Oxidative notes and wine faults: Continuation of my response to Tom Stevenson's comments

I recently addressed a portion of the Tom Stevenson comments on my post juxtaposing his critiques of the Selosse Champagnes with the so-called "Galloni Doctrine." In this post I address the portion of his comments regarding oxidative Champagnes and wine faults.

Stevenson clearly sees oxidative Champagnes as a fault. He finds it "odd that the younger generations like oxidative aromas, as they are so old-fashioned, so seventies, but if that is what they like and they have the money to pay Selosse prices and actually enjoy the sort of thing that winemakers and consultants of my generation spent their life trying to rectify."

From his comments, one can infer three types of Champagne drinkers: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The Good are the ones who drink Champagnes that conform to the traditional style; the Bad are the ones who drink oxidative-style Champagnes but for them it is a "stylistic" thing (They are given a hall-pass because they also drink other oxidative-style wines); and the Ugly are those who would not accept an oxidative wine of any other type but is willing to drink a Selosse Champagne. "If ... you (are) not happy with oxidative versions of other wines ..., then I have yet to hear a clear valid and rational reason why you (or anyone else) can make an exception for Champagne, especially as it is  by method,a deliberately reductive wine." Before we go any further, let us examine what is meant by oxidative wines.

Wine oxidizes when exposed to air via two primary mechanisms: enzymic and non-enzymic oxidation. Enzymic oxidation primarily afflicts wine must and requires the presence of the enzyme Tyrosinase (or Lacasse, in the case of botrytized must), phenolic compounds (flavonols, anthocyanins, tannins, etc.), oxygen, and metallic co-factors (iron, copper, etc.). Non-enzymic oxidation, also known as chemical oxidation, occurs in two steps: (i) Oxygen in the air reacts with wine phenols to create hydrogen peroxide and (ii) hydrogen peroxide reacts with ethanol to form acetaldehyde.

The effects of oxidation on wine are browning, loss of fruity aromas, and aldehydic aromas. Because of these characteristics, oxidization is widely viewed as a wine fault. But there are strong attempts to differentiate between oxidized wines (fault) and oxidative wines (style). For example, The Wine Doctor defines oxidative wines as "having been made in a fashion which allows oxygen to influence the style of the wine" while an oxidized wine occurs when the "aromatic profile of the wine has succumbed to the aldehydes created by the oxidation of ethanol by reactive oxygen derivatives." Dr. Vino describes oxidative wines as having just enough oxygen while, conversely, oxidized wines have been exposed to too much oxygen during the winemaking process.

Oxidized flavors do have some adherents but their appeal is not across-the-board. According to Joe Campanale, co-owner of NYC restaurant L'Artesi (as quoted in P. Govinda, Deep Breathing, Imbibe Magazine), "Oxidized flavors can be difficult if you are not familiar with them. All the fresh fruit aromas and taste diminish, making way for cooked or candied fruit, nutty, yeasty flavors, and a loss of complexity. Fans of these wines find their individuality and character unsurpassed and, because of that, they are some of the most fascinating and compelling wines in the world." According to Govinda, "... when it is an intentional part of winemaking, some winemakers believe you can end up with a bottle of such complexity that it borders on the taste ... of umami."

The first table below shows the characteristics gained and lost in oxidative winemaking while the one immediately following shows a sampling of deliberate oxidative winemaking around the world.

