An NZ Star White Wine                  Volume XIV, Issue 6 March 19, 2009

It’ a topic I haven’t delved into extensively recently since most Americans are now into buy-and-drink mode. But aging wine is an exercise in the sort of self restraint that it takes to keep one’s hands off the extra chocolate chip cookie, or off the extra scoop of hollandaise. Is it worth it? That depends on who you are. You prefer freshness over complexity? Ah, well that’s a toughie, isn’t it? With a well-made, great fruited Riesling, I argue that what you get from just a few years of cellaring is clearly worth the wait. It’s hard to recount the joys of burnished, faintly old character that comes from a 10-year-old Riesling.

It often has a character I liken to dried citrus peel, or a whiff of new leather. There can be a trace of petroleum, almost kerosene,but it is unique to Riesling and it is a charm only time can deliver. And it is not for everyone.

It was one of the long shots in the history of wine: New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc took the world by storm in the late 1990s and has become, in the words of at least a few younger wine lovers, a rock star. But the entire story of NZ SB has never been told, and though much of this wine is great, some is quite poor. And that has undermined how I view New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc in the last year, and why I am so fixated on what I see as a more consistently great NZ white: Riesling. Some U.S. buyers of NZ SB are as yet unaware how bad some of it is because much of it has the all the appropriate bells and whistles. And it still seems to sell rather well here. In visits to New Zealand, we have had the good fortune to try some utterly astounding Sauvignons. These are true to the varietal, with or without “cat pee” being a major component, and with variations for regional differences. It is esoteric, to say the least, for newcomers to NZ SB to ferret out these regional nuances. For one thing, such an exercise is not even very interesting to dedicated xenophiles, and only a handful of people would care about such subtle differences.

Then there is the key component of all wines that are aimed at working with food: acidity. In the early days of NZ SB such as with the 1996 Kumeu River, the first Kiwi SB I ever lasted, acid was a key reason we bought these wines. They were lean, tart, crisp, or whatever other vinous descriptor seems to fit. Flavors were slate-y, lime-y, and minerally. But this spelled trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with D and that stands for discounts. U.S. importers and wholesalers perceived that the tartness of many NZ SBs had a way of slowing down sales to sweet-toothed U.S. buyers—the same buyers who fawned over White Zinfandel in the mid-1980s. I recall with great fondness early 2000s Isabel SBs that were tart and austere… and superb! Yet wholesalers are powerful, so the word slowly filtered down under: make ’em sweeter. The idea was simple. If the wines’ acidity was too daunting, just leave them with enough sugar and the wines would still deliver their exotic, native NZ grapefruit/gooseberry scent, but would also be soft enough to sell faster. But the sweeter styles don’t go as well with food. Then there is the fact (which has not been reported in American wine magazines), that a lot of very poor bottomland in Marlborough has been planted over the last decade with Sauvignon Blanc that makes rather wretched wine—if you are paying close attention. For the most part, these dull wines are not yet being sent to America, but I suspect they will be.

People without great palates often don’t make the distinction between very good and very poor New Zealand SB, especially when the wine in question is being served at a restaurant that also offers hot wings, fancy hors d’oeuvres, chipotle anything, and especially where no one at the table wants to make a scene by suggesting that the wine is lacking in something And so New Zealand’s best recognized white wine has been undermined by the same thing that has undermined many great wines: an attempt to make it simpler and more “likeable.” Not all of it, of course. There is still a host of great NZ SBs that are dry and deliver the great character that only New Zealand can offer .And for now, most are the widely recognizable names we now are buying. But now there is a newcomer on the scene to steal Sauvignon Blanc’s thunder, and it is a grape that I long have loved, and which recently has gained much stature in the wine world.

The New Zealand version of Riesling has been around for a long time, but now wine buyers may be on the verge of discovering a new classic wine, and one that doesn’t have to apologize for its sugar. Here is a brief look at New Zealand as a great producer of Riesling. The country has a birthright in cold-climate varieties, with Pinot Noir now coming on like a freight train, and cool-climate Merlot and Shiraz already showing more than just a bit of promise. Riesling, which is now being made by as many wineries as make a Sauvignon Blanc, gains sugar in a slower manner than in, say, California because of the colder temperatures. By staying on the vine for longer periods of time, grapes get mature flavors at lower sugar levels. That means picking with great acidity. In some cases, the acid is so high and the pH so low that a wine would be undrinkable without some residual sugar. As a result, the traditional New Zealand style of Riesling is medium-dry, the second of four sweetness levels as created by the International Riesling Foundation. In a recent article in Cuisine, a New Zealand magazine of wine and food, writer Bob Campbell, the top expert on his country’s wines, wrote about a blind tasting of NZ Rieslings he had staged. “The suitability of New Zealand conditions to Germany’s site expressive grape becomes more apparent with every vintage,” he wrote. “Consumer interest still lags behind the impressive quality gains our Rieslings have been making, although there are encouraging signs that may be changing. “The tasting panel was charmed by the varietal purity of the top wines and impressed by the exceptional value most represent. Stylistic variation, another hallmark, was also very evident.” In other words, the wines were refreshingly different from one another. Campbell’s top 10 Rieslings, some of which may be available here, include 2008 Sanctuary; 2007 Pegasus Bay “Aria” Late Picked; 2008 Mt. Difficulty, Target Gully; 2008 Forrest, The Doctors; 2007 Peregrine; 2008 Lamont Classic; 2008 Anchorage Bay; 2001 Forrest The Valleys, Wairau Dry; 2008 The Crater Rim, Waipara; 2008 Tresillian Dry. In the Tasting Notes on Page 3, we tried 20 or so of these wines, all 2007s that are available in the United States, and found the overall quality to be astoundingly high across the board. And the average price was under $20 a bottle! Sauvignon Blanc isn’t the only world-class New Zealand white!

