American vs. french

[tomstevenson]

Don't say thanks and goodbye to this topic quite so quickly summa. As Bucko says, you've stirred up a big mess with your post, but as Bucko would be the first to agree, Forums like a "big mess" - that's what keeps them going. Bucko is right that the French have been innoculating for years. In fact I see more experimentation with so-called wild yeasts in the New World (ie., not only the USA) than in France. And Bucko is right that they can be unpredictable, but that is one of the reasons why they are tried - to see if the local yeasts are stable and can produce something that is more expressive of the terroir.

However, Bucko is wrong to suggest that French plonk is no better than US plonk. The vast majority (and it is vast) is much worse. Perhaps Bucko is used to the sanitized level of French plonk that is exported to the USA?

Top American wines are great by any standards, French included. I'm not fond of identikit Chardonnay and so much oak that I have to remove splinters from between my teeth, so I certainly wish that more American winemakers were less hands-on, but I also recognise that the American wine industry essentially had to start from scratch following Prohibition, that the Second World War held things up, thus you guys have had barely 50 years to get to the point where your best wines can slug it out with the best in the world, whereas the French had 500 years. And the only way that American winemakers have achieved that is by being hands-on, so I'll put up with that while they search their souls for finesse.