Putting the cart before the horse

The wine speaks for itself and should be savored and judged without seeking "naturalistic" justifications for its possible faults. Only if it is good does its provenance from organic or sustainable viticulture constitute a plus.

I am taking up, expanding on, an old editorial from 2017 that I feel is really very timely.

During one of the last visits to the Cote d'Or, the true Eldorado of Burgundy, one of the most famous vignerons in the area, to a precise technical request of mine about one of his wines, replied thus, "You taste it, then if you like it I will tell you how I made it." A very reasonable and also very correct and intelligent attitude, which privileges the organoleptic value of wines before the "ideological" one. All in perfect assonance with the Good, Clean and Correct canon advocated years ago by Carlo Petrini, Slow Food's "lider maximo," in a famous book of his of the same title. "Good" comes first, in short, and only after that can we talk about anything else.

However, too often there are some who forget this and say things that, quite frankly, are make little sense. For example, before even pouring a wine into a glass, a producer or salesman may say: “You know, it’s organic and we’re converting to bio-dynamic,” as if this is something that will help make an easier sale. What they seem to imply is that since it is organic, it has to be good and better than other wines that are not. Or "if you don't like this biodynamic wine, it is only because you are too used to drinking standardized wines and don't know how to recognize its quality," which would be like saying that if a book has content in line with my ideas, then it can also be written in an ungrammatical and almost incomprehensible way by a semi-illiterate author.

Petrini would probably defined this as “putting the cart before the horse”. And this because while it is a good thing, in fact even important and full of merit, that a wine is the product of sustainable winegrowing, what is more important is that the wine has those organoleptic qualities which make it enjoyable and pleasing. In other words, without the brettanomyces being mistaken for the characteristics of the terroir or the volatile acidity overshadowing the aromas that distinguish the varietal or blend.

It is a question of enological consistency, one involving those pleasing organoleptic notes which make a wine recognizable and easy to place in its respective category. More precisely, it is an indispensable factor which takes preference over any other consideration. Everything else comes after and is part of the explanation a producer gives on how he was able to make such an interesting wine that so pleasingly represents where it was made. The bottom line is that factors like sustainable winegrowing should not be reduced to being a simple sales ploy because this benefits no one and only creates confusion.

In short, that we do not pass off obvious defects for who knows what strange manifestations of a "different" and better quality for unspecified reasons. This is an attitude that is also sometimes witnessed by several sommeliers of famous establishments who, by now, if a wine does not have specifications of an unclear "naturalness," if it is not the result of fermentations with "indigenous" yeasts, if it does not show opalescence in its visual appearance because it has not been filtered or because it has undergone a protein crate, then it would not even be considered for inclusion in their lists.

And this is the case even if the dishes that various chefs propose are so delicate that they can ill withstand pairing with a "macerated" white or with a red with gangly tannins because they are not "tamed" by a stay in wood, which would make them polymerize, making them more approachable. Technical considerations that should not, however, be underestimated by those responsible for proposing a pairing of wine and food that should enhance both and not create contrasts that are difficult to resolve, penalizing one and the other and also creating problems for the taste of the final consumer.

To me personally it created them a real match where an, admittedly excellent, white from Karst, the result of maceration on the skins, literally slapped a carpaccio of sea bass delicately seasoned with oil, orange juice and light spices. I asked my chef friend, "But why do you let yourself ruin that dish with such a risky pairing?" And he replied, "With my sommelier there is no reasoning anymore, I just don't know what to do." 

Oenological consistency, aimed at enhancing the best characteristics of a wine, which then leads to pleasant organoleptic notes, determines fewer problems in pairing and makes wines recognizable and easy to place within their appellation. If understood in the correct sense, avoiding technological forcing and exaggeration, akin to therapeutic overkill in certain cases, it is an indispensable element and must precede any other consideration. The rest is a comment that should come later, and is part of the narrative that a producer can make to explain how he managed to make such an interesting wine and so pleasantly representative of his territory. 

All so as not to debase sharable practices, such as those of sustainable vitienology, with a trivial commercial subterfuge that does justice to no one and only causes so much confusion.