Religious

Are you a religious wine drinker?  I would guess your answer would be, “NO!” – or am I wrong? However I think you are, more than you know.

Religious is a word, which doesn’t rime anything groovy when it comes to wine. Religious wine drinkers are just too much – out of reach and preaching constant meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

If you are an atheist you will most certainly not feel comfortable in a religious crowd of wine drinkers. Thing is with the religious – not only do they understand their own religion, but they are also far more narrow minded and will also look down upon those who just don’t “get it”. 

Religious wine drinkers are currently linked to the natural wine movement. Before that it was the biodynamic thing – the Rudolf Steiners disciples and it probably still is. The natural wine drinkers are here in the Danish press being portrayed as the “hooded”, which isn’t exactly positive.  As I do indeed drink a natural wine I find myself being defined as someone who was brought up with parents, who only made food over open fire, had frizzy hair and bad breath.

Natural wine drinkers praise wines, which are beyond flawed with vinegar profiles, smells of cow shit and have volatile acidity. Despite their enthusiasm we doubt their motives. They have to be under some kind of spell to praise such crap. They have to be disciples of some kind of movement. They have to be religious.

Seriously?

Could it be religious just happens to be the same as passionate? Because what does it mean to be religious?

If you Google it in Danish + Wikipedia (directly Googled translated from Danish to English) it comes up with this definition:

A religious experience is an experience that leaves a human experience religion immediately. The experience is not in itself dependent on either faith or thinking. Not more than eg. a color experience a musical experience or a humorous experience it. The question of faith comes first into the picture afterwards, when considering whether the experience was authentic or a hallucination.

A religious experience might be something big and dramatic as such. A miracle or a revelation, but the vast majority of religious experiences are quite undramatic, which may not even be "done" something. These experiences do not affect primarily through individual experience strength, but rather through their quantity. For many people, religious experiences something everyday that occurs many times each day  

So basically religious is a range of experiences you can’t explain. The only sort of proof you have, when it comes to wine, is the string of these occurrences is affecting your emotions. You will most certainly be curious to find out what specifically happened and see if you can bring that feeling forward again and again. What often happens in this process is the search for patterns and meaning – and sometimes also a conclusion. But not always do you find a conclusion. Some experiences are left open, surrounded by mystery and fascination.

Let’s take one step further.

In a weekly Danish radio show called “Spirit in the bottle” (link – it’s in Danish) the host, Poul Pilgaard Johnsen explains how he can’t exactly pin point what makes wine almost feel like a drug. Yet he has never taken drugs, but to him wine can bring him to a state of ecstasy and trance.

I feel the same way – and I don’t have any proof. I just know that the wine fix is highly addictive.

But in fact the evidence is right in front of us.

"The word flavour stands for the composite sense

of taste, smell and 'mouth feel' in the field of research,

which is about perception with the intake of food and drink (called

»The sensors'). Flavour is thus an expression of a

Integration of the three primary sensations and

takes place in the brain, "

"The processed information sends further smells into the

Limbic cortex in the part of the brain called the 'limbic

system '. The limbic system also contains also the

basic emotions (aggression, joy, etc.). For more than

one sense, scents and feelings therefore closely intertwined. "

(Source: Danish Chemistry No. 11,: Flavour - chemically (II))

I am not surprised that our impression of flavour is closely linked to our limbic system. Think about it. What was it that got you interested in wine and keep you coming back for more and more? It’s our senses and our emotions. Things we can’t always control, because they react spontaneously. These are the catalysts behind middle ages men like me, will describe a liquid with phrases like; mind blowing, emotional, seductive, sexy, weightless…etc.    

Wine appreciation is born religious – fostering the passion all wine lovers posses. It’s the unexplainable what eventually fascinates us – encapsulates and intoxicates our passion. The opposite is predictable reason and control. Seems like it, because it’s so much easier to communicate and handle – especially if you write for a consumer audience.

But who the hell care about reason and control in wine? Wine is bigger than an Excel sheet – otherwise I wouldn’t even bother to write these lines.

As I see it, we are desperately trying to remove the unexplainable (and potentially the religious) – aren’t we aware that our minds are constantly under influence? Is it science fiction that people can have fluctuating moods?   

My confession is that I am a religious wine drinker and so are you – or maybe you just forgot.

AMEN.

Why I like Natural Wine

(The beauty of nature)

Today’s wine appreciation relies on processing data, building consensus, fragmenting and subdivisions around wine. Wine is within the “system” (which I will come back to) a technical idea. The philosophic thoughts and reflections around wine has for a long time been under attack from an overpowering pragmatic concept of wine. The romantic wine drinkers are slowly being silenced – yet small blips of biting back, continues to emerge.

