Berger on wine: The age of the generic varietal

Are you happy with your $4.99 cabernet sauvignon? Or $7 merlot? Or $9 chardonnay? Or the latest $30 red blend?

One of the reasons I have a difficult time praising the “best” reasonably priced wines (about $10) is that almost all of them are failures, at least to me. And a similar problem exists with many red blends that sell for $25 or more.

You might think these statements make me a snob. I refuse to reply to such a scurrilous charge, even though you may be right. The real question here is: Why don’t consumers speak up more about the sad state of much of the wine in this country?

Most of the wines I review or taste in wine competitions are sounder than they have ever been before. Decades ago, more than half the wines had technical flaws. So they were easier to evaluate.

Today’s wines are almost all drinkable. Just not very interesting.

Any regular consumer of moderately priced wine knows what I am talking about. Red blends in the $25-and-above range often are just not worth the money. And in the $10-and-under category we are faced with a worse dilemma: too much generic varietal wine.

What’s that you say? There is no such thing as a generic varietal? OK, let me direct you to your nearest wine shop, supermarket or pharmacy, where you will find large shelves of wines that are varietal. You may see a wine that says it is, for instance, a sauvignon blanc.

A decent sauvignon blanc is supposed to have hints of some or all of the following: grass, hay, citrus (slightly under-ripe grapefruit), chamomile tea, gooseberry, lime, anise/fennel, or bell peppers. And it should be dry.

Go ahead, buy a $5 sauvignon blanc and try it. Chances are the wine has none of the above aromas. Not a trace. And likely as not, it’s sweet enough to chill it to Popsicle temp.

By law, varietals must be made from 75 percent of the named grape. So even a $5 zinfandel will legally contain 75 percent of that grape. But its quality and character relate to how much of the fruit in the bottle was grown per acre in a moderate climate.

If such a wine is made from hot-region vines that are over-cropped (huge amounts of fruit per acre), the result can be so innocuous that the varietal aromas and tastes are basically absent. Thus they are generic in a varietally labeled wine.

In the Napa Valley, most cabernet winemakers harvest about 4 tons per acre of fruit. A small amount. One ton of usable fruit yields some 120 gallons of juice, and grapes cost many thousands of dollars per ton.

If a cabernet vineyard is located in a hot region and is allowed to grow 10 or 12 tons per acre, the price of grapes drops precipitously, but the usable fruit from a ton is 160 gallons. And per-ton grape prices hover close to $500 per ton.

The resulting wine usually tastes nothing like cabernet. This sort of explains part of the reason pricing for Napa cab can be high.

Look at a typical bottle of a “premium” red blend. You can tell it’s premium because the label has flowery language, gold or silver ink, maybe a neck label that sparkles - and a high price, say $40.

What grapes were used to make that wine? You look on the back label and find out that “we use only the finest fruit, grown in rolling hillsides by organically raised farmhands.” No mention of which grapes.

Some such wines may allude to European castles, chateaux, generations of vignerons. The wine may say it comes from California.

Does this justify 40 bucks? Wouldn’t it have been better to have spent a bit more time improving the wine and telling the consumer what’s in the bottle?

The sad fact is that some $1.99 wine brands that were launched more than a decade ago, despite mediocre quality and inconsistency, did become successful. Winemaking technology has improved so greatly in the last 30 years that almost all wines were sound.

Did the wines smell and taste like the varietals that adorned their labels? Not really.

So when I was asked back when the two-buck wines were launched, “Are the wines worth it?” I replied, “Look, we have always had two-buck wines. Unfortunately we were asked to pay eight bucks to get them.”

When people persisted, “Are they worth it?” my reply was, “If you don’t ask the wine to deliver more than that price point can deliver.”

The answer still applies.

Wine of the Week: 2016 Charles and Charles Riesling, Washington State ($13) - This wine will never be accused of being generic.

The lovely wildly floral (carnations/peaches/rose petals) aroma leads to a slightly sweet mid-palate, sensational for patio sipping with cheese and crackers. A bit sweeter than I usually prefer, but great flavors and good acidity. Often seen closer to $10.

Dan Berger lives in Sonoma County, where he publishes “Vintage Experiences,” a weekly wine newsletter. Write to him at winenut@gmail.com. He is also co-host of California Wine Country with Steve Jaxon on KSRO Radio, 1350 am.