The International Shiraz Alliance
What makes Shiraz the leading grape variety in the world at the moment? Why have consumers from New York to Newcastle, California to China, Oxford to Ottawa embraced the rich flavours of this historic grape? Where do the best Shiraz wines come from and what makes them special?

These will be some of the questions answered by hundreds of the world's leading Shiraz lovers at The First International Shiraz Alliance, a celebration of the variety to be held in the Barossa, Australia from July 30 to August 2.

The program for the four day event has just been released on the website http://shirazalliance.com/index.asp. The 12 page colour registration brochure is worth checking out.

Shiraz Loses Shine!
A piece in Australia's The Age notes that:

Shiraz represents not only this country's main wine export - some believe it drives the whole export bandwagon. Producers wishing to sell their chardonnay or sauvignon blanc must have a shiraz - preferably something old-vine and something with non-irrigated, bushvine Barossa Valley fruit - if they want to do really well.

The trouble is, there's more young-vine shiraz about than old-vine - shiraz production was up 43 per cent this 2004 vintage - and this growing tidal wave of wine is being sold at mostly fighting supermarket prices, not super-premium Grange prices. Shiraz now represents a quarter of Australia's national wine production. MORE>


Some of the comments seem a bit premature to me, especially as I'm not sure we've arrived that the point noted in the last part of the article (viz. "Is the world shiraz-ed out?" The answer is "not yet, but keep providing drinkers with less choice in style and suddenly cabernet sauvignon will begin to look more and more appealing".)

Two Buck Chuck: Vindicated Again?
The San Diego Union Tribune has conducted its own blind tasting to see if their panel could sniff out Two Buck Chuck. The six member panel tasted 6 wines and placed Two Buck in 4th place out of the 5 wines given scores; the sixth was found to be corked. What does this tasting say about Two Buck? Well the last placed wine was the Alexander Valley Vineyards 2001 Syrah. At ten times the price ($19.99USD) of Two Buck this wine shows once again that spending significantly more does not guarantee quality. Is it any wonder that wine novices gravitate to Two Buck Chuck?

Chateau Cardboard
Chateau Cardboard, the generic title given to wine in a box in Australia, seems to be making a run at popularity here in the US. "Once people taste wine out of a bag that's high quality, they're hooked. They love it," said Chris Indelicato, chief executive of Manteca-based Delicato Family Vineyards. Delicato is putting award-winning wines in boxes, including its shiraz, which was rated a very respectable 90 points by Wine Enthusiast. MORE>

If you are really serious about boxed wine then you must visit The Official Box of Wine Homepage.

Kalleske! Which Kalleske? Where? How Much!
Tasting notes on the 2002 Kalleske Shiraz have appeared on both sides of the Pacific. Australia versus USA. Who will get it right? Which Kalleske are they tasting? But more importantly why is a wine priced at $30-40AUD selling for $90USD?

Two Buck Chuck in the Medals Again!
In The San Francisco Chronicle 2004 Wine Competition the Charles Shaw Winery 2002 California Shiraz, AKA Two Buck Chuck, was awarded a Silver Medal. And a price increase to $2.99!


Unfortunately Two Buck's 2002 Shiraz didn't win best red at the 28th Annual International Eastern Wine Competition. That distinction went to Alexander Valley Vineyards "Cyrus" 2000, a $50 wine. What an accolade for the Cyrus, to be able to say that they bested Two Buck Chuck!

Two Buck Chuck Rules Supreme!!!
I'm sure many of you have heard about two buck chuck. The (in)famous massive bottlings of wine under the label Charles Shaw that sell for $1.99 here in the USA. I must admit to having never tasted any of these wines, but I guess in the interests of the taste experience I will now have to do so. Why? Well the Charles Shaw 2002 Californian Shiraz has won double gold at the 28th Annual International Eastern Wine Competition. To be honest I've never heard of this wine show (I don't take much notice of wine shows in the US). But if you run down the list of participants you find some interesting names; 1999 Penfolds St Henri is in the shiraz costing more than $15 class. Only got silver! Guess I'd better throw all mine out and stock up on 2 buck.