So does Mother Nature and the buzzes of natural wines are getting more and more attention. So is the debate. However the debate seem to be more about ideology and those not in favour being driven nuts by the term ”Natural”, as it presents a meaningless battlefield of those who drink natural and those who apparently have realized they are drinking UN-natural wine. The definition of natural wine is in addition weak – and in a environment formed of constant fact and evidence seeking, it’s driving the debate even further off the cliff.

(Mads Rudolf)

In fact I'm opposed to the idea of constructing a definition of natural wine. I believe that 'natural wine' is not in any way a conceptual idea with clear boundaries and definitions that include or exclude specific wines. Natural wine is not a concept really; it's just wine that is not manipulated too much. It's somewhat against the spirit of natural wines to propose a definition. (Mads Rudolf; from “Natural wines – outlines of a definition”).

Those who drink Natural wines are being called in fashion, religious, praising wisdom to the non-believers and the whole movement are being addressed as The Emperors new clothes. Yet there is not any marketing or addressing what’s inside the bottles and in fact the winemakers are trying to go back to the old way of making wines before the use of modern techniques an obscure use of treatments/chemicals in wine became popular. Many natural winemakers will say they are just trying to keep the diverse uniqueness in wine and create an alternative framework.

So where is the focus coming from? Is it because the journalists now have something new to write about? Maybe - but the biggest contributors to the buzzes of Natural wine are emerging from the people who actual drink them in big quantities and have something to say about them. Interesting enough – many of those in favour aren’t newcomers to wine. So how come we aren’t curious to find out why? Are we too proud on our ideology belief or is it because these natural wine believers just aren’t too impressed with those who have REALLY SERIOUS WINE CELLARS? Why on earth do they want to spend time and money drinking something, which is not even, rated (if so – pretty low), oxidized, weird, blurred and so far from what the “system” defines as good wine?

One thing is certain - it’s not accepted to change taste in wine – even if the natural wine drinkers can explain why they are shifting taste.

Let’s take a closer look at the system.

The System

My theory is not aimed nor addressing specific persons, despite some of these persons are the leading architects behind the system. I have no opinion about these persons. When I think of it – these persons stick to their game plan and always has. It’s a voice – leading to some, useless for others and probably somewhere in-between for the rest. However it’s the rules, subdivision and the interpretation of the frames, which creates dilemmas, for what I have chosen to call the system and I can’t describe my appreciation for natural wines, without having touched upon this first.

The system is in our fast moving information society a logical and to some degree an innocent outcome. The system is based on processing information and removing areas of uncertainty in wine. It’s also designed to build up averages, consensus and it’s easy to detect whenever someone is far from the median. When it happens we often raise the question on possible off bottles or motives from the taster to understand why he or she is so wrong – not “us”.

The system has also created a financial district, with ratings moving the market, underlining how wines are becoming a commodity and movement towards more data and less emotional aspects in wine. The ratings prove to be a strong mechanism, giving sudden transparency and wine is no longer just fermented grape juice, but an object for investment when the ratings are favourable. Wine becomes attractive, not only for the investors, but also for the wine lover because the ratings acts as an acknowledgement factor of what trophies you might have in you cellar and the market value they posses. It ties market mechanism to wine and we are exposed to; greed, flock mentality, panic, desperation and lust. In such an environment – for those who want to address softer and philosophical aspects in wine are instantly being attacked of wanting to have an overly emotional discussion about wine. We want data – we trust data within the system.

In the system it’s very easy to live. It doesn’t take you long to decode and adapt to what DNA is required for a wine to score high. Quickly you will go from wine-zombie to pretty good, when you realize, that you can actually hit the same scores as the professionals. Who doesn’t want to be good at something? In practice, this means tasters will become more and more objective in their evaluation, because they obey a concept of testing wine and not drinking wine. How many high scoring wines do you actually see today, which praises a wines drinking pleasure? Almost none – because drinking pleasure is secondary, so is the wines ability to pair with food. The system works within a frame of the world Championships in blind tasting and it defines a simple angle of winners and losers.

If a taster knows how the system works and how to achieve acknowledgment within this framework – you can rest assure that some producers will be tempted to obey the voice of the market. Result = more wines looking alike.

The system has little care in terroir. Wrong I hear them say – just look at how much Robert Parker has praised and fostered the concept of single vineyards. Well maybe, but always from a pulse of flavour with more and more power. How often is the single vineyard a less concentrated wine than the standard cuvée? The system tributes the duel – designed to emphasize a battlefield in blind tastings. The declared winner, will always be based on the their vital laws on hedonism. A super Tuscan made by Michel Rolland can be applaud in the system and a declared winner, even if some taster praised it to be a great reflection of a left bank Bordeaux and didn’t find anything Italian about it. What are the purposes of making an Italian wine, which doesn't taste Italian?

