Common Wine Misconceptions

If you fall in love with wine, you may be inspired to learn things that you never imagined you would care about.

                        Eric Asimov, The Importance of Being Humble

        The opening epigraph alludes to the ways I have come to study and appreciate wine. It all began with my love of wine and the opportunities I have had drinking lots of wine with people I care about before it ever became an object of study for me. As the world of wine has become a central focus of my attention, I have come to realize there are many misconceptions that are closely associated with wine and the wine industry. 

Like many professions, different people have different opinions on most topics of importance, and along the way, I have encountered many disagreements and conflicting bits of information. Some are disagreements of opinion that are still up for debate, and others are, well, downright misconceptions that most wine enthusiasts and professionals think have been answered. For this chapter, I have selected My Top Ten Common Wine Misconceptions that I believe are worthy of our attention. They are listed in descending order as follows:

Wine Misconception # 10 – Wine Glasses Don’t Matter

    There is a lot of controversy about whether the type of wine glasses you use affects the taste and experience of a wine. Since Reidel started making wine glasses that were designed to be paired with specific varietals and types of wine in the 1970s, people have been endorsing or contesting their assumptions. Whether you agree that an expensive wine glass from Reidel is better than one from Zalto, most wine drinkers would agree a decent, moderately-priced stemmed wine glass is preferable to drinking wine from a plastic tumbler. When it comes to the size, shape, and the exorbitant cost of some of these glasses, the range of opinions quickly expands.

    For me, size does matter. A glass with a large curved bowl, that isn’t too bulky, regardless of the shape is fine by me. I do own different wine glasses for white and red wines, some for champagne, and others for dessert wines, but most of the time I use what is known as a Bordeaux glass for all my casual wine drinking. I suggest throwing out the stemless glasses, they just heat up the wine too fast no matter how avant garde they might look. You don’t need to spend $75 on crystal stemware, but at least spend enough to get a decent, stemmed wine glass that enhances the flavor of your wine selections.

Wine Misconception # 9 – All Chardonnay is Buttery

    One of my biggest pet peeves about drinking wine is the fact that many people think all chardonnay is a butter-bomb. Yes, there are terrible chardonnays made in the United States, Australia, and around the world. And yes, they are often over-oaked, buttery, flabby wines. However, not all chardonnays are made this way. Chablis is made from the chardonnay grape in France and most examples are crisp, acidic, and lean. Chablis is a wonderful-to-drink-with-oysters type of wine. Many winemakers have begun to offer unoaked chardonnays here in America to combat the other types available. Many chardonnays can also be excellent, light-bodies versions of chardonnay.

    There are wine manufacturers that have made their name and reputation by creating buttery, oaky chardonnays. Rombauer, Far Niente, Butternut, to name a few pride themselves on extensive oak aging and extended malolactic fermentation. In the supermarket you can find many examples of oaky, buttery chardonnay, but it’s not the grape’s fault! Winemakers need to sell wine to stay in business, and the general public wants these types of wine, though we are seeing a change in this trend. My suggestion is to try an unoaked chardonnay, or a glass of Chablis and see if there isn’t room in your cellar for some of these excellent white wines.

Wine Misconception # 8 – Vintages and Scores are Most Important

    The controversies surrounding the scoring of wine are legendary and were only amplified by Robert Parker Jr. when he created the 100 point scale. The assumption is that wines with higher scores are better wines. And, wines from the better vintages are the wines worth drinking. I have dedicated a chapter later in the book on the topic of scoring. For now, let me say that the 100 point scoring system itself is a misrepresentation since almost all the wines score between 80 and 100 points. It’s really a twenty-point system like the scoring system traditionally used in England. In addition, there have been numerous studies and publications challenging the reliability and validity of various wine scores and from expert to expert in blind tasting events. Enough said for now.

    If you look at a restaurant’s wine list and see the same type of wine listed ten times with ten different vintages, I can guarantee you they are priced differently. So, is it worth buying a wine from a particular vintage that comes with a heftier price tag? The answer is maybe, and maybe not. There are certain vintages that are hallmark, classic vintages. 1982 in Bordeaux. 2009 and 2010 in Rioja. 1959 and 1996 in Champagne. These vintages have become famous because most of the wines, from that particular region, most of the time have tasted better than other vintages due to growing conditions, rainfall, weather patterns etc. However, the difference can usually only be recognized by a side by side comparison. There are potentially vintages to avoid whenever possible, but you have to ask why the winemakers would even release wines if they were all that bad. There are plenty of good wines available in “off-year” vintages that will save you considerable amounts of money and taste relatively close to the better vintages, especially in new world wines.