The wines up against the two buck shiraz and how they faired are listed below.

SYRAH/SHIRAZ TO $15

DOUBLE GOLD
Jacob's Creek (AUS), 2001 Shiraz Reserve, South Eastern Australia, 28600 cases, $12.99, 0.2 rs
Charles Shaw Winery (CA), 2002 Shiraz, California, $1.99, 0.4 rs
Woodbridge Winery (CA), 1999 Syrah Winemakers Selection, Lodi, 0 cases, $14.00, 0.08 rs

GOLD
Barefoot Cellars (CA), Syrah, 2000 cases, $5.99, 0.3 rs
Black Swan (AUS), 2002 Shiraz, Southeastern Australia, $8.00, 0.47 rs
Cedar Creek Winery (WI), 2002 Syrah, American, 770 cases, $15.00, 0 rs
Coastal Ridge Winery (CA), 2001 Shiraz, $6.99, 0.35 rs

SILVER
Forest Glen Winery (CA), 2001 Shiraz Oak Barrel Selection, $9.99, 0.4 rs
Hahn Estates (CA), 2002 Syrah, Central Coast, 7800 cases, $12.00, 0 rs
Ironstone Vineyards (CA), 2001 Leaping Horse Shiraz, Lodi, 10000 cases, $6.00, 0.37 rs
Jacob's Creek (AUS), 2002 Shiraz, South Eastern Australia, 156000 cases, $8.99, 0.1 rs
Kangaroo Ridge (AUS), 2002 Shiraz, South Eastern Australia, $7.00, 0.73 rs
Lindemans (AUS), 2002 Reserve Shiraz, South Australia, $15.00, 0 rs
Marquee (AUS), 2002 Classic Shiraz, South East Australia, 1500 cases, $11.95, 0.02 rs
McWilliam's Wines (AUS), 2002 McWilliam's Hanwood Estate Shiraz, Southeastern Australia, $11.00, 0.55 rs
Pacific Peak (CA), 2001 Shiraz, 5527 cases, $5.00, 0.29 rs
Post Familie Vineyard (AR), 2003 Syrah, Amer., 277 cases, $15.00, 0.5 rs
Rosemount Estates, Inc. (AUS), 2002 Diamond Shiraz, Diamond, $12.00, 0 rs
Round Hill Winery (CA), 2002 Shiraz, 8925 cases, $8.99, 0.12 rs
Six Hands Winery (CA), 2002 Syrah, Clarksburg Estate, 100 cases, $11.50, 0.02 rs
St. George Coastal (CA), 2001 Shiraz, California, 10000 cases, $7.99, 0.2 rs
WineHaven Winery & Vineyard (MN), 2001 Syrah, 220 cases, $14.00, 0.1 rs
Wyndham Estat (AUS), 2002 Bin 555 Shiraz, South Eastern Australia, 10000 cases, $9.99, 0.65 rs

BRONZE
Abarbanel Wine Co., LLC (FR), 2002 Syrah, Vins De Pays, DeL'aude, $16.50, 0 rs
Canyon Road (CA), 2002 Shiraz
Cellars Crest (CA), 2002 Syrah, Napa County, 2147 cases, $12.00, 0.12 rs
Chateau Diana Winery (CA), 2001 Shiraz, 353 cases, $4.99, 0.09 rs
Clos du Lac Cellars (CA), 2001 Syrah, Sierra Foothills, Amador County, 600 cases, $12.00, 0.25 rs
Gordon Brothers Cellars (WA), 2001 Syrah, Columbia Valley, 2700 cases, $14.99, 0 rs
J. Lohr Winery (CA), 2001 Estates South Ridge Syrah, Paso Robles, 12000 cases, $15.00, 0.22 rs
JW Dover Inc. Heartland Vineyards (OH), 2002 Syrah, 70 cases, $7.99, 0 rs
Kendall-Jackson Winery (CA), 2001 Vintner's Reserve Syrah, 200 cases, $12.00, 0.14 rs
Lindemans (AUS), 2003 Shiraz, Eastern Australia, $8.00, 0 rs
Madison (CA), 2002 Shiraz, 800 cases, $8.99, 0 rs
Redwood Creek (CA), 2002 Syrah, $7.99, 0.85 rs
Sterling Vineyards (CA), 2002 Vintner's Collection Shiraz, Central Coast, 25000 cases, $12.00, 0 rs
Summerfield (CA), 2001 Syrah
Turning Leaf (CA), 2002 Syrah/Shiraz, $8.00, 0.6 rs
Woodbridge Winery (CA), 2001 Syrah, 0 cases, $8.25, 0.01 rs


