If a wine reviewer detects or suspects brett, I prefer it to be stated directly. I agree that a small touch of brett can give a rustic edge, but that is not how I usually interpret the term.
I do think it is the opposite of polished and may include a hint of seed bitterness, excessive steminess, coarse extraction, more range of ripeness than a polished wine, more tannin than necessary in a fruit forward wine, maybe even a hint of oxidation. Wines with rough edges can still be excellent with expressive character.
I take ‘rustic’ to mean ‘only somewhat flawed,’ and as has been mentioned above, probably showing some coarse tannins. I am not pleased if one of the wines I import is described that way.
Rustic is not a pegorative to me at all. Definitely not a flaw. I view it as a traditionally made, old world style wine that expresses less-slick wine-making. Barnyard, earthy, course tannins, unfiltered. When done well, conveys such a warm sense of place. Think some of the traditionalists in Cornas, think Baudry in Loire, Joguet with its occasional brett.
This seems consistent with the usage I have seen. Far more so than tainted, flawed, or bretty, this seems the way I’ve seen critics use it. When thinking of a wine myself it is not a term that occurs to me, and not one I’d apply (particularly after hearing how others perceive it).
Now mind you, if you do some searching here, you will find that I am a Joguet fanatic. Three of my favorite wines of recent note have been Joguet (2005 and 2009 Clos de la Dioterie and the 2005 Franc de Pied). Now that said, the 2005 Joguet Franc de Pied had a 50% brett bomb rate with me, and the 2005 Joguet Petite Roches had wonderful hints of brett. The 2009s seem a bit more polished, admittedly, but I am curious about the “when, why and how” in your post.
I think of it as John does, but “necessarily a bad thing”. It is not a compliment. As stated on this thread by many, no one would seek to grab that descriptor for wines they like or are responsible for selling or making.
It can be as a result of a flaw in the wine or winemaking…or due to a conscious regimen that eschews ways to make a wine more refined…by choice, ignorance or limited resources. I think there was a sea change in pinot noir in Burgundy between 1980 and 1990 in eliminating, to a large degree, rusticity in their wines. Mainly, I think, due to new generations’ input on what was important re: hygenic winemaking.
When I think of rustic, I often think of Produttori wines from Barbaresco, though I am glad to hear that things are likely to improve significantly. In that case, I think, the culprit was “limited financial resources”.
Maybe “primitive” is an apt descriptor for winemaking that results in “rustic” wines??
" no one would seek to grab that descriptor for wines they like or are responsible for selling or making."
Stuart, we often use a sign in our store to market such wines that starts with “Houston, Rusticity base here…the (insert winery name here) has landed”. Works very well in marketing wines like Bea, Pepe, Struzzieri, old school Spanish stuff and even Col Fondo Prosecco.
Stuart there is a large and very healthy market for wines like that. People actively ASK for wines that smell and taste like dirt, meat and other non fruit terms. A lot of them are women!
It DOES keep our customers who would not enjoy such wines from mistakenly buying them as does another sign we use a lot reading “Emphatically WINE, not fruit juice!”.
To me it means earthy, natural, wild. These descriptors probably aren’t any better than “rustic”, but when I think of rustic wines I picture drinking them with freshly killed wild boar, sitting by a stone fireplace on a cold winter night out in the country.
Stuart, for a real education (and if you still have access to eRP board), search for a thread on eBob with the word “fecal” in the title. Some guy came on basically channeling Edward fromthe recent Cantillon debacle asking how ANYONE could consider a bit of cow pie or other such aromas a positive thing and he was met with dozens of defenders of the funk, fresh manure division.
My post should be read as A is to B as X is to Y. Not A = X. Though I understand how you could misinterpret what I said. Certainly traditional wines are more likely to be rustic than modern wines.
Another note, I never understood tying rusticity just to tannins. Rustic = Chunky? Maybe sometimes, but a low-tannin wine can be rustic.
Regarding Stuart’s thesis… maybe I am weird, but I often look for wines that are the opposite of refined. Old-school authenticity, baby.
When I first started being into Burgundy (in the mid '80s) people were always looking for that “barnyard” aspect…that “great Burgundy” always shows. (One winemaker in Piemonte, in fact, raved about the specific animal-- chicken-- that dominated it.) By the mid-'90s…people realized it was a flaw…and certainly not desired. So, I can see people liking it…there are people for every taste. And, with the 2004 debacle in Burgundy, it is clear that some of the preferences are based on obliviousness/sensitivities that are likely genetic. That variation probably accounts for lots of variations on tastes.
though I am glad to hear that things are likely to improve significantly. In that case, I think, the culprit was “limited financial resources”.![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
Don’t have access any longer, though.