Red wine

Red is beautiful

Robert Hardman

THE link between champagne and celebra- tion is one of the greatest advertising cons in history. It has been rooted in the public consciousness for so long that it has become an unchallenged cultural ritual, rather like getting married in a white dress or not picking one's nose in public.

But for many drinkers it is an irritation. I find that few things take the edge off a cel- ebration as quickly as a cry of 'This calls for a celebration' and the hasty summons of a bottle of lukewarm champagne, half of which spills down the side of the bottle or glass. Anyone who declines the offer of a sticky, half-filled 'flute' of carbonated Blue Nun will be classed as a gloomy party- pooper. But I have given up caring. It is time the Epernay marketing conspiracy was rumbled. It is time we dedicated members of the Red Brigade hit back.

We have history on our side. The Romans knew how to celebrate. Just trounced the Carthaginians? Seen your favourite gladiator win again? Up would go a cry of `Gaudeamus' and someone would crack open an amphora of the red stuff.

We have numbers on our side. For the last few years Wine Spectator magazine (no relation) has conducted an international poll on the Internet. In 1997 it asked wine- lovers to name their favourite type of wine. Top of the list by a mile was Cabernet Sauvignon/Medoc with 39 per cent, fol- lowed by Pinot Noir at 16.2 per cent and then Zinfandel and Merlot with just over 9 per cent. Whites fared miserably, led by Chardon- nay at 5.5 per cent. Champagne warranted a mere 4.4 per cent. A month later the maga- zine asked readers what they would drink if they could drink only one type of wine for the rest of their lives, stipulating that it could not be Cabernet Sauvignon/Medoc. The reds were still by far the most popular, favoured by more than three quarters of respondents. Champagne scored just 3.2 per cent.

In the same polls three years on, the pat- tern is exactly the same (indeed, cham- pagne is now down to 3.1 per cent). There is nothing faddish about it. People who take an interest in wine prefer red wine.

The reasons are obvious. Red wine can be good in summer or winter, at room tem- perature or chilled. There are so many more blends and subtle variations. It lends a conviviality to a meal which a crisp white cannot begin to match. It looks deeper, warmer, more interesting, more giving. It comes in larger glasses.

Of course, most people who drink wine will like a spot of white followed by a spot of red and wonder why anyone should bother being partisan about it. Some might also have a vodka and tonic or a glass of champagne beforehand, and a Cognac or whisky afterwards. But I come from the extreme wing of the red orthodoxy. I am not a connoisseur; I just happen to drink red wine to the exclusion of any other alco- holic drink.

I can stomach other drinks but would prefer not to. When others are on their preprandial gins, I am drinking red. When they are fussing about 'white with fish', I am drinking red. When they are swirling a Cognac against the light or grumbling that the port is travelling in the wrong direction, I am drinking red. When they are nursing hangovers, I am not. Red wine is the most versatile drink in the entire alcoholic spec- trum. And yet, so many have yet to get the message.

Weddings are a particularly difficult area for the red-only drinker. It always baffles me that families go to so much trouble to lay on the perfect occasion and then offer everyone three choices: champagne, orange juice or both. Confronted with that acidic trinity, I would prefer a glass of water.

Even champagne-lovers can tire of the stuff after three glasses. In the absence of anything else, though, people will plough on through the champagne at vast cost to the poor father of the bride. If, on the other hand, there is the option of red wine — at a third of the price — many will switch.

I remember one wedding where the bride had very sweetly laid on a couple of bottles of claret for the difficult hack with the red-only fixation. The barman was instructed that it was to be served only to Mr Hardman. After an hour of quaffing what was, by all accounts, an extremely good champagne, other guests started to eye up my glass. By the time I returned to fill my glass, the claret had gone. 'Everyone said they were getting a glass for you,' explained the barman.

It is extremely bad manners to take your own drink to a wedding but at some social events there is simply no choice. On the one occasion that I attended a Highland ball, my host had kindly warned me in advance that there would be nothing except orange juice or whisky from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. Fore- warned, I smuggled in a bottle of Rioja and hid it behind a curtain.

There are always problems travelling through countries which do not have a wine culture, especially in Asia. Outside the best restaurants, most wine is undrinkable. In those countries where alcohol is discour- aged, the only options are beer or whisky offered at exorbitant prices on presentation of a passport. The best solution, I have found, is the wine box. Lugging bottles of wine around is extremely inconvenient whereas a wine box carries the equivalent of four bottles, it is much lighter, it is easy to pack and it does not match the common perception of alco- hol. You simply drink your 'carton of grape juice' and avoid causing any offence. There will always be those who object to the greatest of drinks on the grounds that it gives them a headache, that it stains your teeth, that it doesn't come off the Carpet. But the greatest argument for red against white is that, unlike so many vices, it can boast the stamp of medical approval. Doctors admit that a glass or two a day loosens up the arteries and is good for the heart.

They do not say that about champagne. So the next time you hear the grim cry of `This calls for a celebration', shout back, `Better red than dead.'

Robert Hardman is a columnist and corre- spondent for the Daily Telegraph.