JamieGoode: Our Wines Must Taste True

WINE TALK
1

Interesting article by JamieGoode, as linked in WineTerroirist:
WinesMustBeTrue

in which he argues that are wines should not taste “nice” or good, but they must taste “true”.

I always sorta thought if the wine in the glass in front of me tasted “good”, than that was all that was important. Doh…now I know that that’s not the criteria that I should be using…it’s supposed to taste “true”.

This came up in the two Calif Picpouls I recently tried. I loved the TablasCreek Picpoul because it had this wonderful/powerful aromatics, the likes of which I’d never done did see’d in Picpoul. Alas, now Jamie tells me I should not like this wine because it’s not “true”…it doesn’t taste anything like a “true” Picpoul de Pinet. Me bad.

Carried to the logical extent, we should should not like Calif Picpoul, or Zin, or Cabernet, or PinotNoir. These are all fake varieties brought in from Europe…they do not taste “true”. The only American wine we should like is Concord!! I guess??
Tom [stirthepothal.gif]

2

I hate this kind of argument. First of all, what should any variety actually taste like? Natural ferment, no oak, no filtering, no stems, extra lizards?

I also think this type of argument makes wine less accessible to the non-WBers of the world. If someone prefers a cerebral wine over a delicious one, that’s cool. But different strokes, yo.

3

Kind of reminiscent of Kramer’s old schtick where he says wine isn’t good because you like it, but rather it’s only good if he thinks they’re good.

4

First thing I thought was that it was Kramer-esque!

Dumb article but he’s also allowed that different markets have different preferences. The place that falls apart though, is this:

make really good Fitou that tastes of the place, and transcend the appellation by supplementing the regional brand (Fitou) with your own brand.

“tastes of the place” is one of those meaningless platitudes that wine geeks bandy about that really means it conforms to your preconceived notions. Of course that’s the whole point of being “true”. And then it’s countered in whole or part by the following “supplementing the regional brand with your own brand”. So if you planted Zinfandel in Fitou and got it really ripe and mixed it with a bit of Petite Sirah and maybe some Cab and Syrah and whatever else, and thereby made your own brand, would that count? Brands like Prisoner showed the way. They supplemented the regional Napa appellation that tastes of the place with their own brand.

It’s another of those vapid articles that attempts to sound profound without saying anything.

5

My take on the article is he’s simply saying wines should reflect the variety and terroir. Nothing controversial there, in my opinion. I agree with him. I want my red burgundy to taste like it’s pinot noir from Burgundy, etc., etc., etc. He doesn’t suggest that the same varieties can’t reflect differently when grown in various sites. In fact, just the opposite.

My two cents.

6

A rather bland piece but I do agree that, in general, I prefer wines with ‘typicity’ to them to some extent versus wines that ‘just taste good’ . . .

Cheers.

7

You’re begging the question here. What is red Burg supposed to taste like?

8

Typicity is like obscenity…nobody can tell you what it means, but we know it when we taste it!

9

Controversial pieces drive clicks.

10

I think this is a good article and I’m not sure people here are connecting to the problem he’s wrestling with. You might call it the “Apothic Red” problem. Cheap wines have gotten much better at producing a kind of “wine deliciousness”, using a combination of residual sugar, flavorings and additives, technological manipulation, and shrewd use of blending grapes. You used to have to buy pretty high end wines to get the kind of combination of vivid flavors plus smoothness/fullness/relative sweetness that you can get for $12 in an Apothic Red.

So if your only criteria for wine is that it “tastes good” in some broad undefined sense why not go for Apothic Red? Or, if you say that Apothic Red is too sweet and you prefer some other flavor combination, I’m sure that if there are enough people in your market niche the manufacturers can also design something to target that flavor niche reasonably well. What are we seeking in wine? What I see Jamie saying here is – let’s cut the BS, when you get really into wine it’s not just about an alcoholic drink that tastes good, it’s about some form of craft authenticity expressed in the wine. He doesn’t want to go the natural wine route (for good reason IMO – wine is a craft and not a natural product) so he just calls that “true”.

