Re: Bad year for old frogs,good year for European wine

It is wrong to assume that hot+dry weather will increase the quality of grapes and wines across the board. That might be the case for some of the latest ripening varieties in some of the coolest regions, but I wouldn't expect it to hold true for, as an example, Bordeaux.

I've read reports of night temperatures in France not falling below 30 degree C in some periods (the major reason why so many people died). Such night temperatures are in no way a good predictor.

French vineyards, like most European anyway, are not irrigated. With daily temps frequently above 40 deg. C and very meager rainfall since early spring (at least in France) I would assume the vines were under a great deal of stress. I remember the Loire Valley was not as green as usual as early as this April (before budburst).

Harsh tannins, loss of fruit and unbalanced structure are not uncommon in wines from the heat-stressed years.

Since all this is more or less common knowledge for anyone with more than a passing interest, I wonder how much propaganda is behind these synchronized "heat = good" headlines.

Tracing sources of these news almost invariably leads to people who have vested interest in that the world (and particularly the part with the buying power, lead by the US) associate '2003' with 'exceptional'. Ain't necessarily so.

A quote from the CNN Money: " Kathleen Talbert of the public relations firm Talbert Communications, which represents George DuBoeuf Wines in the United States, quotes DuBoeuf saying that this could be the vintage of his lifetime. "And he's 70 years old," she says. "

And he would say that, wouldn't he...

Counterpropaganda against the freedom fries? ;)

Well, the year that 2003 climatically resembles most in modern history is 1947 - both in France and Germany. And 1947 actually

M.

^ of

M.

Amp,

That's a pretty good summing up, I'd just add: that the jury is still out, until the vendange at least; according to the bordelais every decent vintage is "the best of a lifetime" at least until futures are sold! ;)

So, maybe it will be a great year in some regions, here's hoping.

To the OP, your subject line is incredibly offensive. How would you feel if your grandmother had died in the heat, then you read this? Think about it, and try to maintain a modicum of decorum. I'm sure there was so ill intent, and I'm not taking you to task, just attempting to point out the problem gently. TIA.

-E

Quite right. The offensive subject line and the ridiculous question in the body made me stay away. Asking how good the vintage is before it even happens is really quite silly.

Mike

OK guys, fair enough. I'm usually pretty careful, but I guess I fell for it this time.

Subject closed.

-E

I can't believe that you guys responded to this troll.

read the subject line again!

Salut/Hi Young Martle,

le/on Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:07:53 -0230, tu disais/you said:-

Yup, I didn't believe the first half of the subject line was for real, so ignored it.

sorry folks for fallingf for a Troll.

That said, despite Michael's parallel, I stand by what I said being cautious over 2003 as a vintage.

OK, I get it now. I really didn't think twice about the "frogs" from the subject line, I guess I am not up to date with colloquialisms. Really ugly, I understand now.

For the second part, well, there are those of us who are in the business of saying how good and how big will a vintage be before it happens. It sometimes may look silly, though ;)

CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK-- CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--CROAK--

This is not a reflection on Ian's comments, rather a comment on vintages in general...

I've just finished reading the vintage report in the August 2003 issue of the Australian & NZ Wine Industry Journal. From cold-climate to hot-climate I have not read a report that did not say things were less than good (most said excellent). I will qualify this, because the Tasmanian was the most honest, saying that only the good vignerons who paid attention to their vines had good grapes - something that I believe to be a truism.

Now, as a winemaker I only pay attention to the grapes that arrive in bins (that's where grapes come from, right?), but even I know that a hot year (2003) is better for cool-climate areas, whereas a cool year (2002) is better for hot areas. You can't have your cake and eat it...

So, I ignore all reports of a "good vintage" until I taste them, or until someone I trust has tasted a particular wine. For instance, in McLaren Vale in Australia, many vineyards were very low in yield. I visited Kay Brothers Amery (who I admit I used to work for), and they had well-above-district yields, but still had great (fantastic) intensity of fruit, with above-average yields. The answer - know your vines.

I've tussled with Ian in the past over the honesty of winemakers. From careful reading ("we" is a giveaway) I attribute the vintage comments in the A&NZWIJ for each Australian district to local marketers. Marketers have the morals of a cornered venomous snake. That is all I wish to say on that subject. The Tasmanian report was written by an employee of the state government's department of primary industries (aka agriculture). I'm not saying civil servants never lie, but the incentive is less in this case...