After reading a number of comments in the “what’s your unpopular wine truth” and the “what’s the best tasting format” threads, I was curious if folks can identify wines that they believe are best enjoyed without food. I have certainly enjoyed many wines without eating food with them, but I have never considered those wines to be “diminished” by drinking them with a meal (not counting bad pairings). Are there winemakers who set out to create a wine that is not complimented by food?
Although I struggle to believe that there are wines out there that won’t be complemented or enhanced by food, I do think there are occasions where food does not provide incremental enjoyment.
Some examples that come to mind:
- Bubbles as an aperitif: canapés don’t really add much to the experience of enjoying a great champagne
- Crisp, chilled white while cooking: if cooking or grilling, I just want a tasty glass by my side
- “Bucket list” wines for the first time: maybe folks will disagree, but the first time tasting DRC food will be the last thing on my mind
2 Likes
Great wines don’t need food. I don’t think that is region, producer or grape specific. I’ve heard some refer to wines not needing food as “cocktail” wines.
2 Likes
PX Sherry?
(I hate the stuff anyway so maybe I’m disqualified! I do like sweet wines but not this. I’ve had it with a couple of desserts and it was just over the top. I could only conceive of drinking it alone).
Added: just realised the OP asks about wines made to be …. I have no idea of the intention of the makers of PX sherry, it’s just my opinion.
The only ones that come to mind are sweet wines like Sauternes/Barsac, Tokaj, Cote du Layon, very sweet Riesling, etc. . There are food pairings that can work great, such as foie gras or blue cheese, but alone they can be pretty fantastic.
I think there are different concepts mixing together here.
“This wine needs food”
Some high-acid red wines are such that some find them not to be enjoyable without food. I don’t really have this issue and my wife, as an example, tends not only to love some of those very same wines, but to prefer them without food. That said, the quoted statement can be a criticism or not depending on your perspective. Wine is generally made to be served with a meal (some prefer it otherwise, of course, but traditionally), and that is my preferred way of drinking it, so I don’t see it as a criticism any more than “this wine is undrinkable unless you open the bottle first.”
“This wine is better with food”
I think it is crucial not to conflate this statement with the first one. To me, this statement is true of virtually any wine I want to drink, certainly any still dry wine I want to drink. It doesn’t mean the wine isn’t enjoyable without food, it just means that the magic is happening, where the wine makes the food better and the food makes the wine better, if if both are perfectly fine alone. Again, not applicable for those who don’t like to drink their wine at the table, but for me, this is the raison d’être.
“A great wine doesn’t need food”
If you mean “need” literally, as in the wine isn’t enjoyable by itself, I generally agree, but even then I have reservations. If I stumble across a wine that just isn’t that good by itself, but produces fireworks with food, I reserve the right to call that a great wine. I might even rework the quoted statement to say “A great wine is great with food, and if it is also great without food, that is a bonus.” But I agree it’s hard to think of an example of such a wine, but then again I’m not looking very hard as I try to have food with it any time I’m having a great wine.
“Cocktail wine”
As I recall this phrase, which was more used when I was first getting into wine than now (at least in my experience), this refers not only to wines that don’t “need” (there’s that word again) food but to wines that don’t need food due to being low in acid and big or rich in fruit and/or oak flavors. And generally not just that, but those made in that style and at a certain price point to work well at things like hotel-hosted banquets. I don’t generally enjoy reds that would qualify. I can tolerate whites that would qualify but usually prefer beer or an actual cocktail, depending on the options. A good rosé is quite enjoyable by itself, without having to be made in the style of a “cocktail wine,” so I will reach for one of those if one is available in such situations, but that doesn’t mean the wine wouldn’t be even better with a nibble.
“Wines made to be best enjoyed without food.”
I would put a true “cocktail” wine into this category, as one can infer some intent for them to be big and bold on their own. As mentioned above in my post and in prior posts, many sparkling, sweet, or fortified wines also do better without food than standard table wines do. But does that mean they, like “cocktail wines,” are “made to be best enjoyed without food”? I don’t know about that. Champagne pairs marvelously with all sorts of food. Dessert wines can pair well with many food as well. So while these don’t suffer as much from the absence of food, I would not say that they are “made to be best enjoyed without food.”
