Tannins, Structure, and California Wines

Steve Heimoff, Chief Editor of Wine Enthusiast, recently blogged about the lack of structure in California wines. Wine expert Adam Japko commented that LVF's "well structured and balanced" wines utterly defied this trend. A worthy read on an interesting topic.

From Steve Heimoff's blog:

Structure, or lack thereof: California’s bogeyman

My old friend David was complaining about wine yesterday. He doesn’t know much about it, despite my mentoring him for all these years, but he does know he’s looking for, and missing, “tannins.”

What does David mean when he talks about “tannins”?

He said he wants to feel something solid in his mouth when he sips a wine. Something grippy, structural. I told him that, if he didn’t mind spending $60 or $80 a bottle, there were some Barolos and Barbarescos I could recommend which would fulfill his tannin quotient. He replied that he buys Super-Tuscans, but even they seem too soft for him.

This set me to thinking. I probably use the word “soft” in my wine reviews more than any other adjective, except, possibly, for “dry.” (Maybe “fruity,” also.) Sometimes when I call a wine soft, it’s a compliment. But most of the time, it’s not. For example, I called an Esser 2008 Cabernet Sauvignon soft, but then I explained it “lacks structure, which makes it taste too sweet.” Sometimes, a wine without firm tannins and at least some decent acidity will taste sweet even it it’s technically dry.

This is the problem with so many California red wines. They’re too soft. That makes many of them taste alike, even when they’re made from varieties as different as Petite Sirah, Mourvedre, Syrah, Tempranillo, Cabernet Sauvignon and Zinfandel. We inherited from Old Europe the concept that different grape varieties should and do taste differently from each other. They’re grown in distinctive places to which they’re adapted their dna to thrive, and they express distinct qualities. I don’t suppose it has been easy, all these centuries, to mistake a Beaune Pinot Noir with a Saint-Estephe Cabernet Sauvignon (despite Harry Waugh’s wry “not since lunch” reply when asked if he’d ever confused Burgundy and Bordeaux).

Click here to continue reading on Steve's blog.

Wine expert Adam Japko's response:

Thanks for raising the need to consider context and peer groups when writing or interpreting reviews. Agreed on the redundancy of adjectives working across a wide span of varietals. and it bugs me when I notice it in my writing or when I read them in others… sometimes it haunts review relevance, but tucking it back into the context of the varietal under discussion makes things feel better.

Also, the light you are shining on a sea of interchangeable jammy California varietals is something I thought about when I tasted a newly released Loomis Family Vineyards serious Rhone fruit Rose and a clean but exotic Grenache Blanc this weekend. While both reflect a house style of gripping acidity that eliminates any easy perception of soft roundness on the palate, I thought to myself that most jam fans would not like these well structured and balanced wines even though I, and probably your buddy David, would knock people over to get another glass. Maybe it is good to be weaned on so many soft wines so we can understand a more interesting winemaking approach when it presents itself.