New World vs. Old World: country classifications

Switzerland is definitely to be included, the production is quite widespread and considering the size of the country a significant producer, covering reds, whites, botrytis and also using lots of unique local varieties. Lebanon OTOH does not produce much at all.

Romania new world? Hmmmm... on what basis? Anyhow, it produces a lot of bulk wine, indeed does it merit inclusion? Remove it and you have 8 + 8, a good start.

If you include Romania you have to add Bulgaria, Yugoslavia etc..

If quality wine is a criterion, then I would add Slovenia, for sure.

"Leo Bueno" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Romania is possibly new to the world as a wine producer because it was a closed country during communism, but they are not newcomers to wine... You'll have to go back to something B.C. to find the beginning. By volume, R is number 10 in the world. Certainly Old world, like Lebanon.

New world are those countries that started later than 1700, say. I.e. Australia, U.S.A., India, China, Argentina and so on. There you find less set standards as to what to grow, where and how, not to speak of using established names for their own products - like Sauternes in New York (shudder...:-) Anders

"Leo Bueno" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I would like to consider what constitutes the operational definitions of "Old" versus "New". TO a certain extent, such operationalisation would be driven by the use the list would be put to. Also, you would have to start with a valid definition of what constitutes a wine producing country. You are of course already doing that by debating wether to include e g Lebanon or not. If you are not taking the easy but prolific measure of including any country that does produce wine that is commercialised, which would land you with strange animals like Norway (they produce wine on the shores of the Oslo fiord), and Denmark, you could collect the countries that have the largest production in the Old World (Europe and the shores of the Mediterranean), and, vice versa, the New World (anything else). I am sorry if this is a wee bit picky, but I have spent the last 20 years of my life trying to operationalise things ... so don't take it too seriously ...

Cheers

Nils Gustaf

"Ed Rasimus" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

They cetainly made quaffables in China and Japan a long ime ago, but they wouldn't be considered wine, would they? Not being made of grapes from vitis, I mean. Operational definition again.

They do have a history for producing wines way earlier than the 18th century, so, by that standard, they are definitely Old World.

By that token, so is Sout Africa, btw, since they started their first vineyard before 1700. OK, so the wine was largely undrinkable, but still.

I agree with you. A generalisation should carry some sort of intrinsic value, and I doubt that this particular one does so. Take an example - say, Penfold´s Grange. Very high class by all accounts (beyond my means I fear). Why would it be more like a high class Californian Shiraz than a top of the line Hermitage or Cote Rotie?

Sorry, I fear I digress, because the question was not concerning the wines as such, but the wine-producing countries. I do think the question bears some cogitation, though.

Cheers

Nils GUstaf

I'm not sure what the purpose of the exercise is either, but if you're going to make lists, how about Greece?

They produce plenty of wine, much of it "old world," much of it "new."

-E

"Ed Rasimus" skrev i melding > Somehow "new world" and "old world" will always relate linguistically

Of course. We all agree, I think, that wine production started somewhere in the middle East, something like 4-5000 years ago and spread westwards from there to Europe in general. Now consider the situation about 1500. Which were the wine producing countries then? Any in Asia? In Africa? In America? From that point in time Europeans 'discovered' new land and settled into them. Some, like the missionaries, established their own small vineyards, but wine production and consumption as a substantial part of economy and culture was late in coming. I feel that it is these late coming countries that should be called 'new world' in wine terms, often characterised by a certain technological acuity and a spirit of experimentation and inventiveness less found in the more strictly regulated regions with one or two thousand years of history. That some of this inventive spirit has flowed back into the 'old world' is only laudable, of course :-) Anders scratching his head over whether Norway is 'new world' :-)

L'esprit de Munch, or whatever it was, has now ceased production I believe.

But what about England. Produced wine in the time of the Romans, and going from strength to strength now. Old world I'd say.

"Steve Slatcher" skrev i melding news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

True, the owner sold off after 1999 vintage, it appears for a variety of reasons. It seems that the new owner did make some wine; 450 bottles in

Anders

I tend to call wines "old World" and "New World" on the basis of attitude. I also think since the Dreaded Parker, lots of old world vingerons are now making new world wines.

But that is only IMHO...

And Croatia, of course. Personally I'd add Macedonia, too.

M.