Wine quality & rating in the context of Indian wines

Flavours and scents surround us in our everyday existence. They play a major role in our lives. For example, appetising smells from the kitchen make our mouths water and stomachs rumble, the smell of a place or taste of a cake could trigger old memories and the disgusting taste of rotting food protects us from poisoning ourselves. However, unlike music, the fine arts, dance or gymnastics, we do not consciously learn to taste or smell until we decide to enrol in a culinary or wine course. What sets us apart is how consciously and for what purpose we taste and smell. Professionals train to taste and smell with reliability and consistency. As such, my duty is to bring to life with reliable consistency, across the producers and the regions, the smells and flavours of Indian wines in the imagination of the reader while also giving a clear and easy-to-understand assessment of quality.
The Wines of India being a concise guide, I have taken on the responsibility to taste, review and evaluate all the wines produced in India, from the biggest producers, such as Sula Vineyards and Grover Zampa, to the smaller ones in Karnataka’s Hampi Hills and the lesser known ones near Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh. In comparative terms, the market is small with 50 producers and about 400 labels, yet competition to quench the thirst of this growing and terribly young wine market is immense among Indian wineries. It is, therefore, imperative to understand the quality of the product to appreciate the value our money buys in a bottle of Indian wine. Quality, however, is an elusive concept, and involves multiple factors: the product, the consumer and the wider social context. A consideration of the influences relevant to the quality and rating of Indian wines may help the reader understand my viewpoint and the aims of my reviews and evaluations.
Quality is not an objective absolute, but an inherently relative concept. Looking at the etymology of the word, we learn that the English word derives from the Old French qualite, defined as the nature, temperament or character of a thing. When we talk about quality, our adjectives, our descriptors, are not measurable or quantifiable on an exact scale. When the world of wine discovered science – chemistry and microbiology in particular – in the late 1960s and early 1970s, its language became more analytical and precise. Our descriptors began to be quantifiable. There commenced an obsession with scores, especially with the rise of the American wine critic Robert Parker, who launched The Wine Advocate in 1978 and rose to fame in 1983 with his appraisal of the 1982 Bordeaux vintage, dismissed by others. Today, during a tasting, wine professionals will ask for the technical details of winemaking and the wine’s analytical data before allocating a score to guide them when they later review their tasting notes. So, when we talk about quality today, it really includes two constituent elements, one that is material, tangible and measurable, and the other perceived, personal and relative.
TECHNICAL QUALITY & OBJECTIVITY
To start with the material and tangible, a host of influences in the vineyard impact the quality of the final product, the alcoholic drink made from grapes. The location of the vineyard determines the climatic conditions, such as temperature, rainfall and seasonal variation, and also the soil type, the latitude and altitude, and orientation and exposure to the sun. These are the most obvious tangible, quantifiable influences. Because of them, different grape varieties are better suited to some areas than others and the same variety can show very different characters in different locations. For example, there are considerable temperature difference between regions, from the Cumbum Valley in Tamil Nadu to the Nandi Valley in southern Karnataka, or from Bijapur in northern Karnatka to Nashik in Maharashtra (for detailed data, see the regional introductions). Growers try to balance the grapes, but differences inevitably remain. As the quality of the fruit harvested from the same vineyard also differs from year to year, vintage variation adds another layer of complexity to the base material. Hence, the oft-quoted saying: The quality of a wine is made primarily in the vineyard.
In the searchable tasting notes section, my tasting notes often discuss elements directly related to the quality of the grapes used. They talk, for example, about freshness, which is indicative of the acid levels; about ripeness, which impacts alcohol and the nature of the fruits and tannins; and about concentration, which is determined partly by the amount and pattern of rainfall in a given year. In the fact file on subtropcial winegrowing and in the regional guides, I share my impressions of the role of vintage and terroir, as and when applicable. However, as India is a young wine country, its producers are in the process of experimenting, introducing new varieties or discontinuing others and/or adapting new techniques to meet the challenges of different vintages. Observations need to be made over a longer period of time and conclusions may have to be adjusted on the basis of a better understanding of Indian terroir.
As soon as the grapes arrive in the cellar, the quality of the wine into which they are converted depends on the knowledge, skills and expertise of the winemakers. With the present understanding of the science of winemaking a cellar master can keep processes under control. This leads to the expectation in both the consumer and the critic that all wines will be technologically well made, regardless of the level of quality. This is the easily measured and readily quantified aspect of quality.
A large number of Indian wineries supply technically impeccable products at all levels of the quality pyramid. Their winemakers are well qualified and often well travelled around the world. For example, Karishma Grover of Grover Zampa graduated from UC Davis in California, Kailash Gurnani of York Winery and Nitin Shinde of Deccan Plateau Winery obtained their oenology degrees in Adelaide, and Ashwin Rodriguez of Good Drop Wine Cellars worked as a cellar hand during harvests in both the Barossa Valley and in California. However, in India, as in other developing wine countries, basic technical quality is not always guaranteed. The lack of expertise is most often blamed, but there are examples where mismanagement is combined with a lack of funds and technical skill. Ample guidance in this regard can be found in the section on winery profiles.
