Winophilia

Now that literally dozens of winemakers around the world have described the differences between Old and New World wines, I trust you’re thoroughly confused. But by now you should also have a much better grasp of why so many wine insiders believe that the past couple of decades have witnessed a blurring of the boundaries between these two “styles” of wine.

Wine lovers often refer to wines as “Old World” or “New World” in style, sometimes without even being able to explain what they mean. What do these two terms mean to you? What are the characteristics that would make YOU call a wine New World or Old World?”

Alberto Antonini, Wine Consultant (Italy and Argentina). Old World is meant to be Europe and all its wine countries, and New World is all the others in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. The OW producer is trying to sell what he is making while the NW producer is making what he thinks is easier to sell.  In other words, NW wines are designed to please the modern consumer. They are, organoleptically speaking, more friendly to the consumer (tannins are softer and juicier and aromas are more focused and upfront) and they deliver a more accessible concept to the market, which is the varietal concept (e.g., cabernet, chardonnay, etc.). 

The OW is more focused on delivering to the market the regional or appellation concept, which is not as easy to understand, as well as the wine style (drier tannins and more subtle aromas), and requires some wine education. What I’m saying is obviously in general terms.

What we are experiencing in the last few years is that in a way the OW is slowly moving toward the NW and vice-versa. The OW has realized that the consumer’s palate is changing and is fine-tuning its wines in order to make them more friendly but still with a clear identity and sense of place, while the NW has realized that just making the wines for the market can lead to a major problem, which is the lack of identity and the risk of becoming a commodity business. That’s why now in the NW there is a clear move toward the concept of origin and in some cases the appellation is becoming quite important.

Brian Bicknell, Mahi Wines (New Zealand). I think the definition has become somewhat blurred over the last 15 or so years, and it has made it so much harder in blind tastings! It used to be that a ‘fruity’ wine was more likely to be ‘New World’ and something with more savoury notes was ‘Old World’, with most of this difference being winemaking rather than fruit source. Now the wines have more similarities, with more funk and trueness emerging from newer areas and a lot of fruit bombs coming from older places.

From my point of view, if I compare sauvignon from Marlborough to that from, say, Sancerre, one of the big differences is acid balance, with Marlborough showing a higher malic structure, so I will use that to determine differences, but there are obviously areas with a more continental climate, and subsequently a more similar acid structure.

I do believe the terms are becoming meaningless as new areas develop and winegrowing philosophies merge.

Christian Seely, Quinta do Noval and Château Pichon-Baron (Portugal and France). This is a distinction I find infinitely easier to make when I have the bottles and the labels in front of me!

At the Institute of Masters of Wine symposium in Bordeaux we tasted four wines that gave useful insights on the question. First, we compared two wines from Henri Bourgeois, one their Clos Henri Sauvignon Blanc from Malrborough, and the other their Côte des Monts Damnés Sancerre. My first reaction (with the labels in front of me) was to confirm my assumptions about how they should differ: the New Zealand wine was more marked by varietal character, extravagantly aromatic and very charming, while the Sancerre was more complex, mineral and profound. This is how I thought they would be in advance and how I initially found them to be. But going back to them as they developed in the glass, I found the Marlborough wine developing complexity and minerality, and the Sancerre developing beautiful sauvignon blanc aromatic character! I would like to try this again blind over a lunch. I think inevitably one brings one’s already established ideas to the tasting when you know which is which. I am not sure if I would find it quite so easy, in this case, blind, to point out the “obvious” New World/Old World differences.

We later on tasted two wines that unmistakably did illustrate New World/Old World character, both wonderful. The first was a Penfolds Block 42 Kalimna Cabernet 2004 presented by Peter Gago, the second a Château Margaux 1996 presented by Paul Pontallier. In this case I think the difference in Old World/New World styles was unmistakable in any circumstances. The Block 42 was for me a superb example of a wine where extremely concentrated ripeness has been embraced by the winemaker, to give something you could never have in Bordeaux, while still remaining fresh, balanced and harmonious. For me a triumphant example of a great New World wine, that could not possibly be mistaken for Old World. And then the Margaux was archetypal great Bordeaux, quite unmistakable, with perfect balance, freshness and harmony, delicate and powerful, long and fine.

So in the case of the Bourgeois wines, I found my received ideas challenged, and in the case of the Block 42 and the Margaux, I found them most enjoyably confirmed!

André Ostertag, Domaine Ostertag (France). For me New World wines are sexy and provocative, they are based on fruit bombs and soft palates, but most of them have no back taste and finish—at least those which are the result of irrigation, because irrigation maintains the vine roots in topsoil and cuts the terroir impact.

Old World wines—I don’t talk of the industrial versions but of the traditional wines—are not obvious. They demand attention, and the real revelation comes in the back taste: they have minerality and saltiness, the signature of the terroir. Of course some New World wines show great terroir and a lot of Old World wines have lost their native terroir, but terroir is for me the key to understanding the differences between what we call Old or New World style.

Bernard Hervet, Domaine Faiveley (France). This question is very interesting because the vocabulary is essential to talk about wines but is a source of much misunderstanding. In my mind “Old World” or “New World” is more a style distinction than a geographic distinction. The typical New World wines at the beginning of the ’90s were fruity, overripe, over-oaky and toasty, with a high level of residual sugar. But you were able to find the same characteristics in the Old World during the late ’90s and more recently.

