From Angela Lloyd:
Fault - a failing, error, blemish, imperfection. These definitions from Chambers dictionary surely suggest that a fault is a negative, not to be desired. While I grant that we all have different threshholds of detection for the type of faults found in wine and some might appear to render the wine more interesting, they remain faults. I also acknowledge that judgements are subjective, and the theoretical perfect wine therefore unlikely to draw 100% agreement.

Having made such allowances, the real problems arise when a taster doesn't recognise a fault through lack of experience. I remember Lynne Sheriff presenting a tasting of two cabernets, one SA and one, I think from the Central Coast of the US. This was in the days before the new virus-free vine material was introduced here. The local cab was, as many were in those days, heavy and lacking fruit. The US one was just the opposite, bright and fresh - it was no wonder that the majority preferred the US wine, but Lynne was amazed because the wine was horribly underripe and weedy. I'm sure if that same US wine was put up against one of our new cabs, the majority would prefer our wine simply because it's what winelovers are more used to

The fact that Cathy preferred the vegetal IBMP infected wine to the control sample could simply be because she didn't like the style of the latter, not that she didn't appreciate it was of better quality. I'm sure the Chileans, knowing how it is caused in their Carmenère, are trying to eliminate it with better canopy management. And having spoken to several NZ producers at the recent London Wine Trade Fair, I know there is a trend to turn away from the overly pungent sauvignons.

To Dr Chatonnet's claim that liking a fault is all a question of taste, I would add, it's all a question of experience; once we've tasted something better, with the fault eradicated or, at least, minimised, the majority will not in future accept a wine with a similar shortcoming. Interest should derive from properly ripe grapes grown under conditions suitable for each variety. The importance for winemakers and anyone involved with communicating about wine is to taste as widely as possible.

 

From Tim James:
(Please someone rescue this from being an in-house discussion!) I agree with most of Angela's points except it must be noted that if everyone agrees that a 'fault' is desirable, it by definition ceases to be a fault. The New Zealanders decided that the mercaptan-caused 'sweaty armpit' character, that so many seem to love and some think of as a fault, was not in fact a fault. This is not an obvious conclusion, and might be changed one day. Other 'faults' are also controversial. It's not  that some people 'like' a fault - it is that they disagree that it is a fault! Not everybody, for example, even agrees that Brettanomyces is necessarily a fault.

So it's not just a matter of experience. Truth changes with time, including agreements about what is a 'shortcoming'. Some aspects of winemaking become accepted, some rejected. It undoubtedly is a matter of (changing) social taste. Oxidation is often a fault - but without it there would be no madeira or oloroso sherry. It's unfashionable in table wines now, so the old-fashioned white Rioja is starting to disappear - what was once considered a virtue is now becoming considered a fault. Some people consider wines made from ultra-ripe grapes to be faulty, some do not. That is a current matter of detate - you can't just look it up in a dictionary to find out. It is a question of which side wins the war: only then can it be said to 'be' a fault or not.

Incidentally, if 'purity' is your criterion, it could be claimed that fermentation is a fault that occurs to lovely pure grape juice!