Wow Tom, you've written a Master's thesis on this latest effort to sanitize the language. Talk about a tempest in a wine pot. Does any of this really matter? What's next - the Court decides that French-named varieties such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Chardonnay are colonial hangovers and should be abandoned? Maybe do the Prince thing and just use symbols? I think I'll stick with Old World/New World for the time being.
I don't disagree. Just approaching it from a different angle. I will keep using the old phrases because they still mean something. What doesn't matter is the nattering of the Court of Master Sommeliers. No one cares except those who belong to that wine cult.
The new world is rightly always going to suffer an inferiority complex because ALL the great grapes originate in Europe. No one is rushing to plant Torrontes or Concord anywhere.
If the winemaking project were just about the geographic origin of vitis vinifera, you’d have a point. But the wine making project is about producing delicious wine, and sometimes producing wines of a place. This can be accomplished with equal success in both old and new word vineyards.
Tom, Thanks for your comment. I guess the relevance of CMS is directly related to how successful it is in attracting new candidates to the program. I"m not sure they announce numbers. What's clear is that they are trying very hard to be relevant. I'm just not sure all of their efforts are responsible.
"The wine world does not take into account current experiences of its BIPOC and LGBTQ+ members. It is steeped in a language that is coded and arcane, tied up with legal jargon and French techniques that only the privileged, monied few are able to decipher.” Some awesome lack of self-awareness here: criticism of "arcane" language and "jargon" in a sentence that uses "BIPOC and LGBTQ+"
Those terms were crafted by the groups in question themselves, because the language used to address them prior to that was overly inaccurate and exclusive otherwise. There's nothing arcane or "legal" in the jargon - they were made to simplify and be as inclusive as possible, and they're both very modern, and everyone knows what they mean.
I don't think I agree that the terms "old world" and "new world" themselves are necessary to teach the history of anything. They're shorthand that has since (or maybe always) had connotations associated with them completely separate from the details of history. No one seems to be arguing they can't teach the history of wine, or the spread of it, as it occurred, just the excising of specific terminology that has too much baggage hanging off them now.
so not referring to Burgundy as old world will make Aussie pinot terrior equal? I know you aren't saying that but you are implying it and it is a pretty silly argument to make. And truthfully, the whole purpose of this is another attempt to diminish the role of 'the West' in any endeavor in the United States and other areas desperately trying to be "inclusive"
Language choice/word choice is a powerful thing, especially in the context of forming or combating biases, conscious and subconscious alike. That isn't a silly concept, or a new one. Just as you believe changing the words would "diminish the role of 'the West' in any endeavor in the United States and other areas desperately trying to be 'inclusive'". If you believe that, it's the exact same argument.
It's a decision for all of us, it's a group discussion, which is why the discussion/debate is important. Language will always be subjective, and discussing it is how we shift what we subjectively think about it (or not). I'm not someone who personally has any subjective beef with Old World / New World, but the wine industry is trying to lure more people into its fold, especially younger drinkers. So figuring out if there's actually anything important lost with switching up terminology, or if we're just resisting because change is always weird, is definitely a topic of importance for us wine people these days.
You know, I went to business school and took lots of management classes. I don't recall a single case study where a business has a horribly dealt with cheating scandal, followed up by revelations of rape and sexual assault in return for advancement, and the general understanding that a so-called professional organization is run like a boys club and the change management solution was to just alter language to increase the PC quotient. Maybe I missed that one.
I have already written my piece on this sham of a "professional" certification, which is nothing more than a club that excludes truly talented people by making a useless exam that doesn't test on knowledge that make people true wine professionals but this is a whole other level so I won't elaboration but I will say this...
There are two huge points missing from this conversation.
1. Last I checked, Europe has a series of classification systems, laws, and regulatory bodies that makes the wine often quite different to wines from New World countries. I actually don't agree at all that "Because in 2023 it is usually impossible to point to any stylistic characteristics that mark Old World wines as distinctive from New World wines..." I think there is a big difference between most of the wines from the Old and New Worlds in most cases and although climate change has increased alcohol and ripeness levels in the Old World, the wines are still distinct from New World wines. Different soil types, uniformity of soil in AOCs/DOs/DOCs, various weather patterns, and restrictions on winemaking and aging still hold and Old World wines ARE different. Let's not erase that for simplicity's sake or because we want the world to be flat and everyone to have the same wines now. Anyone who drinks a lot of wine from all over (not samples it in a pressure cooker environment to taste it blind and get a pin) can attest to this.
2. Wine originated in Europe. It is a product that was created in Eastern Europe and it flourished for more than 8,000 years in Europe. And Europe DID colonize every single place there is wine in the New World. Those European settlers brought grapes and traditions of wine to places where there were previously no vineyards or wines being made. They settled in a relatively NEW place, compared to a place that had made wine for thousands of years.
Since then, people who made wine in the New World have gone their own way, but the wine IS derivative of the Old World. And why is that so bad? Why is it bad to give a nod to history in this context? Immigrants settled and brought traditions to the new places they settled. Just because you don't like the fact that the history is what it is, can't just erase it. Maybe in the context of wine we should call it the ORIGINAL Wine WORLD and the NEWer Wine WORLD. That would go over like a ton of bricks, but if we're striving for accuracy in wine, there you go.
