Should California Have Lost the Judgment of Paris?

Should Californian wine have won the Judgment of Paris in 1976??

Lodi Wine says: No!

Their latest blog argues, fascinatingly, that Californian wine won for two reasons:?

1. With no point of reference for what made a Californian wine, the judges assigned points for wine that exhibited the most intense fruit character. The assumption the judges carried that the most intense fruit was a sign of the best wine, and thus must be French.?
2. The subtlety, delicateness, and harmony of French vineyards was lost because the judges defaulted into?intensity?as their standard of judgment. Again, being unfamiliar with Californian wines they unintentionally used the Californian standard (intensity) to judge French (harmony) wines.?

The judges were completely inexperienced with Californian wines and lacked the experience and knowledge to judge them. Their inexperience in the blind tasting format resulted in a flawed tasting (but a great story!) because they lacked the structure to accurately evaluate the French and Californian wines.

This wasn't a fair fight but an unintentionally biased event... against French wine. As they say - pride goeth before the fall.??

This is not a take I expected from a Californian blog!

But this gets at a fascinating question - you can't ever do an accurate or truthful version of the Judgment of Paris. Why??

Because a Californian wine is...?Californian. Even with similar soil conditions and the same farming and winemaking practices, the much stronger sun California experiences will produce a much bolder, bigger wine. And the same applies to France (and BC).

The article turns this into a discussion of balance (which I highly recommend reading). But the point it makes at the beginning is worth mulling over:

Chasing terroir, chasing balance, likely must mean chasing lower intervention.

The reason being (in part) because you cannot achieve a truly "balanced" wine, a truly representative wine of France or BC or the Similkameen, without allowing the region to speak for itself. Without allowing the soil and sun and weather to express itself.

To speak beyond the farmer and the winemaker.?

If you're chasing terroir, if you're chasing local expression, then you must be chasing low intervention. Which, in some respects, mirrors the (much-maligned) movement of natural wine.?