Don't worry about not being able to get any two buck. I hear there's enough for a couple of dozen for everyone. But it might cost you - like $2.20 or $2.50 per bottle. Why not $1.99? Well its going to be popular after this, isn't it! Its even featured on the eRobertParker.com forum.

What does the rs mean? percentage residual sugar.

More on the Kalleske Saga
Who actually determines the price of a wine? Well in the case of Kalleske wines it seems that its the winery, the agent, the reseller, and the grey market. Any more want to add their names to the list? You do! Then go here and do so.

Update: June 26, 2004. The thread has been removed from the Auswine Forum. But if you go to the June 26 post you will find more links to discussion on the Kalleske shiraz.

Aussie Shiraz + USA Wine Market = Greed
As noted here I've been trying to taste my way through the 2002 Aussie shiraz that are marketed here in the USA. Most of what I have been able to get has been reasonably priced. But there is one glaring example of outright greed. For the last month or so I have been trying to get some of the Kalleske Shiraz which I have been informed sold for between AUS$30-40/bottle in Oz – if you could get it! The shop that I buy most of my wine from has been looking for a source of the wine, found one, and put me down for a 6 pack. As the weeks have passed discussions as to when the wine would be available and its price have gone on and on. Finally today, while I was buying more examples of shiraz from the 2002 vintage I was told that the distributor for the Kalleske was asking USD$700/dozen wholesale!! What was going to be my cost retail, about USD$70 a bottle (about AUD$100). Fortunately the retail guys I deal with are no fools. Even if I am willing to pay USD$70 a bottle (which I am not), they are very unlikely to get the wine. Why? Well for a start they have so much Aussie wine to sell that a few dozen of one more shiraz, even if it’s a 100 pointer, doesn’t change their bottom line. What it does do however is hurt the Kalleske image, at least on the southern west coast as this type of greed gets discussed in the shop, at their wine tastings, wine dinners, and wine bar. And now in a wine forum. As they say over here “From little acorns……..

So all you distributors out there trying to sell Aussie wine into the USA if you want a solid reliable market for the future, take a reasonable profit. If you want us to turn to the rest of the wine world then be greedy, its not like we have a shortage of wine choices over here! For the cost of one bottle of Kalleske I could buy a bottle of the Bordeaux 2nd growth that showed me what great wine can taste like, plus a bottle of excellent Aussie shiraz.

Through A Glass Darkly
As noted in a couple of previous posts (April 26 and 27) the color of a wine can dramatically influence taste perception. One way to avoid that problem is to taste using an opaque glass; that is, a glass that does not allow the color of the wine to be seen. Oh yes, such glasses do exist. Riedel have one called the Blind Blind. You can find a review of it here. A slightly cheaper….Did I say slightly? A much cheaper version can be found here. Both glasses are black so that even if you look into the glass you will not be able to tell the color of the wine you are tasting.

Do I recommend that you use either of these glasses? In a word, No! Why? Well color (as we are about to learn any day now!) can tell you a lot about a wine. This is why you should always use a transparent glass with no etching or coloring when tasting. However if you want to test your ability to taste without the influence of the wine’s color, or if you want to demonstrate the influence of color on taste perceptions, then by all means get some of these glasses.