Wine is not a duty – it’s a journey of fascination. Our hunts for uniqueness are being driven from our senses and not from a set of pre-selected tools. I often feel today’s wine evaluation has no room for reflection. Reflection takes time and is being overtaken by fast consumer guides. However reflection introduces a vital shortcoming, which is: doubt. Doubt is not welcome in the system, because it’s the opposite of facts and the system relies on presenting flawless results – otherwise it would collapse. Yet, reflecting upon a living breed, like wine, we must find ourselves in doubt otherwise we are exaggerating our abilities.

(Anselme Selosse)

“What you see here has no importance – all the matters are my vines” (Anselme Selosse – standing in this beautiful barrel room in Avize, when I visited him in 2009)

Where does the obsession of having control over wine come from? Putting everything in boxes by fragmenting wine. Don’t we wish more of wine? Why don’t we talk about the how man and nature is closely tied together and how important the nature elements are to the expression of wine? Why can’t I say – this wine is more real than this one, because it expressed more soil, more pure fruit and less winemaking and manipulation of the raw material? We are obsessed with our comfort zone, but people don’t evolve in their comfort zone – neither do they do it in their anxiety zone. The optimal zone of evolvement lies by pushing the comfort zone just to the point of the anxiety zone. Here we are in full alert – because we have something to lose. Why don’t we challenge ourselves more when it comes to wine?

In my humble opinion there is nothing you MUST do in order to understand the essence of wine. Instead – you should ask yourself what do you WANT from wine?

When that happens, you will be free to form your own opinion and you will relate to wine, which is free. You will begin to ask the vital question on how we initially came from an emotional impulse >>> to a point where we obey a system and chose to uniform that emotional experience.

(Alexandre Jouveaux - natural wine with attitude)

Transformation – being outside the system.

“I hate good taste. It's the worst thing that can happen to a creative person.” (Helmut Newton, photographer)

Imagine your are in a room with people fairly unexposed to wine, but in general people who like a glass of good wine. You are now given the task of trying to infect these people with your passion in wine. You have 10 minutes to do it. What will you tell them?

Will you tell them how fantastic diverse wine is – how nature’s footprint of microclimate conditions and soil components play a vital role in a wines taste and soul? How wine is also about culture and regional traditions. How many grapes, wine regions, philosophies, producers there are and how the journey in wine will never come to an end? Will you tell them, that to you wine is a living organism and explain them why you feel like this?

How wine is also about people – from seeing and understanding a producers passion and philosophy? How wine is a social tool – were we are all equal in the centre of wine? How we quickly connect and make new friendships bases solely on a glass of good wine? How wines can tribute to food and how fascinating a spectrum of flavours, acidity and structural profiles can create a perfect match??? Or will you tell them, that basically all you need to do is to sit in front of your computer and subscribe to a ratings, database and gather your needed information’s on wine forums?

As I see it, when we search for the really important things in wine it has nothing to do with rules, numbers, subdivisions and hierarchies. So why not forget about it and step outside in the fresh air?

Here on the other side there are no rules. Nothing is right or wrong in wine. Perfection is not a desired goal nor is a specific taste and no one has a monopoly in trying to tell you what good taste is.

Natural wine

Nature is orderly without being perfect, as we have seen again and again. Nature's most useful patterns are never outdated but are kept for endless re-use, and the overall scheme of evolution is very stable and resilient. But mechanical perfection would be death to nature as it would be to us as part of nature. Nature is a live, self-creating process forever making order from chaos, forever free to do something new -- to reorganize itself when necessary, even if only to stay the same; to create new forms when old ones no longer work. Perfection would be the end of evolution, the end of freedom, the end of creativity. We have learned that nature is far less than perfect for a very good reason -- for the same reason that nature is far more than mechanism (Elisabet Sahtouris, Greek-American evolutionary biologist)

Natural wine is an alternative. Yet - natural wine is not an exclusive island of only fantastic and good wines. There is good and bad, just like conventional wines. Neither has natural wine monopoly of being nirvana of wines, which reflects nature, and the awareness of its terroir. But I like, that the starting point and template are about preserving the energy, which lies in nature’s imperfect raw material. Why even bother to care and form your opinion if the starting point is a product that doesn’t live?

Natural wines are the complete opposite of the system. It’s based on a definition, which doesn’t really exist. There are neither facts nor evidence on natural wines – it’s The Emperor's New Clothes if you compare it to the system, which is based on “the truth” and perfection, if you ask it’s inhabitants.

“Natural wine is only successful if isn't forced in a specific direction” (Mads Rudolf; from “Natural wines – outlines of a definition”).

