In my enology course i have a project about the AOC system and if producers are being pulled far from it: because of strict laws and stuff while other hold on to it because it’s a marketing weapon.
what are your thoughts?
1 Like
I am of the opinion it is very helpful for the consumer, if wines go from that to all VdF it would require researching each individual wine, the AOC at least gives some helpful guardrails. I don’t want perfect to be the enemy of good or fine in this case.
7 Likes
The AOC/AOP concept is great. Its application leaves to be desired. Also note that it doesn’t only apply to wine.
6 Likes
For the well known appellations, I see the AOC/AOP as a very useful ‘brand’ for the producers. People do buy things they recognise. It shows in restaurant wine lists, with Chablis, CdR, C9dP omnipresent.
That also creates a problem, that there is pressure to deliver such wines to a ‘price point’. That can destroy credibility, as happened with Chianti and Soave, credibility that took a long time to restore.
Ideally IMO it’s not just about quality, quality, quality. A healthy appellation will have decent but far from stellar quality at the entry point. Solid, typical wines that people can trust to deliver what is expected, and that are cheap enough to gain wider (than just us geeks) market traction. It will also have layers of quality above that, with a little more freedom for manoeuvre, on the basis that if someone is spending €40+ on a bottle in a shop, they’re more likely to be buying based on the producer, than the appellation alone.
I think you make a great point here, the AOC could also be viewed as a quality floor, i.e. limiting yields. There are always exceptions to the rules, but this certainly feels like part of the intent of the AOC.
2 Likes
There are many good qualities to the AOC system, but there is also a limitation of innovation, which can become a liability especially in the face of climate change.
That said, I think “producers being pulled far from it” is a bit of stretch. There have been some notable cases where a producer decided to forgo the AOC, but they are not rampant.
1 Like
FWIW I was always a fan of IGT in Italy, a country that oddly entertains both rigidity of rules, and a strong desire to treat any rules as ‘advisory’ and thus enjoy more freedom. IGT gave a super platform for those mavericks, and in the case of Chianti, in time forced positive change back in to the DOCG.
Protecting the appellation brand, by ensuring consistency of customer experience, is good, but whether within a more flexible AOC, or via an active adjacent IGP, the ability to challenge the status quo, and mediocrity, is something a few appellations have needed over time. Sometimes local politics and influence of large/powerful negociants / co-ops can be a rigid drag on quality.
4 Likes
expanding the IGP to other regions in France would seem like a logical movie, but I am sure those area like Burgundy would not be fans of lower cost wines that tout being of the same quality and those appellated Bourgogne for example/
Another route would be following Piemonte’s DOC route (no IGTs in Piemonte). It’s on paper exactly where Bourgogne is already, but they might see some elements of Piemonte’s approach they could adopt.
Oddly, generic Bourgogne’s issue in my eyes, is the very reputation of Burgundy as a region where the differences e.g. between Beaujolais/Macon and Chablis (for the same grape) are so distinct, they are its USP. Yet Bourgogne AOP hides that information without knowledge of where that producer is based. In many cases it’s the producer’s own brand that absolutely eclipses the brand of the generic AOP.
Perhaps a few details on how an AOC-like structure would “help” a wine region where producers have liberty to try whatever strikes their fancy might be in order.
Producers trying “whatever strikes their fancy” may sound like a good idea but I would question that. It may benefit the producer, and IF they are a visionary and talented producer then the flights of fancy could eventually be an asset to the region.
But in the short term it would create a lot of discordant noise and internal competition, as just about every “maverick” thinks they are a visionary but few actually are. David Lett was the only one I can think of in the Willamette Valley. Selosse has done much in Champagne, but quietly and a lot of that was done with the wines themselves and within the many existing rules.
In Oregon, we have the option to plant just about anything and a lot of things have been tried in 60 years. Quite a few non-Pinot Noir, Gris, and Chardonnay varieties have produced some really good wines. Syrah, Cabernet Franc, Blaufrankisch , Gamay, Mencia, Lagrein, and Troussot all come to mind for reds. For whites, sometimes it seems that it would be easier to name what doesn’t work here but I have had really good wines from Melon de Bourgogne, Auxerrois, Viognier(not every year), Riesling, Pinot Blanc, Rieslaner, Muscat, Sylvaner and more. None have really done much because, simply put, a single drop of rain never gets much attention.