News Headlines

Pomerols and St.-Emilions from 2008 are reportedly superb, but there may be no market for them. The economy is that bad. The European Union is considering a rule that would allow French rosé to be made by blending red and white wines. Purists are aghast.

2007 Siefried Riesling, Nelson $17: Floral and spicy with a soft entry. Still a baby, and air makes it clear. Superb balance.

2007 Paritua Riesling, Central Otago $20: Lean, slate aroma with hints of lime. Fairly rich mid-palate, but based perhaps on sugar that isn’t really discernable since the acid is so good.

2007 Bird Riesling, Marlborough, Old Schoolhouse Vineyard $20:

 Spiced, floral and somewhat more exotic than others. We loved the 2006 and this wine is better.

2007 Saint Clair Riesling, Marlborough, Vicar’s Choice $16 Lime and Granny Smith apple notes with a fresh appealing underlying softness that is ultimately dry on the tongue.

2007 Northfield Riesling, Waipara Valley $16: Wildly exotic, smelling as if Gewurztraminer were added, so the aroma has rose petals and carnations. Oddly delightful.

2007 Kim Crawford Riesling, Marlborough $17: Delicate tropical fruit with lime and a soft entry, but bone dry finish.

2007 Muddy Water Riesling, Waipara, James Hardwick Vineyard $23: Faint trace of kerosene in the aroma, with mainstream Riesling flavors. Relatively rich and soft, a real crowd-pleaser, less for food than as an aperitif.

2007 Lake Chalice Riesling, Marlborough $19: Citrus and slate, rather lean entry, but a softer finish make this a perfect wine for Thai food. A top producer.

2007 Spy Valley Riesling, Marlborough $20: Quince and a tad of kerosene, with a layer of tropical fruit. Soft and balanced.

2007 Mud House Riesling, Waipara $14: Tangerine and a blossomy note, somewhat softer than many others. But a delicious aftertaste saved it!

2007 Giesen Riesling, Marlborough $12.50: A bit of a conundrum. The aroma is really backward, with hints of dried citrus peel. With air, the wines opens to show potential. A tasty wine that improved with aeration. There was an indication that cellar aging could make this wine a sleeper.

In the lead article, I wondered about the sub-regional character of New Zealand Sauvignon. That led to a search of sites on the internet, and that proved futile, so I turned to the expert in the field, New Zealand writer Bob Campbell, one of the most skilled tasters in the world. I e-mailed him and he wrote back to suggest there was no internet site that discussed this. So he offered his own: “Briefly, I find that: Hawke’s Bay produces wines with tree fruit, particularly nectarine aromas with little vegetal/herbal influence adding an early-picked component doesn’t work as the wine contributes aggressively unripe flavour. “Martinborough: an intriguing mix of Marlborough-type passion fruit, gooseberry and bell pepper with riper tree fruit/nectarine aromas.” Then there is Marlborough, a huge area that has three major subregions :“Awatere Valley: Tomato leaf, nettle, green bell pepper and gooseberry, sometimes with a slight passion fruit influence. “Wairau Valley north of Raupara Road: Delicate, aromatic passion fruit and currant bud, sometimes with underlying herbal notes “Southern Valleys: More intense than Wairau heavier soils with strong passion fruit, bell pepper,

After sampling 11 California wines priced $12 and under, I found none worthy of this spot this week, and kept reflecting back on the above wines. Most are world-class, taste great now, and will age. If you must have a sub-$10 wine this week, I can only apologize.

gooseberry and armpit/box hedge characters in many cases. And finally the southernmost area: “Central Otago: Emphasis on grassy, vegetal aromas often with a cut of mineral salts/slate character.”

Doing Your Own Blind Tasting

Staging a blind tasting, into which you put “ringers” to see how they score, is always a fun way to see how good the wines are. But it also can tell a bit about the quality of the tasters.If the tasting is of all one varietal, a great tactic is to arrange to get about six or more wines with three or four of the same style. Say you do Sauvignon Blanc, three from California, one from Sancerre, one from New Zealand and one from South Africa. The best strategy is to tell tasters only that they are trying Sauvignon Blanc, nothing more. If they know that different regions are in the event, they’ll begin to seek out elements that may or may not be there. Also, it’s best not to say anything about the prices of the wines. It always amazes me when tasters prefer higher-priced wines when they know the prices, and how they often prefer lower-priced wines when they don’t know. If the wines are chosen to show different characteristics and they are radically different, you might expect the scores to be widely separated. But I’m always skeptical when I see one taster’s scores all clump in the same (middle) range.

On a 20-point scoring chart, I usually tell judges to consider that 20, 19 and 18 equate to top quality, equivalent to gold medals; 17 and 16 are silver medal caliber wines, and 14 and 15 are good, sound wines with some enjoyability. Anything less would be rated as having some sort of technical or style flaw. Moreover, before scores are written in ink, I like to chat about the wines among all tasters to see if a wine or two was universally liked or hated. Hearing the opinions of others can have a sobering effect, tempering enthusiasm for a wine that may have some interesting characteristics or elevating a wine that has more subtle charms. Finally, strong varietal characterin some wines (such as Cabernet) can be off-putting to some tasters and yet be enjoyable to others for whom such a character is essential. I think in particular of the green tea elements often found in topquality Merlot—and of the plum and port character in lower-quality Merlot. Still, those who like the latter may be voting with their hearts and not their heads. Or perhaps they are novices who have never tasted a classic Merlot!