Having been overseas for the last month I seem to have missed out on the war of words regarding the NZ wine industry's perceived reliance on Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc. In the latest issue of New Zealand Wine Grower, Terry Dunleavy, has penned a piece entitled ‘Wine critics not so savvy', mounting a spirited defence of New Zealand Sauvignon. Perhaps he should have chosen his examples more carefully:
There is " . . . plenty of precedent for a dominance of style in a region".
True, Burgundy does rely on pinot noir and chardonnay, the northern Rhone on syrah, Champagne on sparkling wine. But these are regions and a number of regions go into making France a great wine producing country. Surely the worry is that a single country (NZ) is relying on one region (Marlborough) and one grape variety (Sauvignon Blanc).
Dunleavy continues :
" . . . . with the spate of single vineyard and limited area Sauvignons being produced in the three (so far) distinct sub-regions of Marlborough, I'd hazard a guess that their range of styles and flavours exceeds in number the range of Pinot flavours and styles from Burgundy, Gamays from Beaujolais or the methods from Champagne"
This statement is so preposterous as to be almost laughable. Certainly there has been an evolution in the styles of sauvignon blanc coming out of Marlborough. But to say that the region is capable of producing a greater range of styles than Champagne or Burgundy is nonsense. Sauvignon Blanc is a good, rather than great, grape variety and in no way is comparable to pinot noir or chardonnay.
Perhaps New Zealand Winegrowers should be focussing on asking its own membership to support sauvignon blanc rather than attacking the media. It is rare to find a producer who will own up to liking (let alone drinking) sauvignon blanc. Indeed some will go so far as to say they cannot stand the stuff. One cannot imagine Remy Krug accepting an award and telling the audience that he can't bear his own wine and prefers to drink something else instead.