The idea that New is somehow worse is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Relatively speaking, wine in New World countries is NEWER than wine from the OLD World. It's a useful heuristic. Further complicating things: I'm pretty sure no one in Europe is going to stop using these terms so this will be yet another divide for wine. And in an industry where everything needs an explanation and consumers are walking away because it's just too much, more complication is not welcome nor is it needed.
And back to my management case studies, I think what my classmates and I would have surmised is that perhaps instead of changing a grid which marginalizes the entire heritage, history, and artistry of the topic and makes people describe wines in a robotic fashion in under a minute, the CMS could rid themselves of all their current practices and create a new type of organization in which people are truly dedicated to describing wines to consumers in a way that is relatable and welcomes people to explore and love wine. Hell, maybe they could even teach sommeliers the art of food and wine pairing and ask them to have this useful skill (gasp!). Perhaps we should spend more time on the things people love about and want to know about wine rather than focusing on the fact that the wine is star bright (good luck describing that to a wine lover) and nailing that it is a 1999 Kadarka from Szekszárd.
As I've told you before, Tom, I do hate the feminine and masculine terms, but most of these other attempts to overhaul wine language is tokenism. Taking descriptive terms and loading them with meaning that they just don't need to have is confounding. And certainly NO one should be taking cues from an organization that still hasn't gotten the damn memo: you're a professional wine certification organization CMS, fix your certification and get rid of your club mentality. When your pass rate hits the level of the CFA or MDs, and you're sure you don't have sexual assailants and cheaters in your ranks, then we can talk about you reshaping history and overcomplicating things for consumers.
The problem with you, Ms Schneider, is continue to fail to say what you think.
I purposefully didn’t address the cultural problems or the teaching shortfalls of the CMS-A. But you have done that heavy lifting for us here and elsewhere. Thank you. This particular move is, as you say, undertaken for ideological reasons rather than for reasons of accuracy or truth. It can’t be spun any other way. This is why no explanation is offered by CMS-A.
You know, I have that problem. Just too shy and never speak my mind. It's been an issue my whole life 😂.
I actually laughed out loud at your comment.
Look, we need to address all the other stuff if we are going to say the Emperor has no clothes. There's no way to separate the two. My goal is always to educate wine drinkers in a way that is as easy to understand as possible. When someone starts messing with that, it infuriates me, as you know. The CMS is partaking in a bunch of bullshit that I can't abide by, and from what I can tell from my listeners, they are tired of this crap too.
This is such a blind spot of the wine industry -- we are trying to participate in some cultural moment that doesn't apply. Not everything needs a cause. You can make things fair and rational without trying to participate in a cultural "moment." If they would fix their issues, they wouldn't need any zeitgeist shift. Catering to a few people who think this is a need is ridiculous. They are so tone deaf.
I have now read it and still strongly disagree with your premise and conclusions.
Using pass rates for a self study test about wine to someone that has gone to undergrad, excelled enough to get accepted to medical school (what are those rates??), completed their studies at a medical school which is a full time job that requires 100 hours a week. That's not a reasonable comparison and a silly premise for your anti-CMS position.
The court is a bit exclusionary because 1) they are trying to limit the numbers, and precisely because they don't save lives makes that fine, and 2) you need access to the type of people that can mentor and train which is a pretty small circle.
If there were 5 times as many Master Somms in the world would you like it better? I think not.
As a layperson, I completely disagree with your take, here though, in regards to certification. I know some great people pursuing those CMS levels and they are amazing professionals and share amazing insights with me, their customer. And here in Houston there are some people that are amazing wine professionals with no certifications and they are well respected and play a huge role in our wine community. So the assertion that a certification denies access to talented people is untrue and extremely shortsighted.
I'm loving this discussion, and I just want to add a factual correction... which I think underlines the issue as I stated it in my other comments to Tom:
Wine did not originate in Europe. The earliest evidence of fermented grapes is from China, approximately 1000 years before the Georgian archeological sites.
What did originate in Europe is vitis vinifera wine. So much of the bias implicit in the defense of Old & New World seems to stem from the fact that wine has only been allowed to be defined as the fermented juice of vitis vinifera. That very definition is biased, in my opinion. If you insist on a vitis vinifera-centric definition of wine, then the Eurocentrism implicit in the dominant wine industry and the terms it uses is a given... by definition.
The earliest known evidence of fermented grapes isn't really the point. Something more than vitis vinifera originated in Europe: the idea of and the execution of the development and export of winemaking culture. This is confirmed by the fact that far more than 70% of the global vineyard land is devoted to vitis vinifera precisely because the europeans demonstrated its profound efficiency and deliciousness where wine is concerned. What's unique and historically relevant to the notion of "Old World" and "New World" as the phrases have always been used is that the wine industry as we know it today was created and exported by the countries that stand in the middle of Europe and Western Civilization.
The terms “ old world” & “new world” are an accurate reflection of history. Is there a wine industry in a country not introduced by Europeans? I was an Oregon maker of Pinot noir for almost 50 years. In blind tastings between Oregon & Burgundy there was clearly a stylistic difference. Oregon Pinots generally emphasized fruit forward wines while Burgundies emphasized more earthy characteristics . Is that “Old world” vs “ new world”? It’s a terminology I would use, but I will admit that Burgundian style is changing & becoming less distinguishable from Oregon.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece, and for quoting my piece about this topic! Unfortunately, and I blame myself for this, I think you missed the point of my piece. You say, "At its core, Huss is complaining that wine has European origins..." That's actually not true. What I'm complaining about is that wine has been defined in such a way, and your piece makes the assumption of this definition, that it can only have European origins.