                                                                      Oxidative Wines

Characteristics Lost	Characteristics Gained
Original Color	Nuttiness
Vibrant tones	Dried fruits
Aromas	Flowers
	Umamai savoriness
	Browning
	Complexity

Sampling of Oxidative Wines

Region	Wine	Winemaker	Variety	Methods
Andalusia	Jerez (Sherry)	Various	Palomino	Amontillado Olorosso
Jura	Vin Jaune	Various	Savagnin	Sous-voile*
		Various	Savagnin	Ouill**
Lebanon	Red and white	Chateau Musar
Rioja	White	Lopez de Heredia	Viura
Alicanté	Fondillon	Various	Monastrel
Friuli	White	Radikon
	White	Gravner
Burgundy	White	Patrick Javillier	Chardonnay
St. Aubain		Dominique Derain		Summer in sun in glass demi-johns
Buzet		Domaine du Pech	Sauvignon Blanc
Gaillac	Mysterre	Patrice Lescaret	Mauzac	Solera
Cour-Cheverny		Hervé Villemade	Romorantin

*Beneath the veil – not filled up initially and not topped up during aging
**Some not topped up and bottled after a year; noticeable oxidative qualities
Sources: Sue Dyson and Roger McShane, Just add oxygen – Reflections on the allure of oxidation, Foortourist.com; P. Govinda, Deep Breathing, Imbibe Magazine.

According to Paul Lukacs Inventing Wine, wine drinkers throughout history have had to contend with oxidized wines because of a lack of understanding of wine chemistry and unsatisfactory fermentation and aging vessels. These shortcomings have been addressed over the years and, with the advent of technologies such as temperature-controlled stainless steel tanks, and the use of chemical aids such as sulfur dioxide, the winemaker can provide a product which has had very little exposure to oxygen in the journey from berry to wine. If oxidative flavors were a result of a lack of relevant technologies and techniques, and those technologies and techniques are available today, then oxidative flavors in a wine -- those throwbacks to the bad old days -- must be a fault. Or, at least, so goes the argument.

But, as I have shown in the table above, there are a number of winemakers who are actively pursuing this style of wine. And consumers must be purchasing these wines or these businesses would fail. So if a winemaker deliberately sets out to make a wine according to a certain set of goals, and he/she accomp[lishes those goals, and consumers favor that product, why is that not a "style?" Why is that a fault? Why is Selosse's oxidative Champagne a fault if one accepts this logic?

Further, the oxidative notes in wine may be a genetically tuned flavor element for some consumers. According to Dyson and McShane, "It is not possible to understand why winemakers deliberately try to develop oxidative notes in wine unless you also understand umami." Umamai is the savory taste which "results from the presence of L-glutamate and other related amino acids found in foods" and there is "individual variation to the perceived intensity of this taste." Exposing grape juice to oxygen increases the level of glutamates -- and umami qualities -- and the pleasure of those who find it appealing and the displeasure of those who don't.

As it relates to Selosse's wine, he is making wine in the oxidative style; and his customers are buying those wines. Whether because of a persistent pursuit of umami, or prestige, or whatever, they are buying it. And, in the face of declining wine consumption among old-world youth, wine lovers should embrace whatever it takes to get young people drinking wine. When the bubbles first appeared in the wine we now call Champagne, it was derided as a fault. The Dom tried everything he could to get rid of the bubbles. Now they are Champagne. Maybe one day Selosse will get his due also.

©Wine -- Mise en abyme

Dueling doctrines: Antonio Galloni versus Tom Stevenson

In a recent post, I coined the term "Galloni Doctrine" as a descriptor for his perspective on the role of a wine critic. Galloni's thoughts on the matter were shared in a Liv-ex interview wherein, in responding to a question on the impact of wine critics on markets and growers, he stated (in relation to the grower part of the question): "I firmly believe that it is not a critic's role to tell growers -- or even suggest by way of commentary/criticism -- how to make wine. Any sense of giving direction to growers is completely antithetical to my philosophy."

I used the Galloni doctrine as a filter through which to view Tom Stevenson's (one of the leading authorities on Champagne and sparkling wines) longstanding critiques of the champagnes of Domaine Jacques Selosse. As I said in the post, my writing the piece was in no way an endorsement of the Galloni doctrine, or advancement of the approach as a "framework" or guiding principle for all wine critics. I juxtaposed his thoughts and Stevenson's actions as a way to generate some dialogue on the matter."

