cannavan overmuch, but....geez, wouldn't it have been better to lay out expectations for the judges as well as do the "calibration" before the competition began, rather than in the middle?

And there's a very good argument that can be made that by, how did it go, culturally "sensitizing" the western judges, they basically obviated the entire worth and value of the competition. In my mind the entire purpose of having the western judges come in was to publicize the Georgian wine industry and provide a rationale for importing Georgian wines into western countries.

Based on the paragraph you pointed out, I would say more westerners would avoid ("Run Away! Run Away!!) Georgian wines than embrace them.

This wasn't wine judging at all. Neither was it a competition. Neither were the "judges" acting ethically, in my book. This was straight out a PR event, and the westerners were simply getting a junket. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, as long as I am one of the junketeers. )

It takes very little to get people to pimp, doesn't it.

Thomas, no Scholium Project wines for your dinner table, noted.

We've pretty much eliminated most of Fruili, Slovenia...and now, apparently, Georgia...as well. At least, the more interesting ones.

Thomas, no Scholium Project wines for your dinner table, noted.

We've pretty much eliminated most of Fruili, Slovenia...and now, apparently, Georgia...as well. At least, the more interesting ones.

Not on your life have you ruled them out, especially the Ribolla G and Schioppetino (sp).

But let me pose the following:

Over my life I've read many wine labels. I've been taken from the sun to the vineyard and then into the winery, where careful handling and an oak aging regimen combined have given the particular wine in the bottle the perfect balance with a vinous aroma of fruit and depth of body.

I've never read on any of those labels that because of a microscopic bug that has infested the winery, this wine might smell like horseshit.

If I open the bottle and it does smell like horseshit, why shouldn't I consider it a flaw? I don't mind horseshit in a stable, but not in my dining room next to my skirt steak.

There was no promise of horseshit, only of the perfect balance with vinous aroma of fruit...it is not what it was intended to be, at least not according to the label. The wine is flawed.

Satisfying and informing everyone on every potential aspect of a wine would require a very...large...label, Thomas.

And think of all the young up-and-coming marketing genius writers you'd be putting out of work with your draconian attitudes.

Think of it as an adventure; every time you open a bottle it's a surprise what you will find!

(okay, the Movia is back in the potential queue)

Satisfying and informing everyone on every potential aspect of a wine would require a very...large...label, Thomas.

And think of all the young up-and-coming marketing genius writers you'd be putting out of work with your draconian attitudes.

Think of it as an adventure; every time you open a bottle it's a surprise what you will find!

(okay, the Movia is back in the potential queue)

Yeah, yeah, I've heard that lark before about the large label it would take, but that is not the issue.

The point is: if the horseshit isn't proudly part of the wine's description, then it's likely not supposed to be there. In fact, anything that infects the winery and is uncontrolled is prime candidate for creating a wine flaw, if only for its unpredictability.

I do, however, know of a few producers who boast of their high v.a. If that's what they promise and believe in, then their wine is not flawed--not that I will buy the wine. On the other hand, these guys could be rationalizing their horrible winemaking methods, but it wouldn't be fair to second guess the rotten sleaze balls...

I've never read on any of those labels that because of a microscopic bug that has infested the winery, this wine might smell like horseshit.

If I open the bottle and it does smell like horseshit, why shouldn't I consider it a flaw? I don't mind horseshit in a stable, but not in my dining room next to my skirt steak.

There was no promise of horseshit, only of the perfect balance with vinous aroma of fruit...it is not what it was intended to be, at least not according to the label. The wine is flawed.

Regarding the labelling issue, does this mean that we should consider things like isinglass, bentonite, ovalbumin, MegaPurple, tartrate, oak chips, beet sugar, süssreserve and various yeast strains faults, too? I'd actually be happy to do so in the case of MegaPurple and oak chips, but I'm a bit queasier about most of the others.

Mark Lipton

Hoke, why do you say the judges were unethical? Apart from that, your points seem valid enough but I don't think I'd be so negative about the whole thing. Isn't the purpose of all wine competitions PR?

I've never read on any of those labels that because of a microscopic bug that has infested the winery, this wine might smell like horseshit.

If I open the bottle and it does smell like horseshit, why shouldn't I consider it a flaw? I don't mind horseshit in a stable, but not in my dining room next to my skirt steak.

