Pinotage: a blending grape? Michael Fridjhon
Author:
Michael Fridjhon
Published: 02 Feb 05
Once upon a time, long long ago, winemakers in South Africa - too embarrassed to tell consumers that they depended upon Chenin Blanc for most of the country's white wines - used vague and nondescript terms to market their products.The era
of "premier grand cru" was followed by "blanc de blanc" and
then "grand vin blanc" before the truth finally emerged. By then, a
significant percentage of very ordinary Chenin Blanc plantings had been uprooted
while premium Chenin Blanc had acquired sufficient of a reputation for producers
to be proud enough to disclose the cultivar on the label. The burial ground of
blended white wine was succeeded by the age of transparency. And everyone lived
happily ever after.
Someone once said that history repeats itself - the first time as tragedy, the second time as comedy. Now that it is becoming increasingly difficult to sell ordinary Pinotage, the burial ground of blends is being resurrected as a multi-storey building. Just as Pinotage volumes dip, so Cape blend litreage grows. The public debate has also shifted: instead of discussions about fermentation temperature and maturation strategies, we now hear about the requisite Pinotage percentage in a "legitimate" Cape blend.
It seems that if Cape blends are to succeed they must have a defensible aesthetic purpose. A hiding place for Pinotage is certainly not an acceptable starting point - though it is true that Pinotage is probably the most "Cape" thing about a Cape blend. However this is to confuse origin with content. If Cape blends are to express the Cape then they must speak of the place in which the grapes have been grown - not the citizenship of the grape's gene pool.
It is true that conventionally Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot blends are identified by the word "Bordeaux" but this is, I would guess, a diminishing marketing point. Certainly, premium producers in California (a region which has never been shy about hijacking appellation if it suits its sales objectives) do not refer to their Cabernet Sauvignon /Merlot blends under the moniker of "Bordeaux." I would hazard that the generic term "meritage" (trademarked especially for the Californian producers) is also on the decline. Where wineries still depend on cultivar names to sell their wines, the blend components are adequately disclosed. Once they believe their proprietary name has some kind of status, they move away from varietal descriptions entirely.
All this is by way of saying that the Cape wine industry is at risk of hurtling down a cul de sac if it becomes obsessed with the ground rules of a so-called Cape blend. Surely the exercise should be about producing the best blend from a particular site? Of course if this means that the component parts are Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot then the only thing "Cape" about the blend is the geographic location of the vineyards.
But what would happen if a particular site produced Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Shiraz and Pinotage of sufficient quality that these four varieties regularly comprised the blending components of the estate's proprietary wine? In terms of the current debate, providing an acceptable level of Pinotage was included in the wine, this producer would have a Cape blend to offer to the market.
But then what would happen if, in a particular vintage, the Pinotage vineyards failed to yield wine of suitable quality? (In 1994, Lafite Rothschild's Grand Vin was almost 100% Cabernet Sauvignon - simply because the other varieties failed to make the cut.) Would such a wine lose its Cape blend status? If the situation prevailed for three consecutive vintages, would the producer lose future rights to market his "grand vin" as a Cape blend?
The issues are so esoteric - but also so inane - that they defy the serious effort we are asked to make in contemplating the existence of such a category at all. It makes much greater sense to talk about Pinotage as a blending grape and to see whether there are any useful lessons to be learned from the experience of the world of wine as a whole.
Here the guidelines are almost self-evident. The first is that blends exist - at least at the top end of the market - because they are greater than the sum of their parts. In other words, blending components must be complementary and also supplementary. They must fit together as seamlessly as possible but they must also enhance the desired features of the wine.
Secondly, traditionally blending generally provides a degree of insurance for producers in the event of inclement weather since conditions may favour one variety over another. In the case of the Medoc, the Merlot provides flesh and juice to swell the volume and quality of a blend which might be compromised if late summer rain reduces or even destroys the Cabernet Sauvignon crop.
Thirdly, blending strategies contribute to the evolution of a wine, enabling the producer to commercialise it as soon as possible but ensuring that sustained ageing will provide an evolution worth tracking. Bordeaux again provides the example - in this case the white wine. By marrying Sauvignon Blanc with Semillon, the winemaker can offer the early drinkability deriving from the Sauvignon Blanc's precociousness knowing that by the time this fades the Semillon would have developed sufficiently to carry the wine into the next stage of its development.
If Pinotage is to become a key component of a blend (Cape or otherwise) it must be able to play a meaningful role in terms of these guidelines. It is true that a small amount of properly handled Pinotage can lift the fruit profile of a blend, particularly considering the closed nature of young Cabernet Sauvignon and the ambivalent virtues of most of our Merlots. It can also deliver a degree of texture - though this is often at the risk of the telltale tannins which mar its finish.
