Dieser Mark Bittman hat wirklich das Talent kochabläufe sehr einfach und prägnant darzustellen. Ausserdem mag ich per se seine schlichte und direkte Art. An diesem einfachen Rezept für Wantan würde ich mich am liebsten sofort selbst versuchen. Leider fehlt mir heute die Zeit, deshalb poste ich es nun hier, sozusagen als Merkzettel.
Schon wieder ein lesenswerter Beitrag in der New York Times. Eric Asimov, deren “Chief Wine Critic” findet immer wieder den richtigen Ansatz. In diesem Artikel über Kellertechnologien geht er insbesondere auf die Verwendung von Eichenchips ein. Er betont, dass Eichenchips zwar das Eichenaroma an den Wein geben können, jedoch aber nicht wie das Weinfass durch Gerbstoffe und Sauerstoff die Textur des Getränks veredeln könnten. Nur ein Weinfass könne das sogenannte „mouthfeel“ verändern.
Außerdem wirbt er für mehr Transparenz auf dem Weinetikett. Der Kunde solle wissen wie der jeweilige Winzer arbeitet. Werbungen der Weinindustrie mit idyllischen Landschaften und alten Weinfässern täuschen die Kunden zu oft über die tatsächliche industrielle Verarbeitung hinweg.
Apparently there is a bigger discussion going on in the Wine-Blogging-World about the notion Terroir, and the influence of the soil on the wine in general. A somehow provocative article posted on the NYT by Harold McGee and Daniel Patterson meant to clarify on the perception and interpretation of the idea of Terroir.
It firstly stated that it isn’t really possible scientifically speaking that one could taste the type of soil on which the wine has grown within your glass of wine; that many professionals like wine writers, importers and even winemakers would misleadingly suggest that one could taste the slate in the wine if the vines are growing on a slate soil.
Further the authors try to clarify the concept of and analyze all the “components” which makes a certain wine a Terroir-wine and uncovers the influence of Mr Parker and his disciples on Terroir-style. They also observe how many people perceive the whole Terroir concept as a giant marketing hype, which only exists in order to mystify and glorify age-old winemaking traditions in Europe.
Clearly there is a lot to say on the topic and I believe the 2 authors have delivered a thorough article which is a good basis for discussion.
As Eric Asimov wrote in his blog in response to the article, it is of course clear that one doesn’t actually have the taste of limestone in his wine, but if you ever tasted a Chablis and then heard about the soil being composed of million year old mussel-shells, your brain directly links it to the flintstone nose of Chablis. These evocative descriptions have to do with emotions brought up by wine. And I don’t really understand why these authors try to ridicule wine professionals, which isn’t benefiting anyone really. I guess it is just the typical irony of Scientifics and engineers.
Concerning the dissection of the whole Terroir concept, I merely agree with the authors. I believe that the problem with the whole Terroir idea is that it is the subject of a giant misunderstanding. It is such a flexible notion that nearly everyone uses it with another meaning.
So, even if I don’t have so much experience with wine, I will start by giving you my understanding of a Terroir wine. It is a wine that is independent. It doesn’t try to copy another wine (or another Terroir), it has found an optimal balance between the attributes of the soil, the climate and profits from the experience of winemakers within a certain region and is marked by the wine-culture of the region.
The misunderstanding might be that apparently people tend to think that Terroir is something modern, some kind of European marketing strategy against New World Wines, whereas it is exactly the opposite. It is rather old fashioned, something which demands patience and experience, and maybe a hint of stubbornness. The problem is that, as I said before, Terroir can’t be copied.
I would believe for example that a true wine-lover wouldn’t look for some kind of super-Mouton when he discovers Californian wines, but rather for unique and delicate wines which are made in the most appropriate form to represent the attributes of its origins.
Anyway, I urge everyone to read the article, as well as Eric Asimovs posting with many interesting comments.
I liked this article about a tasting organized by Bouchard in Burgundy. Eric Asimov and several other lucky journalists were invited to taste very old wines from this famous wine producer, including some bottles from 1846, 1929 and 1939. Eric Asimov describes very well how these wines have surpassed history and how you might feel when having the opportunity to taste one of them.
Eric Asimov von der New York Times hat mal wieder eine sehr interessante Verkostung erlebt. Diesmal hat er australischen Rieslingweinen auf den Zahn gefühlt, und den Stand der dortigen Stilentwicklung mit den klassischen, deutschen, österreichischen und französischen Rieslingen verglichen. Dabei fiel Ihm auf, dass die heutigen australischen Rieslinge viel „klassischer“ werden, also weniger wie südländische Fruchtbomben sondern eher in feiner Mineralik spielen wollen. Dabei erreichen Sie zwar noch nicht ganz die Vielschichtigkeit der europäischen Klassiker, aber die eingeschlagene Richtung stimmt auf jeden Fall. Nachzulesen hier.
Eric Asimov and his colleagues from the New York Times have tasted some 25 Pinot Noirs from „unusual“ places around the world, like Sancerre, Languedoc, Argentina or Rheingau in Germany. Actually these places don’t seem that unusual to me. Spätburgunder for example, as Pinot Noir is called in Germany, is a classic variety here since years. But I was rather happy that a Rheingau Pinot Noir, August Kesseler Spätburgunder 2003, was one of the favourites. I would recommend the New York Times’ team to try other German Pinots though, for example from the Ahr region were the terroir is ideal for this variety.