5 Comments
User's avatar
Wine Notes's avatar

This is fascinating, and I'm not sure what to think about it. In many ways, despite all the ways we try to be objective about wine, and despite all the information we have about how it was made, the technology used, etc., this story makes me question how much interpretation is still inherently subjective. This may be an obvious question, apologies if so, but I'm assuming they were not referencing (one) faulty bottle? The panel was claiming that all of it was faulty? How so?

Jason Wilson's avatar

You’ll have to read Simon’s piece for the full info on the “faults” but basically it just didn’t taste like what the panel insists is “conventional Burgenland blaufrankish.”

Tony S's avatar

It sounds like Velich is at the pointy end of things in his region. While I have huge sympathy with the general points in Jason's piece, I'm far from fearing that the situation is dire. I'm old enough to remember the years of pushback that early producers of "super Tuscans" got from the establishment. Moreover, I'm old enough to remember when the general quality of Italian wine was low enough - I'm talking 40 - 50 years ago here - that development of the DOC and DOCG rules was clearly necessary, so I can kinda see both sides. Bottom line, it seems like cream always manages to float to the top and get noticed, even when those with vested interests in the status quo grumble about it.

Philip Curnow's avatar

"Conspiring to orchestrate a PR stunt?" How novel! Or Novello as they would say in Italy.