I don’t really think he’s solved the problem because “tasting true” is a hopelessly vague concept but I think he’s talking about the right issues.

11

For me DOC / DOCG / DOP etc. (ideally) should taste true, and it is important that they do, for the certainty it gives a customer. That said, there is plenty bottled under DOCG that is not worthy of the classification, but that’s a separate issue.

IGP/IGT/VdT etc. should taste however the maker wishes and if successful, then others will follow the lead. If enough follow, then they’ll carve their own DOC/DOCG etc.

Too many examples of appellations resting on their laurels until some young upstart gives them the shock they need. For me I’d want the upstarts ripping the rulebook up under an IGP or VdT label, but there are times where they’ve achieved this under the DOC/DOCG etc. rules.

12

He doesn’t use the word typicity or say anything that indicates that’s what he’s advocating. He’s saying don’t be a cynical winemaker by just making another mediocre wine or using trickery to pander to cheap tastes. By “true” I think he means to strive to make the best wine from the given site and material according to, guided by, your best judgement. That would/could actually mean setting aside preconceived notions. In other words, contrary to Tom’s TIC pot stirring, he’s saying do like Tablas Creek did with their Picpoul.

13

And as usual Tom spins anything into an affront on his personal wine journey in order to perpetually stir the pot and create enthusiasm (for his favorites) or rancor (for those in his dog house).

14

Anyway, I don’t see why the column would bother people. Was it a recycle of something Matt Kramer has done? Heck, was it a recycle of something Jamie has written? Perhaps.

Given the scorn that folks on wine boards heap upon the “nice” supermarket wines, I don’t understand anyone taking umbrage with what Jamie wrote.

Even our famous pot stirrer (has he followed the three witches from Macbeth from the very start?) likes to talk about wines speaking of where they are grown. He’s speaking of “true” while just using different language.

15

By “true” I think he means to strive to make the best wine from the given site and material according to, guided by, your best judgement. That would/could actually mean setting aside preconceived notions. In other words, contrary to Tom’s TIC pot stirring, he’s saying do like Tablas Creek did with their Picpoul.

You put it so much better and more succinctly. Little to argue with there.

16

+1

17

Yup, Mike…pretty much agree what Wes has said.

When it comes to PasoRobles Picpoul, what is “true” or “typicity”? When you present the TCV Picpoul to some people, they would insist that it is
not Picpoul because it doesn’t have that lean/saline minerality you find in Picpoul de Pinet. I have no idea what PasoRobles Picpoul tastes like, other than this
TCV Picpoul. It does speak to me of TablasCreek growing/winemaking because it has those powerful aromatics of their other whites.
If you present the TCV Picpoul to Jamie and tell him it’s Picpoul, I doubt he’d find any “typicity” of Picpoul in it. He might even label it
a supermarket/commodity wine. But if you tell him it’s PasoRobles Picpoul, he’d probably mark it up as a new data point and probably
like the wine.
Tom

18

For those of you who want to see further interaction on this, I posted it on my Facebook page and Jamie and Tim hanni, along with Jim Lapsley, who used to head up the wine marketing program at UC Davis, are having some interesting back and forth.

19

To borrow from Cruyff “Quality without results is pointless. Results without quality is boring.” Being “True” without “tasting good” is pointless. “Tasting good” without being “true” is boring (and ergo worthless).

20

Jamie is a good guy and I agree with him.

Until a few years ago, I used to taste blind with friends on Saturdays almost every week. I did this for about 15 years. Many of us got to a point where we were pretty good identifying varietals, appellations, vintages, etc. This teaches you a lot about what Jamie is talking about. Wine that tastes marvelous but could be from anywhere is, frankly, boring at some level. Others may disagree. To each their own.