Do we overrate the importance of vintage when assessing wine? Vintage conditions have an effect, at times profound, on the character of wine, but I wonder how productive is an absolute view of quality? Does our obsession with a “best” vintage enhance our ability to enjoy the drink? Or do we, in fact, neglect wines that have something interesting to say in favour of the latest “vintage of the century?”
More and more, I find myself happy, indeed quite interested, to taste wine from supposedly inferior vintages.
Yes, yes Julian, I think you are correct on your questioning of “super” vintages and the years in between. Whilst still, I think of course, looking for the better vintages, one can still get a lot from the “lesser” vintages and they should not be ingnored.
In this way I think “lesser” vintages are linked to the amorphous concept of “terroir”. But they are also linked to loyalty and understanding. Fot instance, I will buy from my favourite producers on “lesser” vintages because a) I want to taste something different and b) to support them when a vintage means people turn away from there product.
Whilst vintages have a fair amount of objectivity in their assesment, there are still subjective factors, and besides that, there is just great interest and learning to be had from the “lesser” vintages (which, as you might mentioned, just might suit your mood/food/situation/company). Thanks for the insight. jeremy
I totally agree, vintage variation seems to melt into notions of terroir, in that year-on-year variation prompts full expression of a particular vineyard over time. For wines or regions that fascinate me, I find that idea exciting.
The question of loyalty is also an interesting one, as it invokes the rather special relationship between producers and consumers in the wine world, particularly at the more boutique end.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Julian.