About 11 years ago I visited a popular Sonoma County winery and we were doing barrel samples. First the Pinots which I really liked, always had liked, and still do. We next moved onto the Syrahs and I was struck by how much the Pinots tasted like the Syrahs. To me they were almost the sames wines but with the Pinots at close to double the price. Ripeness and oak made them quite similar.

Syrah is a great example of how some producers can be “interchangeable.” Bear with me now, because you have opened the floodgates of my wild-eyed vinous didacticism, and here comes an extended analogy that my English teachers used to call a “conceit.”

The variety of styles available from Syrah is like the diversity of the human genome. There is more genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else. Human genetic diversity in native populations decreases in proportion to the distance from Africa. The “bottleneck theory” accounts for this; small populations emigrated from Africa taking with them only a small subset of the gene pool.

Similarly, in Syrah, diversity decreases in proportion to the distance from France. But the loss of diversity is due more to cultural factors than to genetic ones. Two cultural factors in new-world winemaking tend to push most wineries’ expression of that noble grape into the same corner. One is extreme ripeness. The other is abusive application of wood. It’s no secret that the new world Syrahs tend to be very big and very ripe. With extreme ripeness, diversity of fruit flavors tends to reduce. Even varietal characteristics fade away. Everything drifts towards the high-octane-cherry-cola-with-a-touch-of-stewed-prunes end of the spectrum. It is to the point where, even radically different varietals start to taste the same. A huge, new-world Syrah tastes a lot like a hugh new-world Pinot Noir. How weird is that? Contrast with France: what could be more different than a Cornas (Syrah) and a Irancy (Pinot Noir)?

For a simpler reason, the use of copious new oak also reduces diversity — wood is wood. Okay, I’m oversimplifying a little, but in young, ripe wines, new wood buries what little diversity is left. It is used and abused as a flavoring ingredient. That masks much of what I find interesting in wine and, I think, is generally wrong for wines that are not going to be cellared for a long time.

I could go on and on. In fact, you should have me on your show. It would be pretty original. I’m a winemaker who does not want to sell any wine. I’m a wine writer who never does “tastings” or publishes “ratings.” I’m an experienced wine drinker with millions in the bank who rarely spends more than $15 on a bottle.

Thanks for reading. -michael (himichael@post.harvard.edu)

As for his personality, he does seem quite confident. I’d have to try some of the wines to see it it’s justified. I’m sure he’s a pretty good salesman.
BD

First (and this is not Cameron’s fault), the industrialization of the wine business in many of the big growing regions, where fruit, and wood, and crush become commodities, and like commodities they are practically fungible on the palate. Okay, there is still a scale of quality, but it’s monochromatic.

Second, I just find the personality offensive — full of himself, full of jargon, like so many big-dick-swinging, small-time businessmen I have known. It’s tedious. -michael

In a blue moon, I would pay over $30 for a bottle, but it won’t be the latest fat Napa cab or the latest Lot either.