Why is the level of fervor is uneven: old world versus new world palates...

In a post over on the CT forums, someone re-posted a TN on a well-respected California Bordeaux-style blend (2012 Insignia). The original TN author was clearly not a fan of the wine and, among other things wrote, “I can’t for the life of me understand how anybody could be willing to part with 250€ for a gloopy monster wine like this.” Now, my point isn’t to bring any attention to this particular TN author at all. This TN, however, is so similar to so many I see here (TNs and mentions in discussion) and on other wine forums. It happens all the time: tasters who clearly prefer Old World wines take the time to make it clear how much they dislike a particular well-known California Cab or blend.

Sure, we can all pile on a bag on a clearly over-the-top wine like an out-of-balance, high RS, fake oak mess and agree. There seems to be joy to be found by some, though, in being heavily critical (and going out of the way to be so) of many widely-regarded and well-made new world wines.

My question is why don’t we see the same level of disgust in reverse? Why don’t more New World-palate-leaning folks take the time to bash classified growth Bordeaux in the same manner as the above? Where is the, “Why would anyone fork over $500 for this thin, watery, green, under-fruited, tannic…” that would seem to be as plentiful as the opposite? Sure, there are the cute tongue-in-cheek quips here about weedy Loire Cab Francs, but there have got to be people out there who detest Old World wines. Why don’t they go to the same lengths to pontificate publicly?

For what it’s worth, I love new world wines and I love old world wines just the same.

You obviously have not seen some of the burg knocking that goes on, watery over priced piss water

[cheers.gif] [wink.gif] neener

My wife does plenty of complaining about ‘Old World’ wine styles for everyone, trust me. She calls it ‘poop and dirt’.

I think those who favor Old World styles are typically more ‘geeky’ than those who favor New World, and, as such, have a tendency to complain more loudly about the ‘gloop’, as they feign offense to it.

Good query, though - don’t recall this ever being discussed previously.

Some wines are “controversial”, while others aren’t. Can you identify any highly rated $500 thin, watery, green, under-fruited, tannic wines? Is there hype for any specific wines like that? Hype up wines that many find revolting, them shove them in those peoples’ faces over and over, and you might get some unrestrained opinions. You may get a different reaction from someone tasting a revolting $500 wine than with an equally revolting $3 Trader Joe’s wine. If some critic score convinced you to spend $500 on the bestest wine evarrr from the vintage of the centuriest vintage yet, and you found it digusting, you might express an opinion with a fair degree of outrage.

[rofl.gif] [rofl.gif] [rofl.gif] I guess you don’t read this board much.

Review the posts of Nathan Smyth in Recommend a Burgundian Burgundy - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers or virtually any other thread.

I could go on and on.

I would posit - generally speaking, of course - because classic never goes out of style.

A timely analogy: Compare Notre Dame to the Pompidou.

I have never heard anyone say Notre Dame is disgusting. I have heard many people say the Pompidou is disgusting. But it also has fans. I had a few architecture professors that hated it, and one that loved it.

Because hate is a powerful thing, and one of the only things spewed forth in this day and age of the internet. :astonished:

Wasn’t Parker the wine world’s preeminent fruit-bomb glop-lover who coined the phrase “anti-flavor wine elite” about people who like to “old world” style better?

Yes! And people with different opinions, or preferences than our own must be idiots, or classless, or…

I think this is definitely a significant factor. The higher end of the old world wine world has established their style and their identity over decades/centuries. There is a global appreciation and recognition for these wines. Many are priced accordingly.

In comparison many high end (and higher priced) new world wines have a much shorter track record and their popularity is often limited (mostly but not entirely) to their country of origin.

