Issue 14 April – June 2002
• Return to Grape
14 contents page
•
Return to
Grape home page
|
CABERNET - BLENDED OR STRAIGHT? Why do some of the Cape’s finest producers offer both a ‘bordeaux blend’ and a varietal cabernet? Which makes for the better wine? Ingrid Motteux reports on a major tasting. The names on the labels are striking: Peter (Barlow), Paul (Sauer), John (X Merriman), Catharina and Christine; alongside more dramatic fantasies like Osiris, Optima, Triptych, Tiara, Lauréat and Baccarat. California competes with the likes of Alchemy, Anthology, Soliloquy, Isosceles and Insignia. No Faithful Hounds there, although the Americans also have a Trilogy and a Rubicon to match our own. What all the wines mentioned have in common is that they are all ‘bordeaux blends’, bucking the New World trend to varietal identification. Actually, ‘Médoc blend’ would be a more accurate tag for most of these wines (though just as likely to be disapproved of by the European Union). As is the tendency in the Médoc appellations in Bordeaux, cabernet sauvignon is the predominant variety, followed by merlot and cab franc, with perhaps a splash of malbec and/or petit verdot. On the ‘other bank’ in Bordeaux, in St Emilion and Pomerol, the proportion of cabernet in the blend falls heavily, while those of cabernet franc and merlot rise. Why blend? There were several reasons why the practice of blending came to dominate Bordeaux. The primary one is the producer’s eagerness to hedge his bets by planting more than one variety: cabernet sauvignon is a late budder and ripener; merlot is much earlier, and can be harvested before possible bad weather sets in – though it is vulnerable to late spring frosts and coulure. Also, cabernet sauvignon by itself can be quite severe in imperfectly ripe vintages, causing a ‘doughnut’ effect on the palate. Merlot fleshes out this problematic dip in the mid-palate and softens tough tannins. While cabernet sauvignon provides structure and tannins, merlot softens the mouthfeel and adds dimension to flavour profile; cabernet franc is generally leaner, lighter and more spicy and aromatic. The increased complexity gained by blending seems an almost happy coincidence of nature and palate. It is certainly a ‘recipe’ that has gained authority around the world. Having a palette from which to draw differently each year, in proportions varying according to the vintage’s strengths, does, suggest an important reason for New World producers generally choosing brand names for their blends, rather than following the variety-listing approach: it allows for even major changes each year. In the present line-up, in fact, only Grangehurst names its blend after the varietal mix involved. The writer Hugh Johnson suggests, however, that the initial assumption in the New World was: if cabernet sauvignon is good, then one hundred percent cabernet sauvignon is best. This was particularly true in California, with its eager pursuit of varietalism on the road to higher quality. In the 1980s, however, Californian marketers were quick to exploit cab’s reputation, using the variety name virtually as a brand label on ‘jug wine’ made from high-yield fruit. One response from more ambitious producers was to make use of a controlled name, Meritage, to characterise bordeaux-style blends meeting certain quality standards. Nonetheless, many of California’s finest (and most expensive) wines retain the varietal name on the label, even if a small proportion of other varieties is blended in. For it must be remembered, that many wines labelled Cabernet Sauvignon around the world (including South Africa) are, in fact, blends, as they are allowed to include up to 15 percent of other varieties, and frequently do include an unannounced splash of, say, merlot – to add complexity, soften the angularity of cabernet, or fill in the occasional corner or hollow.... First Cape bordeaux blend It is appropriate that Welgemeend Estate in Paarl was the venue for this tasting comparing the straight cabernets and the blends of a number of leading Cape producers. It was here that the Cape’s first commercially released bordeaux blend was made in 1979. Pioneer Billy Hofmeyr was primarily prompted, says his daughter Louise, Welgemeend’s current winemaker, simply by his love for the complexities of Bordeaux’s great red wines, and his desire to try emulating them in South Africa. Overgaauw and Meerlust soon followed suit, since when the number of Cape bordeaux-style blends has increased to around 170. Copyists we may be, but to good effect: it is telling that while there are producers’ associations for chenin blanc, ‘port’ and pinotage, none exists to oversee bordeaux-blend production – probably because standards have always been high, and the aims well established. It is interesting that Welgemeend no longer makes a varietal cabernet alongside its two versions of bordeaux blends (the Estate Reserve is classic Médoc-style, while Douelle has a hefty component of malbec – a variety that has now almost disappeared from Bordeaux). But a number of local producers do make both the varietal wine and the blend, and it was to compare those that a group of tasters gathered (with the activity of the 2002 harvest happening around us as we tasted). The trend to blend Just as seems to be the situation abroad, bordeaux-style blends seem to be perceived in the Cape as more prestigious and ‘serious’ than their separately-vinified components. They are most commonly the producer’s flagship wine, with the straight Cabernet coming second in stature, price and packaging. Amongst those in this tasting, only Rustenberg privileges its varietal wine – in this case the single-vineyard Peter Barlow – above its blend. Grangehurst’s top wine is its ‘Cape blend’ – so in a sense both the Grangehursts we tasted were secondary in prestige to the Nikela. Does, though, this flagshipping of the blend mean that the cab is genuinely a ‘second’ wine – wine simply not good enough to go into the property’s Grand Vin? Not always. It is often a question of the style being sought, and of the affinity with the other components of the blend. At Klein Constantia, for example, the mintiness of the Schleip clone