A blend of equal parts Gamay and Pinot Noir, thus the name PTG – a reference to Bourgogne Passetoutgrains, a cuvée of the two grapes. It’s typically big on drinkability with less emphasis on complexity – a wine designed to be consumed young. This is a fine expression of the style. Of course, what the word ‘drinkability’ conveys is open to debate.
In Julian Coldrey’s review of this wine at Full Pour, he refers to one interpretation: “drinkability is often code for a simple quaffer, something not worth much thought or respect. As if good wines are somehow above being drunk” and goes about separating his use of the word as a descriptor from that interpretation in his very positive notes on the wine.
I tend to see things from a slightly different angle; and it’s a subtle distinction. These days many wine commentators are welcoming styles that drink well early and giving them as much or more credit than a lot of those age-old monoliths that clog the Langton’s Classification list – the one’s you’d struggle to drink more than a glass of (and the ones that are often bought to admire rather than consume). When I read a competent wine writer refer to ‘drinkability’ this is usually the context in which I take it…as an enthusiastic positive. Anyway, enough semantics and to the wine.
Light bodied with extremely jaunty acidity adjoining sour cherry top notes. The mid-palate introduces raspberries and a slightly sweet, confected bubblegum note. The coda is savoury and spicy with cola, herbs and pepper. Just enough tannin to refresh. Basically, it’s a delightful wine that is the very definition of more-ish. And that ain’t bad. 91 Good – Very Good
Region: Mornington Peninsula
Alcohol: 13.0%
Closure: Screwcap
Price: $25
Tasted: November 2012
Yes. Drinkability ALWAYS positive.
Must give this a go. Love the Domaine David Clarke PTG. Also high drinkability, though at a bit of a hefty price tag.
Price is definitely right here. Well worth the $25.
I’m very pleased we scribes are reclaiming “drinkability” as a good thing.
I do see it sometimes used as a way to differentiate certain wines from other, more “serious” styles. In that dialogue, drinkability is the very opposite of wine shorthand like “needs years” and “fiercely tannic,” shorthand that by my reading is often intended to confer positive qualities on a wine. Perhaps you’re right and the fashion pendulum is swinging, for now, away from “age old monoliths,” which gives terms like drinkability more capital.
I actually think it’s a false opposition, but I’m not sure that view is shared by a lot of writers.
I’ll table it for as first topic of discussion when we next catch up. It’s an interesting issue IMO.
Done! It is a very interesting topic – language carries a lot of baggage in wine writing, I think.
You guys! Always with the philosophising.
It’s all a bit of a wank but it keeps us off the streets (a very good thing).
It helps us justify the drunken depravity