There was no promise of horseshit, only of the perfect balance with vinous aroma of fruit...it is not what it was intended to be, at least not according to the label. The wine is flawed.

Regarding the labelling issue, does this mean that we should consider things like isinglass, bentonite, ovalbumin, MegaPurple, tartrate, oak chips, beet sugar, süssreserve and various yeast strains faults, too? I'd actually be happy to do so in the case of MegaPurple and oak chips, but I'm a bit queasier about most of the others.

Mark Lipton

When the FDA gets its hands on regulating wine, those things will appear on the label, but that has nothing to do with the subject of flaws that I addressed. To reiterate for the understand-impaired

My label example was to illustrate my position that a wine is flawed when it is not what it promises to be. When a winery tells me that the wine is supposed to smell like horseshit because the winery specifically wanted that special little yeast to take over, then I will accept that that particular strain of Brett in that individual wine is not a flaw. Same with excessive v.a., reduction, and a variety of other things that most winemakers don't set out to achieve in their products.

The Certified Wine Educator (currently their highest level offered) is based on a four part test, including objective, essay, wine identification (variety and region) and what they have forever called "Identifying Flaws and Faults".

As an aside, I believe the SWE now offers an MWE - Master of Wine Educator.

The Certified Wine Educator (currently their highest level offered) is based on a four part test, including objective, essay, wine identification (variety and region) and what they have forever called "Identifying Flaws and Faults".

As an aside, I believe the SWE now offers an MWE - Master of Wine Educator.

No, they don't, Charles.

I'm on the Board of Directors, and serve on the Executive Committee as the Education Liaison. and we don't offer that credential. We've discussed such a credential, and will eventually offer it, I believe, but we don't currently.

Currently the SWE offers a Certified Specialist of Wine, a Certified Wine Educator, and a Certified Specialist of Spirits credential program.

I believe if you look at the SWE website you will clearly see the MWE mentioned.

"The Society of Wine Educators validates wine knowledge, tasting acumen and teaching ability within its three-tier hierarchy of certification:

Certified Specialist of Wine (CSW), Certified Wine Educator (CWE) and Master Wine Educator (MWE)."

My label example was to illustrate my position that a wine is flawed when it is not what it promises to be. When a winery tells me that the wine is supposed to smell like horseshit because the winery specifically wanted that special little yeast to take over, then I will accept that that particular strain of Brett in that individual wine is not a flaw. Same with excessive v.a., reduction, and a variety of other things that most winemakers don't set out to achieve in their products.

But wines are quite often not what they promise to be. Duboeuf's Bojos for many years smelled strongly of isoamyl acetate (bananas) and how about all those CalChards that smell of diacetyl (butter)? Those things have nothing to do with fruit, are not in any way indicated on the label, yet emerge from conscious decisions made by winemakers. So, are they faulty wines or not? If not, then is the small vigneron who doesn't scrupulously disinfect his old barrels because he likes the low-level Brett taint in his wines making faulty wines or not? From my perspective, I'd gladly drink his wines over any butterbomb Chard or TootyFrooty Bojopiffle. It's not that I disagree with your view of faults in wines, but I'm trying to establish in my own mind a defensible definition of the term.

Mark Lipton

Discussions, theoretical and philosophical such as these will go on forever. And that's fine as I too am happily guilty of participating in such discussions. Getting back directly to rosé wines for a few moments, I posted my reactions (and yes, those including scores) to seven such wines that were tasted this morning on my little side of the forum at
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=17758

Best
Rogov

My label example was to illustrate my position that a wine is flawed when it is not what it promises to be. When a winery tells me that the wine is supposed to smell like horseshit because the winery specifically wanted that special little yeast to take over, then I will accept that that particular strain of Brett in that individual wine is not a flaw. Same with excessive v.a., reduction, and a variety of other things that most winemakers don't set out to achieve in their products.

But wines are quite often not what they promise to be. Duboeuf's Bojos for many years smelled strongly of isoamyl acetate (bananas) and how about all those CalChards that smell of diacetyl (butter)? Those things have nothing to do with fruit, are not in any way indicated on the label, yet emerge from conscious decisions made by winemakers. So, are they faulty wines or not? If not, then is the small vigneron who doesn't scrupulously disinfect his old barrels because he likes the low-level Brett taint in his wines making faulty wines or not? From my perspective, I'd gladly drink his wines over any butterbomb Chard or TootyFrooty Bojopiffle. It's not that I disagree with your view of faults in wines, but I'm trying to establish in my own mind a defensible definition of the term.

