I posted this in the discussion about wine aesthetics, but I’m curious to see what folks think more generally about ‘fine wine.’ Looking at the various styles and regions that are historically important, these cover everything from dry to sweet, low alcohol to high and even fortified, moderate to very high acidity, white to red, and so on. I’m wondering if there’s a way to define the term such that it’s inclusive without being at the whim of individual taste preference.
Here’s what I have so far:
Layering of sensory impressions. Essentially a wine with distinct aromas, a beginning, a middle and an end on the palate.
Capacity to develop with time in bottle. This could be several years or decades as long as there is substantial change due to age.
Typicity of region, variety and/or house style, i.e. character. Probably this is broad enough to allow even the “International Style” into the discussion, but it’s important that a wine has some context into which it fits.
Gerhard,
With all due respect, I must ask how pedigree fits into the discussion of what makes fine wine. I can see how that knowledge may impact the assessment regarding ageability but, as you have listed that separately, an appropriately, IMHO, I don’t see how it has any more positive impact on the assessment of what came out of the bottle. I am betting you have a well thought out opinion on it so I hope you will elaborate.
Yes, pedigree would seem to imply an a priori knowledge of what the wine you are tasting is. But I have clearly tasted fine wines blind and been blinded by the high quality therein. Perhaps pedigree is sufficient but not necessary. But I do like Gerhardt’s conciseness.
Exactly what I was going to ask. Three of Gerhard’s four bullet points are parallel to what I was thinking, but the issue of producer and region is something I hadn’t considered. There are many regions and producers that are virtually unknown, some of which are making wine that suits the other three criteria. Does the wine then become ‘fine’ once it’s been discovered, even if qualitatively the wine itself is of the same level?
Assuming the question isn’t meant to be rhetorical and also based on my definitions of “fine wine” (complexity, length, ageability, typicity and, most of all balance) and “appropriate pedigree” (area and producer have been making fine wine for some period of time – the period of time might make interesting debate), my answer is absolutely, YES, I have seen a fine wine without an appropriate pedigree. I would go so far as to say I have seen a fine wine with no pedigree.
Gerhard, enjoy your vacation! I am sure you will drink some very fine wines.
Interesting discussion. Even though I am The Fine Wine Geek, I never thought to give a precise definition to the term.
I would say it is a wine that is more than a mere beverage and/or source of alcohol. A wine of distinction. I don’t think it needs to be defined too precisely, since it is ultimately in the eye (or nose or mouth) of the beholder. But I do think some of the definitions given so far are good. I like:
personality
ageability
depth
complexity
I also like Greg’s term: “Layering of sensory impressions,” though I suppose that could come under “complexity”.
I agree with those that say pedigree is not required, since how did a wine become “fine” in the first place?
This goes back to the aesthetics discussion we had a week or two ago.
It seems to me that fine wine is naturally made, not manufactured. It possesses complex aromas, taste. It’s reasonably balanced and has a good finish. It is within reasonable expectations of typicity. It needs not be ageable.
it’s important that a wine has some context into which it fits
My glass. If it’s in there, it must be fine wine because I don’t drink wine that isn’t fine. And some is even finer.
Other than that, I’ve never thought to define the term, since I don’t use it. I would imagine that something that’s made on an industrial scale wouldn’t be fine, but there’s some pretty large-production stuff out of south France and Spain that’s pretty good, so maybe that’s not even a factor.
I don’t think pedigree matters either. A great winemaker, who knows a region, can buy some land and turn out his first vintage which is going to be “fine”, which is an illustration of why I have never used the term.
Ability to improve with age knocks out an awful lot of great wine, red and white, and rose too. Think Moscato d’Asti, Dolcetto, many Barberas, and 90% of the world’s white wines. dc.
Fine wine to me is a wine I drink and dont regret owning more. I dont buy “daily drinkers” so those are out. I think ageability is interesting because to me the ultimate goal is to drink the wine when it tastes best, be that now or 20 years from now. I dont need to wait, though I dont mind doing so. As for what makes a wine I dont mind owning: Deep fruit, complexity, full body, structure and intensity from attack to finish. As long as it doesn’t harm me, I don’t care what has been done to the wine to make it taste and feel great.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