The truth is that wine has been made around the planet for thousands of years by non-Europeans, yet these cultural expressions do not get included in "wine." As I go on to say in the piece you quote, "And wine isn’t made only with grapes. In Belize you might drink cashew wine (made from the fruit, not the nut), and in different regions of Mexico you might drink wines that have been made for thousands of years like tepache (made from pineapples), pulgue (made from agave), or colonche (made from prickly pears), and more! All of this is wine..."
This is the "historical accuracy" that is missing from the terms "Old & New World." I just watched a video of a Sicilian making wine with prickly pears. If we consider who started this wine culture, and if we allow this to be defined as wine, to be historically accurate (if you study the history of the opuntia), the Sicilian would be a New World winemaker, and the Mexicans would be Old World. This is just one example.
So while I agree with many of your points, I also think that many of them only hold true if we only allow a very narrow definition of wine: fermented juice of vitis vinifera. If wine is bigger than this, as it is for me, then the terms "Old World" and "New World" become meaningless... or at least too confusing to be useful. The problem isn't that wine has European origins, it's that the idea of wine has been so colonized that we think that wine can only be something that originates from European grapes.
I think at the heart of this debate is the definition of "wine." We can define wine as fermented grapes only, and I can see how that would be in some ways useful. I just personally don't have any allegiance to that definition, and it causes other nonsense like the redundant term "fruit wines" to describe a giant array of diverse wines and wine cultures based on things other than grapes. And we don't have to create a separate "co-ferment" category, or make a new word for every fermented beverage that does or does not include grapes (they are legion).
Sure, the term "wine" is of European origins (I mean, we're speaking English here) and comes from the word for "vine" so if we want to fight for European grapes' ownership of the term, then fine. They win. But I also think that, without denying history, we could expand the definition to include a much larger history of fermented fruit juice around the globe, and this doesn't hurt the rich wine cultures of Europe. It puts them in a broader, more inclusive, and less elitist context... a part of the beautiful human tradition of fruit fermentation, rather than the bestowers, upon the culturally bereft New World, of the only fruit fermentation culture worthy of study and emulation.
If you think we should keep wine defined as only fermented grapes, I'm still not sure this would be unique to Europe, but I'd love to hear your thoughts as to why this is important.
Adam, thanks for commenting. I sort of hoped you would. I don't know you, but after reading your article on this subject and some of your other writings I wanted to read more.
I disagree with you, and here's why.
The term "New World" is and always has been a specific reference to those places on earth where Western (European) colonial nations exported their winemaking culture. It's a relatively small list of places. This is not to say that wine (in all of its varied and fruitful ways) has not been made for centuries in places that that include the "New World" countries as well as the "Old World" countries. It only means that the hugely dominant category of "wine from grapes" is a product of Western Civilization and largely of European origin. Moreover, for the past many decades the term "Old World" has been understood by anyone who cared to approach the phrase as meaning just this, while "New World" has been known to those same people as meaning those wine industries that were established in colonial outposts by European colonists. In other words, "Old World" and "New World" are highly useful short hand for referring to a very specific historical set of circumstances having to do with wine grapes and winemaking.
And I won't deny that all kinds of wine made from all kinds of fruits and such from across the globe are legitimate and interesting drinks often with a long history and devoted imbibers.
You note that by broadening the definition of wine (and with that broadening comes abandoning the terms "New World" and "Old World") we can remove the elitism associated with the products that have fallen under the heading of "Old World" and even "New World" categories. But I think one of the differences you and I have is I don't think the elitism inherent in grape wine is a bad thing. I acknowledge that elitism and think it is an honest reflection of the importance of these wines as determined by their history, their value, how they have become hugely important cultural icons, and of how the industries that have risen up around them in far flung places.
Now, I agree with the CMS that these terms should be taken out of the tasting grid. That makes sense. But when the CMS abandons the use of these words to eliminate "cultural bias" I see this as a nonsense explanation for their move. There is nothing culturally biased about terms that very accurately describe a very specific history. Moreover, I'm further convinced of the CMS's nonsense based on the fact that they made this move without any explanation beyond "culture bias". Surely they can defend this action. But they don't. It's very disappointing on many levels.
So let me leave you with this. If you want to defend and elevate wines made in far flung places with a variety of raw ingredients, if you want to lift up the voices of those making grape wine with indigenous grapes and other non-vinifera grapes here in the states and elsewhere, I'll lock arms with you and make that effort. I'll do it because these are interesting and often very delicious wines that deserve more exposure. But surely I don't have to abandon my use of terms with specific historical meaning in order to do this.
You are welcome to comment here any time Adam!! Cheers!