Which glass should you get? Oh, what the hell! Get the Riedel for yourself. And the cheapies for anyone else brave enough to taste truly blind along with you. I wonder if that’s why Riedel call it Blind Blind!

A Matter of a Lack of Taste?
Having now finished The Accidental Connoisseur : An Irreverent Journey Through the Wine World by Lawrence Osborne I’m afraid my original dislike has not softened. There are so many faults with this book that it would take too long to cover them all, so I’ll limit myself to a few highlights. One of a number of factual errors has been noted in the post for April 15, 2004. Another major concern is trying to figure out the purpose of the book. For the author “Wine is a dangerous game”. He does “not trust my own taste”, and so “To discover my own tastes in wine, I would have to discard both books and science, and go into the world of wine and drink.” But by the end of the book the author is simply learnt that he is more aware of his ignorance of wine. What is disturbing throughout the book is that the author seems to take little joy in his wine journey, his Irreverent Journey. He shows little appreciation for the established figures of wine in both Europe and California, their egos, their wines, or the high prices their wines command. But such controversy is not new to the wine world. Osborne does seem to have more affinity for the wine mavericks, those that criticize the egos and the high prices, but still he remains reluctant to let his taste buds commune with them while drinking their wines. By the end of his journey he seems bored with his search, and the last few chapters might have been better in a travel guide of Italy.

The greatest concern is that Osborne’s wine world is a small world, indeed. It primarily consists of a few interviews with winemakers here and there in the US, France, and Italy. What happened to Spain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or Chile? Where are the interactions with those who actually drink wine? What about discoursing with wine connoisseurs, professional and amateur alike? For yes, Osborne also seeks to be a connoisseur! Osborne’s wine world is so limited, its no wonder his search was unfulfilled.

There may be another reason why Osborne fails to learn taste during his wine journey. Simply put, he seems to have very little taste. The clue to this comes from his own statement (p133) “I cover my food with mountains of salt; I like my chocolate as black and bitter as pitch.” My original concern with this book is Osborne’s ignorance of the biology of taste, and this is his undoing. By any definition his taste buds are so poor that he may well qualify as a “non-taster”. One is thus left to ask the question, what am I going to learn from the journey of a non-taster as he seeks, unsuccessfully, to acquire taste?

A Little More on Color and Odor Identification
Any day now we are going to get to that second s. But first.........

The effects of color on odor identification were tested under color appropriate, inappropriate, and blindfolded conditions. Subjects made fewer errors in identifying solutions that were colored appropriately (e.g., red-cherry) than in either the blindfolded condition, where there were no color cues, or the inappropriate color condition (e.g., red-lemon). Identification accuracy was greatest for typical odor-color combinations (e.g., red-cherry) compared with appropriate but nontypical odor-color combinations (e.g., red-watermelon). Response latencies were fastest for odors in the appropriately colored solutions. Subjects also rated appropriate color-odor combinations as most pleasant. However, this effect is probably due to the increase in identification accuracy of the appropriately colored solutions. In all three conditions, correctly identified odors were liked more than odors that were not correctly identified. Thus, color is an important perceptual variable in odor identification because it biases subjects toward a color category that facilitates identification if the color is "correct". This ability to identify an odor in turn influences the affective response to the odor. Influence of color on odor identification and liking ratings. Zellner DA, Bartoli AM, Eckard R., Am J Psychol. 1991, 104:547-61.

I hope I'm not coloring anyone's ideas about just how important, and potentially influencial, color can be?

Is Wine Tasting Perceptual Illusion?
(Jeez, we haven't been given the second S, and he's already coming up with this stuff!) Sorry!! But.....

Take 54 undergraduates from the Faculty of Oenology of the University of Bordeaux give them a white wine W (AOC Bordeaux 1996) containing semillion and sauvignon grapes and a red wine R (AOC Bordeaux 1996) containing cabernet sauvignon, also give them a list of odor descriptors and ask them to pick which descriptor is most intensely presented in each wine. Allow them to provide their own odor descriptors as well. One week later invite them back and give them the list they personally determined that described the wines (i.e. their individual list of chosen descriptors for the two wines) and ask them to apply those descriptors to two glasses of wine, wine W from the previous week and wine WR which is wine W colored red with purified grape anthocyanins (previously determined not to provide any odor to wine W).

