Let's cherish pinot noir differences

Time to get over the colonial cringe.

Let's not get too upset when one of the world's so-called experts tells us that our pinot noirs are not as good as those from Oregon, in the US, or Australia, but on a par with those from Chile and California, which is how Jancis Robinson, Master of Wine, rated a selection tasted in London a couple of weeks ago.

It's time that we got over this nonsense; this craving we have to be told how good we are at producing pinot noir, a wine that Gerard Basset, the world's best sommelier this year, now hesitates to recommend because, he says, it has become "too predictable".

But not according to Robinson, one of a number who attended the blind comparative tasting of 65 New World pinot noirs organised by three London wine publicists and educators smitten by the variety, particularly its performance outside Europe.

She calls it "that vixen of a vine" that when it gets its claws into the heart of a wine lover very rarely lets go – a perfect example of the hype and mystique which surrounds the variety variously described as cerebral, sensual, sometimes as just plain sexy.

And it can be all of those.

What always worries me, however, is the inevitable comparison of pinots produced in the New World to those from Burgundy when the name of the game, we are told ad infinitum, is that good wines should reflect terroir – the place where they are grown. In other words, we should recognise and celebrate the differences, not the similarities.

Which makes it all a bit confusing when you have someone like Robinson praising pinots (some of the Oregonian wines she tasted) that had "the same sort of autumnal mulch aromas as a mature Burgundy, and certainly the same sort of delicate balance".

In my books that means we should, when it comes to our own pinot noirs, be looking for characters that link them with Burgundy rather than New Zealand.

No.

We should be looking for the characters that make them unique, as a panel of New Zealand experts did in Wellington this week when they explored the regional differences, if any, between our pinot noirs.

Frankly, I find this a far more interesting exercise than the London tasting, which prompted Robinson to say of 18 wines that were "very obviously from New Zealand, which has earned a fine reputation for the consistency of its pinot noirs": "Bright and breezy, though the wines were rarely subtle, even though there were representatives from the Kiwi pinot aristocracy, such as Ata Rangi, Dog Point, Fromm and Felton Road. Prices were fair."

Her average scores (out of 20) were Oregon 16.4, Australia 15.9, Chile, New Zealand and California 15.8.

Her top wines were three from Oregon followed by two from Australia. OK, maybe we do need to go for a bit more elegance and delicacy; to get away from what Larry McKenna, of Escarpment Vineyards in Martinborough, calls our "clumsiness".

But this man whose name is more closely associated internationally with New Zealand pinot noir than just about any other has never been in any doubt about its quality. He does not need to be told, and nor do we, that we produce some damned fine pinot noirs, some of them the best good value pinots in the world. Three to try:

• Aurum 2009 Pinot Noir (about $32): A generous wine that's loaded with luscious Central Otago fruit and seasoned with spice. Has the satin sheet texture, the charm and style of a classy pinot noir.
• Akarua 2009 Pinot Noir (about $40): Another fruity beauty from Central Otago. This one with a whiff of violets and lick of chocolate that makes it even more appealing. Sexy, silken and satisfying.
• Terravin 2009 Pinot Noir (about $36): A powerful but elegant plums and cherries Marlborough wine, with an appealling spicy underlay and the texture you would expect of a quality pinot noir.