I am imperfect – and it’s far more interesting than being perfect, once you learn to accept it. However for a long time I believed wine to be a hole in time - reflecting a perfectionist world. Putting wines on a perfectionist pedestal is forgetting that life IS imperfect and seeing it this way has made me have a far more balanced presence with wine. Letting go - have fun, listen to music, go crazy, introduce unpretentious - because that’s how the wines are.

“It may sound a little far fetched, but you see I am very committed in recording the errors in my work - not deleting them, not making it better, not adjusting it to forgetfulness, but to preserve it for the energy that lies in the substance...” (Danish poet and filmmaker, Jørgen Leth).

I like wines with messy hair – wines that might stick out, unfriendly at first, even particular – but filled with character. It’s no different with the relationship betweens us - humans. We all have different personalities – that’s what makes us interesting and why we care to get to know each other. Contact between humans doesn’t represent a guaranteed success of future friendship. The importance of this exercise is merely to demonstrate how we activate our full holistic judgement and how we cared to do so. If wine becomes a uniform liquid, we will halt to seek deep contemplation, present care and our judgments will be replace by pre-designed templates. Our opinions will be objective and not subjective

(Sune Rosforth - Denmark's most handsome wine importer)

What can natural wines offer?

Low sulphur, drinking pleasure and humbleness.

I think the debate about sulphur is being driven in the wrong direction. It’s a discussion circulating around zero sulphur and how that equals unstable wines. Maybe we should take a closer look, how exaggerated use of sulphur might be a bad habit and how some winemakers can actually succeed with lower or no sulphur. The benefit from creating focus around low dosed sulphur wines will be knowledge of what sulphur does to wine?

“How should people know they are getting cheated of buying the best strawberry varieties, if they have never tasted them?” (Claus Meyer – Founder of Restaurant Noma)

We will also begin to understand and accept, why it’s so logic that drinkers of low sulphur wines have a far lower threshold against sulphur heavy wines and why there is very little alignment in the debate.

“Try tasting a lot of natural wines and then go back to a wines, which is dosed with too much sulphur. You will realize how difficult it is to drink them. Your body absorbs natural wine in a whole different way. Studies have shown, that in some conventional wines there are up to 500 times of the permitted amount of pesticide residues in comparison what’s permitted in drinking water. It’s clear your liver has to work hard to clean poison and sulphur, instead of processing just the alcohol, which it does when you are drinking natural wine. ” (Sune Rosforth / Rosforth & Rosforth – one of the first importers on natural wine here in Denmark) Quote is from an interview in Berlingske))

(The lacquer neck on low sulphur wines)

Personally, some 3 years ago I never had problem with sulphur – I simply never reacted negative towards it. But since I have been exposed to these natural wines - I have become extremely allergic.

To me sulphur heavy wines smells awful, but they also change the structure and energy in wine. The structure becomes almost slippery – meaning the raw material can no longer manage to cling on to the structure. The negative side effect of this outcome is loss of nerve and energy – and wines with such profiles are dead wines to me.

Low sulphur wines drinks so damn good. They are purer, friskier and have more life, which all ads up to drinking pleasure.

Drinking pleasure has to be the most logical thing in wine – even for those who have no clue about wine. Try telling a person, who has no care in wine, that some wines are just so big and concentrated that you in fact can’t drink them – but still they are considered to be the greatest wines in the world. It’s a sick story and the game of testing wine has gone too far.

I like wine is also about a humble approach. A grower doing his/hers best to express the land they have at their disposal. Not correcting, but just emphasizing what is already there. A place of origin - a work of creativity and authenticity. Not made to blend in, corrected to win a popularity contest or follow a box office script.

With creativity – like art – there are always elevated risk of someone getting provoked. This I like and especially if you tune into natural wine as an alternative and nothing else.

So to wrap up this long mumbling post…and thank you for reading this far…I like natural for many reasons as you can see and because it keeps me alert, curious and emphasize my greed for authenticity.

All the best

Thomas

Buying wine - about taste, money or emotions?

(The gigantic Riedel Sommeliers "Burgundy Grand Cru")

Whatever level, interest or angle you might have towards wine, you will face (or probably have already) the inevitable task of having to judge. Wine is a liquid which is subject to our opinions, as it's not only valid to express our thoughts on taste in general, but learning from other tasters and developing your own palate, is something we can all benefit from.

So what else is new, you may ask? Nothing really - but is it that simple? See, swirl, sniff, sip and savour - make your conclusions and just buy the wines you like and can afford - how hard can it be?

