Marlborough and Sancerre
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:37 pm
An experience today at a local wineshop left me thinking, and might be of some general interest. The shop staff had had a tasting of some 20 New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs and 10 Sancerres, all under $15. The top choice, a surprise according to the report, was a Saint Clair from New Zealand. I was intrigued enough to trek on down, really not too much a chore, to pick up a bottle.
I got talking there with one of the staff and said that it must have been hard to compare such different styles of Sauvignon Blanc. He kind of agreed and said that the Sancerres might have done better with food, but that without it the New Zealands really stood out. That got me thinking about the validity of such a test, and more generally about the difference between wine in cultures in which it typically is consumed with food and those in which wine ismore or less a stand alone. In other words, is it really sensible to compare a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc with a Sancerre? Or are the two products of such different cultures that they are more like apples and oranges? By the way, the St. Clair really is terrific. About $14.
I got talking there with one of the staff and said that it must have been hard to compare such different styles of Sauvignon Blanc. He kind of agreed and said that the Sancerres might have done better with food, but that without it the New Zealands really stood out. That got me thinking about the validity of such a test, and more generally about the difference between wine in cultures in which it typically is consumed with food and those in which wine ismore or less a stand alone. In other words, is it really sensible to compare a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc with a Sancerre? Or are the two products of such different cultures that they are more like apples and oranges? By the way, the St. Clair really is terrific. About $14.