The headline of a Business Standard editorial earlier this week, which read “Old Wine in New Bottles”, got me wondering about how many people really know the historical background of this oft-used phrase.
The saying caught on about 100 years ago and, of course, means that someone is trying to pass off something old (and perhaps not very good) as something new by repackaging it: it could be an old policy, a concept or even an old institution.
The facts around old wines are even more interesting. From the 1860s, vineyards in Europe began dying due to the accidental import of a microscopic louse called phylloxera from North America — and by 1900 CE, between 65 and 90 per cent of vineyards in France were devastated and rendered unproductive.
This led to a drastic reduction in the availability of wine and prompted some establishments to try and pass off bad old wine as good new wine by putting it into new bottles.
Which is why even today, the mine host of a restaurant is offered unopened bottles to inspect the labels, along with a sample of the wine, before it is poured for his or her guests.
A corollary to this is the story of wine produced in Algeria, which was a colony of France between 1830 and 1962. The devastation of French vineyards accelerated the migration by vignerons who planted vineyards in the new province and found a ready market in their home country for what was officially termed ‘French wine’. So much so that by 1930, Algeria was producing over 2 billion litres of wine with two-thirds of it being exported to Europe (mainly France) where it was blended with local wines and passed off as French wine.
Interestingly, some vineyards escaped the disease: Chilean vines were insulated by geography, while Rieslings in the Mosel region of Germany remained phylloxera-free since, apparently, the root louse was unable to survive the soil (slate) and climate (freezing). Vineyards in West and South Australia were also not affected, neither were tiny isolated parcels in Europe (including plots on the slopes of Mt Etna in Italy) — for no good reason.
There is still no cure for phylloxera, the only solution being to graft non-resistant cuttings of vitis vinifera onto phylloxera-resistant rootstock — a practice followed worldwide, including in the US.
There’s a certain cachet, however, to “pre-phylloxera” wines — the term used to identify wine made from vineyards that survived the pest, all of which would now be over 100 years old. These wines are rare and expensive — and I am given to understand from the tasting notes available that the quality of the wine made from such grapes is quite exceptional.
In popular imagination, old wines are good wines — but it’s a myth, since 95 per cent of all wines are best drunk within three to five years of production. It is only a select few that endure for longer and, that too, if they are stored well and have a proven provenance of being age-worthy.
So what wines are you planning to quaff before the year ends?
I personally enjoy a full-bodied Bordeaux-style red, with Cabernet Sauvignon giving it lots of body and power, Merlot adding some softness and elegance and the oak casks giving a touch of vanilla and chocolate. It may be fashionable to root for Burgundy-style wines that are lighter and more elegant, but frankly, unless the Pinot Noir is really good (and that’s quite expensive), it’s not my cup of wine.
My recommendation: The garagiste Thunevin Bad Boy (89 points/Rs 4,322 in Bengaluru) from the Saint-Émilion region of Bordeaux which, being a Merlot-heavy blend, has finesse, and yet is full-bodied with loads of coffee, toast and fruit aromas, silky tannins and a juicy finish.
Alok Chandra is a Bengaluru-based wine consultant
To read the full story, Subscribe Now at just Rs 249 a month