2 Likes
Most of my wine travels have been in Italy and I’ve found that across the country (despite other large cultural divides), many producers have talked about individual wines as either being food friendly or as “vini da meditazione” (well aged bottles in particular). The divide totally makes sense in practice to me, my greatest loves are Barolo and Etna and with both regions the wines are so much better with food in their youth, but the nuance of old bottles are easily overpowered by other strong flavors.
3 Likes
I don’t think Chardonnay pairs all that well with food. At least those sublime OMG moments.
So white Burgundy falls into that category. It’s certainly nice with Dover sole or whatever, but it’s rarely a 1+1=3 phenomenon for me …
Connecticut style lobster roll and Chardonnay is magic.
1 Like
As is fresh Dungeness crab paired with quality semi oaky Cali chard — like one from your fave Ramey 
1 Like
Lower acid and/or heavy oak wines do food no real favors
2 Likes
Very young red burgundy I dont appreciate too much with food.
Agree with this, and would add the caveat ‘as long as the tasters are familiar with the wines already.’ A higher acidity white or a red with a lot of tannin and structure is hard to get past a sip if you don’t know a lot and don’t have anything to soften the edges. I often get asked for Champagne choices since our store is almost exclusively grower Champers, and if they are just toasting or sipping I’d never push them towards an Extra Brut unless it’s a more experienced crowd. For most average crowds even a classic Brut can lean towards the austere
Not sure they would say it out loud, but I think too many do. A ton of California wines I think are made this way these days, and I think Parkerization has caused many Bordeaux to be that way today too.
There also seems to be a concept among most wine enthusiasts, that the balance should exist within the wine alone, rather within the meal.
100% agree. The only thing I will add with the older wines is that pairing needs to be more particular for it to land well. Young Barolo you have a good margin of error for pairing, but that’s not true with a 50 year old Barolo, and you definitely want more subtle food flavors.
4 Likes
Well said
2 Likes
I haven’t quite said that I agree with it.
For meditation wines I think that makes sense, but wine in general was meant for a meal with friends and family.
Many wines were meant to be paired with local foods. Those particular grape varieties thrived in whatever region not only because evolution permitted it, but because humans replanted them since they paired well with their local foods. Its part of culture.
1 Like
That strikes me as not defining a “great wine”, but a “great wine pairing”
What makes a wine a “meditation wine”, which I gather is one which many/most/some wine drinkers would consider to be a wine best experienced on its own?
Joseph, you mentioned some of the more modern-styled Cabs/Bordeaux as examples of wines that may be better experienced on their own (at least when young) - would you consider these to be meditation wines or just wines that may overpower/clash with most food?
I am fascinated by the thought process of winemakers in considering how they might want their offerings to be experienced over time, recognizing that they are subject to the demands of commerce.
Many people throughout history, in many regions, viewed wine as an ingredient in the meal.
My feeling is that the concept of “mediation wines” is so prevalent in Italy is because the wine culture was always food centric, but winemakers wanted to make wines with more global marketability, not wines that were maybe decent on their own, but earth shattering with a particular meal that some potential distant customer was unlikely to ever eat. Locally those wines would struggle, because they didn’t pair with the meals, so they needed to offer another perspective to the local consumers. “vini da meditazione”
That is my thinking at least as to why that term is so prevalent in Italy and not Napa.
As for which wines I personaly think are “meditations wines”, I wouldn’t consider many of the more modern styled wines aimed at drinking young. It would rarely be a young dry wine in general.
Most age worthy wines I would say are meditation wines once they are showing tertiary. Sometimes they may be paired well, but they would require very particular foods, that are often more subtle.
1 example. In 2023 for my 40th bday, I opened 1983 Montrose. I was having a Morgan Ranch Steak that night. I put the Montrose aside and poured a glass of a 3 day old 2018 Salvatore Molettieri Cinque Querce Irpinia (Aglianico) to pair with the steak.
The Montrose was very good, but the young Aglianico was much more enjoyable with that steak. I would have needed a very particular pairing for that Montrose.
Amarone is frequently mentioned as a meditation wine.