I was in Berlin a couple of weeks ago, tasting a lot of dry German Rieslings (more on that later) and during the warm-up night we touched upon some emotional aspects on being a wine drinker. Maybe not much new was said, but it was a nice reminder for me - as my own purchases of wine are under the influence of many variables. I realized that I was not alone.

Drinking wine as a whole human being I would call it. It already sounds like a tacky cliché line from a B-Hollywood movie - but think of it, just for a moment and I explain what I mean by that.

The passion about wine couldn't be the same if wine was something, which was generated from plastic fantastic materials in a laboratory. We are fascinated by the fact that grapes grown in nature can be transformed into a fermented juice, which has the ability to move our senses. This also means that someone had to nurse the grapes and their vineyards in order for it become a great drink. People!! - The most important thing in winemaking. Wine producers we can visit - learn their philosophies - see their passion in order to understanding their wines better. Suddenly the liquid is turned into a footprint and something with a personality. The challenge has begun.

Travelling to wine regions, also means visiting new and old cultures - understanding how food, wine and terroir make their match together is not only a here and now thing, but also a historical insight, which enhances the understanding of the wines. So another layer has been added.

The craftsmanship of mankind already has the ability to get our wallets rolling and it doesn't really matter if it's a handmade watch, car, shoe, handbag or the most sought after diamond necklace. We are willing to pay for the storytelling and artisan sells. But the product is one thing - which, when it comes to wine, always will be exposed to some sort of QPR (quality price ratio). We then adjust it a bit, as supply/demand; can be a factor, which has the ability to stretch our financial limits. So we are ready to buy - or? The other angels are the impression you find, when you are out there in wine country. A shut door perhaps? Not V.I.P enough to get in or maybe not just a good visit – something went wrong? I remember a wine festival here in Copenhagen. We went over to a producer, which is known to be controversial. First thing he said was "Now you have tasted the other ones crap wines - now you taste the real thing". Have he said it with a twinkle it would have been innocent, but he didn't and I didn't pay attention to what he said nor his wines as we tasted through his range. Saying that I will never buy wine from this producer may sound a bit sissy - and I might miss out on some great wines. Here wine is different. The purchase of a bottle of wine is still solely relying on taste and nothing else - or is it? Wine is somewhat one dimensional in this category. Something we can analyse - spit out with points and conclusion.

No one wants to hear that we think this producer is great, because he is the nicest persons on the planet and takes care of nature, as he or she is a certified biodynamic winegrower. We also don't want to hear if you don't want to buy this wine, because you think the producer is way too commercialised and you only buy wines which are produced by "real people" and not a "factory". Such an opinion will be almost political. Generally speaking, we want to know how the wines taste - spare us the emotional fluffy things and to hell with things like use of "chemicals" - as we can't taste their presence anyway. But Still - on other levels of our society, we take a stance and don't look down on let’s saying; vegetarians or companies who make sure that their products are obtained in an ethical manner. In fact our modern world is filled with increasing moral standards and this generation is more puritan than ever before.

Or is, what I have just described above, the case?

Why come, wine should be any different? How come, if you express your opinion on subjects related to wine, but not solely to their taste, you will be seen as the most saved man on the planet? Even worse - you will be seen as someone on a mission to manipulate and mislead.

Buying wine may sound complicated after reading this - it's not, it's a choice like everything else, in my humble opinion.

What's your choice?

Let's go outside

Some 7 years ago I attending a blind tasting – held on a splendid warm summer day. The tasting took place outside and I remember how we all were completely confused – resulting in wrong guesses and wines performing beyond their normality. So, like they do in modern football – we blamed someone else, we sacked Mother Nature and moved the tasting inside.

From this day I have often had the view, that tasting wine outside is problematic as there are simply too many things going on. Sure – it can be conducted – and we even have a term for the wines suitable for such in Denmark; “terassebasker” – which could be translated into a cheap wine which quench the thirst – but is never a great wine.

Currently – here in Denmark, we are riding a wave of beautiful summer weather. When you know how depressing the winter are here – and how a summer can rain away in temperatures below 20 degrees, you have to forge while the iron is hot, like now. I take every single opportunity I get to have dinner outside and of course also have a good glass of wine.

About a month ago I came up with the idea to write this post as I accidently took a phone call inside, with a glass of 2006 “Les Ursules” in my hand and noticed how different the Champagne was outside vs inside. Since then I have done the same exercise with all the wines I have (about 12 – se below) and with every single one of them, I have preferred them outside.

So why better and what is different??

First of all, it’s important that one takes into account the feeling of freedom when you are outside. When the weather simultaneously is good - like now, it makes us northern hemisphere Vikings a feeling of finally be alive and with a glass of wine we are in an optimal stage of relaxation.