It’s not really different in Germany where they are very focused on what to plant in the face of climate change. Thanks to @Robert_Dentice there is some awareness on this board of new projects and ideas, but we’re still a relatively small population. Even then, Riesling is still the king for German wines in my marketplace.
The AOC system provides an invaluable framework for journalists and writers, it allows them to delve into one of the most complicated regions in the world (Burgundy) and work in digestible bites (commune by commune) and to assert themselves with the confidence of having a completely delineated geographical region to write about. While we have not been able to differentiate Cru status on vineyards here in the Willamette Valley, in my mind it would be valuable to everyone involved, from grower to consumer, if we did. It’s expensive to blindly try Pinot Noirs from anywhere, but in Burgundy the Cru status give a new consumer a basic understanding of what they can expect. This allows for generational changes in winemaking and also allows for someone to buy a premium piece of vineyard in France and have an expectation that the value of that would be maintained on the status of the land vs transitional values like branding or winemaking. As much as we as consumers want our purchases to be what drives the bus in the wine business, when it comes to selling land we’re (mostly) not the consumer at that point. At that point reliably consistent returns are what the buyer wants. In agriculture that’s like snow in the Sahara, but in Burgundy buyers walk past the reputation of the region for inconsistent weather and yields to put down serious money for the heralded communes.
Make no mistake that it serves the purpose of creating a thoroughly reliable framework for broadcasting quality that absolutely overides the independent thoughts of individuals regarding pricing and value of the land and business. What other country in the world could have an issue of the significance of pre-mox and walk right through it with continuing price increases? Yes, they’re working to fix it, but we only believe that and ignore the bad bottles because we have been trained to understand that the land absolutely produces Grand Cru quality wines. I truly do not think anywhere else could have this issue and not have significantly higher damage in the wider marketplace for it.
And I 100% believe that the government restrictions on production practices and AOC restrictions on irrigation, variety allowed, etc. is largely to avoid having some cowboy come in with an ego trip and screw up a high functioning agricultural industry.
Being creative in the face of climate change will happen when either vines can’t survive in their climats or consumers stop paying a premium for the wines. Neither seems to be happening at the moment though. So the Languedoc will continue to be a land of experimentation and Champagne and Burgundy will keep on evolving farming and genetic material. But until 14.0%+ wines don’t get rave reviews and annual price increases I don’t see this being a serious question.
Just to beat a dead horse…there have been a number of producers in the Willamette Valley who have been working with “elite” farming practices. While most have managed to net some incremental price premiums
none have been overly successful-to my knowledge Oregon lacks any truly successful $200/bottle wines. Charles Lachaux has done a nice job of upgrading the farming, focusing on quality, and broadcasting that on social media but the crazy reaction to those wines is largely because he shares a vineyard with DRC and the accepted value of Pinot Noir from Grand Cru vineyards (especially RSV) is higher than anywhere else in the world. Social media is a cacophony of information, influencers, etc. and Romanee St. Vivant is the note that allowed Lachaux to be heard loud and clear above the noise.
6 Likes
Good points both of you, but I would submit that the modern U.S. wine production “industry” is too young for such detailed rules. While the money seems to point to certain grapes being well placed in certain areas, we don’t really know yet…at least not in a Burgundian sense.
Mourvedre all over Napa? I suspect that might work well, though I don’t have the disposable income to test my theory. If only…
I don’t think you would need such stringent guidelines in the New World yet. Codification of sites through a Cru system would help the regions but to do so would need quite a few years/decades to do so. That’s made harder by a more quickly evolving climate and by the shorter period of experience working with sites in the New World. But I would advocate for the Microsoft style of implementation, get it in place and work the bugs out as you go along.
1 Like
As long as it’s not Windows 10!
I think the system benefits 99% of producers and consumers, as it imposes a clear structure on otherwise intransparent markets. The remaining 1% (maverick winemakers, WineBerserkers) can fare well without it.