opinion / sinophile
A charm off ensive Ch’ng Poh Tiong
Like most things, wine can be either charming or impressive. The two do not normally cohere: Montrachet may be impressive but rarely if ever charming. To do that, Chardonnay has to travel to Chablis, or even farther north to become a blanc de blancs bubbly from Cramant, Chouilly, or Avize. Le Mesnil is too wound up and full of itself to be charming; too taut, tight, and tense. Le Mesnil makes everyone around it nervous.
W St-Emilion in another time—it seems
more like an age—was motivated by a different rhythm and sensuality than the Médoc. She flew a different flag. Today, driven by at least one consultant, more than a few of the wines are monstrosities (I can’t even say “impressive”), the grape crimes abetted, encouraged by journalists, American, French, and others. Super- Tuscans may impress some people, but to be seduced, you need to be B&B by Barbaresco and Barolo. If charm were musical, Mozart would be premier cru supérieur. Bach, too. Beethoven is certainly impressive but not particularly charming, except when moonlight shimmers as a sonata. Wagner? Let’s not even go there—musically or militarily. The eponymous Group is essentially a proxy for the Russian army, just as the British East India Company was for the British monarchy. The murderous mercenaries chose their nom de guerre because Richard Wagner was Hitler’s favorite composer. Impressive wines tend to power and
concentration. People who are so vinously moved gravitate to the same in other kinds: powerful, wealthy, people; big, chunky cars; careers defined by uber- salaries; and, noisy, pompous wine critics. Charming wines are never in our face. There is a mystery to their persuasion. The ones who are charmed are happy to be mystified, to leave an element of the unknown to the inexplicable, to never
hy we love what we love lays bare our predilections. It betrays what seduces us.
need to be in charge or have to know everything. We enjoy being baffled. “There are no birds left today in last
year’s nest,” quoted the village priest to the passing monsignor in one of Graham Greene’s books. “What does it mean?” the latter wondered of the local saying. “Does it really matter?” God’s village representative coaxed, as he suggested, “Why should something have to mean anything when it is so beautiful?” Those may not be the exact words from the screenplay to the book Monsignor Quixote (I am relying on gray memory), but if you are still reading, I know you’d understand that the gist is even more important than the grist of the matter.
Addictions at opposite poles Charm is as much an addiction as impressiveness. Charm swaggers, sidesteps, and deviates, even as it moves along. Impressive simply marches on, stomping its headlong way, ignoring everything else in its path. Impressive wines are something of a missionary position in the glass. It may be a big glass, but it’s the same sip over and over again. Perhaps the most startling contrast yielded up by the opposite poles of charm and impressiveness is in the shape and scale of architecture. The skyscrapers of the world have been conjured up in the mental recesses of tycoons and moguls— almost all men—whose supersized egos are even bigger than the buildings they stab into the sky. Could you be charmed by Burj Khalifa, Shanghai Tower, or One World Trade Center? Or Trump Tower, even if that be, relatively speaking, a lowly 58 stories, versus 163, 128, and 104 respectively?
Then there is that most beautiful house in the world. Not a straight line in sight. Just curves, waves, and undulations. Six stories of effortless charm. Crowned by a spectacular roof whose ceramic tiles resemble the scales of a dragon’s back. Conjured up purely by irrepressible
A generation of could- have-been-delicious wines have suff ered such abuse: smacked, whacked, and scarred by wood staves
imagination, before architects sat in front of computers. Curiosity produced Casa Batlló in Barcelona, and the city became inextricably linked to Antoni Gaudí, its greatest visionary and charmer. The ultimate pointless wine is an oaky abomination—unless you like the taste of furniture in your glass. The culinary equivalent is truffle oil. What began as a trickle soon became a drench, until, today, drowning all manner of ingredients in the artificial flavoring has become de rigueur. I once asked a waiter if I could have the mashed potato sans truffle oil. His wounded reply was, “You don’t like truffle oil?” My retort was in defense of the humble but worthy tuber: “I happen to like the taste of potato.”
A lot of wine, smeared by oak chips or unnecessary expensive new oak, faces an existential reckoning. Why use grapes to make wood juice, when running spring water (for added freshness) through sawdust and collecting it at the other end would bear the same result? A generation of could-have-been- delicious wines, in thousands upon thousands of bottles, have suffered such abuse: smacked, whacked, and scarred by wood staves. And they lie—dead on arrival—in cellars around the world. My late friend Johnnie Hugel once recommended an inspired solution. The incorrigible Alsace producer suggested that aficionados of woody wine should always carry with them a stock of dippers (like stirrers) fashioned entirely from new oak. That way, whenever a glass of whatever was placed in front of them, they could just pull one out and dip it into the innocent wine. Charming.
THE WORLD OF FINE WINE | ISSUE 79 | 2023 | 113
Illustration by Dan Murrell
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220