Thank you again, Tom. I genuinely appreciate the give and take. I do think the crux of our disagreement may be on that elitism. My question in relation to that: Is that elitism the cause or result of the history, iconic value, and market value of Old World wine? If the importance of old world wine was a result of a fair trial by history against all of the many other wine cultures around the globe, then I might feel differently. But I think it's a bit more like why Christianity is the dominant religion in the new world... not because the indigenous world views in those places were any less valid, but because the Europeans who colonized the new world largely had no desire to learn from - or taste - the different ideas of the people they encountered around the planet... they wanted to convert them. This might be the "cultural bias" implicit in these terms, and in the success of European grape cultures.
I have found in practical use that Old & New World always come with more than just geographic implications. I find they always imply a value judgement. And that value is biased toward the origin of those who created these terms.
To answer your question, I'd argue the elitism (I feel like this word might need defining in this context) is a result of history and value. It's not as though European colonists had no interest in bringing back and incorporating items from the places they colonized: ex: chocolate, tomatoes, potatoes, vanilla. All these things were incorporated thoroughly into Western Culture.
Western promoted and trade grape wine was embraced, adopted, traded and iconized across the entire European geography from Russia to the middle east, into North Africa and into the scandinavian countries primarily because it was so damn good and folks loved to drink it. Obviously there are other reasons for this ranging from issues of potable water to trade routes etc. But in the end, I'd argue that the terms "New World" and "Old World" have nothing to do with elitism. I don't think today there is any implication that "Old World" means "better than" when it comes to the "New World". Nor do I think it makes sense these days to associate particular styles of wine with these two categories—though many still do. What I think is that there are very specific definitions of these two terms that are valuable for understanding the history of wine and in some cases have value in defining how wine is made and regulated today.
There is a new story out from Forbes today about how abandoning the terms New and Old World somehow help deliver equity and fairness to the wine world. But they don't say how. It's an absurd story that makes no sense and is lazy. And Im surprised at the person who wrote it because she is a genuinely smart and careful writer. This, combined with the fact that she, like the CMS, makes no effort to explain themselves, leads me to believe we are looking at an attempt to advance an ideological agenda.
We should try to find a way to drink together sometime.
That’s a good point, Tom, about tomatoes, chocolate, and potatoes (and prickly pears!). And I agree that some vinifera wine is delicious, and I also agree that good reasons should be given for these kinds of changes, not political or ideological whims.
I will note one interesting bit of wine history that is different from other colonized territory foods. While vanilla didn’t (couldn’t) grow in Europe, grapes could and did. Grapes from America were also brought back to Europe… but when they became so popular that they threatened the market for European/vinifera grapes/wines, they were outlawed, and continued to be illegal for almost 90 years until 2021. A grape with American genetics, Isabella, is actually globally popular still – the most planted grape in Brazil and Columbia, found in every country bordering the Black Sea, a cult favorite in the Azores, Japan, etc... – yet shunned, never mentioned, dismissed. I’d be surprised if many who read your article have even heard of it. It doesn’t get mentioned by the CMS or WSET because it threatened the hierarchy and was banned. It wasn’t singled out either. All “New World” grapes were banned. That isn’t to say there weren’t good reasons to try to protect and preserve the vinifera cultures of Europe, but it points out that when it came to grapes it wasn’t a fair exchange that gave us the "wine" culture we are discussing… it was more of a European conquest.
I’ll stop commenting after this, I promise, and save further discussion until we can sit down and enjoy a bottle together in person. But I again come back to this idea that we are really debating a definition of wine. You say the terms Old World and New World are “valuable for understanding the history of wine” as if there is only one history of wine, and it is the history of vitis vinifera. As I mentioned in my comments to Elizabeth Schneider above, European grape fermentation isn’t even the first or oldest. But it seems to be the most self-important. I think Dave Baxter’s comments above give great reasons for the importance of this debate that I would expand to the debate about the definition of “wine.”
You'll find it interesting to know that I've done a good deal of work with a winery in Missouri called "TerraVox". You probably know them given your inclinations. But if you don't, look them up. Fascinating!!
I have. In fact I quoted it in this article. Sligh makes the same case as you that the New/Old terms impose a hierarchy. But I disagree, unless we are talking about a hierarchy based on time and the historical timelline.
Hello Mister Wark, thank you for this amazing Writing. I personally think that we should be thankful to the Winemakers and Writers from the era of non social media and the internet that made Wine great as it is today, so it happens people from the old world. Neglecting this, would kind of ruining the fact that history matters. (Just a point of view) look forward reading more of your work. Greats Sun
Wow Tom, you've written a Master's thesis on this latest effort to sanitize the language. Talk about a tempest in a wine pot. Does any of this really matter? What's next - the Court decides that French-named varieties such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Chardonnay are colonial hangovers and should be abandoned? Maybe do the Prince thing and just use symbols? I think I'll stick with Old World/New World for the time being.
Hey Paul! I do think it matters. The truth matters. Language matters because it is the driver of critical thinking.
I don't disagree. Just approaching it from a different angle. I will keep using the old phrases because they still mean something. What doesn't matter is the nattering of the Court of Master Sommeliers. No one cares except those who belong to that wine cult.
The new world is rightly always going to suffer an inferiority complex because ALL the great grapes originate in Europe. No one is rushing to plant Torrontes or Concord anywhere.
If the winemaking project were just about the geographic origin of vitis vinifera, you’d have a point. But the wine making project is about producing delicious wine, and sometimes producing wines of a place. This can be accomplished with equal success in both old and new word vineyards.
Good discussions on “old vs. new”.