Wouldn’t it always be better to taste wine under “controlled” circumstances?? But what are truly controlled and “correct” environment for tasting wines? A restaurant maybe – when the table next to you is covered with scents of perfume or just the food altering the wines profile completely. A cold cellar, when you are visiting a producer, where you can smell yeasty components maybe – or just the fact the wine is always a fraction colder?? I am confident you can achieve what can be view as an optimal environment for tasting wines – but I am merely saying that the subject holds a lot of grey areas.

So what was better?

A common thread running through this little experiment was that all wines could fall under the category; elegant wines. I am thinking that a certain type of wines might benefit from being served outside. The tasting 7 years ago was mostly blockbuster wines (we liked that back then) and all wines performed strange. So do we have a pattern? Elegant wines work – blockbuster don’t’? No – of course not. It’s the positive result of only 12 wines, nothing else.

Still it doesn’t stop me from wondering. You see, not only were these wines elegant – but also holding fresh and bright fruit cores. It’s also wines with moderate alcohol. Tasting these wines outside made them even fresher – their spices racier and simply just the joy of them higher. Inside made the flavours a bit duller, which corresponded with the simple equation of inside, was stuffy and outside was pure liberation.

So dear readers – don’t be afraid of tasting great wines outside and do posts back on what experience you have had – good or bad.

The wines involved in this small experiment.

2002 Chartogne-Taillet “Fiacre”, Champagne
NV Jacques Selosse “Rosé”, Champagne
2007 Fanny Sabre “Savigny-Les-Beaune”
2008 Alexandre Jouveaux “Le Mont” (tasted 3 times)
2004 Dönnhoff, Riesling “Hermannshöhle GG”
2007 Emrich Schônleber, Riesling “Halenberg GG”
2006 Cédric Bouchard “Les Ursules”
2008 Jean Foillard “ Morgon Cote de Py ”
2007 Jean Foillard “ Morgon Cote de Py ” Magnum
1999 Deutz “Cuvée William Deutz rosé”
2006 David Léclpart “L’Amateur”
2009 Dard et Ribo Crozes-Hermitage Rouge, “C'est le Printemps ”

Cheers!!!

New book from Champagne guru of them all; Richard Juhlin

If you have a Champagne disease, like me – you will most certainly hear the name Richard Juhlin at some stage. If you want to label Champagne expert on a wine journalist on Planet earth – Richard Juhlin is the one. Personally he hates the term Champagne expert, as he finds it pretentious and a narrowing spectrum of the human being behind this title. This is typical for Juhlin and for those I know you have met him several times. His is, despite what people beliefs of luxurious Champagne habits might be, a very humble and down to earth person. He even characterizes himself as a romantic. It seems from reading between the lines of his books, that his alert senses is a vital part of his personality and the reason why his passion shines throughout all of his work.


There is a reason why Juhlin is beyond any competitors on the Champagne field. Few wine experts have solely committed themselves to a single wine or region, like our Swedish friend here, and the database consist of nearly 6.500 tasted Champagnes – a Guinness World Record.

2003, Richard Juhlin participated in the” Spectacle du Monde” tasting, held in Paris. 10 Professional tasters got a simple task – blind guess 50 champagnes. They only thing they where told, was that the bottles where available in France. I am not 100% sure, but I think nr. 2 got 13 out of 50 correct. Richard Juhlin on the other hand, did rather well. His tactic was simple – the easiest first, to build up some confidence. When he had tasted 40 Champagnes, he had nailed all 40 correctly – even Richard was surprised of his own abilities that day. His final result was 43/50 correct – pretty good if you ask me ;-)
No doubt that Richard Juhlin is born with some extraordinary good radar sensors and the leading voice on Champagne. He writes with passion and inspiration and you will get awful thirsty if you start to have a look inside his universe.


His new book is a small guide in pocket format useful to have with you if you just happened to be in the region or just traveling and looking to buy some Champagne. The book is like all other books from Richard Juhlin with beautiful illustrations and nicely organized, so that you can easily search for your favorite champagne, producer or vintage. There are only the actually score, not the full tasting note – you will have to buy 4.000 Champanes book or join his http://www.champagneclub.com/ to get those. Even though this new guide is an update, with 2.500 more tasted wines since 4.000 Champagnes – you won’t get all of the scores. You get an update on the latest vintages and releases and probably those you can still find on the market, and additional you get scores on “Old highlights”. I guess at some stage a new “X.000 Champagnes” book will hit the shelves as his database is constantly growing.

The new Champagne guide also includes Restaurants and Hotel accommodations in Champagne.

So overall, even if I feel rather well updated in the Richard Juhlin universe, and this book is only a supplement for me, I could still see myself and others running around in Champagne with this Benchmark guide in my hand.

