I had a conversation with a beer brewer recently. I asked him whether size was an advantage in brewing, in that having lots of shiny new kit might help you make better beer. His response was that it buys you consistency. He then went on a semi-rant about small London breweries in railway arches and how their beers were inconsistent. What’s the use of making a great beer if you can’t reproduce it every time?

The big brewers with their shiny kit make consistent beer, but my experience is that they are almost always playing it too safe. They don’t want too much flavour that the punters might find objectionable. They don’t want to use too many expensive ingredients. So they make consistently average or just above average beers that I can’t really be bothered to drink.

In the meantime, the brewers under the railway arches turn out beers that get me really excited. If inconsistency is the price paid for these great beers, then I can live with that. Of course, we’d like consistency and greatness. But if both aren’t on offer, I don’t want to trade greatness for consistency. I’ll live with the odd sub-par bottle.

Is the same true for wine? To a degree, yes. Great wines are often made in marginal regions, by people taking risks, where the weather gods don’t always play fair. Of course, this isn’t a good way to make cheap wine. For inexpensive wine, a warm climate, irrigation, and no risk of harvest rain is just the ticket. Consistency is great. But it’s really hard to make consistent, great wine.