Re: Old World vs New World wine QPR

[David M. Bueker]

Old argument. Old troll perhaps.

Understand that this post was actually an artifact of a spam post that came up on the board last night. So I decided to redirect it and ask a question that was unfortunately edited out.

Where do you find the best QPR for various varieties - new world or old world?

Think of the following grapes:

Cabernet Sauvignon
Pinot Noir
Syrah
Chardonnay
Riesling
Sauvignon Blanc
Other - your choice!

Old World does best with Italian and Spanish wines. It is a mixed bag with French and German wines.

[David M. Bueker]

Note - due to editing error, the post below is from Peter May

Cabernet Sauvignon - had some nice 100% CS, but Bordeaux is my favourite place for this variety when in a blend with CS dominant, left bank Medoc and Pauillac in particular.

Pinot Noir - don't drink much of this, but prefer NZ & Oregon PN, with their clean and fruit doimant flavours over thin stinky Burgundy. But what I did learn in Oregon is that there is no such thing as PN, just clones of it, some which differ so much they could be different varieties. And that many vineyard use a mix of clones and blend them together so that vineyards A's PN is a different beast to vineyard B's.

Syrah - gone off this variety, the pepperyness that was once so attractive no seems a bit obvious. Prefer it in a Rhone type blend with Grenache and others so for me old-world and Rhone.

Chardonnay - don't buy this, hate the buttery and wooded styles, crisp & keen is OK, but for that I prefer

Sauvignon Blanc - NZ marlborough and RSA for me.

Riesling - no, cannot see attraction. Only exception is for ice-wine

Miscellaneous - add your own.

Some good new world Tempranillos, but too few so far that Spain wins hand down

I'm game!

Cabernet Sauvignon: Probably New World for me, but in the traditional "Cos Du Val/Corison/Laurel Glen" style
Pinot Noir: Not sure anymore. My skepticism about New World Pinot Noir has been eased over the last year or so!
Syrah: Old World, but there is plenty of New World Syrah made with a deft hand that gives Old World a run for its moneyChardonnay: New World, only because my experience with Old World Chardonnay is so limited.
Sauvignon Blanc: Old World for sure. To be honest, I really only like Sancerre all that much. Some White Bordeaux.
Riesling: Old world for sure. Good Riesling can be a great value!

[Jenise]

Cabernet Sauvignon - had some nice 100% CS, but Bordeaux is my favourite place for this variety when in a blend with CS dominant, left bank Medoc and Pauillac in particular.

Pinot Noir - don't drink much of this, but prefer NZ & Oregon PN, with their clean and fruit doimant flavours over thin stinky Burgundy. But what I did learn in Oregon is that there is no such thing as PN, just clones of it, some which differ so much they could be different varieties. And that many vineyard use a mix of clones and blend them together so that vineyards A's PN is a different beast to vineyard B's.

Syrah - gone off this variety, the pepperyness that was once so attractive no seems a bit obvious. Prefer it in a Rhone type blend with Grenache and others so for me old-world and Rhone.

Chardonnay - don't buy this, hate the buttery and wooded styles, crisp & keen is OK, but for that I prefer

Sauvignon Blanc - NZ marlborough and RSA for me.

Riesling - no, cannot see attraction. Only exception is for ice-wine

Miscellaneous - add your own.

Some good new world Tempranillos, but too few so far that Spain wins hand down

What am I missing here? This LOOKS like your comment, David, but those descriptions of Sauvignon Blanc and Riesling don't sound like you.

Let me make an obvious point. Good New World is better than mediocre Old World and vice versa.

Having said that, I know of no grape except Zinfandel where, at the best level, I have preferred the New World rendering to the Old World. However Napa Cab can be world class and rivals best Bordeaux very closely, provided the producer resists the temptation to overdo things in the quest for 100 WA/WS points. Some NZ SB is very good but I find an artifice there which is absent in the best from the upper Loire valley, like Sancerre. Also Aussie Sémillon is very interesting.

One of the strengths of the Old World is the presence of regional grape varieties which are well adapted to the local terroirs and produce original flavours not found elsewhere. Random examples are Fer Servadou at Marcillac, Négrette at Fronton, Gros & Petit Manseng at Jurançon, Mondeuse in Savoie, Savagnin in the Jura, Mencia in Bierzo, Aglianico in Campania and Basilicata, Petite Arvine and Cornalin in Valais (CH)........ and then there are grapes like Tannat, Nebbiolo, Sangiovese, Tempranillo.........which have been planted in the New World but without conspicuous success AFAIK.