What do you get? Well the number of terms used to describe wine W over the two tasting sessions is very similar. But in the second tasting for wine WR the subjects use many more odor descriptors of red wine than for white wine (about 3 to 1), even though the only difference to wine W is an odorless red color! What is also interesting is that in choosing odor descriptors in the first test they picked words represented by red or dark objects to describe wine R and yellow or clear objects to describe wine W.

OK, no big deal these are kids, albeit the future of the European wine industry. We all know what we are tasting, don’t we? Our tasting descriptors aren’t influenced by color, are they? Well the stimulus for this little test was an analysis done of the words used to describe red and white wine from 4 different sources; 3000 tasting comments by Jaques Dupont in La letter de Gault & Milan, a random selection of 3000 tasting comments from 32,000 in Guide Hachette du vin (a guidebook by a small group of professional tasters), 7000 comments from the Wine Advocate (Yes, Mr Robert Parker, Jr. himself), and 2000 tasting comments from a French winemaker. The most common characteristic was the use of odor descriptors for red or dark colors for red wine and yellow or clear descriptors for white wine.

(Morrot G, Brochet F, Dubourdieu D, The Color of Odors, Brain and Language 79 (2001) 309-320.)

Now, of course, its quite possible that the ODORS in red wine are best described by terms describing red or dark colors. After all who would argue with Mr P’s nose when it comes to wine and especially from Bordeaux? Well there are these 54 students at the Faculty of Oenology of the University of Bordeaux…………!!

Seeing Red
The post for today is not the second of our 5 s’es, but rather a comment on a book I have just started to read. It’s The Accidental Connoisseur by Lawrence Osborne. I’m only through the first chapter, Introduction: A Matter of Taste, and I’m ready to put it aside. Why? Well on page 9 the author states “the human tongue doesn’t vary from individual to individual; its anatomical structures are constant.” Really! I guess Mr. Osborne needs to read the extensive literature on human perceptions of taste and odor in wine. As long ago as 1993 Linda Bartoshuk of the Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology) of Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, wrote “Genetic variation in taste ability occurs across and within species. For example, about 25% of humans are relatively unresponsive to a variety of sweet and bitter compounds (non-tasters) while another 25% are unusually responsive (supertasters). Supertasters have about four times as many taste buds as non-tasters and have smaller and more densely packed fungiform papillae.” (Genetic and pathological taste variation: what can we learn from animal models and human disease? Bartoshuk LM., Ciba Found Symp. 1993;179:251-67.) More information can be found on Tim Jacob’s site. Perhaps even more interesting is Dr Bartoshuk’s criticism of the Tongue Map in the same article; “The study of patients with taste disorders (i.e. 'experiments of nature') suggests that the old tongue maps (e.g. sweet on the tip, bitter on the back) that often appear in textbooks are wrong. If they were correct, severing the taste nerves that innervate the front of the tongue would result in a loss of the ability to taste sweet, etc. This does not occur.” Richard Gawel has an interesting discussion of this.

I'm hoping that Mr Osborne's search for an understanding of taste turns out to be better than his ability to do literature searches.

'O' well, so much for the Stem
I go to all that trouble of describing how to hold a wine glass using the stem. And what happens? Reidel comes out with a stemless wine glass. Its called the 'O' and its an exact copy of the Reidel Vinum bowl shape, minus the stem. That means you can get the tall Cabernet/Merlot, or the shorter, squatter Pinot/Nebbiolo, or the tiny Chardonnay/Viognier. And once you have those you might as well get the the squat and really fat Burgundy/Montrachet, the much narrower Zin/Riesling/Sauvignon blanc, and the tall and tight Syrah/Shiraz. These glasses are being marketed as ideal for drinkling everyday wines, and even non wine beverages. But why stemless? Well the argument is that they take up less cabinet space and fit more easily into the dishwasher. The second point is probably true, although its not necessarily a good thing to wash wine glasses in detergent, especially if it has an sort of odor. A good wash in hot water and a thorough drying with a lint-free cloth is all that is necessary. As to a stemless glass saving cabinet space! Not unless you stack them and the 'O' does not look like it will take being piled one upon the other.