And boy did I get some dialogue. From the man himself. In a lengthy comment on my article, Tom dispatched what he viewed as an erroneous observation made by one of the authors I had cited in my post, pushed back heavily on the Galloni doctrine, and shared his mystification as to why folks would endeavor to drink faulty (read oxidized) champagnes. I thought that Tom's comments were too important to remain buried in the comments of the article so I present them to you herein. In this particular post I present his take on the Galloni Doctrine (And please remember, Galloni does not have a doctrine. I gave him one because I slept at a Holiday Inn last night.). I will examine the issue of consumption of oxidized champagne in a subsequent post.

In ruminating on the role of a wine critic, Stevenson wondered whether they should mention wine faults when encountered and, if they do, should they just mention them without any further discussion. Or, would discussion of the problem be more constructive in the long term. It is this dilemma which informs his doctrine: (i) He believes that he has a fundamental right to examine and discuss elements of how specific producers make wine (and based on his years in the business, he is eminently qualified to do so); and (ii) in the cases where he encounters wine faults, he discusses the problem in a constructive way. Matter-of-factly, "others can do what they want but I have always taken this approach in my writing."

These two gentlemen approach wine criticism from two separate perspectives and, as a result, may be playing to different aspects of the value chain. I posit that Antonio sees himself as helping consumers make better decisions between the wines available on the market where, while Tom may see himself in that space to some extent, he sees his mandate as also encompassing assisting winemakers in making better wine. They, in his view, will make better wine if they are aware of the faults in their wine. And even moreso if consumers, based on reading his comments, mention the issue to the winemakers or their representatives. In this approach he is not committing the Galloni sin of telling winemakers how to make wine; he is telling them what is wrong with the wine that they are making.

The market seems to be signaling that both approaches are meritorious as both of these gentlemen are enjoying success, each in his own right. But I would suspect that most people would take the position that Adam Chilvers (Owner of wineontheway.com) took when we were discussing this post: "I think that a critic should point out flaws in wine. Why are they a "critic" if they don't voice their honest opinions which are based on their experiences and expertise? Isn't that what a critic is?"


Wine -- Mise en abyme

Tom Stevenson's Selosse critiques within the context of the Galloni Doctrine

Antonio Galloni, founder of vinousmedia.com, and, prior to that, selected-regions' wine critic for Robert Parker's Wine Advocate, recently was interviewed by Liv-ex with the results published on the liv-ex blog in two parts. In responding to a question on the impact of wine critics on markets and growers, Galloni stated thusly (as it relates to the grower part of the question): "I firmly believe that it is not a critic's role to tell growers -- or even suggest by way of commentary/criticism -- how to make wine. Any sense of giving direction to growers is completely antithetical to my philosophy." I call this the "Galloni Doctrine."

Tom Stevenson, according to wine-pages.com, "is the world's most respected authority on Champagne and sparkling wine." Stevenson has authored The World Encyclopedia of Champagne and Sparkling Wine, the Annual Champagne and Sparkling Wine Guide, and Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia, among others. Stevenson has been called "the champagne expert with the greatest depth of knowledge" (Simon Field MW -- champagne buyer of BBR -- as quoted in Patrick Schmitt, Points take on greater importance for Prestige Cuvées, The Drinks Business, 6/20/2012) and this depth has yielded in excess of 30 writing awards and numerous assignments with a number of hardcopy and online publications.

As I pointed out in my article on Jacques Selosse, Stevenson has been one of the most searing and persistent critics of Selosse's wines. According to Tom Hall, Stevenson omitted any mention of Selosse in the 1998 First Edition of Christie's World Encyclopedia of Sparkling Wines; and when he did mention it in the 2007 version, he described it as being too oaky. In his 2008 review of Selosse (The World of Fine Wine, Issue 21), Stevenson confirms the latter part of Hall's statement. He indicated that, in the 2007 edition of Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia, he had stated that the wines had too much oak for his liking and that he did not "appreciate the style but appreciated that others did." Up until this point, Stevenson is a little close to the line but his critique still keeps him in the Galloni critics circle -- in that he is not telling Selosse "how to make wine."

