I ask this sincerely for I find it fascinating and, not being a wine scientist, I don't know the precise answer.
For instance, it is generally said that "more is going on in a glass of red wine". And I have to believe that the inclusion of the skins/tannins is what accounts for the "more". But is the "more" just a statement about texture only (the tannins)?
Surely tannin-free white wines attain great complexity, potentially.
But if skins are integral to a wine's complexity, is my beloved champagne at an inherent "complexity disadvantage" because only the grape's juice is used? (I know that virtually un-discernible amounts of tannin are present).
It seems that age and acidity are most responsible for turning it into something "deep" and complex. So how much of the Pinot's grape character is being "unused" by not including the skins? (Roses excluded)
Speaking of roses, it actually seems that many of them are considered to be a notch below "blonde champagnes" when it comes to gaining complexity with age (though surely not all). Which leads me to believe that the character of the grape doesn't come from the skins.
Am I making any sense here?

Jeff