Nice try Maximilian. That's Maximilian Riedel, an 11th generation Reidel, for whom the 'O' represents his first glass series.

How to Hold Your Wine
Wonders will never cease! This blog has had 3 hits in the last week, one via a Google search asking “how to hold a wine glass”. So I guess I should answer the question posed at the end of my last, and long ago, post.

There are three principle parts to a wine glass. The bowl, into which the wine is poured. The foot which allows you to sit the glass on a flat surface, like the top of a table. And the stem which is the thin vertical piece between the bowl and the foot (or base). So, is the Reidel lady holding her glass correctly? Well she, or at least the person who posed her, thinks it is correct. So if you want to look like you know your way around a wine glass, or you just like being pretentious, then go ahead and hold your glass by the foot (or base). The rest of us, who know that holding anything by the foot is not a recipe for success, will use the stem. Why? Well two main reasons. First it is much easier to tilt the glass so that you can see the color of the wine at its edge. Second, it is easier to swirl the wine in the glass to release aroma and bouquet. Holding the glass by the foot also let’s you look at the color and swirl. However most of the effort in holding a glass in this manner comes from the thumb. And while an opposable thumb is one of our greatest attributes, its not really suited to holding a wine glass in this way; you are much more likely to spill wine and if you hold the glass for any length of time you’ll end up with a sore thumb! Holding the glass by the bowl is a no, no! You can’t see the color of the wine well, and its difficult to swirl the wine. Another point against holding the bowl is that the warmth of your hand may heat the wine. I write may because I’m not really sure that this does happen. I guess if you cling to your glass and don’t drink from it maybe the wine will warm, but I’ve never seen any hard numbers on this. I think the reasoning behind bowl holding increasing the temperature of wine is that cognac balloons have no stem because part of the joy in drinking a good cognac is to warm it so that the volatiles are released for you to smell. With no stem you have to hold the bowl, or you could hold the foot; now you are really showing all your skill - just don't do it in public. Trouble with that argument is that the volatile content of cognac is far greater than any wine, and so a small amount of heating works wonders. Hmmm, it might be time to buy a thermometer and test just how much temperature increase you can get from bowl holding!

No, don’t hold a wine glass by the foot, or the bowl. Use the stem. Here’s what to do to get a glass positioned in your hand so that you are holding it by the stem.

Hold your right hand vertically, fingers out-stretched, thumb pointing up; just like you are about to shake someone’s hand. Curl the 4th and 5th fingers into your palm; for convenience we are counting the thumb as the 1st finger. Pick up a glass with your other hand and place the foot between the 3rd and 4th fingers so that its resting on top of your 4th finger. Now wrap your 2nd and 3rd fingers around the stem. If this is done correctly you don’t even need to use your thumb to hold the glass. However, to get the best stability rest your thumb on the foot and the stem of the glass.

Of course you don’t and shouldn’t need to use two hands to pick up a wine glass. But if you use the above description you will know what the correct positioning should be. Then you can pick up the glass by simply using your thumb, forefinger and index finger to grasp the stem, lift and slide the last two fingers under the foot. And there you are, ready to go from touch to sight in your search for the perfect taste of wine.

Stem
Do you have your glass? You do! Good, but might I ask what type of glass it is? If its a carefully selected, wine matched Reidel glass then I guess you really have been boning up on this stuff. But hopefully you didn't spend too much, and you aren't too clumsy!

