Reflection Eternal

I've been thinking lately about the idea of quality. One of the stock answers I've develop to questions about moving away from the Bay Area is "better quality of life." To be honest, I don't have a good explanation about what that means - differences in cost of living, climate, and culture obviously affect the qualities of day to day life, but can you really know that this affect will indeed be better? I moved to San Francisco from Chicago eleven years ago, and don't regret a single moment, but I can't honestly say that the "quality" of my time here has been any better than it would have been if I'd stayed in the mid-west.

So there's the set-up - quality is probably a concept that at best is nebulous and subjective, and at worst is completely impossible to define. I began my wine career working for a large gourmet super market chain, and they have explicit standards of quality that determine which products are sold in their stores. This is similar to wine-guru Darrell Corti deciding not to sell table wines with over 14.5% alcohol in his family's Sacramento store. These decisions might be deemed arbitrary, capricious, or even hypocritical, but I think it's necessary to draw the line somewhere. Besides, how can you actually take a stand and believe in anything without being at least a bit of a hypocrite?

I really want to know what people think makes a quality wine. I'm not talking about preferences, just because you like something doesn't make it good, and vice versa. (I rocked out to Gino Vanelli's "I Just Wanna Stop" on the way home from work tonight - I love that song, but I'm not going to argue that it's of high quality. Conversely, I'm not a big fan of Marty Scorcese's films, but I respect them.) I'm not talking about merit either, the whole "XXX wine is the worlds greatest white wine." The question is basically, what's the difference between a good bottle of table wine and Thunderbird?

There are some simple background answers. Thunderbird is made from vineyards allowed to produce extremely high quantities of fruit (yields), it fortified with low grade grain alcohol, there's added sugar and stabilizers meant to both speed up the production process and extend the shelf life. Thunderbird is an industrial product, made in huge quantities.

This example is obviously an extreme - few of us drink Thunderbird (without irony at least). Industrial production isn't anathema to quality either - Dom Perignon and Cristal are made in astounding quantity and are exceptional products considering. The spirit of the question remains. Where do we as individuals draw the line on quality? Do you have to actually know something about wine to decide what quality is?

Personally, I feel like a quality wine is made with grapes and the barest minimum of required additives (cultured yeast, acid, sugar, and sulfur used as little as possible if at all). The grapes should be grown in a regional with a moderate climate, and the yields should be reasonable. The wine should be treated as minimally and as naturally as possible - no oak chips, no de-alcoholization. This is the ideal, but not every quality wine will meets all (or any) of these requirements. Obviously, all of this stuff comes from my knowledge and experience of wine.

I believe that much of the wine industry uses the general ignorance of consumers to pass of bad wine as quality. Two Buck Chuck is an easy target (basically just box-wine, bottled in glass and marked up), but the trickery comes at all levels. No winery in Napa will tell their costumers that they remove a degree or two of alcohol after fermentation from their expensive cabernet sauvignon.

I'd love to hear what people think defines quality. What do you look for when you drink wine? When you think a wine is really good, why? Is there a common theme throughout different types of "quality" wines? Does enjoying a wine mean it's good? Does a wine have to be good to enjoy it?
Think about it. Pour yourself a glass, and take just a few seconds to ask yourself what it is you're tasting. Let me know - I'm really curious.

Here's a wine to try this week:
2006 Edmunds St John Bone Jolly Gamay Rosé - hot damn this tastes good!

Comments

[cc]

This is late to the table but I would say that I disagree that minimal influence is necessary to make a quality wine or perhaps you get to the heart of the matter by stating I quibble with your definition of quality? Wine as we know it today is not grapes falling off the vine and just happening to ferment with native yeasts in a bottle. (and yes, that's way extreme of me, I understand you're talking non-innoculation, etc) But, honestly, though oak barrels tend to produce subtler flavor components than chips ultimately anything aged in wood is undergoing an additive process to alter its composition. In the industry we use anything from biodynamic to highly processed chemical sprays to combat pests and fungus but we have to use something -- unfortunately in any monoculture you're going to run into these sorts of problems and prostrating yourself on the alter of non-interference is going to produce what would generally be considered substandard fruit, and no matter how much sugar you add you can't make a great wine with awful fruit. While I can't say I agree with chapitalization, dealcoholization, or the Parkerization of the industry's flavor profiles I also can't say I understand turning out a wine that is incredibly out of balance and quick to oxidize because you're taking the high moral ground of non-intervention and low sulfur additions. Sure, respect your fruit, 100%, again you can't make a good wine without good fruit but some interventions are necessary... Or do I misread and you just think we need to contain to what's absolutely necessary?

It's a thorny issue, to be sure. Do I prefer wines that are made in small lots, with reds aged in
French oak, all unfined and unfiltered? Sure! Of course! That's why I wind up with re-fermenting Tempe in my cellar. It seems to me, however, that wine is finally taking off as a beverage of the masses, not an elitist nectar made by artistes toiling in the cellar. At the end of the day flavor and enjoyment are going to win the battle. That's not necessarily a bad thing, however, as value brands that truly offer a good value (not charlie shaw!) introduce consumers to varieties and regions and fuel sales of higher end products that can afford to take a less-invasive approach.

In other words, I suppose I would argue that to separate quality from flavor is difficult -- this is a product for consumption and if you don't link quality with enjoyment then what do you have left to link it to other than cost, which can be highly artificial? I love the ideals of minimal intervention but they're not necessarily practical.

That's a lot of handwaving and the small box I'm writing this in makes me wonder if I'm even being coherent. So, answer the question, CC: For me, balance and refinement and, I suppose, typicity for the price point. Something that demonstrates a specific style or, (I shudder to say this), terroir. If I'm paying $20 retail I'm not expecting the refinement of a bottle retailing at $60 but I also know plenty of wines out there that demonstrate incredible finesse at $20.

God I'm long winded sometimes. Sorry! Thanks for bringing the topic up howev, I'm really curious what the rest of the world thinks. We get so wrapped up in our industry I often wonder if we have any clue what the rest of the people want/think. Or maybe I'm just too removed having been out of retail for so many years!

Thanks also for having a very intelligent wine blog, I love it!! Wish you wrote more frequently :)

[Paul]

I don't think you misunderstand per se, more the truth is I view this definition as highly abstract, and probably impossible in the real world. I certainly don't think walking the "moral high ground" is a guarantor of quality - I just think that this way of thinking is a goal to shoot for and find a rational balance.

(As an aside, my hatred of computers can run deep sometimes - I just wrote a lengthy response, beyond that initial paragraph, only to lose it when my internet connection timed out. It's probably for the best, I should just save my thoughts and write a new post.)

Suffice it to say, I appreciate your comment and your kind words. Look forward to more posts once I get done moving to TX.