Why is the level of fervor is uneven: old world versus new world palates...

[Otto_Forsberg]

As for the invective, it is about the wines themselves, and should never be about the people who drink them. I have friends, poor devils, who like California moderns. I find that there are wines in common that we can drink together, usually from the Rhone.

My original point in the tasting note was much less to bash the people buying those wines and more to criticize how ridiculously expensive the wines are - one can buy a similarly overdone blueberry milkshake from Chile at $30-40 and I’d still find the wine overpriced for the quality, but I wouldn’t be astounded why people would be paying such sums for such a wine. However, if there are wines to be had at the fraction of the price, I just don’t understand why people are willing to pay hundreds of buck for the same stuff. One can’t criticize the overpricing of the cult wines and a good scrub always hurts some.

Maybe I am not discerning enough, but why can’t people enjoy old and new world? Some nights I want a lean, mean, green wine and other nights I want glorified grape juice.

I guess every hobby or interest has similar to dividing lines, but like GregT said above, I think the hatred of new world is a learned attribute. People cast off new world overripe wines because that’s what a “wine snob” is supposed to do. In fact I’ve actually met people who are into wine and really do like fruit bombs but force themselves to drink wines that they find less enjoyable because it’s the correct progression of their palate.

I can speak only for myself but I certainly don’t hate new world. There are tons of astounding new world wines that I love. There are also lots of very modern, ripe and fruity wines I’ve written positive TNs in CTs. I just value finesse, balance and sense of place in wines and I’m not afraid to write sharply in my TNs when a wine matches with my tastes and when it doesn’t. I’ve also written equally seething reviews on lean, mean wines that feel more like chewing through leaves and green willow bark than drinking wine.

(I also think a little exaggeration only helps if one wants to stand out from the crowd in CT and other similar platforms.)

[Otto_Forsberg]

Insignia is an excellent example for this discussion. It changed in the early 1990s from a great and interesting wine, to a modern Napa wine, which I disliked intensely. We haven’t changed, the wines did.

Sounds like I need to get to taste some +25-yo Insignia then.

I guess easier said than done.

[David_Glasser]

Most (not all) of the modern-bashing posters here don’t come across as snobby to me. For fans of classic, it’s frustrating to experience a producer changing style from one you like to one you don’t like. That might contribute to the tone of some posts. It’s probably most frustrating for the “pickiest eaters” among us with the narrowest palate preferences.

Most of classic-bashing around here doesn’t seem that snobby either. For the most part, the basher-in-chief seems to enjoy provoking the classicists, though some of his posts seem to have mellowed a little.

[Robert.A.Jr]

For fans of classic, it’s frustrating to experience a producer changing style from one you like to one you don’t like. That might contribute to the tone of some posts. It’s probably most frustrating for the “pickiest eaters” among us with the narrowest palate preferences.

This, too.

Experienced this last night, with yet another old fave that has gone to the dark side and is no longer palatable for me.

[Kirk.Grant]

Insignia is an excellent example for this discussion. It changed in the early 1990s from a great and interesting wine, to a modern Napa wine, which I disliked intensely. We haven’t changed, the wines did.

Sounds like I need to get to taste some +25-yo Insignia then.

I guess easier said than done.

Search out the '95 if you can. It’s been some years, but I remember being surprised with how restrained the wine was the last time I had it.

As to the OP’s belief that this is not a two-way street…I’d disagree. I think it’s unfortunate but it sure seems that we’re (America) shifting from a culture of tolerance and acceptance to a very polarized view on everything. As our culture seems to be moving toward a more binary view of good/bad verses seeing things on a spectrum or in a range it seems like it is harder and harder to find people that can tolerate opposing views.

I’ve found few wine-lovers that can accept or appreciate the full range of the spectrum. Even in regions there are divisions; just look at Barolo and how some traditionalists and modernists “would not acknowledge one another in the past”. Wine is about passion…to me it does make some sense that when people are this passionate about something that there would be strong thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. It’s just too bad that people can’t acknowledge the value of the full spectrum and leave it at, “That’s not my preference”.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Insignia is an excellent example for this discussion. It changed in the early 1990s from a great and interesting wine, to a modern Napa wine, which I disliked intensely. We haven’t changed, the wines did.

Sounds like I need to get to taste some +25-yo Insignia then.

I guess easier said than done.

I think you need to get hold of 1985 to really get a top Insignia. 1991 is beginning to spoofalate, but the rot really sets in with 1994. For me 1995 is better than 1994, but not one of the great Insignias. IMHO of course

[Claus_Jeppesen]

Marcassin.pdf

[Pat_Martin]

Most (not all) of the modern-bashing posters here don’t come across as snobby to me. For fans of classic, it’s frustrating to experience a producer changing style from one you like to one you don’t like. That might contribute to the tone of some posts. It’s probably most frustrating for the “pickiest eaters” among us with the narrowest palate preferences.

That’s my perception as well. Modern styled wines have been on the ascent across the globe for at least 20 years and many once beloved, old-school producers in the old world have changed styles. Rightly or wrongly, this creates the idea that the old world is under siege.

I thought Parker’s retirement would help reverse this trend, but I haven’t seen that (yet).

[David_Glasser]

Most (not all) of the modern-bashing posters here don’t come across as snobby to me. For fans of classic, it’s frustrating to experience a producer changing style from one you like to one you don’t like. That might contribute to the tone of some posts. It’s probably most frustrating for the “pickiest eaters” among us with the narrowest palate preferences.

That’s my perception as well. Modern styled wines have been on the ascent across the globe for at least 20 years and many once beloved, old-school producers in the old world have changed styles. Rightly or wrongly, this creates the idea that the old world is under siege.

