Read Online The Wine Savant: A Guide to the New Wine Culture by Michael Steinberger - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Michael Steinberger
Ads: Link
IMITATIONS
ON R ETURNING F LAWED B OTTLES?
If I purchase a bottle from my nearby wine shop, open it tonight, and discover that it is corked, I will take it back to the store tomorrow expecting to be offered a refund or a replacement bottle, and I hope the merchant will do just that (I hate arguing in public). But what if I put the bottle in my cellar and donât open it for a year? Should the store still be willing to take it back? What if I donât pull the cork until, say, 2018?
This is an issue for which there are no regulations or guidelines; retailers make their own rules. I think it is reasonable to expect a retailer to take back an obviously corked wine within twelve months of the sale, and as long as the customer has a receipt, I see no reason why such a wine canât be returned eighteen or even twenty-four months after purchase. And itâs worth pointing out that the merchant doesnât eat the cost of that damaged bottle: the cost is ultimately passed back to the winery. But after two or three years, it might be tricky to get a retailer to agree to refund the money. That doesnât necessarily mean you are out of luck. If it is a foreign wine, you might approach the importer and see if something can be done (perhaps the importer can arrange a refund or help get you a replacement bottle). If it is an American wine, you might go directly to the winery; the good ones care deeply about customer service and may well be willing to replace the bottle.
However you decide to handle the issue, you need to be sure that the bottle really is corked or otherwise damaged. If the wine just isnât to your liking, thatâs a tougher proposition. If you bought the wine on the recommendation of the merchant, he or she should be willing to take it back; if you bought it of your own volition, there is no obligation to do so, though a smart retailer, like a smart restaurateur, will go out of the way to make the customer happy, even if that means losing a few dollars.
4
Wrath of Grapes
W HO SAID there is no disputing taste? For many oenophiles, part of the pleasure of wine is arguing about it. In recent years, the wine world has seen a contentious debate over what can be called, for lack of a less ponderous phrase, first principles. What defines quality in a wine? How about authenticity? Is it ultimately more important for a wine to taste good or to taste true to its originsâto exhibit goût de terroir , as the French say? And if the end result is agreeable, does it matter how a wine was made? With much of the wine industry fixated on branding and marketing and technology increasingly giving vintners the power to bend nature to their will, these questions have taken on added urgency, and the discussion of them has grown ever more acrimonious, with terms such as anti-flavor wine elite and spoofulated being tossed around like hand grenades.
All this Sturm und Drang over wine can seem excessive; after all, weâre talking about fermented grape juice, not war and peace. (Thereâs that preemptive cringe I mentioned!) The rancor of some of these debates brings to mind Freudâs famous comment about the ânarcissism of small differences.â It also reminds one of Fran Lebowitzâs remark that âgreat people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, and small people talk about wine.â Small people, small differences. But as a not-infrequent combatant in these wine debates, I think they serve a useful purpose: they force people to rethink issues and to question their own assumptions, and they can often lead to improved farming and winemaking. For instance, the scrutiny that has been applied to Parker in recent years has not only yielded a more balanced and accurate assessment of his career than the hagiographic accounts that were predominant a decade ago; I think it has had a liberating effect on many winemakers, who no longer feel obliged to cater to Parkerâs
ON R ETURNING F LAWED B OTTLES?
If I purchase a bottle from my nearby wine shop, open it tonight, and discover that it is corked, I will take it back to the store tomorrow expecting to be offered a refund or a replacement bottle, and I hope the merchant will do just that (I hate arguing in public). But what if I put the bottle in my cellar and donât open it for a year? Should the store still be willing to take it back? What if I donât pull the cork until, say, 2018?
This is an issue for which there are no regulations or guidelines; retailers make their own rules. I think it is reasonable to expect a retailer to take back an obviously corked wine within twelve months of the sale, and as long as the customer has a receipt, I see no reason why such a wine canât be returned eighteen or even twenty-four months after purchase. And itâs worth pointing out that the merchant doesnât eat the cost of that damaged bottle: the cost is ultimately passed back to the winery. But after two or three years, it might be tricky to get a retailer to agree to refund the money. That doesnât necessarily mean you are out of luck. If it is a foreign wine, you might approach the importer and see if something can be done (perhaps the importer can arrange a refund or help get you a replacement bottle). If it is an American wine, you might go directly to the winery; the good ones care deeply about customer service and may well be willing to replace the bottle.
However you decide to handle the issue, you need to be sure that the bottle really is corked or otherwise damaged. If the wine just isnât to your liking, thatâs a tougher proposition. If you bought the wine on the recommendation of the merchant, he or she should be willing to take it back; if you bought it of your own volition, there is no obligation to do so, though a smart retailer, like a smart restaurateur, will go out of the way to make the customer happy, even if that means losing a few dollars.
4
Wrath of Grapes
W HO SAID there is no disputing taste? For many oenophiles, part of the pleasure of wine is arguing about it. In recent years, the wine world has seen a contentious debate over what can be called, for lack of a less ponderous phrase, first principles. What defines quality in a wine? How about authenticity? Is it ultimately more important for a wine to taste good or to taste true to its originsâto exhibit goût de terroir , as the French say? And if the end result is agreeable, does it matter how a wine was made? With much of the wine industry fixated on branding and marketing and technology increasingly giving vintners the power to bend nature to their will, these questions have taken on added urgency, and the discussion of them has grown ever more acrimonious, with terms such as anti-flavor wine elite and spoofulated being tossed around like hand grenades.
All this Sturm und Drang over wine can seem excessive; after all, weâre talking about fermented grape juice, not war and peace. (Thereâs that preemptive cringe I mentioned!) The rancor of some of these debates brings to mind Freudâs famous comment about the ânarcissism of small differences.â It also reminds one of Fran Lebowitzâs remark that âgreat people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, and small people talk about wine.â Small people, small differences. But as a not-infrequent combatant in these wine debates, I think they serve a useful purpose: they force people to rethink issues and to question their own assumptions, and they can often lead to improved farming and winemaking. For instance, the scrutiny that has been applied to Parker in recent years has not only yielded a more balanced and accurate assessment of his career than the hagiographic accounts that were predominant a decade ago; I think it has had a liberating effect on many winemakers, who no longer feel obliged to cater to Parkerâs
Similar Books