But then he blows through the boundaries. In that same 2008 Selosse review article, Stevenson says: "Although there is no doubt in my mind about Anselme's passion, or the potential of his terroir, or indeed the quality of the grapes he produces each year, the wines do not live up to either his abilities or his terroir. They are too oxidative, too aldehydic, and too oaky, lacking in freshness, finesse and vivacity ..." In other words, buck up and make wines that live up to your ability and terroir. And you can do that by reducing the oxidative, aldehydic, and oaky nature of your wines. And in case the implication is missed, Stevenson states directly "I would love to see him make just one non-aldehydic cuvée." This Stevenson critique of Selosse's wines would, according to the Galloni Doctrine, constitute telling a grower how to make wine. And that is taboo in his book.

In a recent wine-searcher.com article on underrated and overrated Champagnes, Stevenson continued in the same vein. He began by identifying Bollinger as overrated and then tagged Selosse as "much worse than Bollinger and more expensive too." He wondered about Selosse using SO₂ at harvest rather than at the back-end, classing such an approach as "back to front." His suggestion was to use the SO₂ at the back end thus giving the yeasts the opportunity to suck up early stage oxygen during the first and second fermentations. This is very clearly winemaking advice and, as such, at odds with the Galloni Doctrine.

Now I am in no way implying that Galloni is in any way reacting to Stevenson's actions to date in either developing or discussing his "doctrine." It is most likely that his thoughts were developed within the context of his own values and experiences and is primarily a self-regulating vehicle. Nor am I saying that Galloni's "doctrine" is an approach that should be used as a framework or guiding principle for all wine critics. I juxtaposed his thoughts and Stevenson's actions as a way to generate some dialogue on the matter. My cautionary note is that the critic will never have the full array of information that the winemaker possesses when he/she puts a wine on the market. Maybe the critic should criticize what is rather than wish for what should be. I don't know. What do you think?


©Wine -- Mise en abyme

Champagne Jacques Selosse: Terroir expression or market misdirection?

In an article titled Alternative Champagne 2 (The World of Fine Wine, Issue 35, 2012), Walters describes "Champagne de Terroir," a wine which "maximizes the expression of the vineyard and removes the influence of the winemaker."  These Champagnes de Terroir are, according to Walters, "only produced successfully by a handfull of the finest growers." In Issue 36 of TWoFW, Walters  characterizes the methods of these "Superior Grower Producers" and that characterization is captured graphically below.

One of the leading lights in the production of this style of champagne is Domaine Jacques Selosse which, according to Walters, is ... "one of the most revered producers in Champagne." Walters sees the "grower revolution" beginning with Anselme Selosse and his philosophy that "... authentic wines were wines of terroir and that the only way to make wines rich in terroir was to encourage a living soil and balanced yields and to use winemaking techniques that allowed the terroir to speak as clearly as possible." Selosse's practices vis a vis Walters' methods for producing Champagnes de Terroir are illustrated below.

In interview after interview, Selosse stresses the importance of terroir to the quality of his wines. Much is made of the fact that he studied his craft in Burgundy (rather than in Champagne), first at Lycée Viticole de Beaune and then working at Burgundy properties such as Coche, Lafon and Leflaive. It is this experience, it is said, which informs his practices. Tomas's wine blog (Jacquesson versus Selosse -- a duel in vineyard champagnes, winetomas.wordpress.com, 9/16/2012) captures this succinctly: "It is quite obvious that the new generation of small producers in Champagne look to some extent at Burgundy rather than large Champagne houses for inspiration" in that they are focused on the wine rather than the bubbles. Selosse's focus on terroir is illustrated in the number of lieux-dits offerings -- six of which were recently launched - that are included in his portfolio.