The now unspoken "V" word (varnishy) is not necessarily a Pinotage intrinsic, though the so-called estery character presents more often than the Pinotage Association would like to admit. However, carefully managed, this is not necessarily a defect. That slight acetone whiff will complement the blackcurrant notes of ripe Cabernet Sauvignon and the peppery raspberry fruit of Shiraz. It is all about balance - though this presupposes that the best wines will be used to make up the blend.
Transformation over time poses its own problems. By and large, Pinotage does not appear to develop strong secondary or tertiary characteristics. The ageing process polishes some of the rough edges and softens its quite assertive character. Still, an older Pinotage is merely a gentler version of the wine in its youth. Cabernet Sauvignon on the other hand undergoes a massive change. Wine produced from appropriate sites evolves through several stages, the first after between five and eight years, the second 15 or more years later depending on the vineyard, vinification and storage of the wine.
It is clear therefore that a Pinotage/Cabernet Sauvignon blend which may seem harmonious in its youth could, over time, develop in different directions. After 10 years, the wine might be holding together but it could have lost many of its attractive properties.
There are indications that in some circumstances the converse could equally be true. I have tasted blends on the bench where the Pinotage appears to dominate at quite low percentages (10 to 20%). However, trial amounts bottled and aged for months - not even years - swiftly lose the strong Pinotage character. This suggests that, in some circumstances, it could be a strangely compliant marriage partner.
The Cape wine industry is looking for a Cape blend for reasons that probably differ from those of Pinotage producers seeking for a home for some of their unsold production. In the same way as the so-called Bordeaux blend has helped to market the Medoc, and Shiraz/Cabernet Sauvignon blends have given the Australians something of a commercial platform, our wine exporters wish to offer something which sets us apart from our competitors and insulates us from the increasing commoditisation of the world's wine markets. This may be a brave and even noble ambition and Pinotage presents itself as the logical candidate for the job.
Does this mean that they will succeed? The answer is - rather obviously - that the venture depends entirely on the intrinsic quality of what they put forward and not on the marketing message of the recipe that makes up the stew. If blends that include Pinotage are going to help spearhead South Africa's international marketing efforts, their first obligation is to be enormously attractive as beverages. This does not mean simple (though it could), nor does it mean confected (though it might). Such wines will have to stand scrutiny first on their intrinsic merits. If they succeed, and the secret of their success appears to be Pinotage, then the fortunes of their producers will (for the time being at least) be made and Pinotage growers can breathe a sigh of relief.
However, the failure to get it right will have deleterious consequences for most of the players. If the Pinotage that is used tastes excessively bitter, if the estery notes smell unmistakably of varnish remover, if otherwise plump and well-rounded wines become stalky, gawky, and attenuated, the country's export efforts will be compromised and the sterling work done since 1990 to resurrect the variety will have been in vain.
Someone once said that history repeats itself - the first time as tragedy, the second time as comedy. Now that it is becoming increasingly difficult to sell ordinary Pinotage, the burial ground of blends is being resurrected as a multi-storey building. Just as Pinotage volumes dip, so Cape blend litreage grows. The public debate has also shifted: instead of discussions about fermentation temperature and maturation strategies, we now hear about the requisite Pinotage percentage in a "legitimate" Cape blend.
It seems that if Cape blends are to succeed they must have a defensible aesthetic purpose. A hiding place for Pinotage is certainly not an acceptable starting point - though it is true that Pinotage is probably the most "Cape" thing about a Cape blend. However this is to confuse origin with content. If Cape blends are to express the Cape then they must speak of the place in which the grapes have been grown - not the citizenship of the grape's gene pool.
It is true that conventionally Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot blends are identified by the word "Bordeaux" but this is, I would guess, a diminishing marketing point. Certainly, premium producers in California (a region which has never been shy about hijacking appellation if it suits its sales objectives) do not refer to their Cabernet Sauvignon /Merlot blends under the moniker of "Bordeaux." I would hazard that the generic term "meritage" (trademarked especially for the Californian producers) is also on the decline. Where wineries still depend on cultivar names to sell their wines, the blend components are adequately disclosed. Once they believe their proprietary name has some kind of status, they move away from varietal descriptions entirely.
All this is by way of saying that the Cape wine industry is at risk of hurtling down a cul de sac if it becomes obsessed with the ground rules of a so-called Cape blend. Surely the exercise should be about producing the best blend from a particular site? Of course if this means that the component parts are Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot then the only thing "Cape" about the blend is the geographic location of the vineyards.
But what would happen if a particular site produced Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Shiraz and Pinotage of sufficient quality that these four varieties regularly comprised the blending components of the estate's proprietary wine? In terms of the current debate, providing an acceptable level of Pinotage was included in the wine, this producer would have a Cape blend to offer to the market.
But then what would happen if, in a particular vintage, the Pinotage vineyards failed to yield wine of suitable quality? (In 1994, Lafite Rothschild's Grand Vin was almost 100% Cabernet Sauvignon - simply because the other varieties failed to make the cut.) Would such a wine lose its Cape blend status? If the situation prevailed for three consecutive vintages, would the producer lose future rights to market his "grand vin" as a Cape blend?
