The temporal factor in the definition of “rustic” is an indirect and less than erudite attempt at pointing out that in the day of “atypical, non-varietal, oak-loaded fermented raisin syrup” wines, elegant, expressive pinots which scintillate with character and have structure are termed “rustic”.

I share your opinion on the definition of the word. However, in the world where every taste is valid and every wine writer is qualified as an expert (…………) rustic seems to have multiple (personal) deifintions as evidenced here: http://tinyurl.com/652h7n

Regarding the issues of research: I agree that much of any sensory modality is central, with a strong cognitive element.

You might like to look at some interesting and relevant thoughts from Larry Schaffer here: http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/2008/06/23/blinded-by-science/

Note on the use of the term “rustic”: the preceeding modifier “, um,” suggests that the following term is a satiric or snarky euphemism, in this case for Pinots which were/are atypical, non-varietal, oak-loaded fermented raisin syrup beverages (to which I could add over-extracted and over-processed). Just thought I should clarify.

However it is interesting to me that “rustic” implies a temporal relationship to you. Applied literally to wine, I have always used the term to mean “unrefined” as opposed to “old-style”.

And “blousy”? Well, wine has on occasion led me to come up with some fairly carnal euphemisms – usually after the third bottle. On one such occasion, a Greek enologist of my acquaintance working in Beaune described the wine we were drinking as having a “gran balcon” which suggests the concept is universal.

Olfactory and gustatory research is very much the flavor of the day, it would seem.

A read through this article seems to give no support to the notion that “blackberry” is a “flavor”. Most of the experiment and examples mentioned still seem to investigate the interaction of those “dogmatized” five flavors of sweet, sour, salty and bitter (+ umami, no studies mentioned).

I have to remain a cautious skeptic here. There are still many facts missing.

As for “rustic” pinot - isn’t that a term dependent on the times?

As for taste - well, some do and some don’t…. Otherwise pink lawn flamingos would not sell…

For whites, a winemaker related the term “blousy” to describe their, er… attributes - coined by another writer.

Regarding the big Pinot conundrum, well, this ain’t my first rodeo. IIRC there were some Pinots in the ’70’s, ’80’s, ’90’s that were, um, rustic. There will always be somebody who will try to make a Cabernet out of Pinot if they can at all – that is their taste. What’s changed is what Carlin would decry – the 24/7 marketing. In less media-saturated decades these wines were not taken seriously.

Today, because every taste is validated, and every winery is great, and every media outlet has some poor schmuck who has to turn out at least six column-inches on some “interesting” wine-related topic every week – these atypical, non-varietal wines are suddenly worthy of attention. And because winemaking has evolved pretty dramatically, these oak-loaded fermented raisin-syrup beverages are miraculously palatable.

Palatable, but not enjoyable, to me at least. Let’s acknowledge that we were not all created equal (as Joel Stein bragged on himself) at least when it comes to our ability to taste and smell. I am not a “supertaster” but I am more sensitive than most and have always had something of a “smell-o-graphic” memory. I find these “big” wines – regardless of the grape, or country of origin – to be fatiguing to drink. But you know – de gustibus, non disputandum est (or is that aut bene aut nihil? Whatever.)

I view these “international”-styled wines as the wine equivalent of the 1959 Cadillacs: big, floaty, comfortable symbols of excess, and whether you owned one (or wanted to) or not – you had to admire those tailfins.

The only flavors we can taste are: sweet, sour, bitter and mineral/salty. So “more flavorful” usually means: less acid and more sugar. This is *not* “more flavorful” - it is a bigger mouthfeel with denser extraction, more alcohol and sugar.

The problem with “big” wines is that they are like Baby Huey: big, awkward, oafish, simple and lacking finesse. They are made from over-ripe grapes and lack nuance, varietal typicity and complexity.

With pinot noir, in particular, less power and extraction actually gives you more. No matter what lines about “California-styled” pinot noir you hear, producers invested in the variety ou a desire to emulate the best in Burgundy. In fact, the most lauded New World pinot noirs are valued for their similarity to the Old World versions.

Thank you!

I kind of touched on the whole impact of marketing on wine in my post today: “Goodbye, Mr. Conductor”.

I disagree with EnoGuy about the “bigger” backlash… Yes, there are have been some catcalls here and there, but these magazines are chronic rewarders of bigness in their so-called buying guides. As long as wine magazines continue to give out ratings, we are going to see the highest scores go to high-alcohol reds.

The real backlash will likely come when (and I do not htink it’s an “if”) nutritional labeling comes to the wine industry. If the U.S., govt can make sure we see the ingredients on a bag of raisinets, we are eventually going to see the ingredients on a bottle of wine. ANd this is going to in turn reveal which Pinot Noirs are boosted, and it is going to draw some harsh new attention to the wide range of alcohol content in wines these days. Toss in the appearance of calories on labels and we may well see a swing back toward white wine.

The real question I think we’re trying to sort out here is: Just because we have these tools, does that mean we need to use them? I think that a lot of winemakers these days are trying to push things as far as they can go and now they’ve reached that precipice and are beginning to pull back. The wine writers and reviewers who were egging them on by awarding these wines with high scores and accolades are now criticizing them for being too over the top. Every major wine magazine has noticed this trend and a backlash is beginning. Although it’s easy to say that “bigger” and “more” is inherently “American” I think that many of us prefer to drink wine because of the subtleties and elegance that get lost in making big wines.