Lots of cogent comments, and rightly so. This is truly a substantive topic. I’m thinking about the excellent remarks from Geoff, Paul, Andres, and Peter.
But first--I’ve anticipated the issues raised by Jospeh Spellman and would like to get them out of the way first. Joe, you suggest that this is not worth discussing and ask, why have I chosen not to name names?
Well, because I had no intention of launching a witch hunt. That’s not what this is about. Nor would I care to test the waters of libel litigation, given that most of what I know comes from priveleged conversation, well off the record.
More to the point, this issue can be effectively discussed without resort to specific allegation. Joe, your post contains the essence of the discourse. You rightly point out that fine wine is not created by nature alone, but rather is a human collaboration with nature. Decisions are made and actions taken every step of the way. We might say that winemaking is, by definition, manipulating a raw material to obtain a commercial product. Say we characterize a fine wine as a unique manifestation of a growing season in a particular place, whether it’s a vineyard, a valley, or some other geographical feature (Sonoma Coast, anyone? There’s a future topic.). Some manipulations kind of buff and polish that expression, the essential nature of the wine, while others mitigate, interfere with, or alter it. Where do we draw the line?
Regardless of who may or may not be doing what—and Joe, I have to thank you for mentioning a couple things I haven’t encountered yet—the fact remains that we all know there’s some funny winemaking going on in the shadows. So—why in the shadows? And what do we think about it?
(Hey, has enyone noticed that elephant over there in the corner? No? Oh, okay, never mind.)
A little earlier I alluded to the steroid issue in athletics. I’ve pretty much given up on baseball, which was formerly akin to a kind of religion for me, because I hate the idea that some players are juiced. Now, I don’t particularly like regulation of any kind. In fact, I wouldn’t be averse to letting them do it, if they were open about it. (So then what, do we handicap them? Another topic.) But to physically alter your body to gain a secret advantage on a supposedly level playing field—well, that just seems like cheating to me.
Likewise, some winemaking procedures seem like cheating, too. The truth and beauty that I value in wine are not served by Mega Purple—whether I know it’s been used or not. (And by the way, I’m quite aware that MP and its rainbow of siblings are derived from grapes; I still don’t like them.)
But perhaps this whole thing really is just about cheating, and how pervasive it’s become in this ultra-competetive world, and what a shame that is, and it’s not really about wine at all.
Or not? Is it worth talking about? Or should we just move on to talk about, say, the meaning of the term Sonoma Coast?