Wine Misconception # 7 – Cheap Wine is as Good as Expensive Wine

    For some wine drinkers this may be completely true. If you think Yellowtail Chardonnay is a great wine, then who am I to question your opinion. I promise you, Yellowtail is not the same as a Grand Cru White Burgundy from France, but one bottle is definitely more expensive than the other. More expensive wine is often wine that has been produced with more care, aged in more expensive barrels, possibly comes from a particular, renown vineyard, and has been gently cared for by a competent wine maker. 

    There are some valid, and some questionable, reasons why some wines are far more expensive than others. Some of the more exorbitant prices are way beyond the means of the average wine drinker. The price tag on a bottle of pinot noir from the Burgundian producer Domaine de La Romanee-Conti can exceed ten thousand dollars. The cost of making that wine is based on more than production costs alone. Some would say the price is ridiculous, but most people given the chance would jump at a chance to try it. I know I would.

    The biggest differences in quality of wine is often between a $10 bottle and a $30 bottle. At ten bucks, it is probably a mass-produced wine that came from sourcing grapes from wherever the producers could find them. For $30, you should be able to find a nice wine that has been well cared for from a single estate. The difference between a $50 bottle and a $80 bottle gets a little more difficult to discern. It becomes more about preference and the refinement of one’s palate at those levels. 

For most wine enthusiasts, the wines we buy range from $20 to $150 dollars a bottle. So how do you justify buying wine at these prices if you don’t think they are better? You don’t. If I could get the same quality of pinot noir for $20 bucks, I wouldn’t shell out over $100 for the bottles of Antica Terra I buy twice a year. 

Wine Misconception # 6 – Sulfites Give You Headaches

    This is one of those misconceptions that still fascinates me. People tell me they don’t like red wine because the sulfites in the wine gives them headaches. Wrong! It's the higher levels of alcohol usually associated with red wine. There are more sulfites in potatoes, gravy, Coca Cola, pickled onions, and dried fruit than a bottle of wine, yet rarely do these same people complain about a potato hangover. Most wines contain less sulfites than 100 parts per million. That’s per MILLION. Unless you have an allergy to sulfites, or are severely asthmatic, the trace amounts of these elements has little to no effect on you. The reason many people claim sulfites are the cause of the problem, is because sulfites are listed on many wine labels. Drink a little bit less wine and stop worrying about the sulfites.

Wine Misconception # 5 – Champagne Must be Served in Flutes

    In the early years of sparkling wine production, primarily in the Champagne region of France, the coupe, a wide brimmed, shallow glass, was the preferred vessel for drinking champagne and other sparkling wines. Then, the flute became popular with many wine enthusiasts and restauranteurs because it extended the longevity of the bubbles in the glass. However, if you go to the premiere Champagne houses in France, you will not be served their wines in flutes. As David White in his book, But First, Champagne suggested, “forget the flute and toss the coupe.”

Today, many sommeliers and wine enthusiasts are using traditional white wine glasses as their stemware of choice for sparkling wines. The primary reason for using glasses with a bigger bowl is to be able to swirl the sparkling wines and get one’s nose deeper into the glass to enjoy the complex flavors and aromas. The narrow opening of a flute glass prevents the aromas from being emitted, even though the bubbles look beautiful in a quality flute.

    Whatever glass you prefer, be sure and chill the sparkling wine down to around 50 degrees, but not too cold or you will deaden the flavors and limit the aromas before drinking it. I enjoy a nice flute from time to time for festive occasions, but if I have purchased a nice Champagne or Franciacorta (sparkling wine from Italy) you can be sure it will be served in a white wine glass to enhance my tasting experience.

Wine Misconception # 4 – Screw Caps Mean the Wine is Cheap

    There was a time, before New Zealand and Australia started the movement to screw caps, or stelvins as they are known in the wine industry, when only cheap plonk was bottled with screw caps. Jug wine, mass-produced wines, and wines made with mega-purple and other additives can all be found under a screw cap. However, since the early 1960s, many excellent wines, predominantly from the New World have been bottled with screw caps. In fact, over 80% of the wines in Australia and New Zealand come with stelvin closures. In addition, there are synthetic corks being developed that may one day replace natural corks, but for now corks and screw caps are used on both expensive and inexpensive wines.

    Traditionally, with the advent of glass bottles for storing wine most winemakers chose cork for sealing their wine. Although there are challenges with cork taint and other faults associated with corks, and cork is getting harder and more expensive to produce, cork allows for wines to age in ways that screw caps cannot. If you want to lay down and age a wine for several years, for example a nice Bordeaux or Barolo, it is preferable to utilize a cork closure.

    Personally, I enjoy the ritual of opening a bottle of wine that has a cork. I like the whole process; cutting the lead wrapper, using my waiter’s key, and collecting the discarded corks seems like a lovely wine tradition. That doesn’t mean I ignore all the great wines from Australia, New Zealand, and other regions that come with a screw cap. If the wine is in good condition, has aged well and it’s enjoyable, it truly doesn’t matter how it’s sealed.