That said, I personally agree the terms are relevant.
Can we say the same thing about CMS?
Tom, Thanks for your comment. I guess the relevance of CMS is directly related to how successful it is in attracting new candidates to the program. I"m not sure they announce numbers. What's clear is that they are trying very hard to be relevant. I'm just not sure all of their efforts are responsible.
"The wine world does not take into account current experiences of its BIPOC and LGBTQ+ members. It is steeped in a language that is coded and arcane, tied up with legal jargon and French techniques that only the privileged, monied few are able to decipher.” Some awesome lack of self-awareness here: criticism of "arcane" language and "jargon" in a sentence that uses "BIPOC and LGBTQ+"
Those terms were crafted by the groups in question themselves, because the language used to address them prior to that was overly inaccurate and exclusive otherwise. There's nothing arcane or "legal" in the jargon - they were made to simplify and be as inclusive as possible, and they're both very modern, and everyone knows what they mean.
I don't think I agree that the terms "old world" and "new world" themselves are necessary to teach the history of anything. They're shorthand that has since (or maybe always) had connotations associated with them completely separate from the details of history. No one seems to be arguing they can't teach the history of wine, or the spread of it, as it occurred, just the excising of specific terminology that has too much baggage hanging off them now.
What connotations do you think these phases communicate today?
A hierarchy that bleeds into an assumed hierarchy of quality in terms of flavor, technique, and terrior.
so not referring to Burgundy as old world will make Aussie pinot terrior equal? I know you aren't saying that but you are implying it and it is a pretty silly argument to make. And truthfully, the whole purpose of this is another attempt to diminish the role of 'the West' in any endeavor in the United States and other areas desperately trying to be "inclusive"
Language choice/word choice is a powerful thing, especially in the context of forming or combating biases, conscious and subconscious alike. That isn't a silly concept, or a new one. Just as you believe changing the words would "diminish the role of 'the West' in any endeavor in the United States and other areas desperately trying to be 'inclusive'". If you believe that, it's the exact same argument.
that's a fair counter, but I find the concept of judging subconscious anything to be a struggle. Who decides? Me? You? very subjective area, IMO
It's a decision for all of us, it's a group discussion, which is why the discussion/debate is important. Language will always be subjective, and discussing it is how we shift what we subjectively think about it (or not). I'm not someone who personally has any subjective beef with Old World / New World, but the wine industry is trying to lure more people into its fold, especially younger drinkers. So figuring out if there's actually anything important lost with switching up terminology, or if we're just resisting because change is always weird, is definitely a topic of importance for us wine people these days.
You know, I went to business school and took lots of management classes. I don't recall a single case study where a business has a horribly dealt with cheating scandal, followed up by revelations of rape and sexual assault in return for advancement, and the general understanding that a so-called professional organization is run like a boys club and the change management solution was to just alter language to increase the PC quotient. Maybe I missed that one.
I have already written my piece on this sham of a "professional" certification, which is nothing more than a club that excludes truly talented people by making a useless exam that doesn't test on knowledge that make people true wine professionals but this is a whole other level so I won't elaboration but I will say this...
There are two huge points missing from this conversation.
1. Last I checked, Europe has a series of classification systems, laws, and regulatory bodies that makes the wine often quite different to wines from New World countries. I actually don't agree at all that "Because in 2023 it is usually impossible to point to any stylistic characteristics that mark Old World wines as distinctive from New World wines..." I think there is a big difference between most of the wines from the Old and New Worlds in most cases and although climate change has increased alcohol and ripeness levels in the Old World, the wines are still distinct from New World wines. Different soil types, uniformity of soil in AOCs/DOs/DOCs, various weather patterns, and restrictions on winemaking and aging still hold and Old World wines ARE different. Let's not erase that for simplicity's sake or because we want the world to be flat and everyone to have the same wines now. Anyone who drinks a lot of wine from all over (not samples it in a pressure cooker environment to taste it blind and get a pin) can attest to this.
2. Wine originated in Europe. It is a product that was created in Eastern Europe and it flourished for more than 8,000 years in Europe. And Europe DID colonize every single place there is wine in the New World. Those European settlers brought grapes and traditions of wine to places where there were previously no vineyards or wines being made. They settled in a relatively NEW place, compared to a place that had made wine for thousands of years.
Since then, people who made wine in the New World have gone their own way, but the wine IS derivative of the Old World. And why is that so bad? Why is it bad to give a nod to history in this context? Immigrants settled and brought traditions to the new places they settled. Just because you don't like the fact that the history is what it is, can't just erase it. Maybe in the context of wine we should call it the ORIGINAL Wine WORLD and the NEWer Wine WORLD. That would go over like a ton of bricks, but if we're striving for accuracy in wine, there you go.
The idea that New is somehow worse is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Relatively speaking, wine in New World countries is NEWER than wine from the OLD World. It's a useful heuristic. Further complicating things: I'm pretty sure no one in Europe is going to stop using these terms so this will be yet another divide for wine. And in an industry where everything needs an explanation and consumers are walking away because it's just too much, more complication is not welcome nor is it needed.
