Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog

Sommelier Rated & Approved Wines

I picked up the new wine rating newsletter from VinTrust at the Recent Wine & Spirits Magazines Top 100 Tasting. VinTrust finally announced the emergence of their new publication today in a press release via BusinessWire and this spurred me to take another look at it.

VinTrusts SOMMselections consists primarily of reviews of wine with a smattering of commentary on recent Burgundy vintages, screwcaps, biodynamic farming and some other topics. But the main thrust is providing reviews of  sommelier-vetted wines for VinTrust's client base of collectors who store their wine and often procure it through VinTrust.

The most interesting thing about the new publication is not that the wines are scored on a 100 point system. That's to be expected when writing reviews for "collectors". What's interesting is how they break down the 100 Point Rating System:

Aroma...15 points
Flavor...15 points
Structure...15 points
Length...15 Points
Balance...40 Points

This is the potential number of points each element of the wine's character can achieve. This breakdown makes as much sense to me as any other well thought out system probably would. Each review also includes a few words describing each of the five elements of the wine as well as a short contextual description of the wine. So, a typical review looks like this:

------------------------------------------------
2003 Hanzell Vineyards Chardonnay
Chardonnay - Sonoma County

Aroma: mineral, ocean, white flowers, apple.........13
Flavor: lime, hazelnut, mineral, toast, apple..........14
Structure: rich, med acid, glycerous, mild tannin..14
Length: long, needs time to develop......................13
Balance: balanced and refreshing...........................37
SUGG: $65           DRINK: 2008-2018               91 Points

The palate is refreshing and rich at the same time.
The acidity and mild tannins, unusual in a California
white, aid in aging this historic white. Hanzell fans
will be pleased to note that this is a young version
of the '95 vintage.

-------------------------------------------------

The reviews are the average taken from a number of different VinTrust sommeliers' independent ratings. So, we are talking about a group effort rather than an individual's tastes.  Lisa Minucci, SOMMselection's editor describes the reviews this way:

"SOMMselections Wine Journal is a new and unique kind of wine publication that offers more objective reviews by trained wine professionals and multiple perspectives on truly special wines.”

I'm not clear how the reviews are "more objective" than others. Nor am I clear what the difference is between aroma's rated "13 points" and those rated "14" points. This of course is the major problem with a reader's perception of any wine rating that ascends beyond, say 4 or 5 stars.

The coolest thing about SOMMselection is that the reviews come from sommeliers. These folks are highly trained in the ways of wine. This is a good thing. However, I'm not sure that it's a thing that makes these reviews any more objective than those of Hank the Vacuum Cleaner Salesman. However, it does make them more informed.

A complimentary one-year subscription to the newsletter appears to located HERE. Click on the "Fall 2006--Inaugural Edition" link to get to the email form you need to fill out.

Ten (scary) Things: About Being a Wine Lover

TEN (scary) THINGS:
ABOUT BEING A WINE LOVER

10. Driving on Highway 29 in Napa Valley  (or Westside Road in the Russian River Valley) at 4pm in August.

9. The "Wine List" at Dennys

8. Attempting to get a 4 wine loving friends to agree on the definition of "terroir".

7. The reaction at the eRobert Parker Forum when you suggest Mr. Parker was wrong about a wine.

6. The reaction at the eRobertParker Forum when you suggest Jim Laube was right about a wine.

5. The Reaction at the eRobert Parker Forum when you suggest Jancis Robinson or Michael Broadbent's words be read.

4. The bloodshot, enraged eyes and snarling face of a French grapegrower when he spies you drinking a Spanish Rose in the South of France.

3. The mysterious vacuum that is the inside of Jonathan Nossiter's cranium.

2. The bubbling cauldron of heat that is a 15.5% alcohol Pinot Noir.

1. The over fermented and  sanctimonious ramblings of a certain wine blogger.

The Wine Spectator on Pinot Noir

Where does the most Wine Spectator Magazine stand on Pinot Noir?

It's a pretty broad question. So, here is the broad answer:

I took at look at the Wine Spectator's reviews of Pinot Noirs in specific regions for the vintages 2003-2005. The majority of reviews are of the 2004 vintage. So, we are talking a snapshot of the Spectator's view of the most recent vintages. I also looked at what percent of wines were rated 90 points or above (90+) and 80 or below (-80).