Mark Lipton

Of course, Mark, the diacetyl and even the i. acetate are there because of winemaking decisions that lead directly to them; ML and carbonic maceration. The promise of what the wine will be like is in the method, and in each of these two cases, the winemaker exerted control over the process and that's what the end result reflects. To me, the wine may be the result of faulty thinking, but those individual traits do not necessarily make for a faulty wine.

On the other hand, if diacetyl (plus some contained CO2 and maybe even cabbage) are the result of an in-the-bottle ML, the wine is faulty no matter what the intentions: you don't do ML in the bottle, and because the wine did, it is not what the winemaker intended it to be.

On the other, other hand, technically, carbonic maceration alters fruit and wine to such a degree that if it were done on, say, Merlot or Riesling, one might reasonably consider what comes out of the bottle a fault, based solely on what we've been led to know about and expect from Merlot and Riesling wines. That would be winemaking going up against an established or agreed upon standard, and in a blind evaluation, the wine would not smell like the class and variety that it is assigned in the flight--probably most judges would consider the wine flawed.

And on all the other hands, many people like faults in wines, not because they believe the wines are faulty, but because, well, I don't know why, except to say they prefer those wines. Often, however, in a blind tasting, many people find that they prefer over their beloved wines those that don't display those faults. I've always wondered why that is so?

I believe if you look at the SWE website you will clearly see the MWE mentioned.

"The Society of Wine Educators validates wine knowledge, tasting acumen and teaching ability within its three-tier hierarchy of certification:

Certified Specialist of Wine (CSW), Certified Wine Educator (CWE) and Master Wine Educator (MWE)."

Yes, you will see it....but fact is that wasn't supposed to be there.

We switched web designers (long story) and what you're referring to was a page design we were proposing, but should not have been posted.

We never have offered the Master level, Charles. Sorry. I will contact the executive office and bring this to their attention and get it corrected.

FYI, the possibility is still in the works though; it'll just take a while before we institute that tier. And when we do it will focus more on teaching and presentation skills than wine knowledge, with the point being that by the time you get that high in the credential program, you know your wine stuff; now you need to work on how to impart it to others.

Hoke, why do you say the judges were unethical? Apart from that, your points seem valid enough but I don't think I'd be so negative about the whole thing. Isn't the purpose of all wine competitions PR?

Well, this

It soon became clear that calibration was needed not only of palates, but of expectations and cultural sensitivities. Each judge spoke in turn about wine one. Our eastern European judges all award the wine 18 or 19 points; a gold medal. The western judges scored it 12, 12 and 10, noting winemaking faults. Clearly, we needed to refine the context for this task...

From back left, clockwise: Tom Cannavan, UK; Nugzar Ksovreli, Georgia, Oleg Filippov, Russia, Christian Callec, Netherlands, Rosemary George, UK, Anatoly Yalanetsky, Ukraine.

We did that, with a little compromise and understanding on both sides.

and this

Through a lot more sampling and discussion the panel of judges managed to calibrate more closely, with the western judges recognising and respecting traditional styles a little more, and the eastern judges acknowledging that by international criteria, these wines could not be judged as 'gold standard'.

are what I was referring to, Steve.

As others have pointed out there is no “universal” definition of a “great” wine. Everyone will have his/her own definition of “great”. So in evaluating or scoring wines if you will, everyone might use a slightly different definition of “greatness” as a benchmark. By reviewing a wine critic’s scores, one can somewhat figure out how that critic “defines” a “great wine”. It might be in line with your definition or it might not, but that’s OK. So for points to have any meaning, one must first try to understand how the critic defines a “great” wine. How one defines a “great” wine will be determined by what he/she likes and what he/she is accustomed to drinking.
I have been with the same wine tasting group for the last seven years now, and once a month (sometimes more) we gather for a tasting. By now I think I can tell how every member (or critic) defines a “great wine”.
Prior to the tasting a presentation is usually given by the host. Geography, soils, and climate is usually discussed, followed by viticulture and vinification techniques. When the wines are finally presented for evaluation, I try to use as much “information” as I can to fairly evaluate the wine. We do this from a “wine appreciation” point of view.

Salute