And back to my management case studies, I think what my classmates and I would have surmised is that perhaps instead of changing a grid which marginalizes the entire heritage, history, and artistry of the topic and makes people describe wines in a robotic fashion in under a minute, the CMS could rid themselves of all their current practices and create a new type of organization in which people are truly dedicated to describing wines to consumers in a way that is relatable and welcomes people to explore and love wine. Hell, maybe they could even teach sommeliers the art of food and wine pairing and ask them to have this useful skill (gasp!). Perhaps we should spend more time on the things people love about and want to know about wine rather than focusing on the fact that the wine is star bright (good luck describing that to a wine lover) and nailing that it is a 1999 Kadarka from Szekszárd.
As I've told you before, Tom, I do hate the feminine and masculine terms, but most of these other attempts to overhaul wine language is tokenism. Taking descriptive terms and loading them with meaning that they just don't need to have is confounding. And certainly NO one should be taking cues from an organization that still hasn't gotten the damn memo: you're a professional wine certification organization CMS, fix your certification and get rid of your club mentality. When your pass rate hits the level of the CFA or MDs, and you're sure you don't have sexual assailants and cheaters in your ranks, then we can talk about you reshaping history and overcomplicating things for consumers.
The problem with you, Ms Schneider, is continue to fail to say what you think.
I purposefully didn’t address the cultural problems or the teaching shortfalls of the CMS-A. But you have done that heavy lifting for us here and elsewhere. Thank you. This particular move is, as you say, undertaken for ideological reasons rather than for reasons of accuracy or truth. It can’t be spun any other way. This is why no explanation is offered by CMS-A.
You know, I have that problem. Just too shy and never speak my mind. It's been an issue my whole life 😂.
I actually laughed out loud at your comment.
Look, we need to address all the other stuff if we are going to say the Emperor has no clothes. There's no way to separate the two. My goal is always to educate wine drinkers in a way that is as easy to understand as possible. When someone starts messing with that, it infuriates me, as you know. The CMS is partaking in a bunch of bullshit that I can't abide by, and from what I can tell from my listeners, they are tired of this crap too.
This is such a blind spot of the wine industry -- we are trying to participate in some cultural moment that doesn't apply. Not everything needs a cause. You can make things fair and rational without trying to participate in a cultural "moment." If they would fix their issues, they wouldn't need any zeitgeist shift. Catering to a few people who think this is a need is ridiculous. They are so tone deaf.
again, how you explain is the 'right way' and how CMS does it is the wrong way? Okay....
Feel free to read this! https://www.winefornormalpeople.com/professional-certifications-for-doctors-lawyers-and-finance-pros-are-real-but-not-for-wine/
I will! and as a CPA I might say I don't think ours is very real, either.
I have now read it and still strongly disagree with your premise and conclusions.
Using pass rates for a self study test about wine to someone that has gone to undergrad, excelled enough to get accepted to medical school (what are those rates??), completed their studies at a medical school which is a full time job that requires 100 hours a week. That's not a reasonable comparison and a silly premise for your anti-CMS position.
The court is a bit exclusionary because 1) they are trying to limit the numbers, and precisely because they don't save lives makes that fine, and 2) you need access to the type of people that can mentor and train which is a pretty small circle.
If there were 5 times as many Master Somms in the world would you like it better? I think not.
Love your podcast!
As a layperson, I completely disagree with your take, here though, in regards to certification. I know some great people pursuing those CMS levels and they are amazing professionals and share amazing insights with me, their customer. And here in Houston there are some people that are amazing wine professionals with no certifications and they are well respected and play a huge role in our wine community. So the assertion that a certification denies access to talented people is untrue and extremely shortsighted.
Hi Elizabeth,
I'm loving this discussion, and I just want to add a factual correction... which I think underlines the issue as I stated it in my other comments to Tom:
Wine did not originate in Europe. The earliest evidence of fermented grapes is from China, approximately 1000 years before the Georgian archeological sites.
What did originate in Europe is vitis vinifera wine. So much of the bias implicit in the defense of Old & New World seems to stem from the fact that wine has only been allowed to be defined as the fermented juice of vitis vinifera. That very definition is biased, in my opinion. If you insist on a vitis vinifera-centric definition of wine, then the Eurocentrism implicit in the dominant wine industry and the terms it uses is a given... by definition.
I otherwise agree with you that about the Court. I've written and spoken about how I think the emphasis on blind tasting is a huge waste of time too (https://www.centralaswine.com/blog/7-reasons-why-blind-tasting-wine-tests-for-sommeliers-are-pointless-wasteful-and-should-be-abolished). But part of why I think the Court is a "sham,” as you say, is that it purports to educate about "wine" but only talks about fermented vitis vinifera.
Thanks,
Adam Huss
Adam,
The earliest known evidence of fermented grapes isn't really the point. Something more than vitis vinifera originated in Europe: the idea of and the execution of the development and export of winemaking culture. This is confirmed by the fact that far more than 70% of the global vineyard land is devoted to vitis vinifera precisely because the europeans demonstrated its profound efficiency and deliciousness where wine is concerned. What's unique and historically relevant to the notion of "Old World" and "New World" as the phrases have always been used is that the wine industry as we know it today was created and exported by the countries that stand in the middle of Europe and Western Civilization.
