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

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

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?"

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.

Mike Evans post is one I mostly agree with, so this is only a little addition to the thread. These days, I tend to use “Old World” as a moniker for wines that are traditionally made, as in from a time that is past.
An old world where things were handled according to tradition, culture of the place, and a longstanding attachment to specific ideas(and more recently law-since having built a fiscally successful wine region over centuries that supports many families is good. And having some over financed, narcissist come in and cowboy up on a vineyard in your region and then self promote his own “hot new thing” wines as better than the traditional wines is bad for the farmers in the region…who made the region what it is as well. I dislike rules on my business as much as the next person, but the laws in the old world are there for a reason.)

I use New World to define wines made in a modern technique driven style. New techniques are always sought, new treatments, new equipment, new vineyard management. Wines from wineries where traditional methods have been supplanted by newer processes. Where there aren’t really rules of place or culture. Where science, logistics, and cleanliness are the totem pole of process. And blending Syrah, Grenache, and Albarino is do-able. (As boted in the previous post, I have a definite bias. But my list of New world indicators isn’t intended to be disrespectful of those choices and techniques.)

While many wineries may straddle these definitions to some extent, most lean one way or the other and a sense of the true nature of the wines can be transmitted by the terms when used this way.

I don’t see the point of using these terms for a literal geographical statement. Almost 100% of quality wines have geographical appellationa listed on the bottle. Stating that a Bordeaux is old world is self evident geographically speaking…

[Jim_Stewart]

Before I stop using these terms completely I would like to say: My personality is very much like an old world style wine; my wife’s is definitely new world ! -Jim

[Claus_Jeppesen]

Some vines in Australia are older than almost all vines in Europe.

[Wes_Barton]

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.

I disagree that the 1980s were the 1970s or earlier.

Not all the CA wines he put up were great vintages, either. Missing the point, since I referred to dozens of previous mostly pre-Prohibition examples, which, if anything, were everyone putting up their best vintages.

[John_Morris]

You’re right about the line-up. I’d recalled that there were a bunch of '73 red Bordeauxs, but it was '70s and '71s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

I still think it was pretty easy to tell a California cab from a Bordeaux in those days. I would guess that the panel of mostly French wine people that Spurrier assembled had no knowledge of California wines and simply responded to them as great wines. Put another way, I’m not sure the tasting shows much about the ability to distinguish the two regions in a blind tasting.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Some vines in Australia are older than almost all vines in Europe.

True for sure. And there’s no doubt that the indiginous people there predate most European populations too(albeit without a wine producing culture).

IMO, in our current wine world, when we take “old world” and “new world” and force them into geographical or literal temporal ideas, they become less useful and less meaningful.

Australia has some of the oldest vines and arguably, the oldest soils in the world. If that makes them “old world” then these words are useless to me in the current wine world because most Aussie wines don’t showcase either of those things.

And, IMO, you can look at Clonakilla for Syrah that would be be more “old world” than a lot of Northern Rhone producers. So to apply the term soley on a literal sense seems redundant and unhelpful in untangling the web of possible wine styles.

[Daniel_McIntosh]

I buy a few New World wines but I don’t seek them out like I do Old World. There are just not many that I like. For instance, my friend served a Phelps Insignia the other night that I could not drink. An oaky mess. It did not taste like wine to me. I drank my very enjoyable $15 Vajra Rosso.

[Emily_Richer]

Weight and predominant source of character.

Old world: Meal companions.
Light to Medium weight, complexity from longer ripening cycle, less new oak barrel influence, tertiary flavors layered in with fruit (mineral, earth, etc.), acid balance and age-ability.

New world: Cocktails.
Heavy/full body (high alcohol from ripe fruit), lush warmer-climate fruit character dominates, complexity and secondary flavors come from aging in toasted oak, higher pH (from lost acids in vineyard, unless replaced by acid additions, can fall apart after opening), not as age-able.

Both styles are currently produced all over the world.

[GregT]

…
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…

Maybe not directly on point but this is so true.

[John_Morris]

…
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…

Maybe not directly on point but this is so true.

Or maybe because balanced wines are better than over-the-top ones?

[Otto_Forsberg]

Weight and predominant source of character.

Old world: Meal companions.
Light to Medium weight, complexity from longer ripening cycle, less new oak barrel influence, tertiary flavors layered in with fruit (mineral, earth, etc.), acid balance and age-ability.

New world: Cocktails.
Heavy/full body (high alcohol from ripe fruit), lush warmer-climate fruit character dominates, complexity and secondary flavors come from aging in toasted oak, higher pH (from lost acids in vineyard, unless replaced by acid additions, can fall apart after opening), not as age-able.

Both styles are currently produced all over the world.

100% agreed.

It seems that many people tend to forget the last line.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

Or maybe because balanced wines are better than over-the-top ones?

Matter of personal preference.

Who gets to define “balanced”? And “over-the-top”?

And “better” how? According to whom?