Wine Misconception # 3 – Red Wine Goes with Meat; White Wine Goes with Fish

    Even though this isn’t a bad general rule of thumb, breaking these time honored wine pairing traditions just result in some exciting new wine and food combinations. I love drinking off-dry Riesling with spicy Thai food regardless of whether it is red meat or seafood. I also think Champagne and other sparkling wines are underappreciated as wines to have with an array of foods. Try Champagne with chicken or pork dishes sometime. Many people firmly believe red wine should be served with cheese. Maybe with some more intense aromatic cheeses, but there is nothing more delicious than a nice glass of Sauternes with some stinky bleu cheese.

    Oysters and caviar go well with Champagne, for sure, but try some oysters with a Muscadet from the Loire Valley or a light Beaujolais for a change of pace. Food and wine pairing rules are made to be broken. Experiment with different combinations to see what you think goes well with which foods. Maybe start with some traditional pairings, like Vermentino and linguine and clams, then venture out from there. If the worst part of your day is the challenge of paring wine with the food you selected, remember, you are still drinking wine and eating good food and that makes for a pretty good day.

Misconception # 2 – The Temperature of the Wine Doesn’t Matter

    This is probably one of the most important misconceptions to debunk. Most people serve red wine too warm, and white wine too cold. When I am at a restaurant and all the red wines are sitting out on the barback, I order white wine, even though it will probably be too cold at first. Wine cellars are set at 56 degrees, so unless your dining room is set at 56 degrees, room temperature is way too warm. At the other end of the scale, white wines don’t give off proper aromatics or flavors when they are chilled below 48 degrees. If you keep white wines in a refrigerator, take them out for ten minutes or so before you serve them. Your guests will thank you.

    I keep my wines in a dedicated wine refrigerator that has temperature controls. But if you don’t have one, keep your wine in any type of refrigerator. Please don’t leave your wines sitting out in a cupboard or wine rack in your living room, or worse yet, near the stove in your kitchen. If you do, please put them in the door of your fridge before I come over so I can enjoy some wine with you. It really does make a difference!

And the # 1 Common Misunderstanding – Terrior!

People throughout the wine profession have been arguing about the concept of terroir for many years. A dedicated cluster of sommeliers and winemakers have suggested it might be the most important factor in winemaking, while others have dismissed the idea as a bunch of unscientific nonsense developed as a marketing ploy to raise prices on wines from established vineyards. Across the contemporary landscape, disagreements have arisen between the science community and the wine community as to whether the existence of terrior is even possible. As Parr and Mackay asserted, the word terrior may be meaningless or the most meaningful term in wine, but it definitely has the power to raise hackles and incite debate. The evolution of the concept of terrior is part cultural, part historical, part myth, and as some are working to prove, part scientific or part bullshit.

It has been suggested that the term terroir has no exact translation into English. For the established French wine community this may be a convenient way of continuing to support the mystique that surrounds the term. Terrior is an old French word from the Middle Ages that Wikipedia has defined as, “the set of all environmental factors that affect a crop's phenotype, including unique environment contexts, farming practices and a crop's specific growth habitat.” This definition suggests that many crops besides grapes can have a particular terrior. You can find research and writing to suggest coffee beans, hops used for making beer, cheeses, and other artisanal products have also been closely linked to the concept of terrior.

    Bianca Bosker, in an article in Food & Wine, writes, “terroir is arguably the oldest, most influential, and most-frequently-used buzzword that no one can quite agree how to define.” Even with the plethora of definitions of terrior out there today, the concept of terroir has remained for many wine enthusiasts elusive, unverified, and contentious. Rajat Parr and Jordan Mackey, supporters of the terrior movement, suggest, “by employing definitions that invoke ‘soul’ and ‘what cannot be measured,’ terroir believers resist the scientific interpretation of the term.

Various researchers in the scientific community have been hellbent on disproving the existence of a scientifically validated theory of terrior, while others work to establish an empirical evidentiary base from which to communicate its existence and importance. Studies showing that mineral compounds often said to be tasted in particular wines cannot possibly be taken up from the soil through grapevine roots and transferred to grapes and subsequently the wine in our glasses. 

Mark Matthews, a viticulture professor at the University of California, Davis, dismisses terroir as the most controversial myth of wine-growing and as an, “unscientific, undocumented shibboleth that establishes an in-group in a world unto itself.” Other scientists have been working to establish a link between the characteristics of the soil and environment and the characteristics of the wine being produced by studying the native vine microbiota and various elements found in soil samples. Most of the research on the chemical and biological effects on the physiochemical elements in a wine goes way over my head, but it’s out there if you are interested in reading further. 