The issues are so esoteric - but also so inane - that they defy the serious effort we are asked to make in contemplating the existence of such a category at all. It makes much greater sense to talk about Pinotage as a blending grape and to see whether there are any useful lessons to be learned from the experience of the world of wine as a whole.
Here the guidelines are almost self-evident. The first is that blends exist - at least at the top end of the market - because they are greater than the sum of their parts. In other words, blending components must be complementary and also supplementary. They must fit together as seamlessly as possible but they must also enhance the desired features of the wine.
Secondly, traditionally blending generally provides a degree of insurance for producers in the event of inclement weather since conditions may favour one variety over another. In the case of the Medoc, the Merlot provides flesh and juice to swell the volume and quality of a blend which might be compromised if late summer rain reduces or even destroys the Cabernet Sauvignon crop.
Thirdly, blending strategies contribute to the evolution of a wine, enabling the producer to commercialise it as soon as possible but ensuring that sustained ageing will provide an evolution worth tracking. Bordeaux again provides the example - in this case the white wine. By marrying Sauvignon Blanc with Semillon, the winemaker can offer the early drinkability deriving from the Sauvignon Blanc's precociousness knowing that by the time this fades the Semillon would have developed sufficiently to carry the wine into the next stage of its development.
If Pinotage is to become a key component of a blend (Cape or otherwise) it must be able to play a meaningful role in terms of these guidelines. It is true that a small amount of properly handled Pinotage can lift the fruit profile of a blend, particularly considering the closed nature of young Cabernet Sauvignon and the ambivalent virtues of most of our Merlots. It can also deliver a degree of texture - though this is often at the risk of the telltale tannins which mar its finish.
The now unspoken "V" word (varnishy) is not necessarily a Pinotage intrinsic, though the so-called estery character presents more often than the Pinotage Association would like to admit. However, carefully managed, this is not necessarily a defect. That slight acetone whiff will complement the blackcurrant notes of ripe Cabernet Sauvignon and the peppery raspberry fruit of Shiraz. It is all about balance - though this presupposes that the best wines will be used to make up the blend.
Transformation over time poses its own problems. By and large, Pinotage does not appear to develop strong secondary or tertiary characteristics. The ageing process polishes some of the rough edges and softens its quite assertive character. Still, an older Pinotage is merely a gentler version of the wine in its youth. Cabernet Sauvignon on the other hand undergoes a massive change. Wine produced from appropriate sites evolves through several stages, the first after between five and eight years, the second 15 or more years later depending on the vineyard, vinification and storage of the wine.
It is clear therefore that a Pinotage/Cabernet Sauvignon blend which may seem harmonious in its youth could, over time, develop in different directions. After 10 years, the wine might be holding together but it could have lost many of its attractive properties.
There are indications that in some circumstances the converse could equally be true. I have tasted blends on the bench where the Pinotage appears to dominate at quite low percentages (10 to 20%). However, trial amounts bottled and aged for months - not even years - swiftly lose the strong Pinotage character. This suggests that, in some circumstances, it could be a strangely compliant marriage partner.
The Cape wine industry is looking for a Cape blend for reasons that probably differ from those of Pinotage producers seeking for a home for some of their unsold production. In the same way as the so-called Bordeaux blend has helped to market the Medoc, and Shiraz/Cabernet Sauvignon blends have given the Australians something of a commercial platform, our wine exporters wish to offer something which sets us apart from our competitors and insulates us from the increasing commoditisation of the world's wine markets. This may be a brave and even noble ambition and Pinotage presents itself as the logical candidate for the job.
Does this mean that they will succeed? The answer is - rather obviously - that the venture depends entirely on the intrinsic quality of what they put forward and not on the marketing message of the recipe that makes up the stew. If blends that include Pinotage are going to help spearhead South Africa's international marketing efforts, their first obligation is to be enormously attractive as beverages. This does not mean simple (though it could), nor does it mean confected (though it might). Such wines will have to stand scrutiny first on their intrinsic merits. If they succeed, and the secret of their success appears to be Pinotage, then the fortunes of their producers will (for the time being at least) be made and Pinotage growers can breathe a sigh of relief.
However, the failure to get it right will have deleterious consequences for most of the players. If the Pinotage that is used tastes excessively bitter, if the estery notes smell unmistakably of varnish remover, if otherwise plump and well-rounded wines become stalky, gawky, and attenuated, the country's export efforts will be compromised and the sterling work done since 1990 to resurrect the variety will have been in vain.
One school of thought dictates that a Cape Blend should contain a minimum of 30% Pinotage; the other believes it should simply be the best expression of a red blend from South Africa. Michael Fridjhon shares his perspective.