For more information http://www.champagneclub.com/

/Thomas

The best wine in the world…and the winner is – Champagne

Why in God’s name Champagne?

Champagne is often used to celebrate a joyful moment or occasion and we all know it from New years evening, where it’s a regular. The label Champagne is also common used to all kinds of Sparkling wine, even if Champagne is only allowed to this small region located 150 km northeast of Paris. Champagne is also associated with glamour and an extravagant lifestyle – at least if you drink it more than 2-3 times a year. But here is its worst enemy in my opinion. It’s only when you begin to treat Champagne as a wine, not a thing or a phenomenon, you will see how great a wine it is.

I will explain.

First of all, it’s of course great, that you here have a beverage that you immediately connect with something positive. Your enthusiasm about Champagne will probably not be reduced when you see tiny bubbles rising from a beautiful Champagne glass. The role of this unique and traditional Wine is of course being massive used on a commercial scale. Huge industrial companies and luxury good groups are behind such prominent houses as; Krug ,Möet & Chandon, Veuve Clicquot, Ruinart, Mercier, Mumm, Perrier Jouet, Roederer, Gosset and Piper Heidsieck. As a passionate wine drinker you will at some stage be challenged on the fact that you sometimes feel you pay more for marketing budget, fancy gifts box’s and in all essence make a tribute to shareholder value. It’s much easier to adapt to the storytelling version, where you feel you buy a unique product from a small producer - a person behind not a company.

But the rule off all the fluff, hula hula and glamour works both ways. As a consumer you have to pay attention of what’s inside and when you are able to do that, with an open mind - you are one step in the right direction.
On the producer side – the small Grower Champagne house live side by side with the Grand Marques. The big house use millions of dollar to promote Champagne all over the world and the small Growers are happily making some kind of benefit from this focus. Even if you can sit, as a wine geek like me, and analyze a wine from A-Z, there will for sure be a positive vibe from Champagne, which will be generated from smart marketing people, creating a big balloon of images of a good life, when drinking Champagne. But at the end of the day – it’s a wine, even if it can make you smile for several reasons – remember that.

When you start treating Champagne as a wine, it will automatically change the way you drink it. Hopefully, you will let pop the cork more than 2-3 times a year. When you are about to pick a wine to drink, you will think of Champagne as the alternative to white, red or dessert wine, and not only as aperitif or a palate cleanser. Yes…you heard me – Champagne is the most universal food matching drink out there.
The obvious reason for this is of course the bubbles or more correctly put - the mousse. It cleanses the palate and keeps the taste buds fresh and ready for the next serving. Champagne will also be a perfect companion to the food, making sure that both food and wine will have something to say, as Champagne has an enormous purity and subtle feel like no other wine.



In addition Champagne’s diversity and ability to age will opens a wide window of dishes, which can be successfully matched. A crisp young Blanc de Blanc with elegant fish dish or a dark mysterious 15+year old Vintage Champagne with some Pinot Noir in it, matched with a more concentrated dish – soups or even Foie Gras. The choices are endless.

In a world of wine databases and skilled journalist’s ratings wines, I feel there is a tendency sometimes to forget the simple role of drinking pleasure. A journalist has to keep some sort of objective focus on the wine, as they have a listening audience. For sure there are palate preferences escaping these professional palates, but the professional taster has a hard time not recognizing the term you can call “A well made wine”. A wine of such character is a wine, that might have an impressive concentration or in general just a high quality. But a well made wine is not necessarily a wine you could drink a whole bottle of (at least for me). You see – the professional taster sometimes only have one glass before he or she moves on to the next, as they have a huge portfolio of wines to cover each year. But for you and me, the consumer – we are the ones sitting with the whole bottle and feel the heaviness or the problems with a well made wine. So where am I going with this….

It all comes down to drinking pleasure and in my humble opinion Champagne earns itself another trophy. For me the real pleasure of seeking a great wine, could be narrowed down to, how much you look forward to the next sip. Champagne has with its mousse a unique way to keep the taste buds curious, and never will they feel tired by high alcohol, tannic overload or heavy structure. Champagne is an intelligent wine – a wine where you will not necessarily be presented with big opulent WOW monotonous fruit core, but a wine, where you slowly will see magic escape in tiny dozes and complex evolvement in a glass. The more wine you drink, the more you will seek to be challenged and not be given all clues in glass no. 1. Great wines tend to demand more from its taster and great Champagnes can like no other wine inspire you to concentrate and focus even more.

So have I managed to tickle your curiosity? There is only one way to find you – you have to drink more Champagne.

Good luck – but be warmed, when you are hocked, there is no cure.


/Thomas

Language

Back and forth from English and Danish…So where am I going?

