So, Pernod wish to join the worryingly-increasing ranks of New Zealand wineries releasing super, ultra, or whatever the marketing term du jour is, elite, tiny production wines at whatever stellar price the marketing department has decided will confer the patina of reputation normally earned by decades of consistent excellence or, if lightning strikes, a couple of 95+ scores from the eminence grise of wine rating, Robert Parker. As an aside, at 13.8% alcohol, Pernod’s 2009 trial version might well suit Parker’s predilections.

Anyway, the point of this blog is not to dis Montana (well not too much) but more to make the point that producing New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc that improves with age is not so complicated that it’s attainment should automatically bestow the sort of cachet and price the article contemplates.

The vineyard disciplines required to produce the high extract, physiologically ripe grapes that make age-worthy Sauvignon Blanc possible (modest crop levels, fully-exposed bunches, reduced leaf layers) are not rocket science but nor are they , when taken as a whole, the standard practices for producing the high impact, herbaceously zingy, drink-now wines which have put New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc on the world wine map.

There are a number of wineries, ours among them, who have been producing age-worthy Sauvignon Blanc for years. While I suspect we would all enjoy a guilty pleasure at the thought of receiving $80-100 a bottle for those wines I’m sure we would also share a chuckle at the thought that this was some sort of breakthrough or novelty. The real challenge is to gain a wider appreciation of the charms of quality, aged Sauvignon Blanc. If Pernod’s project helps achieve that, great, but $80-100 needs to be earned not just claimed.

Roger Parkinson