In a recent installment of Drinking Out Loud, Matt Kramer put forward five questions that “divide” the wine world.

These questions — which Kramer called “The Great Divide” — strike at the heart of the most conflict-ridden issues among oenophiles. The irony here is not lost — for a drink that brings so much joy and laughter to nearly every occasion, why are we still intent on squabbling over it? It’s a question not posed by Kramer, but it’s surely on his mind and the minds of many wine-lovers, lay and learned alike.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll tackle Kramer’s questions. First up? “Power or Finesse?”

For me, the answer is finesse — as I think it’s a more honest way of doing business. As Kramer indicates, power and finesse often manifest simultaneously in certain places. He cites a usual suspect, Grand Cru Burgundy, and a rather ambiguous reference to “many of most acclaimed Cabernets…”  Napa? Pauillac? Coonawarra? Apparently, it’s irrelevant.

Power is artificially achieved the world over. I can forgive capitalization — it doesn’t so much guarantee power as it does a palatable product and an income to live on. But unnecessary extended hang time, Mega Purple, reverse osmosis, and all other means of vinous Botox give me pause.

Power sells — I get that. But power also corrupts. If a winemaker is making a wine that suits his or her personal tastes, and those tastes happen to favor wines with 16+ percent natural alcohol, then OK—permissible. But what happens thereafter is what incites me: any and all claims that the wine speaks of its terroir, outside the obvious fact that it gets ample hours of sunlight and probably very little diurnal temperature variation. This is dishonesty, exacerbated by most consumers’ ignorance of the factors (and benefactors) usually involved.

Wines of finesse, in turn, have a far greater chance of reflecting their terroir: they aren’t typically burdened by excess alcohol; they often avoid the chemical sweetness of high glycerol fruit bombs; and they typically trend toward more transparency in methods of viticulture, harvest culture and vinification. Having said all this, I do agree with Mr. Kramer that a wine can achieve both power and finesse. One of my favorite wines of all time, Julien Barrot’s Domaine la Barroche 2006 Chateauneuf du Pape “Pure,” wears its 15 percent alcohol with such grace and humility that it really transcends this whole argument.

So you CAN have your cake and eat it, too. What are your thoughts on the state of Power and Finesse in both New World and Old School wines?

Speaking of New World and Old School, that happens to be the next question posed by Kramer. I’ll tackle that sticky issue next week. Cheers!