Great insight by all. Thank you.
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.
Grapes were planted in the US in the 1600s and in South America maybe a century earlier. In the 1800s, the US had a thriving wine industry. There are still grape vines in Chile that are pre-phylloxera planted centuries ago. There are very few of those in Europe. Supposedly the oldest living grape vine is in Australia.
So your definition is correct for the first part, but the 50 year cut off is wrong.
Also remember that the type of wine they were making for centuries has nothing to do with the wine made today. In Spain, the Phoenicians were making wine many centuries ago. But after the 1900s which conveniently provided civil war, world war, and dictatorship, the wines from Spain today have nothing to do with that ancient heritage. Ditto for every single country in Europe.
That said, the distinction between Europe and elsewhere is pretty much it - geography more than anything.
I’d have to argue with my friend Chris’s note as well. The grapes in Europe tend to be around the 45th parallel. But speaking of “north” that’s mostly about France and Germany. It doesn’t apply to the places where they’ve been making wine much longer, like Italy, Greece, and Spain. Those are not cool and wet countries.
OK, I am starting to get a fuller understanding. It’s kind of like this :
But seriously, thanks to all (even Markus) for taking the time to comment.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
For me the terms no longer mean anything.
The terms are too broad to be useful, and no longer an accurate way to “bucketize” the world of wine.
There are wines from France and Spain with big, boisterous fruit, and wines from California that are lean and acid driven.
I think climate is key here. Much of Europe was cooler climate compared to their “Old World” of the Levant before the grape was outlawed by Islam for wine. Much of the “New World” was warmer and could easily produce lusher wines very easily. So, at one time, this distinction carried some weight. But now, as winemakers seek out cooler growing areas to combat climate change and produce a fresher product and Europe heating up more than usual, the distinctions don’t matter as much. But traditionally, think of restraint-balance-acidity vs ripe-dense-froot as traditional markers.
A couple of weeks ago, I stopped by one of my favorite wine restaurants in Eureka. There were a couple of local ITB people tasting at the bar with the wine buyer who tends there. I blinded them on a and IP Syrah and they blinded me on some Syrah/Grenache blend from France on which I can only assume Robert Parker gets consulting winemaker credits. Stated alc was 15.1. but it seemed higher.
As you say, Mike, “antiquated Old World/New World stereotypes that confuse instead of clarify”.
I am glad you mention our IP Cabs as examples. There is something about that site. Even in cooler years when we struggle to reach sugar (in CA!), and struggle to get pH up to anything close to red wine ranges there un-ripe overly vegital notes seem to have subsided.
Tell us the specific wines and will be easier to respond.
Thanks John. I only brought up the examples to illustrate some ways that I have heard the terms thrown around and to emphasize that it seemed to be much more than just a geographical/historical distinction. The comments so far have been helpful. At best, the terms might need some context to understand the meaning that is intended. Often the terms seem they might have a connotation of a restrained alcohol, less fruit forward, more nuanced or complex wine, perhaps with aging potential or aging needed, as the “Old Word” representative, compared to a fruit bomby, maybe higher alcohol, more immediately rewarding, maybe less to ponder, as the “New World” representative. I think that is probably enough for me to take away as a “more often than not” working interpretation for when I hear these terms used.
Thanks to all.
If you’ve drunk a lot of wine from Europe (Old World) and the rest of the world (New World), it’s a pretty easy concept to grasp. Or it was. These days, a lot of European wine is being made in a more accessible, fruit-forward style with new oak. And as more wines from warmer regions such as the South of France and Spain have become popular here, there’s more blurring because they tend to be higher in alcohol and a lot of the fancy ones see a lot of new oak.
I do a lot of blind tasting and most of the time it’s pretty obvious which side of the line it’s come from. But we do get fooled. Last week a 1999 Ch. Quinault - L’Enclos from St. Emilion was a dead ringer for a Napa merlot or a Super Tuscan with merlot. (Quite a feat of winemaking given that '99 wasn’t a very good year in St. Emilion.)
And, as people have said, there has been a migration to cooler areas in California, so there’s a convergence from both sides.