From 11th of September 2008 I will change the language to English.
Best,

/Thomas

About points

In the database you will find wines with a given point (XX). The system is called the 100 point scale was introduced in 1978 by the most influential wine critic on the planet; Robert Parker. You can find more information about the rating system here

http://dat.erobertparker.com/info/legend.asp, but overall the system works like this:

96-100: An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety. Wines of this caliber are worth a special effort to find, purchase, and consume.

90-95: An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. In short, these are terrific wines.

80-89: A barely above average to very good wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavor as well as character with no noticeable flaws.

70 - 79: An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine.

60 - 69: A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor, or possibly dirty aromas or flavors.

50 - 59: A wine deemed to be unacceptable.

Why Points, why not. From April-2007 I stopped to give points.

Why?... I will try to explain.

Do points work? Sure they do. There is a difference between wine A & B and some wines are simply better than others. But to see wine as a drag race is quite naïve and narrow minded, as wine is not something we test, but something we use. Which one is best; Selosse bold oaky infected Rosé or Bérèche fragile Instant rosé? Put them in a boxing ring, and Anselme will knock Raphëal over, if he can catch him. Serve Selosse (like in the Krug Party tasting) with Beef flaps with beetroot, parsley and smoked marrow and magic will appear. Serve Bérèche Instant rosé and the food will be too much for this elegant Champage. We should embrace the diversity of wine, in order to understand wine better and not to forget that we are all small emotional aliens on a constant move.

Points are the fastest consumer path to digest through all those fluffy adjective descriptions we call tasting notes. Points are like Aaron Levensteins quote on statistic: “Statistics are like bikinis.What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital”. Defenders of points will always tell you, that the text description of the wine is equal to the value of the point. But I don’t believe in this sales speech, as points will always be the center of attraction in such a setup.

I’ll accept that the professional tasters have adapted the use of this schematic dogma in order to communicate their messages. However – for us consumers, which ends with a whole bottle and not a mouthful it’s completely ridiculous to use points.

Why?

Last year I saw Sting & The Philharmonic Orchestra play an unforgettable concert in the Danish Royal Theatre. I had a horrible stressful week and the concert came as an angle sent from heaven. The concert was everything I hoped it would be. First thing I noticed was the sound level. Rock or pop-concerts can be rather tinnitus provocative, but this was gentle, delicate and gave the sound a fragile breeze. I sat there and just let myself get sucked in and for a moment I saw only sheer beauty of life. I was emotional captured, no doubt it and held my wife’s hand and felt happy. Writing about it, maybe sound a tad too romantic, but emotions are small spontaneous blips, which can be pretty hard to suppress once they have been activated.

In front of me, there was a guy filming the concert with his iPhone. He filmed 2-3 times, before he wife leaned over to the poor soul and asked him to stop. I could easily ignore it, as the music had already hypnotized me, but still I thought about after the concert.

Why would one film such an event? Why do I even write tasting notes and not just level and relax with the wine?

Well I could probably try to find a Freud angle on this guy filming the concert with his iPhone and stir it around in a big bowl of soup, which plot is about increasing narcissism in our society. But that’s probably not a good idea, as I am a victim myself with this blog thing.

So what has this to do with points?

Well – wine is not just about breaking the code, recording the evidence, nailing the wine and sending it to the morgue with a tag on the big toe. Wine speaks to us in different tones and languages – so why not listen and not talk all the time.

When I write a tasting note I rarely scribble while drinking it – but wait until I have finished the bottle. I do this to understand the wine better, but also in order to bring myself to a state of mind, where I mentality can relax and level with the wine. This is not easy for me, as my daily work absorbs too much of my energy. So it’s not a bullet proof plan and sometimes I fail. I fail when I expect too much of myself and never seem to bring myself to that aesthetic comfort zone. But with all boundaries lies lessons to be learned. My lesson (maybe also yours?) is listening more carefully to my state of mind and adjusting it to the wines I am drinking. That’s why you will see tasting notes, where I increasingly praise “simple” wine, as they have the ability to please our palates with delightful fresh flavours and never passes the volume limit, which causes too much stepping on each others toes.

When succeeding to level with the wine, that’s my preferred way of going forward. I might not get all of the details right, as I take my notes the day after, but I don’t care. It has no relevance. My tasting notes are not the correct equation; it’s a diary entry – nothing else. I don’t praise you to tell the truth, because it doesn’t exist in my world. Paper notation while drinking the wine would be like continuously stopping while having sex or dancing with your partner.

In the end I would be no different than the fool filming the Sting concert with his iPhone.

That’s one of the many reasons why I don’t use points. I could come up with a lot more, but I rather say Cheers!!!!! and let’s drink some wines.

Best from,

Thomas