Missing the next big thing?

by Garry Clark

I heard a passing comment the other day that got me thinking about how we choose wines to be listed. It was during one of the Imbibe Sommelier Wine Award tastings, and we had just finished tasting a flight of Austrian/German/Alsatian Gruner. Smack bang in the middle of the flight there was one wine that caused us all to raise eyebrows and look at each other as if to say “WTF”. Now I’m not really qualified to comment on the typicity of Gruner as having tasted my way through the flight of seven Gruner brought my total experience of Gruner Veltliner up to about eight wines (it is possible I may have tasted one or two more in my Court of Master Sommelier Advanced Examination but I’m none the wiser to the experience). But the wine was very pleasant and appealing. I’m led to believe it wasn’t a typical Gruner and that fact was bandied about as if it was some kind of failing, that because the wine didn’t fit an identikit pattern it wouldn’t merit a listing. That got me thinking, why not?

Should a wine not be listed on its own technical merits? After all we all agreed that this particular wine was quite good. I would say it was good enough to get me interested in a grape that I have no affection for. Surely that’s good, especially for Gruner; after all it’s a grape variety that rarely gets a look in.  And if it get the chance to be shown off in a restaurant and be introduced to many new customers who then might go out themselves and try other Gruner Veltliner then surely that too is a good thing?   But if a wine isn’t typical, does that make it any less of a good wine? What about Sassicaia, Valandraud, Vega Sicilia, Ornellaia, Masseto and any number of wines that broke the mould, that dared to be different. Now they are iconic, with equally iconic prices to match. Who knows, maybe we passed on Austria’s next big thing, but then again it is only a Gruner, the sommeliers favourite grape *  

* nine out of ten sommeliers will proudly state Gruner is their favourite grape when asked (totally unscientifically based on anecdotal evidence)