The terms “ old world” & “new world” are an accurate reflection of history. Is there a wine industry in a country not introduced by Europeans? I was an Oregon maker of Pinot noir for almost 50 years. In blind tastings between Oregon & Burgundy there was clearly a stylistic difference. Oregon Pinots generally emphasized fruit forward wines while Burgundies emphasized more earthy characteristics . Is that “Old world” vs “ new world”? It’s a terminology I would use, but I will admit that Burgundian style is changing & becoming less distinguishable from Oregon.
What's the matter? Old World and New World seems logical and true to the industry.
But.... it isn't Diverse, Equitable, or Inclusive enough to just leave alone.
From the Court, Wokeness is now being forced on this part of the wine industry.
As a 75 year old white male, I am beyond sick and disgusted by Wokeness every where I turn.
I can only pray that people find their brains and reject this BS.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for this thoughtful piece, and for quoting my piece about this topic! Unfortunately, and I blame myself for this, I think you missed the point of my piece. You say, "At its core, Huss is complaining that wine has European origins..." That's actually not true. What I'm complaining about is that wine has been defined in such a way, and your piece makes the assumption of this definition, that it can only have European origins.
The truth is that wine has been made around the planet for thousands of years by non-Europeans, yet these cultural expressions do not get included in "wine." As I go on to say in the piece you quote, "And wine isn’t made only with grapes. In Belize you might drink cashew wine (made from the fruit, not the nut), and in different regions of Mexico you might drink wines that have been made for thousands of years like tepache (made from pineapples), pulgue (made from agave), or colonche (made from prickly pears), and more! All of this is wine..."
This is the "historical accuracy" that is missing from the terms "Old & New World." I just watched a video of a Sicilian making wine with prickly pears. If we consider who started this wine culture, and if we allow this to be defined as wine, to be historically accurate (if you study the history of the opuntia), the Sicilian would be a New World winemaker, and the Mexicans would be Old World. This is just one example.
So while I agree with many of your points, I also think that many of them only hold true if we only allow a very narrow definition of wine: fermented juice of vitis vinifera. If wine is bigger than this, as it is for me, then the terms "Old World" and "New World" become meaningless... or at least too confusing to be useful. The problem isn't that wine has European origins, it's that the idea of wine has been so colonized that we think that wine can only be something that originates from European grapes.
I think at the heart of this debate is the definition of "wine." We can define wine as fermented grapes only, and I can see how that would be in some ways useful. I just personally don't have any allegiance to that definition, and it causes other nonsense like the redundant term "fruit wines" to describe a giant array of diverse wines and wine cultures based on things other than grapes. And we don't have to create a separate "co-ferment" category, or make a new word for every fermented beverage that does or does not include grapes (they are legion).
Sure, the term "wine" is of European origins (I mean, we're speaking English here) and comes from the word for "vine" so if we want to fight for European grapes' ownership of the term, then fine. They win. But I also think that, without denying history, we could expand the definition to include a much larger history of fermented fruit juice around the globe, and this doesn't hurt the rich wine cultures of Europe. It puts them in a broader, more inclusive, and less elitist context... a part of the beautiful human tradition of fruit fermentation, rather than the bestowers, upon the culturally bereft New World, of the only fruit fermentation culture worthy of study and emulation.
If you think we should keep wine defined as only fermented grapes, I'm still not sure this would be unique to Europe, but I'd love to hear your thoughts as to why this is important.
Thanks!
Adam Huss
Adam, thanks for commenting. I sort of hoped you would. I don't know you, but after reading your article on this subject and some of your other writings I wanted to read more.
I disagree with you, and here's why.
The term "New World" is and always has been a specific reference to those places on earth where Western (European) colonial nations exported their winemaking culture. It's a relatively small list of places. This is not to say that wine (in all of its varied and fruitful ways) has not been made for centuries in places that that include the "New World" countries as well as the "Old World" countries. It only means that the hugely dominant category of "wine from grapes" is a product of Western Civilization and largely of European origin. Moreover, for the past many decades the term "Old World" has been understood by anyone who cared to approach the phrase as meaning just this, while "New World" has been known to those same people as meaning those wine industries that were established in colonial outposts by European colonists. In other words, "Old World" and "New World" are highly useful short hand for referring to a very specific historical set of circumstances having to do with wine grapes and winemaking.
And I won't deny that all kinds of wine made from all kinds of fruits and such from across the globe are legitimate and interesting drinks often with a long history and devoted imbibers.
You note that by broadening the definition of wine (and with that broadening comes abandoning the terms "New World" and "Old World") we can remove the elitism associated with the products that have fallen under the heading of "Old World" and even "New World" categories. But I think one of the differences you and I have is I don't think the elitism inherent in grape wine is a bad thing. I acknowledge that elitism and think it is an honest reflection of the importance of these wines as determined by their history, their value, how they have become hugely important cultural icons, and of how the industries that have risen up around them in far flung places.
Now, I agree with the CMS that these terms should be taken out of the tasting grid. That makes sense. But when the CMS abandons the use of these words to eliminate "cultural bias" I see this as a nonsense explanation for their move. There is nothing culturally biased about terms that very accurately describe a very specific history. Moreover, I'm further convinced of the CMS's nonsense based on the fact that they made this move without any explanation beyond "culture bias". Surely they can defend this action. But they don't. It's very disappointing on many levels.
