What exactly is a quality wine and do the experts know what consumers like?

Wine is a strange product. Its price is only tenuously related to its quality and yet everyone talks about the quality of wine. What does that really mean? 

The whole concept of quality is subjective when it comes to most food and drink. If we think about quality fruit or vegetables we generally mean primarily the absence of rot, blemishes or age and secondly the level of intensity and balance of flavour. Most people’s image of a high-quality tomato would be one that has a nice colour and shape, perfect skin and tastes ripe. However, when we start to talk about man-made foods like cheese and ham or drinks such as coffee, beer and wine, it gets a lot more subjective and confusing.

Those involved in the production, marketing, retailing and critiquing of wine like to try to convince us that quality is objective and measurable.

Look at most back labels and they will say things like “hand-picked from our oldest vines”, “smooth, subtle tannins”, “a nose with great finesse” and “impeccably balanced”. They all imply a high level of quality. 

Retailers try to convince us that spending more money will result in getting a higher-quality wine but I think we all know from experience that isn’t the case.

Critics award wines a score, usually out of 20 or 100, as if the wine has passed some kind of analytical test or met a series of strict criteria. In truth, it is just a number to indicate how much they liked it. Many professional critics and wine writers try to imagine how a less experienced wine consumer would like a particular wine, which introduces another layer of subjectivity. 

At a basic level, quality means an absence of faults. This is particularly sought at the bottom end of the market. People who buy bag-in-box or sub-€4 bottles are not expecting grandeur, finesse or sophistication. They are looking for wines which don’t have any rough edges. The words most used to describe quality in lower-priced wines are “smooth” and “round”. 

When I was relatively new to wine, I associated higher quality with more aroma and more flavour. I think for a lot of consumers, this still holds true. Bigger is better. 

However, connoisseurs are often looking for something more than an absence of faults and lots of intensity. They value balance over intensity. They like interesting imperfections. Slightly odd but appealing aromas, delicate but lingering flavours, textures which are not rough but definitely not smooth either. 

Wine is one of those things where slight faults can make it more attractive and enjoyable. All wines have some acetic acid (vinegar) in them, all red wines have tannins. All wines undergo some level of oxidation during fermentation and in bottle. All have some dissolved carbon dioxide so are not completely flat. Wine is created by various yeasts and bacteria which result in characteristics that can add complexity. It isn’t therefore the absence of faults that make a high-quality wine. I would say that a great wine is one with a multitude of barely discernible faults.

Another measure of quality is consistency. When we buy a brand of butter, orange juice or fizzy drink, we expect a high level of consistency. Even beer and cheese are relatively consistent. It is more difficult to get consistency in wine because it is made only from grapes, whose flavours vary with the weather conditions from year to year. The French appellation system tries to enforce or imply consistency, but it cannot possibly do that. Just because two wines come from the same region and use the same combination of grapes does not mean that they will taste the same. Very large producers who source grapes from hundreds of vineyards can achieve higher consistency than single estates, but often at the cost of character. The only wines which are truly consistent are those which are made by combining wines of several vintages, such as Sherry or (non-vintage) Champagne.

However, some consistency is important. The reputations of the most expensive Bordeaux chateaux and Burgundy négociants were built on them producing consistently good wines even in poorer vintages. We expect wineries to maintain a certain level of quality by not including poor-quality grapes when supply is restricted by small harvests, to reject rotten or damaged grapes and not to blend in a barrel that has turned vinegary. 

In recent years, the popularity of ‘natural’ wines in the trendy wine-bars and restaurants of Paris, London and New York has rejected consistency. Natural wines are expected to be inconsistent by nature. 

This is an area where I think critics diverge from consumers. Once they have put a producer on a pedestal, they are unwilling to admit that their wines become inconsistent (beyond vintage variation). I’ve seen many examples of producers continuing to receive high praise from critics and journalists even though their wines are disappointing to consumers. A vinous version of The Emperor’s New Clothes. 

Despite all the subjectivity, there is a useful system used by professional wine tasters to try to measure quality. It uses the acronym BLIC, which stands for Balance, Length, Intensity and Complexity. By considering each of these aspects, it is possible to assess a bottle in a way that does reflect its quality to a certain extent. 

But just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the quality of a wine is in the nose and mouth of the taster. 

Jonathan Hesford has a Postgraduate Diploma in Viticulture and Oenology from Lincoln University, New Zealand, is a member of the Association of Wine Educators and the owner and winemaker of Domaine Treloar in the Roussillon.