Only by knowing how to interpret a wine will I be able to understand it, in a kind of dialectic in which the characteristics of that wine and my ability to analyze it organoleptically can enable me to recognize it and know how to understand it fully.
Tasting, tasting, describing, telling, are all important aspects if you are talking and writing about wine. In my opinion, however, the most important thing, the real discriminator, lies in interpreting the wine ..
It is not, as an easy joke might be, to imitate it. These are. place it in a framework, to understand what the producer wanted to do, to evaluate whether he succeeded in his intent, and eventually, but only eventually, to try to make a judgment on all this. One must, in short, keep in mind the context, the intention, the technique, of course, the aesthetic side of the matter, all through an ability to organoleptic analysis, which, however, must be at the service of wine interpretation and not an end in itself.
Consistency with the origin and intentions of the producer
In simpler words, if I am to communicate a particular wine, I will first have to explain why it is so, whether this is consistent with its origin, with the winemaker’s or otherwise producer’s intentions. Whether it has pleasing organoleptic characteristics and why. Whether the oenological aspect is functional to its expression and whether it can effectively account for its origin. If it is “typical,” in short, if the “tradition” does not come out faded, but, rather, enhanced by all this making unique and identifiable for that very reason, the wine in our glass.
Some might say, but how long do you make it, after all, every wine is something to drink and has to please people with even different tastes. Therefore, one should not go beyond concepts such as “good” or “bad,” immediate expressions of “like” or “dislike,” in an orgy of relativism That makes everything look the same, like cows that are all black at night. Yet, those who are passionate about wine and would like to delve deeper make precisely similar considerations to the ones I just mentioned.
Barolo Falletto Riserva Vigna delle Rocche 2016 by Bruna Giacosa
A concrete example. Let’s take a wine that represents the Grail for any Barolo enthusiast, the Falletto Riserva Vigna delle Rocche 2016 by Bruna Giacosa. A great Barolo from a legendary vineyard in Serralunga d’Alba. Let us try to make some introductory remarks. Predominantly Lampia Nebbiolo grapes. Only large barrels for at least three years after vinification in concrete tanks with skin contact for about a month. A wine that makes respect for the viticultural and oenological traditions of the Langa its stylistic hallmark.
It is clear that the color will not be too concentrated, that the aromas should go beyond the primary fruitiness and range over notes of currant, rose, perhaps even balsamic tones. The flavor should be quite gritty, with gangly tannins, but for the most part, and for polyphenolic ripeness consistent with vintage and grape production per strain, already integrated into a nimble body, barely rough for youth, but already promising to evolve resoundingly in fifteen to twenty years in bottles. If I tasted it would it actually be like that? Would it be consistent with my expectations? I am certain, even from having done it, that this is the case.
Fundamental to knowledge
But I have to know that the great Barolos of Serralunga have a denser texture than those of Cannubi, for example, and that those tannins have to be there for that wine to represent its origins and the stylistic tradition first of Bruno and now of Bruna Giacosa. Only by knowing how to interpret it will I be able to understand it, in a kind of dialectic in which the characteristics of that wine and my ability of organoleptic analysis can allow me to recognize it and know how to understand it to the fullest. It’s not super easy, but we who love great wines are like that, and we may not like easy things.
*Aperture photo: taken from
https://terroirsense.com/
