Hi Tom. Dan Berger and I have been debating this for years. The whole thing started with Frank Schoonmaker, whose powerful import company in the late forties declared that he would not represent any French wine that listed a variety on the label (he made an exception for Alsace) and conversely, would list no American wine (with the exception of cheap semi-generics) unless it listed the variety! I guess he thought that the legal varieties had been codified in Europe so anybody with any schooling knows that Bourgogne Blanc is Chardonnay, and the more important style and quality variable was place. Whereas Americans at that time were nowhere near that point.
It was Gallo that coined the term "varietal character" when working with Winkler and the sensory folks at U.C. Davis to determine where the various cultivars ought best be planted in the wake of the chaos of Prohibition. Varietal character was promoted to the status of a God by folks like Tchelistcheff who bragged on his back labels about 100% Cabernet Sauvignon, despite that the Bordelais had worked out that this is never the case in their conditions and U.C. Davis confirmed (Amerine and Webb) that randomized blends of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot outperformed the pure varieties without exception!
Your point of view is an artifact of an outdated judging custom of presenting varietal flights to judges with no information as to where they come from. In such an environment, how is anyone to learn about regional differences.
When wines are presented in regional groups, such as Viogniers from Sonoma, Snake River and Virginia, it becomes instantly obvious that the commonalities within regions are far more striking than the so-called "varietal character." Ever since I started tasting wines in this way at Appellation America, I have been overwhelmed by the dominance of regional character over variety. The black cherry one always find in Russian River Pinot Noir and nowhere else is also present in the Petite Sirah. All Livermore reds smell like lemons. East side Paso Robles reds all smell like orange peel and cocoa.
It is clear that the consumer needs to see both on the label, along with stylistic prose on the back label and an ABV. To rely on variety alone is to disqualify many great wines because they don't fit your box. I can't count the number of arguments judging Viogniers such as Pilot Peak, which has no peaches or oil and is easily mistaken for a racy Sauvignon Blanc, where judges won't give it more that a Silver despite admitting it's the best wine in the category because it doesn't conform to their ignorant notion of what Viognier can be.
It can even be proposed that some varieties have so much variability that they don't even have any unifying traits: Grenache, Cabernet Franc (what fool would put Chinon in the same blind flight as St. Emilion?) and I think Sauvignon Blanc is a good example.
In sum, I think the market is sufficiently dumbed down regarding variety recognition, and now wine producers (especially the 99% under 5,000 cases) have evolved to the point where regional differences are more useful to focus on. As the number of newbie consumers declines, the good news is that those who remain are getting more experienced, smarter, more curious, and less in need of oversimplification. Our salvation is in our diversity for those who care. For those who just want to cop a pleasant buzz, let them eat Cupcake. I choose quality over quantity in the customers I court and serve.
Hi Tom. Dan Berger and I have been debating this for years. The whole thing started with Frank Schoonmaker, whose powerful import company in the late forties declared that he would not represent any French wine that listed a variety on the label (he made an exception for Alsace) and conversely, would list no American wine (with the exception of cheap semi-generics) unless it listed the variety! I guess he thought that the legal varieties had been codified in Europe so anybody with any schooling knows that Bourgogne Blanc is Chardonnay, and the more important style and quality variable was place. Whereas Americans at that time were nowhere near that point.
It was Gallo that coined the term "varietal character" when working with Winkler and the sensory folks at U.C. Davis to determine where the various cultivars ought best be planted in the wake of the chaos of Prohibition. Varietal character was promoted to the status of a God by folks like Tchelistcheff who bragged on his back labels about 100% Cabernet Sauvignon, despite that the Bordelais had worked out that this is never the case in their conditions and U.C. Davis confirmed (Amerine and Webb) that randomized blends of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot outperformed the pure varieties without exception!
Your point of view is an artifact of an outdated judging custom of presenting varietal flights to judges with no information as to where they come from. In such an environment, how is anyone to learn about regional differences.
When wines are presented in regional groups, such as Viogniers from Sonoma, Snake River and Virginia, it becomes instantly obvious that the commonalities within regions are far more striking than the so-called "varietal character." Ever since I started tasting wines in this way at Appellation America, I have been overwhelmed by the dominance of regional character over variety. The black cherry one always find in Russian River Pinot Noir and nowhere else is also present in the Petite Sirah. All Livermore reds smell like lemons. East side Paso Robles reds all smell like orange peel and cocoa.
It is clear that the consumer needs to see both on the label, along with stylistic prose on the back label and an ABV. To rely on variety alone is to disqualify many great wines because they don't fit your box. I can't count the number of arguments judging Viogniers such as Pilot Peak, which has no peaches or oil and is easily mistaken for a racy Sauvignon Blanc, where judges won't give it more that a Silver despite admitting it's the best wine in the category because it doesn't conform to their ignorant notion of what Viognier can be.
It can even be proposed that some varieties have so much variability that they don't even have any unifying traits: Grenache, Cabernet Franc (what fool would put Chinon in the same blind flight as St. Emilion?) and I think Sauvignon Blanc is a good example.
In sum, I think the market is sufficiently dumbed down regarding variety recognition, and now wine producers (especially the 99% under 5,000 cases) have evolved to the point where regional differences are more useful to focus on. As the number of newbie consumers declines, the good news is that those who remain are getting more experienced, smarter, more curious, and less in need of oversimplification. Our salvation is in our diversity for those who care. For those who just want to cop a pleasant buzz, let them eat Cupcake. I choose quality over quantity in the customers I court and serve.