since we just had about 1 glass each and since, to me, the wine was unmistakably "light, crisp, and fresh", i was pretty sure the concept was clear as fresh water.

and so, i went on and on about how some wines like sauvignon blanc, pinot grigio, gruner vetliner, vinho verde, muscadet, and others were "light, crisp, and fresh".

about 10 minutes into my presentation, because i have a rule that all questions are acceptable no matter if i can answer them or not, someone asked me what i meant by "crisp".

this stopped me right there in my tracks.  for a few seconds i was completely speechless, and, as a talking machine myself, you can ask maria how often that happens!  and so, i asked if anyone in the group could tell us what they thought it meant.

and this is when i had a sort of epiphany: everyone had an "idea" but no one actually knew what i was talking about!

a wine that is crisp??? from their point of view, i was actually talking complete nonsense. 

from my point of view, after reading books after books on wine and after poring over tasting notes after tasting notes in magazines and wine guides, i once again realised that the language of "wine experts" have very little in common with wine lovers who are starting to learn about it.

and this is exactly the bridge i want to gap.  not only do i want to transmit some of the passion i have for wine, but i want to be the translator of all of this wine-geek language and make winespeak easy to grasp and easy to understand for all wine lovers, no matter their point of departure.

in fact, i want to invent a whole new way of sharing about wine and i am thinking about this every day.  i am sure i am not the 1st one to think about this but one thing is sure, i am surely obsessed with this.

"crisp" by the way is generally the way a wine is described when it is high in acidity and it feels very much like crunching on a nice fresh green apple.

and that is my take on wine quality: where does it come from and was it made with the best possible raw materials?  this is the question we should ask ourselves when we taste wine to evaluate quality. 

to follow up on my posts about wine tasting, i would like to bring up the subject of grape ripeness here below.

optimum ripeness is the perfect balance between the sugars, the acids, and the phenolics - all naturally presents in all fruits.  as the grape ripens in the vineyard, the sugars and acids evolves in an inversely proportional relationship, meaning that, as the sugars increase, the acids will decrease.  as for the phenolics, the chemical compounds found in the skin, the pulp, the pips etc which gives us the aromas, flavours, and tannins, they will increase, albeit at a different rate, together with the sugars. and so, all this to say, the decision when to pick the grape is super important because this balance (or imbalance) will be reflected in the quality of the final wine. 

sugars are critical to produce alcohol.  too few sugars, the wine will be light and low in alcohol and, as we have seen, it will also mean that the acidity will be high and therefore the wine will be tart and out of balance.  conversely, too high sugars will make the wine very full and alcoholic and therefore the acidity will be low and again the wine will be hot and out of balance.

acids are important as the sugars.  they contribute to freshness and, as they are preservatives, play an important role in the preservation and ageing of the wine.  acidity is always an important element of the wine balance.

as for phenolics, too few and the wine will be insipid, characterless, and if it is red, it will not have good enough tannins to provide that all important structure needed for the red to age beautifully.

now, the challenge is this.  some grapes, by nature, ripens faster than others.  and so the weather, the site and the vine-growing techniques become super important when it comes to ripeness.  grow the wrong grape on the wrong site and the wine will show accordingly.  be unlucky enough to have a cold, cloudy, and rainy summer and again your grapes will not ripen properly and the wine will show accordingly.  this is why in fact that some regions will be very successful only with a particular type of grape.  it is also why some wines made from fashionable grapes can be absolutely terrible from some site because the grower only cared about fashion but no so much about whether his site was suitable for the grape (the reason why so many chardonnays and cabernet sauvignon in this world are absolutely appalling).

and so, ripeness is key and the optimum conditions for optimum ripeness are:

- long & slow ripening season from a warm (not hot) summer, and a long, dry, warm autumn;

- low yields from the control of vines & bunch growth in the vineyards so that all the energy is concentrated on the grapes and not on the leaves and the plant growth;

- large temperature difference between day and night so that the grape aromas and flavours (the phenolics) develop firmly in the grape while its natural acidity builds up and is preserved;

- free draining soils so that the the root system grows deep into the ground and the vines does not have too much water so that its vigour and yields are naturally controlled.

optimum ripeness from optimum conditions will give us maximum concentration and complexity, the highest possible natural acidity, the ripest & softest tannins, and the perfect balance of its components - alcohol/acidity/tannins/fruit.  all critical elements of quality in white and red wines.

and so, the next time i will evaluate a wine, i will ask myself the all important question: does the wine in my glass come from ripe grapes? 

a simple question but one that we all too often forget...

here is a synopsis of this post in pdf format.

of course, he knew that wines from south america, australia, usa, new zealand, and even south africa are generally described as being from the new world while those from spain, france, italy, and the rest of europe are said to be from the old world.  but, other than the "obvious" reasons, why are they called in this way and what makes them difference from each other.

as we are using 2 contrasting concepts, "old" vs "new", to label those wines, perhaps we can also use contrasting concepts to describe the differences.  to me, the 2 most important differences are certainly "terroir" vs "variety" and next are the concepts of "tradition" vs "technology".