What glass do I use, you ask? Well for a number of years I have been using the ISO tasting glass. I first started to use the ISO because it handles well and takes a reasonable amount of wine, especially for tasting, and it seemed to work well for most wines. Oh, and compared to Reidel an ISO is cheap. And in comparative testing the ISO does pretty well against wine specific Reidels.

Of course Reidel is correct when they state that a wine glass should be:

colorless
transparent
unadorned
thin-walled
with a cut and polished lip
egg-shaped
stemmed
and, made of lead crystal

But what's the bit about the stem? Well that's were you hold it! So my question to you is does the attractive lady on the Reidel home page know how to hold a wine glass?

Where were we?
Ah, yes. Learning to taste. Classes and books are essential, but nothing beats drinking wine! Correct? No, not entirely. There is more to tasting than simply pouring wine down your throat. We will cover a lot of information on tasting as this blog matures with age, but for now the simplest approach to tasting is to use the 5 s’es. And they are?

Stem
Sight
Sniff
Slurp – there has got to be a better word for it!
And Swallow.

And where did you learn this? Funny that you should ask. It was revealed to me on a slow boat going up a river. No, that’s not entirely correct I’ve known about the 5s’es for some time, I’ve just never thought of them as the 5 s’es. That’s not very clear is it? ……….Moving on. The 5s’es were used to demonstrate wine tasting while we were on a recent river/vineyard tour of the Swan Valley in Western Australia. It seemed to be a very simple approach to something that I can make extremely complicated; which will be made evident in the following days, weeks and months.

In the next posts we will go through all five, in detail! So come prepared with your nose and mouth, a glass and an open bottle of wine.

Tasting
“Learning” how to taste wine takes many different forms. My first real experiences were in a series of classes run by Andrew Pirie in the 1970s. Very interesting stuff because much of the material was from his PhD studies which pointed the way to Tasmania and Pipers Brook as a region for cool climate wines. One of the best Chardonnays I’ve tasted came from Pipers Brook. The vintage I’ve forgotten but the place was Hobart at the end of 1986 or 1987. And the taste was……well it is just a memory now. But Pirie’s lectures and tasting provided me with the realization that wine was more than liquid in a glass. There was stuff to learn!

And where do you learn. At the feet of the master, of course! And if that’s not possible then you read his book. Which book? This book. Buy yourself a copy. Buy a friend a copy. Include a little note that says:

The ancient Greeks thought wine the nectar of the Gods
Pity the Gods
They never had the pearls of wisdom in this little book

Pangkarra
A little side note before we advance into the 5 s's! In the inaugural NSW Wine Press Club Lecture Jeffery Grosset discussed the word "pangkarra" as the Australian equivalent of the French "terroir". Pangkarra is an Australian aboriginal word used by the Kaurna (usually pronounced "Garner" or "Gowna") people who once lived near the Adelaide Plains of South Australia.

Neither pangkarra and terroir has an English equivalent. Terrroir essentially encompasses "the total natural environment of any viticultural site" (Janis Robinson's Oxford Companion to Wine). The emphasis however seems to be on the soil. Pangkarra is derived from pangka, which means a lake or a lagoon "but its meaning also incorporates the concept of a vast area including a vast expanse of water such as the ocean. The latter part of the word arra, is a postfix denoting the sense of being alongside." (See The Kauna). Pangkarra therefore indicates an area of land at least some of which is alongside a body of water that was used by a particular family group. In a recent interview on Radio National Linguist Jane Simpson noted that pangkarra was defined in 1840 as "a district or tract of country belonging to an individual, which he inherits from his father".

Its a little hard to justify Grosset's use of the word given that it may simply mean a plot of land owed by an individual family group. Where is the relationship to the "natural environment"? Of course the meanings that are given above for pangkarra may not do justice to the meaning in Aboriginal language. The concept may mean far more than the land, it may also refer to what is on and under the land i.e. food, and certainly water. But I'm willing to bet that even through the aborigines were great managers of their land they didn't grow grapes, nor did they make wine. One may be forgiven then for being just a little "terroirfied" of winemakers venturing into linguistics!