Burgundy:
488 Reviews
90+ = 46%
-80 = 3%

New Zealand
124 Reviews
90+ = 11%
-80  = 10%

Australia
50 Reviews
90+ = 4%
-80  = 2%

Oregon
280 Reviews
90+ = 43%
-80  = 3%

California
807 Reviews
90+ = 33%
-80  = 8%

Carneros
50 Reviews
90+ = 12%
-80  = 15%

Mendocino (Anderson Valley)
27 Reviews
90+ = 37%
-80 = 4%

California Central Coast (Monterey/Santa Lucia Highlands)
83 Reviews
90+ = 33%
-80  = 12%

California South Coast (Santa Rita, Santa Maria, Arroyo Grande, Santa Barbara)
125 Reviews
90+ = 26%
-80 = 8%

Russian River Valley
101 Reviews
90+ = 36%
-80  = 10%

WORLDWIDE
1508 Reviews
90+ = 33%
-80  = 6%

It appears the consensus view of Wine Spectator palates is that Oregon and Burgundy are spots where great Pinot Noir is most likely to be produced.

I do love looking at these kind of statistics. They paint a picture of sorts and the Spectator's Review Search Engine is very handy in getting this kind of picture. The only thing missing from this run down is pricing information. It would be fascinating to compare the number of Burgundies that come in over $60 to those in CA or OR that come in over  $60.

Wine Hiker

I love seeing this sort of thing. It's just that you don't see that much of it.

I'm talking about blogs that combine wine with another topic. Off the top of my head I can think of a few, but the Wine Hiker Witiculture Blog is really a great one.

The blog itself supports a very interesting and unique service: California Wine Hikes, a company that provides guided hiking tours through the wilderness and parks surrounding California wine country. Yes, there's apparently lots of good food and wine involved in these excursions, as it should be.

The blog though is a fascinating amalgamation of subjects, mainly on hiking and wine...but some other tidbits are thrown in there too. The writing is witty and fun, and in some cases fairly substantial. Best is this fun stuff is delivered by a dedicated blogger who is at it on nearly a daily basis.

The idea of combining wine and culinary pursuits with outdoor activity isn't new. You can find opportunities across France and Italy that will take you on walking and hiking tours of their wine country. And of course wine-related travel is hardly something new.

So, if you want to read a darn good wine-related blog or have an interest in hiking along with wine, you do want to check out Wine Hiker Witiculture.

Obsession and Reckless Consumption

Talk about getting this boy excited.

I wake up yesterday, tromp out to the lawn to pick up the Sunday papers, sit with coffee by my side and open the my favorite Sunday reading material. And what do I see? An article that brings together two of my favorite things in life: Baseball and wine.

There in my Sunday paper is an article about Tom "Terrific" Seaver, one of the best pitcher to ever throw a baseball and, apparently a grapegrower and winemaker in Napa Valley.

If you you are not a baseball fan, particularly a fan of baseball history, you can probably move on to another spot on the Internet and feel you've lost nothing. Because I'm about to gush.

First, I had no Idea that one of the greatest pitchers to ever hold a baseball was also a grapegrower ands soon to be winemaker. Apparently about 8 years ago Seaver purchases about 115 acres on Diamond Mountain in the northern Napa Valley, a region famous for it's Cabernet. Seaver found a south facing hillside on his property, called Vineyard Consultant extraordinaire Jim Barbour and put down the vineyard Seaver had apparently been looking forward to creating for more than 30 years.

So, here's a little insight into me. I'll buy this wine sight unseen. I don't personally care if it is any good or if it costs $100. What we are talking about is a kind of reverential appreciation for a guy that provokes one to spend money simply to be closer to him. It's sort of the same thing that happens to those folks who buy every last item they can find about a particular movie star they idolize. Only my reverence makes sense. Consider...

-3 time Cy Young Award Winner
-First Ballot Hall of Famer
-National League Strikeout Record for a Right Handed Pitcher
-Set the Record for the lowest ERA
-Struck out 200 or more batters in 10 Times

And now he's making wine?  Is he just trying to tease me?

It's a strange thing, isn't it. The way some folks will become another person's best customer based not on the quality of what they are selling but due to the connection you feel toward them. I'm not much of a collector. I have my obsessions. But they aren't the kind that lead me to consume recklessly. But this compulsion to want to purchase something due simply to some connection you feel you have to someone is a powerful thing. It's the reason and science behind celebrity endorsements. It's also why wineries are, or should be, very careful who they have in their tasting rooms. You never know when a visitor will feel a strong connection to the person pouring them their sample of Cabernet and become their best customers.