    The Wine Folly website defines terrior as having four important dimensions: 1) climate, 2) soil, 3) terrain, and 4) tradition. Each of these factors influences a vineyard’s or region’s terrior. Most definitions suggest a sense of “localness,” a sense of uniqueness of spirit in certain vineyards, appellations, or regions that affects the wine and how it tastes. It is often defined as a combination of soil, climate, altitude, topography, history, and weather that affects how the grape are grown, how they mature, and the wine making process itself. Bernard Magny contends terrior allows for the possibility of authenticity, or a singularity, that is as individual as the exact location where grapes are grown. Matt Kramer calls it simply a sense of somewhereness.

In considering the concept of terrior, it is important to realize that it is not only the natural and environmental factors that play a role, but the influence of the decisions made by humans in the wine growing and winemaking process. To begin, all of the vineyards in the world have been created by humans and utilize grape species that would not have grown in these locations naturally. None of the currently cultivated varieties of Vitis vinifera existed naturally in the vineyards where they are now grown and harvested to wine. For centuries, winemakers selected and cloned particular species and varieties of grapes to work alongside the natural characteristics of a particular region or plot of land. Vineyards did not exist before humans planted them in the ways they now exist. Not only natural factors, but cultural factors like the influence of various churches, monasteries, and religious orders, and geographical factors like navigable rivers and ports for distribution have influenced where and how vineyards are planted throughout history.

The International Organization of Vine and Wine defines terrior as, “a concept which refers to an area in which collective knowledge of the interactions between the identifiable physical and biological environments and applied viticultural practices develops, providing distinct characteristics for the products originating from this area.” This definition extends the other definitions by including the viticultural and vinification practices as part of terrior. No longer is it viewed as simply the biological and environmental practices, it must also include the histories and cultural practices that have been used in these specific locations.

    Whether the concept of terrior can be scientifically validated or not, it is hard to deny the existence of identifiable differences in wines using the same grapes, same production and aging processes, and same storage vessels. Many critics argue that the hallmark of great wines is that they taste of theirterroir. It is hard to argue against the unique flavor profiles of the pinot noirs and chardonnays from various Grand Cru vineyards in Burgundy. It has been suggested by Cornelius van Leeuwen and Gerard Seguin that the mastery of viticultural practices, which have evolved in some vineyards and regions for centuries, are necessary in order to optimize the potential of the variables arising from the natural environment. It is the optimal blend of clonal varieties, grape selections, farming techniques, canopy management and other viticultural decisions that can enhance the factors offered by the climate, soils, and terrain.

Most fine wine producers and grape farmers work with the soils and environments they are given to find a way to create distinct terriors for their wines. Every decision wine makers make, from which rootstocks, clones, fertilizers, and harvest times, to enhance the character of the wines they produce. In modern winemaking, nothing is left to chance anymore. Wines with a sense of somewhereness or terrior are generally from a single vineyard and are produced to reflect the uniqueness of places they are created. These wines owe their flavor characteristics to the climate, soil, weather, and other geographic and environmental factors. These wines have “excellent traceability,” or in other words, they reflect the terrior. They have an expression of place that is not possible in many large production wines.

Many winemakers have rallied against various scientific pronouncements dismissing the concept of terrior and have challenged scientists to explain how wines from one region, vineyard, or plot of land, made in the same way can taste so different, so unique. The effects of globalization on the winemaking community are becoming more pronounced with the introduction of new markets for wine and new regions for wine production. Many of these new regions and vineyards are working to find the optimal combination of varietals, clones, and farming techniques to take full advantage of the existing terrior. The debate will certainly continue.

So What?

    Well, there you have it. My top ten misconceptions of wine. You are welcome to agree or disagree with me on any of the misconceptions I have listed here. The debates surrounding these ideas will live on for many years and some misconceptions, like the idea of terrior, may never be settled. 

Throughout your study of wine, you will be confronted with people that hold passionate beliefs about things you think are completely false. So goes the nature of the wine world. There are very few nevers and always. It might be useful to consider rules and bits of information about wine as widely held expectations; ideas to start with and hold tentatively as you consider them further. For example, a distinction is often made between new-world and old-world wines. New world wines are often described as more fruit forward in their flavor profile, while old world wines supposedly reflect the soils and geologies of their vineyards, lending an earthy note to the wines. The problem is this distinction can only be made in quite general terms. Some new world wines are quite earthy in profile, while changes in climate have driven some old world wines to exhibit more fruit forward characteristics.

I believe each misconception I have listed is worth considering, but I don’t expect you to take up my opinions lock, stock, and barrel. Investigate the tensions you find in wine and the wine industry. Consider all sides of an argument and come to your own conclusions. Be willing to hold some beliefs tentatively and remain open to changing your mind. It’s better to be growing in your knowledge than hanging dead on the vine.