cabernet is not welcome in the blend, where a different clone is preferred. Warwick has ten cabernet vineyards with seven clones – assembling the final wines is all about the synthesis of each barrel with the other, and varies from vintage to vintage. At Buitenverwachting, the cabernet which does not qualify for Christine will be relegated to a less serious blend instead of to the varietal wine – and neither wine will be released in a bad vintage. It is nowadays a marketing given that branding is A Good Thing. The higher price paid for blends justifies the expense of more costly oak treatment, the non-flagship cabernet usually receiving less new oak. And blending gives a more immediately complex taste, suited to today’s earlier drinking, whereas a varietal cab may require prolonged cellaring to reveal its qualities. According to Mike Ratcliffe of Warwick, sales of named blends in the UK are booming, while varietal wines are seeing a decline in popularity for the first time. This increase is apparently being fuelled by, as he puts it, ‘baby-boomers who have matured into more knowledgeable and affluent consumers’. What is the consumer psychology driving this trend? With many blends containing three grape varieties, a single-name blend delivers a less crowded and possible better-designed front label. And ‘Warwick Trilogy’ rolls nicely off the tongue in a restaurant, sparing the diner doubts about the French pronunciation of ‘sauvignon’, etc. ‘Paul Sauer’ and ‘Rubicon’ have a certain ring to them and you don’t even have to remember the corresponding estate names. The back label will probably tell you the grapes used, without you having to sound like a French gardening catalogue when ordering or buying. But if a blend is widely regarded as better, why do producers still make varietal cabs? In truth, there is no shortage of cabernet lovers, and prices are some ten to twenty percent lower in most cases. For someone prepared to wait, offering the blend could be truly increasing consumer choice while providing a cheaper cabernet for cellaring. The tasting results The tasting of ten pairs of wines – a cabernet and a blend from each producer, mostly from 1998 – gave interesting patterns, and went some way to answering some of our questions. (In fact, there was intended to be an eleventh pair, but to everyone’s disappointment when the wines were revealed, the one bottle that was corked beyond drinkability was the much-lauded Kanonkop Paul Sauer.) The wines were tasted blind, the tasters knowing only that they were presented in producer-pairs, the blend first. We were particularly fortunate to have on the panel the Californian and international expertise of Zelma Long (‘one of the most intelligent, articulate and innovative winemakers to be found anywhere in the world’ suggests James Halliday). Another largely US-educated palate came with David Bell, a keen and widely-experienced amateur. Also adding to the Grape residents were winemaker Louise Hofmeyr, Wine magazine writer Christian Eedes, and retailer Mike Bampfield-Duggan. • Which was better, blend or cab? The blend was rated superior in five instances, the cab in three, with two ties. (The same wines in the Platter Wine Guide 2002 show the blend better rated in seven cases.) Such a result is perhaps to be expected with wines of this state of (im)maturity, where the merlot component should make the wine more approachable and, together with cabernet franc, more complex. Johan Krige of Kanonkop maintains that the blended Paul Sauer will, in youth, be preferred by the vast majority of tasters, and that the cabernet challenges it with age. A follow-up tasting of these wines in another decade would be revealing. • Complexity, approachability In most pairs the blend was voted the more complex and approachable wine, and the cabernet the more powerful, with greater potential for longevity. Interestingly, the blends that were found less complex than the cabernet were Morgenhof Première and La Motte Millennium, in both of which merlot predominates. This is not necessarily a thumbs-down for merlot, as the only other merlot-based wine, Rustenberg’s John X Merriman, topped its starrier partner in this category. • The producer factor Not very surprisingly, the producer (meaning here either the winemaker or the property/terroir) is frequently a vital factor. From Vergelegen at the top of the scoring table, to Backsberg at the bottom, few of the pairs of wines were significantly separated. • Quality As is to be expected from a prestigious category of wine, with a number of the Cape’s best-known producers involved, the standard of wine was high – recognised by the tasters in some high scores. |
RANKING
Five stars
Four ½ stars Four
stars Three
½ stars
Three stars *Tank samples **Not yet released
THE
TASTERS
Welgemeend, 18 years on To add the perspective of time to the tasting, we asked Louise Hofmeyr to select a comparative pair from the Welgemeend cellar. She chose the Welgemeend blend and the Cabernet from 1984, and these were tasted before the main line-up. At 18 years of age, both wines were beautifully mature – Welgemeend is generally noted for being un-showy in youth, but capable of graceful development – and well appreciated. The straight Cabernet was mostly rated marginally higher than the blend, but both scored **** Christian Eedes was not alone in wondering, somewhat doubtfully, how many of the contemporary line-up we tasted will be in as fine a fettle after another decade or two. Incidentally, Louise Hofmeyr raised a significant point in relation to alerting customers to the nature of Cape bordeaux-blends. SA law forbids any mention of varietal components of a blend unless the different varieties have been vinified separately. Welgemeend blends the different varieties at an early stage, and has previously hedged its way around the legal restrictions by referring on the back label to the Bordeaux origins of the grapes and the blend. Any reference to Bordeaux has now been made impossible by the agreement with the EU. A wine such as Welgemeend Estate Reserve is thus prevented, by two bureaucratic sets of controls, from carrying information to customers about its varietal make-up.
|