[David M. Bueker]

Something odd happened, and Peter May's reply ended up replacing my original post.

odd indeed as I don't see a reply from Peter May as well

[David M. Bueker]

Peter has some limited moderator privileges to address spammers and the like. It was an accidental edit.

I think I have cleaned things up so they will make sense again.

Guess I should play too.

Cabernet Sauvignon---Bordeaux
Pinot Noir---still Burgundy primarily, but Oregon, some CA (selectively)
Syrah--Cornas
Chardonnay---few and far between, but Chablis, Beaune, and Margaret River.
Riesling---first Austria, then Germany.
Sauvignon Blanc---first Sancerre, then NZ, then (oddly enough and go figure and highly selectively) CA.
Other - your choice!

Sangiovese---Corsica
Vermentino---Corsica
Ruche'---c'mon.
Nebbiolo---c'mon
Tempranillo---Northern Spain
Malbec---Cahors
Cabernet Franc---Loire
Ugni Blanc/Trebbiano---Armagnac, Cognac
Gruner Veltliner---c'mon.

[Jenise]

Hoke, Burgundy yes for best in the world, but the QPR angle doesn't play out, does it?

Hoke, Burgundy yes for best in the world, but the QPR angle doesn't play out, does it?

It does if you like Burgundy.

I know CA and other regions may offer cheaper pinot noir, but I rarely want to drink pinot noir.

What Rahsaan says.

Same applies to Cornas.

If I wanted cheap, gloppy or indiscriminate Syrah I could get that from just about anywhere, including the southern Rhone.

If I want Cornas, which is the compacted, intensified, essential inner nature of Syrah, I can get that only from Cornas consistently.

QPR is a relative term. And the quality, as well as the price, is dependent upon the person spending the money and drinking the wine.

I'd pay a hell of a lot more for a decent Cornas than I would for almost any other form of Syrah...and probably figure I was getting a good QPR in the process. (Even then, I'd also have to say that the only other option would be an ESJ Syrah, but that doesn't fit into the regional strictures.)

[Jenise]

Okay, I get that line of reasoning and of course I don't disagree with the standout quality of Burgundy or Cornas. I just personally wouldn't have applied the term QPR to either.

Jenise, what is your own personal generalization of what QPR means?

You have often written of finding this, or that, or another wine from auctions, and catalogs and at wineries---hardly the places one thinks of when buying QPR wines---and you have often commented on snagging wines for $50--$60---perhaps more, and considered yourself lucky to get them. What I would call QPR. You thought you were getting good quality for a (comparatively) low price. Easily your money's worth, or more.

Do you place a price limit on QPRs. Some people do. When I was more solidly ITB, I looked at wines from a more rigid price point spectrum---because that was what most people meant when they thought "QPR"---you know, 'fighting varieties", etc. They meant originally, $5.00 or less. Then it was around $7.00. Then $10. Now, who knows.

I'll hazard a guess that your own personal definition of QPR has accelerated over the years. I would also hazard a guess that you could easily find a wine for $100---out of reach for the vast majority of people--- that you would deem an exceptional QPR.

Let's see: I have one bottle, well kept, of a Chateau Petrus 1947. I need some quick cash, so I'll sell it to you for $100. Would that be a QPR? (On the other hand, I once bought a bottle of Chateau Margaux 1971 for $5.00 out of a bargain bin. Sadly, it was shit---oxidized, maderized and dead, Jim. That was not a QPR.

Okay, I get that line of reasoning and of course I don't disagree with the standout quality of Burgundy or Cornas. I just personally wouldn't have applied the term QPR to either.

Cornas has a lot better QPR than the other prestige Northern Rhone appellations once you move beyond Clape and Allemand.

And in addition to what Hoke says, there is still outright QPR in Burgundy (my latest discovery this past year was Henri Prudhon, great 1er crus still in the high $20s). But I agree with you that it is much rarer than in some other regions.

[Jenise]

And in addition to what Hoke says, there is still outright QPR in Burgundy (my latest discovery this past year was Henri Prudhon, great 1er crus still in the high $20s). But I agree with you that it is much rarer than in some other regions.