The harshest and most persistent Selosse critic has been Tom Stevenson, identified by Simon Field MW -- champagne buyer of BBR -- as the champagne expert with the greatest depth of knowledge (Patrick Schmitt, Points take on greater importance for Prestige Cuvées, The Drinks Business, 6/20/2012). Writing in The World of Fine Wine (Champagne Selosse: The House that Jacques Built, Issue 21, 2008), Stevenson said that Selosse's wines "do not live up to Anselme's abilities or his terroir." He found the wines to be "too oxidative," "too aldehydic," and "too oaky." The oxidative character was caused, he said, by long barrel aging and a low-sulfur regime. Writing on winesearcher.com (Champagne's Overachievers & Underperformers, 12/19/2013), Stevenson identified Selosse as one of the 5 most overrated Champagne Producers." He implies that Selosse tasted blind is returned as faulty wine and characterizes Selosse's adding of SO₂ at harvest as being done at the wrong end of the winemaking process.

Tom Hall (Champagne Jacques Selosse -- A Profile, scalawine.com, 7/18/2012), thinks that Stevenson is much too harsh on the Selosse wines. He does find them oaky but also finds them to be "outstanding for their arresting tang and vinosity combined with what I can only call a gorgeous finesse of mousse ..." The wood regime masks the wines with "a spice and burnished character that is unique in Champagne." The concentrated nature of the wine allows it to stand up to the wood which is, nonetheless, obvious. According to Hall, "Given the rhetoric of this estate is devoted to the naked revelation of 'terroir,' ... what the wines reveal most in taste, is the winemaking and barrel regime."

Tomas's wine blog echoed similar sentiments after a comparative tasting of Jacquesson and Selosse single-vineyard champagnes. "Through the entire tasting, what was most obvious was the enormous stylistic difference between the Jacquesson and Selosse wines." This stylistic difference was stronger than village, varietal, or vintage-character differences. His conclusion was that the wines reflected what you would expect when a good producer makes wines with grapes from a good vineyard -- "really good wine that is marked by the producer's style in addition to the grape varieties and their origins."

Tomas views some of the Selosse practices as working against the exposition of terroir. The solera style utilized by Selosse is better-suited to evening out vintage characteristics and increasing oxidative exposure; and oxidation is not the best vehicle for revealing the underlying character of the wine. His conclusion was that Selosse wines were "Selosse-specific" rather than "terroir-specific."

In postmodern winemaking (University of California Press, 2013), Clark Smith addresses one of the issues confronting the modern winemaker: "Tragically, today's consumer environment has become hostile to an honest discussion of production winemaking. Winemakers lie low while luddite paparazzi fire live ammo over their heads. Honesty is nowhere to be found and platitudes like 'we do the maximum' are standard fare." Hall and Tomas seem to be pinning the tail on the donkey. "Anselme Selosse talks endlessly about the mission to ensure the wines reflect their origins. But it is important to notice the very sophisticated oenology and technical operation in winemaking that is going on here too" (Hall). And Tomas: "But there is an issue here when the winemaking claims so much of our attention on tasting, but all the while we are told it's terroir."

Is Anselme Selosse misleading us when he talks about terroir while his wine is a monument to winemaking? If we are being misled, is it benign or cynical? Benign in the sense as described by Clark Smith, almost a defensive maneuver. Cynical where the market is being manipulated and told that the character of the wine is the result of terroir while it is, according to Tom Stevenson, the result of over-ripe grapes, too much wood, and too little SO₂. Champagne Selosse does not have a web site but Anselme's associated hotel business has a very sophisticated one. Is this a part of Anselme's schtick, presenting himself as a gentleman farmer on the wine side with no time to devote to such new-fangled inventions as the internet and social media? While implementing that technology effectively on the hotel side where communicating your product and its availability is key.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

©Wine -- Mise en abyme