Tom Seaver's wine is expected to be released in 2008. I wonder if he needs a wine publicist.

Naming Names and Being Bad..Is it Good?

The post right below this one spurred on Fred Koeppel of KoeppelOnWine to make this comment:

"Tom, I know that you don't review wines on Fermentation, but you owe it to your readers and fans AND to the winery that disappointed you to tell us what the winery and the wine are. These people should understand that longtime consumers of that wine are disappointed and they should know why. It's when we DON'T speak up that such dumbing down of products continues."

He's right. We don't review wines. But his comment brings up an issue that I've never absolutely come down on one way or another: Should those who do review wines, in print or on blogs, publish Bad reviews?

Let's be clear that there is no question that a bad review of a wine is just as useful to readers as a good review. And as Fred points out, a bad review also puts a winery on notice. Both these are compelling reasons to name names and publish bad reviews. But, you might say, "why waste time talking or writing about bad wines when there are so many really good wines out there to alert a reader to?" There are a number of reasons to take this view. Why take the space to hammer a winery when you could use that space to praise another's efforts? Why piss off advertisers...or potential advertisers?

It is possible to write a review without coming straight out and saying, "this wine is no good". For example you might write:

This popular Dry Rose seems to be more in the the style of the sweet genre of "White Zinfandels". It's a crystal clear red in appearance that might be announcing a light Gamay as much as a Rose. The nose is fruity with ripe strawberries, and that's about all. On the palate there is a fleshy, soft quality with no bracing acidity that you find in many dry roses. It verges on obviously sweet and even is a bit cloying. Fresh strawberries make up the flavor. Cool this one way down before drinking.

This isn't necessarily a "bad" review of the wine. It merely tells us what to expect. Of course there's something missing isn't there. The score. With most reviewers delivering scores alongside their descriptions its pretty hard to put a score on this wine and not give away the fact that it disappointed me.  I'd have to give it 2 out of 5 Stars...at most.

If I were a wine reviewer, and if I didn't put scores or rankings alongside my descriptions, then I could publish this review. If I did use scores or rankings I'd have to decide if I wanted to publish this review at all.

Interestingly, Fred Koeppel, who wrote the comment in the post below that I reference above, IS someone who publishes lots of reviews, has been doing so for quite a long time and most certainly has encountered this issue of whether or not to publish reviews of wines that are average or less than average. In addition to his unusually extensive descriptions of wines, Fred uses what I think is the equivalent of a rough 10 points system that allows these levels of ranking:

Exceptional
Excellent +
Excellent
Very Good +
Very Good
Good +
Good

I don't recall if I've ever seen Fred describe a wine as perfect and it seems that he does not care to publish reviews of wines that are less than "good" or poor.

It's a nice compromise between simple descriptions and more emphasis on scores. But what does a description that only falls into the "good" category on Fred's rankings read like? Like this:

Gallo Family Vineyards
Twin Valley Moscato (non-vintage)
100% moscato
California

"GOOD"
For people who like a little sweetness in a wine – and I know there are pockets of you here and there – here’s a sweetheart of a moscato that features a winsome bouquet of orange blossom, jasmine, almond, peach and pear. In the mouth, it’s soft, round and slightly sweet, with peach and pear flavors and a modestly lush texture. It’s appealing in a simple way, like someone you send a valentine to in the third grade. Drink up.

I'm guessing this is not a wine that Fred is going to go out and buy for himself. In fact, I'd bet he'd be unlikely to recommend this wine to someone who likes their wines white and sweet. I could be wrong. But I don't think I am. Yet, it's not a bad review is it. It simply describes the wine.

It's a nice way to approach this business of writing about wines.

At Fred's website, KoeppelOnWine.com you can read many other reviews of wines here, here and here, as well as articles (this current article on less expensive Burgundy is a real heads up).

So what do we do about this issue of naming names, publishing bad reviews, etc? I don't know. I know I don't review wines so I don't have to care about it other than in a purely academic sense. But those of you who do publish reviews do have to think about this issue. I'd love to know how you handle it.

Rose & Reese's: A Disappointing Duo

I don't think it is a matter of simply being adverse to change, though I am a fan of stability.

That said, I really can't say how disappointed I was recently when I picked up a domestic rose that I've drunk a lot of over the years. It was, sort of, my "go to" rose: it has been truly dry, expressive of strawberries but not overly so, exhibited good acid and really was a beautiful afternoon quaffer that usually came in around 13.5% alcohol at most.

