I was thinking about how new and old world wines differ, and I realized that in general, old world wines blend varietals as opposed to new world wines which tend to feature (and be called by) a single varietal. Now, I realize that some old world wines such as Chianti (Sangiovese) and Barolo (Nebiolo) feature single varietals; and new world wines such as Californians have to contain only 85% of a varietal to be classified by it. But I still wonder: why do new world wines emphasize and/or feature one predominant varietal, whereas old world wines are not generally classified that way?

I would just guess-----it is less complicated and more profitable! That could be right or wrong; you choose. (I meant that to be a humorous response, not snide)

Well most old world wines are blends because that's what was planted in the vineyards. For years it was just what grew best, then eventually that got enshrined into law.

It was that way in the new world for a while too; there are old vineyards in California that I know of that are just "field blends" with 9 or so varietals. Casa Nuestra and Wellington are two that spring to mind.

But the new world started with a clean slate in most cases and also advances in science meant that winemakers could now buy propagated clones; as I understand it typical practice in old world vineyards is to replace old vines with cuttings from the same vineyard.

There are plenty of old world single varietal wines, they just aren't labelled as such. For example I think I'm right in saying that a Chateauneuf Du Pape can be made with 100% of at least five different varietals. I've seen 100% syrah, 100% Mourvedre and even 100% Rousanne. However you have to be told this; nowhere on the label is this listed.

Old world blends, and in particular the French, developed the art of blending varietals to allow adjustments to their wines depending on how the vintage turned out. Additionally, the French have traditionally referred to wines primarily based on regions - not varietal.

Decades ago, many California wineries severely abused the use of French names (Bordeaux, burgundy, chablis) to describe wines which had little or no relation to the varietals grown in these regions. This still goes on today in bulk wines - even after recent trade concession with the French. Until recent years, to the general American public, an American wine called Bordeaux or burgundy was just about anything red. And for many years, Zinfandel (a very non-French varietal) was one of the most widely harvested varietals in CA. To distance themselves from this abuse/confusion and to dis-associate their wines from French regions, the finer CA wineries bottled & labeled wines based on varietal. But note that they stilled allowed room for adjustments to the bottling in the French tradition, by only requiring the predominant varietal to be 85%.

Additionally, new world wines were not established regions. So the most logical choice for wineries in new, fledgling regions is to describe your wine by the varietal - not by where it comes from.

In Australia there are a few factors.

1) Our wine industry was pioneered by Germans and Anglo-Saxons. Due to their rigidity of though it meant that most blocks were planted to the same varietal, not to field blends.

2) When the EU, lead by France, rightly insisted on the removal of temrs such as "burgundy", "Champagne", and "Claret" from the wine labels of Australian wine the only logical thing to do to sell the wine was to sell the varietal.

3) Single varietals are easier to sell than blends. Unless you are a wine geek, people expect Cabernet to taste a certain way and shiraz another. To minds not obsessing about wine a Cabernet-Shiraz blend engenders some confusion. Some of the very famous Shiraz-Cabernet blends in Australia, such as Penfolds Bin 389, predate the labelling change so consumers knew that they liked Bin 389 Claret, so thy didn't mind buying Bin 389 Shiraz-Cabernet.

Whilst blending varietals and regions has always been a large part of the Australian market, at the lower introductory end of the market almost all wine is sold as a 100% varietal. The blended varietals tends to be a few rungs up the ladder and are sold to people who have some idea about wine.

Vintners also make up for deficiencies of one variety by blending with another. Cabernet Sauvignon, for instance, is generally not juicy enough, and too high in tannin to be great on its own. That is why CabS tends to be blended with a fruitier & softer variety like Merlot.

I know many people describe it this way. Old World is considered more subtle, while new world is much more fruit forward. I know this is very general, and a lot has changed in recent years, but I think it still pertains.

JUst a little FYI - Chateauneuf-du-Pape has 13 permitted varietals, and the vigneron need not use all 13 - you are right, it can be 100% of a single member of the permitted varietals.

Blending in France is a necessity rather than a stylistic choice, generally speaking. The weather in Bordeaux, for instance, although relatively mild, can throw some curve balls. It is pretty far North (just follow the globe around and you'll see Bordeaux, Champagne, etc., are quite far North), and they are prone to less reliably good weather than Napa, for instance. Due to skin thickness, rootstock vigor, soil content and other adaptations, some grapes achieve "ripeness" before others. In a less or more ripe year, the vigneron can create numerous blends to make a wine that tastes best, using the permitted varietals for the AOC (or other legal construct), and not be pigeonholed into making a defficient wine purely for the sake of tradition or the constraints placed by having just one varietal in one's vineyard.

Almost all California Caberenets, Merlots, Cabernet Franc labelled wines are blends. The highest priced wines get the silly names like Opus One or Insignia or some other, and are presented as proprietary red wines, "meritages," or "Bordeaux-style blends." This is by coice, rather than by necessity. Modern California winemaking, both in the vineyard as well as in the cellar, can "engineer" almost any kind of wine they wish, including Cabernet with "silky, soft tannins."

I think that the difference is there mostly to ease the marketing of the wines to the 99% of the market who doesn't really care what they drink as long as it's affordable and someone recommends it. Or if the label is pretty....

Thanks to everyone who responded. I take away from this the following:

1) In most cases, the "difference" is merely in labeling.

2) The reasons for the "difference" are:
a) historical, and
b) market-driven.

Thanks again.