This is not about the merits of drinking AFWE wines. If fact, it’s not even about what are considered to be AFWE wines, these days. Because it’s not about wines that eschew full throttle flavor or wines demonstrating balance. It’s about austere wines. Wines that while being consumed the imbiber has to search for its qualities. It’s about what seems to me to be a nihilistic appreciation for certain wines. Is this visceral enjoyment or more of a cerebral exercise? What was the initial allure and the long termed enjoyment of the pursuit of such wines? Enlighten me, because I really want to understand. Thanks.
Interesting question…I hope this doesn’t go down the AFWE rabbit hole.
Regardless of perceived austerity, if I have to “search for it’s qualities” the wine isn’t one I like.
Another somewhat vague descriptor in my view. I’ve seen it defined in a wine lexicon as betraying a poor wine, one not giving any pleasure. In my usage, however, I tend to pull out “austere” to describe a wine, usually Bordeaux in my case, which has been kept somewhat past its peak and is displaying tertiary characteristics, with limited fruit and dried out tannins. Not a flaw, just a fading beauty. My usage may be entirely wrong, if there’s a standard definition, of course.
Jonathan
Troll.
Agreed.
JD
“…nihilistic appreciation…” sounds like an oxymoron.
More often than not, wines that I like that show as “austere” are just going through a phase.
This is what I’m talking about:
Jürgen Steinke wrote:
2011 Coche-Dury Corton-Charlemagne - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Corton-Charlemagne Grand Cru (5/16/2015)
The epitome of chardonnay. Unbuttered popcorn on the nose, sulphur elements, and almost no sign of any fruit at all. This is steely, monumental, and austere. Just massively concentrated, and with barely any organic elements apart from a light tinge of lemon, this is exactly everything I want in a bottle of chardonnay. It literally does not get better. (100 pts.)
This tasting note surprises me. Almost no fruit at all … . Austere … . Barely any organic element apart from a light tinge of lemon. 100 pts.
I respect your taste and your opinion. But when I read such a description I would expect rather 80 than 100 points.
And therein lies the problem with point. Yours are not the same as mine, are not the same as Jurgen’s.
According to ERP, it’s a hard, rather dry wine that lacks richness and generosity . . .
I tend to use it with wines that are younger and a bit ‘out of balance’, with pronounce acid levels relative to the components.
But heck, what do I know . . . 
The above is A. So’s tasting note with Juergen’s commentary. I think that it is pretty clear that Adrian’s euphoria regarding this wine is not about it’s potential but the experience of it in the present.
Either way, my “point” stands.
can be an asset or detriment depending on the aspects around it (austere) and how the adjective is used.
Michael, to your original question, I feel a wine is austere when the sense of acidity and minerality is strong and the fruit is in the background or muted. The fI ish can still be long, the body can still have some weight, but the overall feel is one that I hear people use terms to describe like " lean" “precise” “focused” “laser-like” “electric” etc. maybe I am conflating too many things, but that’s how, in my wine-amateur mind, I think of it.
And I find wines that fit that mold to be delightful, refreshing, often just what I want. I have a very low tolerance for wines that feel fruity, sweet, sugary or glycerine (though I love Rieslings with lots of RS if they have acidity to balance) and I’d rather a wine was unforgivingly tart than even slightly cloying. So austerity is a good thing in that sense. YMMV
You think of it well, I believe, Noah. Then, building upon what Alan said: food. The wines that Noah described generally plump up beautifully with the right food. I only drink wines at the dinner table (ever) and, for my tastes, these are the wines that excel there.
I have a problem with the use of the word “austerity” to describe a wine of perceived quality. An “austere” wine sounds unpleasant. Perhaps a better term for what you are seeking to describe would be “elegance”, which to me is a wine with a nice balance of acid and fruit where neither dominates the other.
I agree, except that I sometimes enjoy these wines on their own as well.
This is a superb question, not a troll at all, and I assume it comes from Michael’s recent Trimbach note. I don’t know how to say it without sounding condescending in some way, but there are wines that are just harder to be appreciated or understood. That Trimbach is one that probably qualifies. I know this from my own experience with wine over 30 years, and how it took time and exploration to learn to understand and like wines in this style. I think it takes some time to be able to transition to liking these wines, and of course not everyone does, or wants to. I think of it a little like learning to eat sushi. Not everyone wants to even eat raw fish, and once you get past the initial hurdle, it still takes time to learn to like and understand all the variants and strange tastes and textures that come at you. The one difference being you don’t necessarily want to age your sushi 
For me, I immediately think of Muscadet. Muscadet always seems to lack something I want in a white wine. Not a fan. Austere for me means lacking some appealing quality yet to show up or that may never show up.
Sushi was originally a fermented fish/rice product.