"terroir" is the quintessential french term that very much represents the philosophy of french wine making and to a large extent, the philosophy of wine making in the old world as a whole.  unfortunately, there is no direct translation and "terroir" can only be explained loosely as "a sense of place".  terroir is how the french explain the particularity of their vineyard, its climate, its exposure to the sun, its soil, its quirks, and its bugs.  it also includes the action of man, not only in the vineyard but also in the cellars.  in the old world, wine makers strive to make wines that represents in the best possible way where it comes from.  the french and the italians want you to taste the "terroir" in each and every glass.  they wants you to form a picture of it's origin and it's traditions.  this is why, the wines of the old world will be complex to describe, there will be fruits, yes, but minerals will also play an important part.  the wine making will also be in evidence but it will be integrated into the wine so that the final style will be much more like a rich fabric woven with care and love so that the end result is, hopefully, complicated and worthy of talking about it in all directions.

in the new world, most wines are labelled as per the variety and so, the wine maker will strive to produce a wine that faithfully represents the varietal fruit.  they will strive for purity of fruit and all that they will do, whether it be in the vineyard or in the cellar, will be to reach that purity.  the resulting style of wine will be much more fruit driven and the australians and the new zealanders will want you to taste that fruit and recognise it for what it is.  their wine making techniques will be used to emphasise the variety, whether to make it smoother or to enhance it with "condiments" so that you can enjoy it even more.  the wines will usually be more straightforward and soft, but will still be worthy of talking about at length.

terroir and varietals drive the second sets of contrasting concepts that explain the differences between the old and the new worlds: "tradition" vs "technology". 

indeed, the old world will be tradition focused mainly because they have a very very long history of wine making, often going back to roman times and also because most of the wine making regions of the old world are located in marginal climates where growing grapes can be a serious challenge in most vintages.  and so, in order to codify quality standards, old world regions have created a series of regional appellations which generally controls how the grapes will be grown, how the wines will be made and aged and when they will be released for consumption.  these rules of appellations will have been established after years and years of experimentation and after much trials and error so that the wines, in theory at least, from one region will consistently taste the same year after year and the appellation stated on the label will be a statement of guarantee that a certain level of quality has been achieved so that consumers will hopefully know what to expect bottle after bottle.

because climate can be a challenge for old world wine makers, their wines will often be characterised by the blends of grapes they are allowed to grow in their region.  most of the time, this blend is a kind of insurance policy against the climate so that in years that a certain variety does not ripen fully, the proportion of another will be adjusted accordingly into the blend so that the resulting wine continues to represent terroir and where the wine comes from. 

this is mainly why old world wine emphasise the region of origin on their labels and mainly why the percentage of varietals in the bottle varies from one year to the next.

in the new world, variety will drive technology.  in order to reach that purity of fruit, wine makers of the new world will be much more reliant on the latest wine making techniques both on the vineyard and in the cellar.  as a general rule, you will see these amazingly tidy rows or vines super carefully trimmed in order to maximise sun exposure and bunch aeration.  their cellars will have state-of-the-art equipment with the latest stainless-steel and temperature control technology so that they can reach levels of hygiene and purity very often unknown in old world wineries.  the new world wine makers will also blend their wines but for them the blends will have the goal of fruit purity and typicity rather than blending from place and tradition.

even though we can explain the old and the new worlds with fairly straight-forward contrasting concepts as above, the differences are less and less obvious.  in fact, there is indeed a convergence of philosophy whereas the new world now understands better the concept of terroir and embraces its particularity with a certain fervour that is so typical of the way they have embraced technology and modern wine making methods.  in the old world, as they are realising that modern wine drinkers are looking more and more for fresh, soft ready to drink wines, they also value certain aspects of the new world philosophies and are themselves adopting many of the technology and wine making techniques that gives us better and better quality wines that are pure and ready to drink off the shelves instead of years and years of softening later.

