Does better technology make better wine? Cleve Twitchell at the Mail Tribune thinks so, at least in one case.

When Weisinger's 2005 vintage wines start coming on the market, you might want to try some, especially if you still have some 2004 bottles around for comparison. That's because the Ashland winery installed some new winemaking equipment this past summer. It's designed to produce wines that are "smoother and more velvety," says winemaker Eric Weisinger.

...

I had an opportunity to make a barrel-tasting comparison of two reds -- cabernet sauvignon and cabernet franc -- from two different years, 2004 (before the new equipment) and 2005 (after it). In each case, the 2004 and 2005 were made with grapes from the same vineyard -- Pheasant Hill for the cab, Gold for the franc.

The 2005 had been in the barrel for only a month but you could already taste a difference. The 2004 reds should be out next fall, the 2005 reds in 2007 or 2008, Weisinger says.

My first question is, based on the above paragraph, why would anyone who reads this article by a Weisinger's 2004 red?

I have mixed feelings about the wineries that rely too heavily on technology, or are overly fascinated by technology (note: I don't know anything about Weisinger, so these comments are not directed at this particular winery). Each bottle of wine is supposed to be a unique experience, have its own story. The more the winemaking process relies on technology the more uniform each bottle of wine becomes.

This is not entirely a bad thing. It hopefully means less corked bottles, less moldy wine, and other suprises that pop up.

However, if we refine the winemaking process to the point of creating a beer-like uniformity won't wine lose some of its mystique?