How does one define quality in wine?

• I wrote this short essay for my application to the Institute of Masters of Wine a couple of weeks ago while on a  visit to the US.  I waited to publish it until the deadline for application for this year had elapsed...  The idea was that the essay would be written in a two hour sitting under exam conditions.  Excepting for some spelling correction, etc. that I did after the fact, this came cask-strength from my brain.  Please excuse any unsupportable comments, I've spent much of my professional life drinking.
• (and moreover, I wasn't accepted to the program this year, so I'll have a similar essay, hopefully of greater quality, available soon as I apply again [29 May, 2008])

For the purposes of the question at hand, quality can be most succinctly defined as a wine’s ability to satisfy consumer expectations  We must first identify the elements of satisfaction in wine; they are objective quality standards, subjective quality standards and ensuing contextual filters.  Finally, as a necessary element in satisfying consumer expectation we have the question of value.  Quality doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the consumer must feel that the price paid meets or is exceeded by the perceived quality in the bottle.

Objective quality standards used in wine are easy to define.  There are both positive and negative elements such as alcohol, acids, phenols, extract, etc.  The levels and proportions seen as desirable are subject to changing consumer demands and industry trends, but will be clearly identifiable.  The other area of objective standards is the avoidance of faults.  Wines with substantial faults such as brettanomyces, volatile acidity, TCA, mercaptans, will be excluded from the quality race early on, unless something can be done to remedy the faults.  Faulty wines are commercially unfit.

The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, an arm of the Australian government, are masters of defining quality primarily through objective means.  They have built a $36 billion export market based primarily on ensuring that all wines leaving the country satisfy minimum objective quality standards.  Wineries which don’t meet the standards of behavior or production quality are excluded from the marketplace.  The chief complaint leveled against “Wine Australia” is “soullessness”.  Many consumers feel that perhaps because of Australia’s intense focus on objective standards, the wines, though being the world’s safest bets, are also without a compelling nature.

The second measure of quality is subjective.  Here we find such elements as: balance, complexity, “compellingness” and the attractiveness of package design.  Unlike the objective standards by which wine is measured, subjective elements are impossible to create as standards, and instead become descriptive of a wine’s attributes.  The most important elements of subjective quality analysis are typicity and varietal correctness.  It is here that we find the expressions of terroir and the more poetic, transient and captivating sides of the production of wine.

An ideal example of a region that judges itself by subjective standards is the region of Burgundy.  Although minimum objective standards are observed, the Cru system plays the primary role in defining quality.  The Cru system has been developed over the last 800+ years to codify subjective characteristics of the various microclimates in the stretch of land between Dijon and Lyon.  Although limited to two primary grapes, and one primary tradition of vinification, the region has been broken into 500+ individual parcels!  Each individual area is intended to represent a quantifiable subjective difference irrespective of the vintage or winemaker.  The advantage of such an ancient and complex system of individual interpretation is limitless variety and the opportunity for wines of dramatic compellingness.  The downside is irregular quality, as in the adage, “Nine out of ten Burgundies are disappointing and expensive.  The tenth however, makes me start all over again.”

Neither objective nor subjective quality standards are complete measures of wine quality; wines also need to be seen through a set of cultural and historical contextual filters.  These filters can relate to quality elements, different interpretations of varietal correctness, and the effects of age.  While Brettanomyces is defined unequivocally as a wine fault, many consider the bacteria to add an element of desirable complexity when found in red wines of the southern Rhone Valley.  In regards to varietal correctness, Pinot Noir, for example, can exhibit very different characteristics when sourced from different terroirs.  Marsannay is known for its light color, low alcohol and ephemeral elegance, while Pinot Noir from the Santa Rita Hills is known more for being powerful, inky and of much higher alcohol.  As a wine ages, its character undergoes vast changes as well.  A Pauillac can be impenetrably dark, blindingly tannic and possess enormous fruit when young, while still being “of quality” 40 years later when it is a quiet echo of its younger self, with little fruit, a soft structure and not a trace of the power which was once its defining characteristic.  Quality analysis of wines cannot ignore the context which exists externally to the wine, but fundamentally influences how we experience the product.

The final consideration when dealing with quality in wines is the concept of value.  Value can be defined here in a simple equation: perception of quality divided by price equals value.  A wine which says “Penfolds Grange” on the label and sells for in excess of 200€ will properly be held to a different standard than a simpler Grenache-Shiraz-Mourvedre blend of the South Australia appellation, despite the fact that objectively they are quite similar.  Package design, distribution channel (Tesco vs. a Michelin three star) and reputation will all play into a perception of quality, none of which exist in either objective or subjective standards. 

Clearly quality in wine is a concept assembled of various constituent elements, including objective and subjective standards and filters of historical and cultural context.  The arbiter of quality in this regard is a consumer perspective which will be impacted by price.  Aspects of quality can be present without the whole being satisfactory.  Without a coherent success in all the aforementioned areas, the consumer will not have his expectations satisfied, and the wine in question cannot be truly considered “of quality.”