"New World" and "Old World": What do they mean to you?

I often read these short-hand descriptors applied to an individual wine or to a wine drinker’s preference in wine. Do you use these terms? What do they mean to you?

Well, if you remember your history, Columbus sailed the ocean blue in fourteen hundred and ninety-two.
Since he was coming from the Old World to the New one, what he left behind was Europe (hence, ‘Old World’), so wines from the discovered worlds (Americas, Australia) would be considered ‘New World’ wines.

Exactly same definition in my mind Markus, to often they are interchanged with the terms modern or classic and used to describe a style.

OK I get the obvious geographical reference, but I am looking for something beyond the obvious. I tried to leave the question open ended, but after seeing what Markus can do with it, here are a couple of examples to show where my question is coming from. There was a thread about a winemaker changing in style from Old World to New World and maybe another one about doing the reverse. I have also seen two vintages of the same wine described by the winemaker himself as one more New World and one more Old World. They ain’t talking about geography, my friends! They are talking style and taste I believe. And saying they mean modern vs classic is not really helpful since I am not sure I understand those terms either. Answer this as if you are speaking to a 6 year old; in my case, you are not far off! " C’mon buddy, can you spare a dime?"

Jim,

Traditionally, ‘old world’ meant that it spoke of a ‘place’, and that’s why those wines are usually not denoted by varieties, but instead by the location. New world generally has been denoted by specific varieties or varietal blends. This, of course, is just a generality and these days, all bets are off with ‘labeling’ things as easily as in the past.

And that leads into your additional question. I do believe that many on this board equate ‘old world’ with earthier, more acid driven wines where the fruit is not as ‘ripe’, and ‘new world’ the opposite of this. Again, I do not believe that those labels hold as much credence nowadays as they did in the past.

Hope that helps.

Cheers!

“New World” connotes wines with predominantly ripe fruity and oaky flavors and aromas and higher alcohol while “Old World” connotes wines that tend to have more flavors and aromas that aren’t fruity (earthy, leathery, mineral, meaty, etc.), more acidity, and less alcohol. The Old World/New World dichotomy was always pretty sloppy and simplistic, but now the stylistic variations in both the US and Western Europe are so great that it is utterly meaningless as a shorthand for style.

There are a lot of wines produced in the New World that are lower in alcohol and higher in acidity than their Old World counterparts, while offering good concentration and complexity. Quite a few of these wines that would appeal to a lot of Europhilic palates were offered for sale on BD but ignored by Europhiles because of vapid stereotypes and willful blindness to both the ripeness creep in European wines and the diversity in US winemaking.

A fun example for me was a 2012 Cabot Marier Vineyard Syrah that I poured blind immediately after a friend had poured 2007 and 2008 Allemand Reynard. Not a single one of a group of very experienced Europhilic tasters guessed that it was a New World wine. Briceland’s 2012 and 2013 Ishi Pishi Cabernets, while from ripe vintages and with excellent concentration, check in at 12.7% and 13.1% alcohol respectively, less than one now typically finds in classified Bordeaux in highly regarded vintages.

Fans of white Burgundy with minerality need look no further than the Alder Springs Chardonnays from Dirty and Rowdy and Rhys Alesia. Looking for funky savory whites? Check out Cowan’s Fiano and Ribolla Gialla.

On the other hand, Southern Rhônes and Piedmont Nebbiolos routinely check in at 14.5%+ alcohol. Ripe fruit, higher alcohol, and new oak are increasingly common in Northern Rhônes. Plenty of Spanish reds put California wines to shame in terms of ripeness and oak. We are now also seeing a lot of Spanish wines that are very AFWE styled and illustrate that stereotyping Spanish wine is as foolish as stereotyping US wine.

The wine world will be much better off when it sheds the antiquated Old World/New World stereotypes that confuse instead of clarify.

I don’t use Old Word and New World as stylistic indicators any more, but I used to.

Old World was shorthand for European styled wines, from France, Germany, and Italy. Balanced on acid, less up front ripe fruit, lower alcohol, more complexity with aging. Somewhat AFWE-ish before that was a thing.

New World was Napa Cab and Barossa Shiraz in my mind. Ripe sweet fruit, balanced on the tannins (often from charred oak), higher alcohol, less complexity with aging. On the Parkerized end of the spectrum.

I no longer use the terms because many European wines have moved to cover all points on the spectrum, and there are so many diverse styles from N. And S. America, Australia, New Zealand, etc. that Old World and New World no longer retain any stylistic meaning. AFWE and modern have taken their place in my lexicon, but like any shorthand terms they are broad generalizations, so I try to add a few specifics when I use them.

What David said. The definition from Markus is the best because if you are referring to style or something other than geography, the words are meaningless when you talk about wine. As far as what they mean to me, generally I assume that the person using those terms either has some kind of agenda or has little experience outside of a small sampling of wine.

Actually, a better way to look at it is to read “old world” as being told what grapes you can grow and how you must make your wine, and “new world” as freedom from those rules. So if you want, you can blend Cab and Zin and co-ferment with some Albarino, whereas in most places in Europe, you would probably violate some kind of rule were you to do such a thing.

For more on this topic, see this thread:

Some very sensible comments above.

I agree, and they help flesh this out a bit for me. . . the kind of comments I needed. Thanks.

Very interesting and helpful for me as well. Thank you for the thoughtful posts.

I think of old world as more rustic earth driven cool climate styles of wine associated with Europe. New World to me are wines with more ripe fruit characteristics.

I can see how traditional and modern wine making can be sort of bundled in with the conversation.

Very thoughtful replies above.

One thing I would add is that old world wine regions are generally farther north, cooler, wetter and with shorter growing seasons as compared to the new world regions which feature similar varieties.

That accounts for a lot of the difference between, say, how Syrah tastes from Paso or Barossa versus Cornas, or how Merlot tastes from Napa versus Bordeaux.

I’m not sure how much the wines of the old world historically reflected a stylistic choice versus what the climate (and the knowledge and technology of the time) would allow.

Old = Clive Coates
New = Robert Parker Jr.

RT

Short and to the point!

Speaking stylistically or geographically, sure.
To add another dimension: Chronologically, they are both past peak.

This will lead me to enlightenment, Master? -Grasshopper

David, Richard might wine get “name that tune” style points, but your more detailed comment above is a winner for me. -Jim

Style-wise, it was a valid generalization for a period of time. Before that era, and now after, it’s not valid to link region to ripeness-style. So, basically it’s a cringe-worthy asinine term. Sophomoric.

IMHO, Old World = European wine made for centuries from certain countries. Italy. France. Spain. Portugal. New World = wine from countries who haven’t been making wine more than 50 years ago. Canada. US. New Zealand. And so on.

I think the above is very well articulated and I generally agree with it, although I still use the terms sometimes when comparing things. For instance, I was at a dinner recently which was almost all old world wines, other than a (blind) Heitz Martha’s. The Heitz was a very good wine, but most of us immediately recognized it as likely “new world”, even though it’s on the more restrained side for a Napa cab. Compared to the other wines being served, it was clearly more fruit forward.