Battle of the Bland or How the West was Won
Would you rather have a consistent wine or a potentially better wine?
In almost every field of human endeavor there are those that strive for greatness even if they sometimes fail, and those that strive for a consistent "good enough" that ensures a product the consumer can trust. Those wines that aim for greatness are memorable, and tend to be worth whatever we have to pay for them, at least when they achieve their goal. Wines that aim for greatness and fail are expensive lessons and few consumers want to take a risk with every bottle they open.
Emerson warns us that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and indeed the threat of consistency in the world of wine is that we could end up with nothing except bland wines without identifying character. This would rob wine lovers of the joy of discovery and adventure of the unknown, even while protecting our pocket books from disastrous selections. Fortunately, there are many wine makers out there that are willing to take risks, and as we will see, it is just as fortunate there are many that avoid risk.
Greatness almost always walks hand in hand with risk. If you want riper grapes you need to leave them in the vineyard longer, at the risk of the crop being ruined by the weather. If you want more color and intensity in your wine, you need to macerate it longer (leave in contact with the skins) at the risk of waiting too long and ending up with a bitter, overly tannic wine. If you want a wine that can age for years so that it ends up incredibly complex you have to age it in new oak barrels and hold it back for years, at the risk of over pricing your wine and not selling enough to recoup your investment.
If you minimize your risk you may not achieve greatness, but you will probably make a living, and you may be better able to sleep at night. Your wine may not score at the highest levels in the wine publications, but you can create a following that trusts that your wine will be the same from year to year. Those that are looking to make a product the consumer can rely on often turn to technology to help minimize the variables and reduce the risks. While technology can be expensive, in the long run it is almost always a cost effective investment. Low tech approaches tend to be the norm for the risk takers and while advances have helped them to reduce their risks, no technology has yet replaced the hands on approach.
Corporations tend to not be risk takers, and they tend to be quick to adopt the latest technology. Even if a corporation does take risks, chances are it is limited to their flagship wine, and they almost certainly have other brands which err on the side of consistency, to pay the bills. This doesn't mean that smaller wineries inherently have higher quality wines than larger concerns. It all depends on the philosophy of the winery and their winemaker. Some wine makers view themselves as artists, and others as businesspeople, and most probably consider themselves to be a balance between the two.
For those of us that enjoy a bottle of wine with dinner every night, our cellars will mostly be stocked with wines we have decided are consistent, safe choices. Look into those same cellars and you will find a few bottles of wine that we are waiting for the right time to open. Whether the wine is in danger of being too old, or is from an unknown producer or a spotty vintage, we all have wines that we have great hopes for, but also have a nice safe wine as back up, just in case.
In almost every field of human endeavor there are those that strive for greatness even if they sometimes fail, and those that strive for a consistent "good enough" that ensures a product the consumer can trust. Those wines that aim for greatness are memorable, and tend to be worth whatever we have to pay for them, at least when they achieve their goal. Wines that aim for greatness and fail are expensive lessons and few consumers want to take a risk with every bottle they open.
Emerson warns us that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and indeed the threat of consistency in the world of wine is that we could end up with nothing except bland wines without identifying character. This would rob wine lovers of the joy of discovery and adventure of the unknown, even while protecting our pocket books from disastrous selections. Fortunately, there are many wine makers out there that are willing to take risks, and as we will see, it is just as fortunate there are many that avoid risk.
Greatness almost always walks hand in hand with risk. If you want riper grapes you need to leave them in the vineyard longer, at the risk of the crop being ruined by the weather. If you want more color and intensity in your wine, you need to macerate it longer (leave in contact with the skins) at the risk of waiting too long and ending up with a bitter, overly tannic wine. If you want a wine that can age for years so that it ends up incredibly complex you have to age it in new oak barrels and hold it back for years, at the risk of over pricing your wine and not selling enough to recoup your investment.
If you minimize your risk you may not achieve greatness, but you will probably make a living, and you may be better able to sleep at night. Your wine may not score at the highest levels in the wine publications, but you can create a following that trusts that your wine will be the same from year to year. Those that are looking to make a product the consumer can rely on often turn to technology to help minimize the variables and reduce the risks. While technology can be expensive, in the long run it is almost always a cost effective investment. Low tech approaches tend to be the norm for the risk takers and while advances have helped them to reduce their risks, no technology has yet replaced the hands on approach.
Corporations tend to not be risk takers, and they tend to be quick to adopt the latest technology. Even if a corporation does take risks, chances are it is limited to their flagship wine, and they almost certainly have other brands which err on the side of consistency, to pay the bills. This doesn't mean that smaller wineries inherently have higher quality wines than larger concerns. It all depends on the philosophy of the winery and their winemaker. Some wine makers view themselves as artists, and others as businesspeople, and most probably consider themselves to be a balance between the two.
For those of us that enjoy a bottle of wine with dinner every night, our cellars will mostly be stocked with wines we have decided are consistent, safe choices. Look into those same cellars and you will find a few bottles of wine that we are waiting for the right time to open. Whether the wine is in danger of being too old, or is from an unknown producer or a spotty vintage, we all have wines that we have great hopes for, but also have a nice safe wine as back up, just in case.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home