So let me leave you with this. If you want to defend and elevate wines made in far flung places with a variety of raw ingredients, if you want to lift up the voices of those making grape wine with indigenous grapes and other non-vinifera grapes here in the states and elsewhere, I'll lock arms with you and make that effort. I'll do it because these are interesting and often very delicious wines that deserve more exposure. But surely I don't have to abandon my use of terms with specific historical meaning in order to do this.
You are welcome to comment here any time Adam!! Cheers!
Thank you again, Tom. I genuinely appreciate the give and take. I do think the crux of our disagreement may be on that elitism. My question in relation to that: Is that elitism the cause or result of the history, iconic value, and market value of Old World wine? If the importance of old world wine was a result of a fair trial by history against all of the many other wine cultures around the globe, then I might feel differently. But I think it's a bit more like why Christianity is the dominant religion in the new world... not because the indigenous world views in those places were any less valid, but because the Europeans who colonized the new world largely had no desire to learn from - or taste - the different ideas of the people they encountered around the planet... they wanted to convert them. This might be the "cultural bias" implicit in these terms, and in the success of European grape cultures.
I have found in practical use that Old & New World always come with more than just geographic implications. I find they always imply a value judgement. And that value is biased toward the origin of those who created these terms.
Thank you for being open to the comments! Cheers!
Adam
To answer your question, I'd argue the elitism (I feel like this word might need defining in this context) is a result of history and value. It's not as though European colonists had no interest in bringing back and incorporating items from the places they colonized: ex: chocolate, tomatoes, potatoes, vanilla. All these things were incorporated thoroughly into Western Culture.
Western promoted and trade grape wine was embraced, adopted, traded and iconized across the entire European geography from Russia to the middle east, into North Africa and into the scandinavian countries primarily because it was so damn good and folks loved to drink it. Obviously there are other reasons for this ranging from issues of potable water to trade routes etc. But in the end, I'd argue that the terms "New World" and "Old World" have nothing to do with elitism. I don't think today there is any implication that "Old World" means "better than" when it comes to the "New World". Nor do I think it makes sense these days to associate particular styles of wine with these two categories—though many still do. What I think is that there are very specific definitions of these two terms that are valuable for understanding the history of wine and in some cases have value in defining how wine is made and regulated today.
There is a new story out from Forbes today about how abandoning the terms New and Old World somehow help deliver equity and fairness to the wine world. But they don't say how. It's an absurd story that makes no sense and is lazy. And Im surprised at the person who wrote it because she is a genuinely smart and careful writer. This, combined with the fact that she, like the CMS, makes no effort to explain themselves, leads me to believe we are looking at an attempt to advance an ideological agenda.
We should try to find a way to drink together sometime.
That’s a good point, Tom, about tomatoes, chocolate, and potatoes (and prickly pears!). And I agree that some vinifera wine is delicious, and I also agree that good reasons should be given for these kinds of changes, not political or ideological whims.
I will note one interesting bit of wine history that is different from other colonized territory foods. While vanilla didn’t (couldn’t) grow in Europe, grapes could and did. Grapes from America were also brought back to Europe… but when they became so popular that they threatened the market for European/vinifera grapes/wines, they were outlawed, and continued to be illegal for almost 90 years until 2021. A grape with American genetics, Isabella, is actually globally popular still – the most planted grape in Brazil and Columbia, found in every country bordering the Black Sea, a cult favorite in the Azores, Japan, etc... – yet shunned, never mentioned, dismissed. I’d be surprised if many who read your article have even heard of it. It doesn’t get mentioned by the CMS or WSET because it threatened the hierarchy and was banned. It wasn’t singled out either. All “New World” grapes were banned. That isn’t to say there weren’t good reasons to try to protect and preserve the vinifera cultures of Europe, but it points out that when it came to grapes it wasn’t a fair exchange that gave us the "wine" culture we are discussing… it was more of a European conquest.
I’ll stop commenting after this, I promise, and save further discussion until we can sit down and enjoy a bottle together in person. But I again come back to this idea that we are really debating a definition of wine. You say the terms Old World and New World are “valuable for understanding the history of wine” as if there is only one history of wine, and it is the history of vitis vinifera. As I mentioned in my comments to Elizabeth Schneider above, European grape fermentation isn’t even the first or oldest. But it seems to be the most self-important. I think Dave Baxter’s comments above give great reasons for the importance of this debate that I would expand to the debate about the definition of “wine.”
You'll find it interesting to know that I've done a good deal of work with a winery in Missouri called "TerraVox". You probably know them given your inclinations. But if you don't, look them up. Fascinating!!
Yes! I’ve done an episode with them. I’d be curious to hear about your time there. I have a couple bottles of their Norton.
Tom, have you read this? I think it adds another valuable perspective:
https://punchdrink.com/articles/binary-myth-old-world-new-world-future-of-wine/
I have. In fact I quoted it in this article. Sligh makes the same case as you that the New/Old terms impose a hierarchy. But I disagree, unless we are talking about a hierarchy based on time and the historical timelline.
Oh, sorry, should have rescanned your article.
Hello Mister Wark, thank you for this amazing Writing. I personally think that we should be thankful to the Winemakers and Writers from the era of non social media and the internet that made Wine great as it is today, so it happens people from the old world. Neglecting this, would kind of ruining the fact that history matters. (Just a point of view) look forward reading more of your work. Greats Sun