"What Qualifies a Wine as Great?" --Part One

In the course of leading wine tastings, I’ve been asked a lot of questions.
At one particularly memorable tasting, it was nothing short of barrage. Fielding 20-25 questions (an honest, but rough estimate) while guiding – and pouring – a flight of four wines for 18 guests was fantastically exhilarating. I’m sure that my answers were not perfect, but I was delighted to find myself keeping the juggling-balls up in the air.
There is one question that people like to ask... and who can blame them, it is a good question: “what qualifies a wine as great?”. Oi vey!... One of those juggling-balls just became a cannon-ball.
So here, with the advantage of stumbling – and the passage of time – being hidden from view... and a cup of coffee: Let me (begin to) try again.

Here is Part One: “The Benchmark Measure”

One answer -- common in wine-geek circles -- is what might be called “the benchmark measure”.

According to this system, each type of wine has a benchmark against which all other (related) wines can be judged. To be a great Pinot Noir, for example, a wine must approach the quality of a Domaine Romaine-Contri “La Tache” Grand Cru... to be a great Syrah, a wine must approach the quality of Chapoutier’s Hermitage “L’Ermite”.
Problems?

(1) The benchmark measure is hopelessly elitist.

Very few people ever have the opportunity to taste these anointed wines. L’Ermite is relatively inexpensive at about $200 per bottle; a bottle of “La Tache” 2004 (a poor vintage in Burgundy) sells for well over $1000. Further, keep in mind that both these wines will require at least a decade of careful cellaring, adding to the cost).
Any standard of what makes a wine “great” should (at least) help us to talk about what makes a wine “good”. If almost nobody has ever tasted the benchmarks, then most of us are left unable to speak the language.

(2) The benchmark system requires that the universe be divided into a list of “types of wine”. Is that really so easy... or even possible?
Is Barossa Shiraz to meet a standard set by French Hermitage. Should Sauvignon Blanc from Malborough (New Zealand) strive for a standard set in Poully-Fume (France)?
Maybe each of these are their own “types”, with their own benchmarks. In which case, can you decide where the subdivision should stop? Should Barossa Shiraz be separated from that produced a few kilometers away in the Adelaide Hills?

(3) Many proponents of a benchmark approach are also proponents of the idea of “terroir”. The problem is that they do not seem compatible.
Very briefly, terroirists – by emphasizing the unique physical aspects of each vineyard – expect wines to taste “of their origin”. A wine produced in a cool climate should be crisp; a wine from a warm climate should be plump.
If Argentine winemakers are expected to emulate a Malbec benchmark from Cahors (south-western France), they can not also be true to the terroir of Mendoza. Consider these two imaginary, neighbouring vineyards: the slope of Clos One faces south-east, Clos Two faces east. If Clos One is anointed as a benchmark, at Clos Two they will try to disguise their terroir by harvesting late or “de-acidifying” (adding potassium bicarbonate to artificially lower a wine’s acidity).

(4) Finally. Most winemakers claim that they are just “allowing” the wine, or the terroir, “to reveal itself”. This “non-interventionist” orientation is the current fashion... it is also (in my opinion) a grain of truth wrapped in a lot of hooey.
Vineyards are pruned in one style or another, fertilized or not, and so on.
Grape-must (the mixture of juice, skins, seeds, etc) “punched down” or “pumped over” (methods of stirring) with varying frequency.
Maceration and fermentation temperature is controlled and manipulated.
“Elevage” (maturing in the cellars) is done in oak or steel, large or small barrels.
...And so on, and so on...

The grain-of-truth? A craftsman (or perhaps, an artist) refuses to make wine as if it were another manufactured beverage. The problem is that benchmark systems ignore the stylistic choices of vigneron and winemaker.

In many classic areas (Bordeaux, Champagne, Chateauneuf-du-Pape, etc) wines are blended from a list of permitted varieties. That blend is (part pf) a house-style. Which "house style" is to be the benchmark in CDP?... Chateau Beaucastel (Mouvredre and Syrah heavy, with a dose of Brettomyces), or Chateau Rayas (predominately Grenache)?
In Bordeaux, elevage in a maximum of new-oak barrels is currently fashionable. The richest estates, able to afford to do so, are using 100% new-oak barrels. This means that benchmark wines – almost certainly to be found in this elite – are dramatically oaky. The result is that “lesser” producers, chasing a benchmark, do anything to make their wines taste like oak. At the absurd end of the spectrum, I’ve sampled bargain wines which taste as if someone added a dollop of vanilla extract.

...to be continued...

_________________________________________________

Have a more money than you know what to do with... here are a few "benchmarks" currently available in Ontario:

Ch. Cheval Blanc (2000). $1800. Bordeaux Cabernet Franc - Merlot blend from the "Right Bank"

Clarendon Hills "Astralis" (2004) $390. Shiraz/Syrah from Australia's Adedaide Hills

Ch. Haut-Brion (2003) $500. Bordeaux Cabernet Sauvignon dominated from the "Left Bank"

Guigal "La Landonne" Cote Rotie (2002). $280. Classic Syrah from the Northern Rhone.