Still, I think (contrary to David B) that the distinction has a lot of meaning, at least if you have some historical experience. And, on both sides, the people who are doing the converging are typically trying to approximate the indigenous style in the other zone!
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
They were making wine commercially in South Africa before Bordeaux.
1 Like
I’m afraid the terminology is more ethnocentric than eno-historical. The Old and New refer to when Europeans got to these places. 
1 Like
I often like wines that arrive somewhere in the middle ground between stereotypically Old World and New World stylings. Which is not to say I want everything to converge to one style, or that I don’t like many wines that are clearly within the convention and tradition for their regions.
But I’ve noticed that we tend to be critical of wines that arrive from the Old World into that middle ground, and tend to praise wines that arrive there from the New World. Riper Bordeaux = bad, Restrained California Cab = good. I’m not sure why that is, but it’s just something I’ve noticed.
I’ve noticed that, too, now that you mention it. I’d chalk it up to people trying to be cool. It’s not “cool” to like riper Bordeaux, but it is “cool” to like restrained CA Cab…
I agree with the comments that are dismissive of the “old world” and “new world” terms. I am similarly put-off by the terms “modern,” “classic,” and “traditional,” as they are often used in pejorative contexts (“modern” being directly pejorative; “classic” and “traditional” often being used passive-aggressively, as well (e.g.: “I prefer the more classic, traditional, interpretations of these fine wines.” [steps down from horse])
I would go even farther and say old world is more rustic, requires aging, and is tannic when young, while new world is a more plush, softer, open, and early-drinking style. Other than that one addition, I’d say Mike’s understanding is right on the money with mine.
The people who use those terms like that are almost always folks who predominately drink classically styled bordeaux and other rustic French wines. Because “new world” wines are outside their typical preference, a “new world” or “modern” style bordeaux is a negative. They typically don’t like big cabs from Napa, but one that is an outlier in style, restrained, tannic, long-living, higher acid, and low alcohol (i.e. all the things they like in their old BDX) is complimented with an ‘old world’ tag.
It’s a convenient way for them to say, I tend to only like this style, and these wines fall into this style or have departed, and so are inferior.
I don’t think the objection to “New World” Bordeaux is just ripeness. It’s extreme ripeness (many are now well over 14.5%) in combination with reverse osmosis, micro-oxygenation and all things that make for wines that are very approachable young and minimize the aromas and flavors that were unique to Bordeaux.
As Jay Miller says, a little ripeness isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
I agree with John that the distinction has meaning. It’s still, to me, a very useful way of thinking about wine. It’s not just about ripeness (though that is part of it). It’s also about sensibility, the way wine is thought of. The rules, the regulations, the appellation system, terroir, non-varietal labeling, and on and on. It’s a very different way of thinking about wine.
The fact that a California wine may come in at 12.5% doesn’t necessarily make it old world in style (though it may be). I think there’s more to it than that.
I’ll restate that the terms come from a snapshot in time. How many California wines from the '70s would qualify as “new world” in style? Not many. The epitome of fine dining in the 19th century, when world-class wines from the classic grape varieties started being made until quite recently was French. The top wines made here were mostly French varieties mimicking the French styles. A few matching the top prices, like Paul Masson’s Champagne and Emmet Rixford’s Cabernet blend (made from cuttings he got from Ch. Margaux). The list of producers whose wines beat out French wines in international wine competitions in Europe from the 1880s through the onset of Prohibition is quite long. The Spurrier tasting was just the best publicized in the post-Repeal era. Anyway, this “modern” style is something that really took off in the '90s and peaked in the early '00s. Australia and Spain were along for the ride. Those first regions have rolled back, on average, notably the producers who didn’t do a great job with the style. Other regions saw a lag before exploring riper wines. Again with mixed results.
I disagree. California cabs of that era were almost always easily distinguished from Bordeaux when tasted blind. I know because I tasted a lot of both in the 80s, and it was rare to confuse one for the other.
Spurrier put up bad vintage Bordeaux against California, so I’m not sure it proves anything.
Guilty as charged.