But that's a value particular to one producer. As a region, Burgundy's not where you go for value.

[David M. Bueker]

Other than where Peter replied "for me" I have not put up any thoughts. I spent some time thinking and realized that I pay almost no attention to QPR anymore. I buy a wine I think I will like, and do not worry if it cost more or less than equivalent quality from elsewhere.

This came up the other night, when someone asked me why I would spend $XX on a California Pinot Noir when I could spend $XX on a wine from Burgundy. I love old world wine, and they are really the home for my palate, but right now I am having fun exploring the "new California." A year from now I may go back to buying almost all old world wine. Who knows.

With what I am spending on a bottle of California Barbera or Syrah or whatever, I could buy a very fine French wine, but right now I am in exploratory mode.

[Jenise]

Jenise, what is your own personal generalization of what QPR means?

QPR to me is strictly about a producer, place or particular bottle that delivers flavor/balance/complexity/elegance well above what one would expect for the price. Regardless of what the price is. A $50 bottle that drinks like a $100 bottle is as good QPR as the $15 bottle that drinks like a $30 bottle. Yes, my personal idea of "good cheap wine" costs more these days than it used to, but that's irrespective of QPR--QPR can exist at any price point.

I would not classify wines purchased second-hand that are fantastic deals as having QPR. They're one-offs, essentially, exceptions to their category not examples of their category--a category being grape type+region and QPR being a function of standard retail pricing.

So no, your Petrus would not be good QPR. Nor would the 98 Leoville Poyferre I got for $17 when the rest of the world was paying $60. That was just dumb-ass luck! But at normal retail, names like Potensac, Lagune, Meyney, Cantemerle and Sociando Mallet consistently offer great QPR compared to their stablemates.

But this is brand, not region. For pinot noir, I don't find Old World (Burgundy) the place to look for QPR. That would be California where the quality's gone way up and the plentitude has driven prices way down. Was a time when you just couldn't find much pinot noir under something like $35 dollars, and if you did it was plonk. But nowadays there are a lot of $20 pinots that are quite fetching.

Does that answer your question?

A $50 bottle that drinks like a $100 bottle is as good QPR as the $15 bottle that drinks like a $30 bottle.

You say that as if there were an objective way of determining what a $100 or a $30 bottle is.

It all depends on your reference points.

If you get the same pleasure from a $50 bottle and a $100 bottle, it could mean that the $50 bottle is undervalued or the $100 bottle is overvalued. Who is to say?

And to the original post, I actually don't distinguish between Old World and New World for QPR. I basically just try to balance out my purchases across different specific wines that offer more or less QPR.

Although as Jenise says, my higher QPR wines don't tend to come from Burgundy.

Before making generalisations about QPR for any wine type, one needs to consider where one lives. My conclusion above about preference for the Old World in nearly all grape varieties would be even stronger when taking account of QPR for purchases made in continental Europe. In particular, US wine is so expensive that purchases are impossible to justify if QPR, rather than desire for a specific wine, is a factor; lack of availability is also a problem. In the below €10 category Chile is a source some decent Cab if one goes for industrial type consistency and can suppress the yawns. In the UK there is big availability of cheapish Aussie wine, which appeals to the middle English palate but not to me.

[David M. Bueker]

QPR can mean different things to different people. For Burgundy fanatics, the de Vogue Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru represents a QPR choice (even at around $200) because it is all Musigny fruit. The big boy, de Vogue Musigny VV costs north of $450.

[Jenise]

A $50 bottle that drinks like a $100 bottle is as good QPR as the $15 bottle that drinks like a $30 bottle.

You say that as if there were an objective way of determining what a $100 or a $30 bottle is.

It all depends on your reference points.

Of course it does. But I actually do think some objectivity is possible. I host these monthly tastings for my neighborhood and am constantly sampling/comparing candidates to include various bottles in groups of like wines. A wine that offers particularly good QPR--the wine that you taste and go "whoa, this is only ___ much?" is generally apparent to an experienced taster even if it's not his or her preferred style of wine. Just as, to look at the inverse, I'm fairly certain there'd be no disagreement between everybody participating in this thread that Yellow Tail Pinot Grigio tastes cheap.