In the context of quality, it is interesting to discuss winemaking in terms of the techniques and philosophies of the producers who craft the wines that make India an excitingly delicious, emerging wine country. With competition becoming fiercer by the day, Indian producers experiment a great deal with different techniques. The use of oak is one of the most obvious areas of experimentation; for example, there is great variety in the coopers and types of oak used, and in the size of the maturation vessel and the length of ageing in wood.There is as much a clumsy use of oak as supple.The use of American oak is predominant, but French oak is also used in India, albeit to a lesser extent. Some winemakers are looking at Slavonian and Hungarian oak options too. Having tasted vintages at the same producers over a number of years, the change within the same cellar is often detectable.
ASSESSING WINES: SUBJECTIVITY & RELATIVITY
Here the focus shifts from quantifying and measuring the individual components of the wine to understanding these elements in relation to one another. It is the interplay of the constituents and the impression of their combined presence that interests us. One of the approaches I have learnt and prefer to use is to consider the balance, length, intensity, complexity and concentration of a wine. For example, a wine may have gone through extensive barrel ageing in new oak, but if the fruits are sufficiently weighty and the structure of the wine is strong enough, it will be considered a balanced and big wine. Of course, on the subject of the same wine, we may ponder such aspects as whether the flavours are merely loud and pronounced or have a depth of voice as well; in other words, we describe its intensity and concentration. Complexity needs the least explanation in that it is about the variety of flavours and smells as well as multi-layered texture. Length, simply put, is how long flavours linger on the palate once the wine has been swallowed. These qualitative considerations are relative in nature; elements are perceived against each other in their proportions. During tastings throughout my research trip, I diligently ensured that all these aspects of every wine were duly considered.
People may judge the quality of a wine in this way, but to different degrees, dependent on their levels of training and experience. Wine professionals, however, who taste widely, take quality assessment a step further. They consider a wine in terms of style, winemaking philosophy and trends as well. This is what I call the holistic level of quality assessment, or the bird’s eye view. I would liken it to an art critic discussing not only an artist’s given painting, but also the way it fits into the painter’s career and where it sits in the wider artistic context.
This often helps the wine critic to take a step back from the wine, a metaphor for suppressing personal preferences. This is not because we wine writers are not entitled to like or dislike a wine, but because the reader is unfamiliar with our taste, and therefore, writing a review on the basis of what we like would be neither informative nor communicative to the consumer. Of course, the counter argument is that it is widely known in the global wine community that certain tasters have certain preferences as, for example, the above mentioned Robert Parker, who prefers big, ripe and generously extracted wines, whilst Jancis Robinson OBE MW prefers fresher and leaner styles. This just serves to highlight the inescapably subjective nature of taste, and how much of an exact, quantifiable and measurable science, or art, is wine tasting.
SCORING: A SHORTHAND FOR QUALITY
This guide uses the 20-point scale as the shorthand for quality assessment. Let me explain why and how I use it. Firstly, I prefer to use a numeric system as opposed to a star rating, because it gives a wider scale and allows for a more nuanced judgement. Secondly, when I started over ten years ago to systematically note my tastings, I used the 20-point scale for my own reference and have continued with it. I am equally comfortable with a 100-point and a 20-point scale; in fact, when judging at international competitions, such as the International Wine & Spirit Competition or the Decanter World Wine Awards, we use the 100-point scale.
I should add that I score to the first decimal; so there is a distinction between 16 and 16.1, which would translate, if arithmetically considered, into 80 and 80.5 on the 100-point scale. Some may say this is unnecessary. However, if I drew a distinction only between 16, 16.5 and 17, it would translate into 80, 82.5 and 85. In some judging systems a 2.5 percentage point can make a substantial difference, and so, in my opinion, it is fair to be overly precise than otherwise.
This may appear to be splitting hairs, but if you taste through, say, 20 Sauvignon Blancs from the same region within a price bracket of Rs 500–800, or £ 10–15, you may well emerge giving all the wines the same score, such as, for example, 15. In that case you may well expect to be asked if there really was no qualitative difference between them! Now let me outline what my scores mean:
High-end, premium
20–19: Outstanding
A top notch premium wine. It is a fine example of the variety and has a character of its own, conveys a sense of place and shows the mastery of the winemaker. Outstanding balance and concentration. Intensity and complexity are outstandingly typical of the variety. There is a remarkably long finish to the wine; it lingers on the palate.
18.9–18: Excellent
The wine excels among the premium wines for one or more reasons, such as excellent balance, intensity or concentration. It is a hallmark reference for the variety, region or category. The wine is likely to have a personality. Its complexity makes the wine stand out and there is a good length to it.
17.9–17: Very good
A really high quality wine achieving great balance and showing very good concentration and intensity. The overall enjoyment is substantial even if the wine does not excel. There is plenty to savour and appreciate in such a wine and it shows a longer finish without lingering on.
16.9–16: Good
The balance and concentration are good, but not remarkable. The wine shows clear varietal character even if without a sense of place. There is some complexity to talk about and a medium finish. The type of wine you would be happy to drink any day without thinking about it too much.
15.9–15: Average
A technically well-made wine, not remarkable or exciting in any way. There is a balance of decent intensity and some concentration, medium finish at best. An average quaffing wine that would be acceptable to get in a pub or bar.
14.9–14: Poor or faulty
The wine is disappointing for any number of reasons: it is out of balance, too dilute, lacks character, the grapes used were insufficiently ripe or over-ripe, or it has passed its best and is fading with tired fruits, dried out tannins, etc. It may display some fault, such as oxidation, volatile acidity or rot. Unpleasant.
13.9 and below: Unsuitable for consumption
The wine is technically faulty and out of balance, unacceptable for human consumption.