I thought Parker’s retirement would help reverse this trend, but I haven’t seen that (yet).

I haven’t experienced it yet either, Pat, but occasionally we’ll see a comment here that some Bordeaux or Chateauneuf producer has dialed back the oak and ripeness in recent years. We should have a list, like Pat Burton’s Italian list of modern vs. classic.

[Michae1_P0wers]

I don’t think the premise is totally valid but it does seem that there are a lot of people on this board who simply started out liking wine, perhaps US wine, maybe not, and then they learned that there were wines they were supposed to like and others they were not supposed to like. So like many converts, they proselytize more than the people who simply grew up with it.

I know a number of people who, having been interested in wine for maybe two or three years and having had mostly US wines, heard that they were supposed to like Burgundy/Bordeaux/Barolo and just went nuts for it. Who knows, some may have actually grown to like those wines.

And then, having left behind something they liked, they need to disown their prior love entirely.

It strikes me as extremely cynical and condescending to assume people drink the wine they drink because they “learned they were supposed to.” Many people talk about their tastes changing over the years, and I’ve no reason to assume this isn’t based on well, their palates actually changing over the years. I don’t think it’s really all roads lead to Burgundy either, just changes in tastes over time, changes in winemaking within regions over time, and the desire to explore new things drive changes in drinking preferences. Who is telling these people that they have to love old world wines? What about all the experts saying that two dozen Napa cabs each vintage are literally perfect, or that cool climate California regions now do everything that the old world does only better? Maybe I’m being naive, but I assume people drink what they like rather than what they’re supposed to like.

[Neal.Mollen]

Because hate is a powerful thing, and one of the only things spewed forth in this day and age of the internet.

Yes! And people with different opinions, or preferences than our own must be idiots, or classless, or…

This is not true! Usually, people who have opinions or preferences different from mine are both idiots and classless.

[Scott_G_r_u_n_e_r]

new world palates are simply old world palates still in larval stage.

Clearly there is room for both, and I have seen fervency on both sides. If there is more fervency on the old-world side, I wonder if it stems from the contingent of the “old world” crowd that cut their teeth on the “new world” wines and becoming a bit more evangelical and born-again. Maybe I am blind to it, but I rarely see people turn the other direction?

Personally I would rather drink “green and watery” wine than than Charred Ooze that fatigues my palate after 2 sips.

[Jason_T]

https://drvino.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Marcassin.pdf

Is it just me or is that font unnecessarily hard to read? See, even their font is spoofilated!

[David_Glasser]

Scott, I’ve known a few older people who shifted Old World to New World. They’ve said they need more oomph in their wines as their sense of smell and taste become less sensitive with age. It’s usually the other way around for newcomers.

In my case the shift has been accompanied by an expansion of preferences. I’ve gained more on the Old World side than I’ve lost on the New World side.

[Brandon_R]

Very interesting point that several above have made that I hadn’t considered: old world wines, by and large, haven’t changed (stylistically speaking) and their wines are much like they’ve been for decades or longer. New world wineries, in many cases, have gone through a stylistic metamorphosis, arguably, to pander to high scores and the prices that they can command as a result. I can see someone who enjoy CA Cab of the 70s and 80s being very vocal about their distaste for the “newer” version. Someone who has long been drinking Bordeaux hasn’t likely seen the same shift and, hence, less vitriol. (I know, I know, we have the modernized Bordeaux Chateau argument…but let’s leave that to threads dedicated to that).

Tangentially, I also seem to see less polarization with regard to wines made with Rhone varieties. The above and my OP seem most applicable to Cab/Bordeaux-variety wines and certainly Pinot Noir. I wonder why?

[Gabe_Berk]

There is a reason Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors. People who bash one another Old World vs. New World are missing out on the huge diversity of flavors and textures from around the world they otherwise may come to find they actually like. If a fence has been made, it often is hard to break if an open mind is lost…

RS, heavy oak, fruit bombs to retrained, high acid, tertiary flavor; they’re all welcome to me!!!

[DougS]

In addition to some of the other comments, I think it can be frustrating seeing manufactured, reproducible wines, lacking sense of place or even distinctive characteristics, masquerading as great wines. It’s worth noting that this happens in Europe as well as elsewhere, and I see the European versions getting quite a bit of critique. I think it’s more about a style than it is the origin of the wine.

[Ron_Slye]

I’ve found few wine-lovers that can accept or appreciate the full range of the spectrum. Even in regions there are divisions; just look at Barolo and how some traditionalists and modernists “would not acknowledge one another in the past”. Wine is about passion…to me it does make some sense that when people are this passionate about something that there would be strong thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. It’s just too bad that people can’t acknowledge the value of the full spectrum and leave it at, “That’s not my preference”.

I agree with this. I try to teach my students tolerance and to expose themselves, and to understand, different ideas. I look at about ten different news sites a day – from Wall Street Journal and Financial Times to Al Jazeera and the Guardian. (I did try Breitbart after recent events, but found it completely useless – and it tried to place literally hundreds of trackers on my computer).

[David_Bu3ker]

I like Insignia. I have always liked Insignia. That goes for the older wines (the ones from the 1970s were wonderful), and the newer wines. They are truly different, but I can understand the appeal of either style.

What I can’t understand is how a 12,000 case production Cab blend goes for $250 a bottle. I know, supply and demand, but it’s not really demand. Price is used to create demand, by bringing an air of luxury. $50 Insignia doesn’t make the same “statement” as $250 Insignia.

p.s. Bevan Ontogeny for $95 gives you essentially the same end result as Insignia

[David_K2]

Because new world drinkers are not the brightest bunch, and have literacy issues. It is difficult to criticize old world wines when you’re limited to grunting and mashing the keyboard. Also, they can’t read the labels.