It’s more complicated to define an Old World wine style, except to be the opposite of the other. But in my mind an Old World wine style has to be well balanced, easy to drink, very digestable, with a lot of complexity. You can find New World-style wine in Bordeaux, especially in the right bank, and you can find some Old World-style wine in California!

Generally speaking, there is no common vocabulary to describe the wines with precision. It’s not only a problem for consumers but certainly for producers too.

Giuseppe Mazzocolin, Fattoria di Fèlsina (Italy). It is no longer possible, in my opinion, to utilise the traditional categories to distinguish wines by their various continents, since every agricultural environment is inevitably evolving towards something different, even in the most conservative/traditional growing areas. The current process of globalisation of the world economy has tended to bring about, it is true, a uniformity of tastes and styles; but it is nonetheless also true that it is the cause of a counter-tendency that is leading to a local area-driven viticulture wherever the binomial man-nature is still alive and active.

It is precisely this factor that is providing increasing evidence of those distinctive and unique qualities of both areas and individuals that make certain wines so different from others. And it is precisely in such a global society that it makes no sense any longer to speak of an Old World and a New World, but of a local area-driven viticulture that can be traced out in the ideal geographical atlas that only high-quality wines can create. One can, as a consequence, put one’s trust in every single vineyard that the culture of fine wine recommends to the attention of the contemporary consumer, irrespective of national allegiances. The viticulture I have in mind will come to full fruition only in the future, but it is one with deep roots in the past and in all of the geographical locales where an honest viticulture is being practiced.

Josh Bergström, Bergström Wines (Oregon). To the general consumer and most wine-lovers, I believe that “Old World” simply means “Europe,” or the birth-region of their favorite varietal, the place where their favorite wine has been made for generations by the same family in the traditional manner. And the “New World” is where some of us are now living, working and attempting to carry the torch in our own way, with reverence to the past but an eye towards the future and our own markets and customers……my favorite use for these outdated pieces of wine-jargon.

To obsessed techie wine-geeks, I believe that “Old World” has meant: flawed wines made in an era, country or style that did not have the privilege of modern-day technology, information or technique. Whereas “New World” is a proud monicker to describe their new region’s recent historical efforts in blazing new paths with a certain wine varietal. And I believe that “New World” historically has been used by some “Old World” protectionists as a way to downplay new efforts with their favorite noble European varietals as futile or unfavorable in places other than their historical favorite.

But what does a “chauvin” (New World) winemaker like me know anyway?

Marcelo Pelleriti, Bodegas Monteviejo (Argentina). I have been making wine on two continents for the past ten years. In 2001, I began at Chateaux Montviel in Pomerol and in 2002 I added Chateaux Le Gay, also in Pomerol. In 2006, I joined the latest undertaking of Catherine Péré Vergé at Chateaux La Violette in Pomerol. There are different soil types within the three chateaux, thus resulting in different wines.

As of 2002, in Argentina I craft Lindaflor, Monteviejo and Clos de los Siete. Within our vineyard parcels we find significant differences in fruit expression, thus providing the opportunity to distinguish, at least on a personal level, between the best parcels and others that are not quite as good.  This marks part of the style of the final wine. I also consult in San Rafael, located in southern Mendoza, and in Salta, north of Mendoza. The most interesting aspect of all this work is that nothing is the same! Fortunately, there is no monotony: the malbecs are different and all of the varieties show a different expression. The style is there, and it’s logical because each one with its personality becomes a different type of wine.

OK, good: what is a wine from the Old World or the New World? I believe there is no better or worse, simply tradition and time. When we speak about Chateau le Gay, for example, within our wines in Pomerol, it is a wine with fruity typicity and ripeness but always revealing an element of earthiness and firm yet elegant tannins. In addition, it’s a neighbor to Pétrus, which has unequalled terroir and tradition.  In the case of La Violette, it’s a wine with softer tannins, more elegance, fruity and floral—a neighbour of Le Pin and Trotanoy.

What about Lindaflor, Monteviejo, Clos de los Siete, Val de Flores, and other blends with a high percentage of malbec, Argentina’s emblematic variety? Lindaflor shows ripe fruits and spices and an earthy character, an expression of the poor stony alluvial soils. Val de Flores, with fruits, flowers and minerals, is cultivated in alluvial soils with more depth—in fact, an average depth of two meters of stone.

Well, I can describe each wine, each parcel, each region within Mendoza as well as each region in Pomerol: gravelly areas, sandy areas, clay-like areas, cold and warm soils. But what is most important is that everything is in the head of the winemaker at the moment of harvest, and then later in applying winemaking technique for that year, climate and terroir.

Today the definition of Old World and New World is broader than it was a while back. I believe there is a lot of professionalism in grape-growing and winemaking. Hence there are winemaking styles that can associate with grand wines from the great appellations of the traditional chateaux, which have a distinguished style and will continue to do so.

A wine with Old World style is one that possesses an integrated tannic structure with fruit, minerality and marked acidity. It is natural and balanced. The oak should be integrated to be part of the wine and not the star of the wine. There are regions within the New World that permit crafting wines with this style, but not all terroirs allow it. A wine with the New World style possesses a more accentuated concentration of tannins. The style is marked by the sunshine, the lack of rain and the stony soils and warm temperatures, all natural attributes that cannot be changed by man.

For me, there is a modern definition of Old and New World, where tradition and the new creative techniques of the winemaker work together to achieve the expression of the desired product.