as we move forward, it is my opinion that the differences of old vs new worlds will be less and less evident and that the concept of "terroir" or the sense of place will be the single most important factor that will characterise the wine we drink.

in fact, most will know beaujolais as a simple quaffing wine.  super fruity with some aromas reminiscent of very fresh red fruits, banana, "fruit-drops", and even bubble-gum.  hardly aromas associated with the more serious wines of northern burgundy.

this simple fruit character comes from the grape but also the method of production that is traditional in beaujolais.  the wine are based on gamay, a light and simple red grape variety that is often fermented using a technique called "carbonic maceration" to give it a deeper colour and more intense aromas & fruit flavours. 

carbonic maceration is the source of those funky tastes like fruit drops and bubble gum, so typical of beaujolais nouveau.  for this to work, grapes are picked by hand and whole bunches are carefully placed inside a tank which is then sealed and carbon dioxide pumped in.  this cause the fermentation to start inside the individual berries thus getting the colour and the aromas from the skin but not getting the bitterness of the tannins and the pips.  depending on how long the wine maker will let that sort of maceration last will affect the character of the final wine.  eventually, the skins will break off and the juice will start to ferment in the normal way.

however, there are 10 crus areas in beaujolais that are also producing more serious wines with quite a bit of character of their own.  sometimes, wine makers in these crus, or particular villages, will use more traditional techniques and some may not use carbonic maceration at all and expose the wines to oak if its structure (acidity and tannins) and its fruit are intense enough for this.  their wines can be complex and satisfying, even if they can not age for a very long time, and can represent excellent value on the market.

and so last friday, i went to another great tasting hosted by the hong kong wine society and nigel bruce and we had 8 wines from "moulin à vent", which makes concentrated wines which can age up to 10 years and develop "burgundian" character.  we also had 1 from "fleurie", a wine often described as "floral" incidentally, and 1 from juliénas, which develops spicy characteristics and can age 5 years or so.

two of the wines were my favourite and it so happens were judged #1 and #3 by the society that night - as usual, you can click on the link to get my full notes in pdf based on the wset diploma format:

château des jacques grand clos de rochegres 2002 from louis jadot - moulin à vent

very good premium wine.  silky, smooth, complex, and concentrated.  excellent balance of its components.  long  & savoury after-taste shows the wine was made with excellent fruit quality.  excellent typicity of its style and still has a good structure to age some more.

château des jacques clos de grand carquelin 2002 from louis jadot - moulin à vent

very good premium wine.  intense and a good length of the after-taste.  although the alcohol slightly higher than acidity and tannins, it is well supported by excellent complexity of its aroma and palate.  a wine that has aged beautifully and still very well “together” and definitely pleasant to drink now.

the other wines we had that night were:

2002 Chateau Des Jacques Clos De La Roche, Moulin A Vent, Louis Jadot

2002 Chateau Des Jacques Clos De Champ De Cour, Moulin A Vent, Louis Jadot

2002 Chateau Des Jacques, Morgon, Louis Jadot

2004 Chateau Des Jacques, Moulin A Vent, Louis Jadot

2005 Chateau Des Jacques, Moulin A Vent, Louis Jadot

2005 Moulin-à-Vent, Olivier Merlin

2006 Fleurie, Domaine André Colonge

2006 Julienas Chateau Des Capitans, G. Duboeuf

2006 Mâcon-Cruzille, Clos des Vignes du Mayne, Bret Brothers (excellent - complex and deep)

2005 Moulin-à-Vent, Olivier Merlin

2006 Fleurie, Domaine André Colonge

the event was organised by asc in cooperation with ginestet, a bordeaux wine merchant, and the "club des 5", an informal group of 5 bordeaux châteaux.

started in 1993, the club joins like-minded owners who each have their own and very strong personality as you would expect them to have.  based on different bordeaux terroirs, they exchange ideas, and tour the world together to promote their wines.  certainly they were charming, entertaining, and i definitely could feel solidarity among each other.

they are:

château smith-haut-lafitte - daniel cathiard
château gazin - christopher de bailliencourt
château pontet-canet - alfred tesseron
château canon-la-gaffelière - comte stephan von neipperg
château branaire-ducru - patrick maroteaux

of course, the wines were great and the company definitely excellent.

one for me was particular:

château gazin pomerol 2002:

succulent red fruits with layers of toast, oak, and spices.  soft and velvety tannins.  concentrated, deep, and very long on the after-taste.  elegant and delightful.  excellent match to our dish of goose breasts and foie-gras. 

my taste buds water as i write this down...