Is it right to continue to define wines as New World or Old World, that Mr Shakespeare is the question. Let’s look at a few anomalies: The Old World is generally defined as Europe, but not the Middle East where wine production pre dates that of Europe by a few thousand years. The New World includes South Africa, where vineyards pre-date most of classical Bordeaux. To add to the confusion, many of the vines used in Europe now are New World clones while much of the rootstock in Argentina for example is pre-phylloxera and dates back to old imports from Europe. We now have Malbec in South America that are more honestly Old World than those of France but hey ho, without alcohol none of this would make sense anyway would it.
I prefer to define my own preferences by the season as I've found over the years that I have a tendency to drink claret, port and rhône wines in the winter while preferring rioja, white burgundy and the antipodeans in the summer. Then again, I've been known to throw caution to the wind and drink Aussie shiraz with a crab salad and puligny montrachet with a medium steak. I guess the motto of this tale is that there are no experts, just people with their own defined palate and a wee tad of knowledge to impart to willing readers. Personally, I’m a self-made self-drunk type of chap who only has one guiding rule now: if it smells weak or iffy, leave it in the bottle and I generally find this applies to anything under £8 or £9 but before you think I’m a snob, consider that Michael Winner the director used to say that anything under £300 was likely to be ropey.
Snake & Herring Teardrop Riesling, Australia
I love this with its grapefruit and limes and fresh acidity, yet it retains that lovely waxy mouthfeel that I expect of a top riesling.
Villeneuve Wines £15.00
Bainskloof Merlot, South Africa
A juicy, easy drinking merlot with warm plummy flavours and hints of cocoa on the finish.
Corney & Barrow £9.95
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here