But Why is Syrah Plunging?

In the New York Times wine blog The Pour, on Tuesday Eric Asimov wrote about the rapidly plunging sales numbers for domestic syrah. The article outlines how syrah grew in plantings throughout the mid-90's with many people anticipating it would become the great alternative to cabernet sauvignon and merlot. Some syrahs were produced that were restrained and displayed the meaty, olive and herbal characteristics of the great Rhones, and other New World styled syrahs began to be produced that were more indicative of Australian shiraz with high alcohol content, tons of fruit, and less varietal distinction. The article is quite clear that exact numerical tracking of syrah's decline is very difficult but anecdotally it is widely accepted to be rapidly falling. However the majority of the article indicates that it is precisely the trend towards indistinct, fruity, bombastic syrah that led to the decline. The argument continues to imply that the restrained Northern Rhone emulating syrahs are the only hope for domestic syrah to remain successful.

I would never try to argue that syrah sales are not in decline, or that syrah has effectively materialized to be the success that many winemakers were hoping for. But I would like to take issue with the premises presented in the article. I am a big domestic syrah fan, and even agree that the more restrained styles displayed by folks like Bob Lindquist of Qupe and Randall Graham of Bonny Doon are what good syrah is all about. But this article takes the popular line against the 'New World-ification' of wines and without any numbers to back it up blames the demise of American syrah on this ill-fated style. It is very common and easy right now to ride the trend against high alcohol, less fruit, and away from the big wines that were garnering critical acclaim just a few years ago. I am fairly new to all of this, but recognize that it is a very popular and easy opinion to espouse. It is an angle that is likely to be accepted by the majority of the people who spend time thinking about and discussing wine. But what evidence is there to back it up?

The article ends with a list of 10 domestic syrah producers who are bucking the 'fruit bomb' trend in their production. And I must say that this list is a great list of must try syrahs. But I think the article blended two valid points with no way to confirm the connection. It is true that syrah sales are in rapid decent (beyond those of other grapes) and it is also true that restrained syrah offers complexity and distinction that can be lost in bigger, fruity versions. But to out of hand say that the less complex (and currently less trendy) syrahs are the reason for the decline seems fallacious and a little bit lazy.

So why is syrah in decline? Why did it never rise to the popularity that many predicted 15 years ago? If the NY Times can't get numbers to back up their points I certainly can't. But I can tell you from my experience, and I hang out primarily with people who do not think about wine frequently, it is simply because people do not really know what syrah is or should be. They know about cabernet and chardonnay because they're alive and occassionally go to restaurants and the grocery store. They know about malbec because they can try a decent version at many bars and restaurants for under $10 a glass. They know about pinot noir because of the often mentioned film references and associated marketing. But how would they know about syrah? Decent examples of domestic syrah are not household names, and not generally under $20. French versions of syrah are never bottled with the varietal name, Australians call it shiraz, so non-wine people who despite our judgement still make the majority of wine purchases, are just not familiar or comfortable with it. I know everyone fears the globalization of fruit bombs and the Parker-style wine, and maybe they should. But come on, it is not to blame for all trends, dips, and turns throughout the wine consuming market.

That is my estimation, and I'm sticking to it. Thoughts?