A great piece by Tim Patterson, in which he quotes Tim Hanni, says the following: 1. Big dry reds are clumsy, too extracted, too tannic, too alcoholic, freakish, and should never have been allowed to rule the wine world.
2. Most wine lovers prefer wines with noticeable sweetness and lower alcohol--if only producers had enough sense to make them. (I can verify, through correspondence with wineries scattered all across the US, that this is true. It is mostly in the big cities and in states like OR, WA, and CA where the big dry red is king.)
3. Winemakers and critics have bamboozled the public, by trying to persuade them what they should drink. Instead, they should be catering to the natural preference for wines that are more balanced, elegant, and a touch sweet (yes, even for food).
4. 1200 wine drinkers were extensively studied. We all break into these groups: a. At one end of the spectrum: the "Bitters:" The black coffee crowd. This group comprises only about 15% of the wine populace, and is mostly male, and is the group which pushed for big, dry, red wines. b. At the other end: the "Sweets:" about 25% of the drinkers. These people can drink a really sweet wine with food. c. And in the middle: 60% of drinkers; these folks can drink a drier wine but prefer some residual sugar, and balance, and lower alcohol. (This group includes me, and probably a whole lot of you who are reading this.)
5. You would think that big, dry, red wines have been around forever. But it was only after World War II that they became dominant in France. Dry wines didn't even emerge until the 18th Century. Sweet white wines on Parisian winelists outpriced all big Bordeaux, even into the 20th Century. Ancient wines were all sweet. And some residual sugar in a wine covers up its flaws and contributes to shelf life. Who knows? Maybe the 15% who are "Bitters" are more likely to be Type A personalities, or even tyrants. When will the Sweets rise up and re-assert their rightful place in Wineworld? Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment