Tasting wine in company is always very interesting. Of course, I am talking
about friendly and informal contexts, with the sincere spirit of sharing a
bottle with others. It often happens, in occasion of a meal, during which many
bottles are uncorked – after all, each course wants its own wine – that the
beverage of Bacchus inevitably becomes the subject of debates and comparison.
Not only in regards the pairing with the specific course, but also – and above
all – in the enjoyment itself, inevitably conditioned by the taste, culture
and relationship with the wine each one of us has. This last factor, in
particular, directs the discussion towards specific subjects and, above all, on
the acceptability of certain characteristics of the wine, both in the case of
faults, more or less evident or hidden, and on positive qualities. Depending on
the ones with whom you are sharing a bottle – something which is always done
with pleasure, regardless – the discussion, inevitably and obviously, mainly
focuses on certain topics or aspects of wine.
Of course, the opinion and thought of anyone is equally important and
regardless of the role or relationship one has with wine: the vision and
expectations a winemaker has, for example, are very different, and often
distant, from those of a wine lover. They are of course understandable and
legitimate positions: if we consider the respective opinions, for what they
are, they prove coherence with the role. There is one thing, however, that
makes me think every time we start comparing and exchanging views around a
bottle of wine. Tolerance to faults and the ability to detect them always and
strongly depends on the role and relationship that each of us has with wine. It
could be said that it is a matter of experience, or of
professional orientation, indeed it is not just that. After all – and
this is an undeniable fact – the more wines you taste, the greater the
relative knowledge on the practice of sensorial evaluation, which
inevitably contributes to the development of a certain culture to the
concept of an objectively shared quality.
The thing that often surprises me is the relationship each one of us has with
faults, regardless of the role and passion. Personally speaking, I
reluctantly tolerate the presence of faults in wine, or – at least – those I
consider as such, in particular when they depend on viticultural and wine
making negligence. In my specific case, it is about those faults that are
defined as such in the totality of wine making treatises, for example
oxidation, vinegary hints, contamination and certain enzymatic or bacterial
spoilage. Not least, also the side effects of the activity of certain
yeasts, universally considered negative for the fermentation. De
gustibus non est disputandum, used to say the sages of the past, who
– centuries ago – recognized the indisputability of personal taste. As long
as they remain in the personal sphere and are not imposed on others. Even
worse, when supported by the arrogance and blind stupidity of those who are
convinced of knowing the revealed truth which, coincidentally, is always
and only theirs, indeed showing an opinionated ignorance.
It is however interesting to see how certain faults, at least those I consider
such, actually turn out to be extraordinary qualities for others. I am not
talking about the inability to perceive and the skill to recognize faults in a
wine, or at least those which, according to consolidated wine making criteria,
are considered as such, rather the sincere belief that the perceived fault is,
indeed, a magnificent quality. Even worse, in my opinion, when a fault is, not
only tolerated, but even considered the indisputable proof of genuineness, not
least, of honest and authentic wine making practice. Furthermore, the lack of
faults, that is, a clean wine from a sensorial point of view, is
often a reason for doubt, suspecting, not least, who knows what abominable
artificial wine making practice and certainly made with the most sinister
sophistication. In short, for many the fact a wine has no fault is a fault. A
paradox which I encounter quite often and which, unfortunately, seems to be
pretty frequent among wine lovers.
Sometimes I wonder if this is the consequence of the evolution of taste or,
better said, what the majority today look for in a wine. In case it is like
that, in all honesty, I would say it is rather a regression of taste, as if it
were a return to the past of about 30 years ago when, in fact, finding
wines with certain faults was quite frequent. And when it happened to find such
wines in the glass, the reaction of disapproval, not to say disgust, was
almost unanimous. Today, however, it seems to me there is a greater tolerance
towards certain faults, almost embarrassing ones, which are even considered
qualities. Those who are capable of appreciating these faulty qualities
always emphasize the genuineness of the wine, even worse, the indisputable sign
of identifying qualities of grapes and of terroir. I believe, in my
opinion, it mainly is the inability to recognize faults, not least, the
increasingly frequent habit to ignore and not to train our senses in a
conscious way, relying on superficiality which, undeniably, is less tiring and
gives, with a little, the illusion of being erudite.
In a society in which appearance becomes the foundation for the affirmation of
oneself, claiming at all costs the role of being an expert, or presumed
one, superficiality undoubtedly guarantees the glory of ignorance. I guess for
some this can be considered as presumptuous or exaggerated, however, every time
I hear someone turn a fault into a value, the famous words of Émile Peynaud,
the famous French wine maker, undisputed father of modern oenology, always come
to my mind. «It is you who in a certain sense make quality. If there are
bad wines, it is because there are bad drinkers. The taste conforms to the
roughness of the intellect: everyone drinks the wine they deserve». A
statement, I'm sure, which may be considered extreme or even
discriminatory for some, but which – personally speaking – I have
always appreciated and agreed.
To argue that a wine without faults is faulty, supporting the idea it is
the result of sophisticated wine making practices, alluding to
unspecified or indefinable chemical adulteration, is something that
makes me smile. Especially for the banal consideration that, regardless of how
it is made, wine is undeniably the result of chemical processes, for better or
for worse. Even the very banal process of transforming wine into vinegar
– an absolutely genuine phenomenon – is the result of chemistry. Perhaps, in
all this time, I have not been able to adapt myself to the retrograde change in
the taste of wine and I continue to reluctantly tolerate faults and consider
them for what they are: faults. After all, I continue to be satisfied with
little and with the joy of having in the glass – when it happens – wines
having the fault of having no faults. And I smile, pleased and happy, thinking
of Émile Peynaud.
Antonello Biancalana
|