To give a local example here in NZ: The very top local Syrahs sell here for the same price as Jamet and Clape ($120) and about double the price of Gonon ($60) and about half the price of Chave ($250). They are good and serious wines but I seriously doubt there is much of a market outside NZ for these wines. I reckon the same applies in California, Australia etc etc

In my mind the asymmetry the OP is referring to arises from situations like this. Well made new world wines (but perhaps lacking a bit of soul or some sense of individuality) that are priced against old world classics with much longer track record and much greater global market recognition. This opens them up for criticism in my mind. Not saying it is all deserved just I can see why it happens

Brodie

Even though I am a confessed Francophile my disgust with goop from California is measured only against California of old. Why can’t they make anymore the wines they were making before 2002? Napa from the 70’s and 80’s are some of the most profound wine experiences I’ve ever had. The goop is just caricature.

I think this is a big piece of it.

I also think its an availability thing. people who like cult Napa cabs but would hate old world wines, in my experience, don’t find themselves in the Burgundy section nearly as much. an old world lover tends to be a little more exploratory, and will grab a cali one sometimes just to make sure they still don’t love them.

They do, but those wines don’t get the ratings, so they don’t get the attention, can’t command the same sort of prices, don’t get the distribution. That’s changing, since the Parker-Laube strangle hold on California wine criticism-led influence has faded.

Wes, I would l9ve to hear your opinion on these producers. Please post or PM. Thanks!

I don’t think the premise is totally valid but it does seem that there are a lot of people on this board who simply started out liking wine, perhaps US wine, maybe not, and then they learned that there were wines they were supposed to like and others they were not supposed to like. So like many converts, they proselytize more than the people who simply grew up with it.

I know a number of people who, having been interested in wine for maybe two or three years and having had mostly US wines, heard that they were supposed to like Burgundy/Bordeaux/Barolo and just went nuts for it. Who knows, some may have actually grown to like those wines.

And then, having left behind something they liked, they need to disown their prior love entirely.

No reason not to like many types of wine.

Unless you’re independently wealthy, you probably make wine to sell, not to realize some non-commercial artistic vision. And if you sell a little bit more when it’s a little bit riper, a little bit cleaner, a little bit more stable, the wise move would probably be to make wine that way. That offends people who got to like what you were doing before, and even more than those folks, it offends people who think they would have liked what they think you might have been doing before.

Then they post about it.

Great post, Brodie. I dare you to say that to the winemakers of these ‘luxury icon’ NW wines. champagne.gif

I’ve been bashing super-modern, over-oaked monster wines for some 9 years in CT now, but it took me some 8000 TNs to write a piece so controversial that it actually upset people enough for them to re-post/discuss it on not only one but on two forums! pileon Funny though, because I didn’t feel that this particular TN was out of line from my normal writing style in any way.

Is Insignia such a sacred cow that one can’t openly criticize it? [tease.gif]

Fortunately this was not the case this time. I’ve never liked sweet, heavily oaked and over-extracted fruit bombs to begin with.

Insignia is an excellent example for this discussion. It changed in the early 1990s from a great and interesting wine, to a modern Napa wine, which I disliked intensely. We haven’t changed, the wines did.

As for the invective, it is about the wines themselves, and should never be about the people who drink them. I have friends, poor devils, who like California moderns. I find that there are wines in common that we can drink together, usually from the Rhone.

Maybe I am not discerning enough, but why can’t people enjoy old and new world? Some nights I want a lean, mean, green wine and other nights I want glorified grape juice.

I guess every hobby or interest has similar to dividing lines, but like GregT said above, I think the hatred of new world is a learned attribute. People cast off new world overripe wines because that’s what a “wine snob” is supposed to do. In fact I’ve actually met people who are into wine and really do like fruit bombs but force themselves to drink wines that they find less enjoyable because it’s the correct progression of their palate.

Otto I applaud the fact that you owned that the tasting note was yours! The above ramblings are in no way directed toward you, but just me ruminating on the broader wine community. And yes, I do think that Insignia is a sacred cow. Ever drive a classic car and feel like the suspension was terrible and power terrible? But when you tell people that driving car X kind of sucks you get stoned in the town square. That’s where Insignia stands, right next to a 1963 split window corvette.

**full disclosure - I have a case of Insignia in my cellar.