A vintage ago I bought a six bottles not even having tried it. I knew what it tasted like. It always tasted the same...that's why I bought it. But this time it had sugar in it. The hue of the wine was darker and it didn't have the structure. I drank it all. Must have been a bad or difficult year I figured.

But this vintage the wine was the same. Sweet and nearly cloying. What we have here is a deliberate change in winemaking style.

I couldn't help but think of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.

They were my Oreo. I used to love to nipple around the edges where the chocolate layer was nice and thick and chunky, leaving the thin coating of chocolate on the top and bottom, sandwiching a firm cache of sweet peanuty buttery stuff in between. What a great candy!

But they went and changed it. I noticed this about 10 years ago. Today the Reese's outer edge coating of chocolate is a thin layer of waxiness that has no more of that chunky character. This isn't a bad batch we are talking about. It's a positive decision to make the Reese's into a lesser product.

I felt betrayed by the Reese's folks, but I'd been on their bandwagon since Little League. I've only been drinking this particular domestic Rose for about a decade. So, it's not so much a sense of betrayal I feel. Just plain old disappointment in the changeover to something different.

The Grand Jury of Wine is In...CA wins again.

It appears the French will keep at it until they get the results they want.

For 30 years a certain humiliation infested the French wine industry as a result of the "Paris Tasting of 1976" in which California wines bested the French in a taste off. With great hope for vindication, the French watched the recreation of that tasting just this year. Yet again, California wines bested the French.

Not content to be good PR practitioners and let this issue die, the French recently conducted another blind taste off against California wine. The results didn't quite pan out the way they hoped.

French wine writer Francois Mauss founded the "Grand Jury European" reportedly to create a body to counter the influence of Robert Parker. Among the first jobs of this new "Wine Jury" was to create another Taste Off between French and Californian wines that, to Mauss' view, would be more fair than previous comparisons. The tasting that occured in late September brought together 15 CA and 15 French wines, all Cabernet and Merlot-based, from the 1995 vintage.

The judges were a combination of European palates and "New World" palates.

California won again.

Of the Top Five wines determined by the entire panel  Abreu (Madrona Ranch), Beringer Private Reserve ands Pahlmeyer Propriatory Red came in 1, 2 and 3. Valandraud and Latour came in 4th and 5th. The top 10 wines consisted of 6 California wines.

Yet here's the really interesting thing. When you look at the scores given to the wines only by judges belonging to Mauss' Grand Jury European, 8 of the top ten wines are Californian.

How could this be? Xavier Planty of Chateau Guiraud, where this new judgment was held, explained the latest defeat of French wines at the hands of European palates like this:

'When tasting wines from your own area, the critical part of your brain is switched on, when tasting from another area, the pleasure part is switched on.'

I think it's pretty clear that M. Planty needs to stay away from writers if he is going to be attempting to explain why French wines don't do well against California wines.

There is a simple explanation for why the California wines come out on top: They appear to be better wines than their counterparts. There is no other explanation. And incidentally, though it should go without saying—although I won't allow that—this matter of California wines appearing to be better wines than the French wines is a function of the palates evaluating the wines, not the wines themselves.

Decanter On-line has a very very good couple of articles on this whole affair. This one lists the results, while this one looks into the lead up to the tasting. By the way, this article on the lead up to the tasting has an interesting "Tit for Tat" in the article's comment section between Francois Mauss of the Grand Jury European ands Steven Spurrier, who organized the two "Tastings of Paris." Clearly there is no love lost between these two.

There is great deal of weirdness that infuses this issue of "Old World" vs. "New World". That weirdness is wrapped up in market forces, the global economy, new styles of winemaking, extraordinary egos, and the debasement of the idea of "terroir" in the service of the protectors of old world pride. These various Old v. New World tastings are just the most obvious mistakes that result from the strange rivalries that have emerged in the past fifteen or twenty years. Though it goes unsaid, these tastings are organized with the hope that the French will be proven to produce "better" wines than California vintners. For a country that hangs its hat on the idea that "terroir", soil and a "sense of place" should be the governing consideration in evaluating a wine, this reliance of comparative tastings between CA and French wines seems rather odd, I think.

Wine Education as a Trailing Indicator

In the world of trends you've got "leading indicators" and "trailing indicators". The former tells where the trend is headed while the latter suggests where the trend has headed. Higher education is a trailing indicator.

A demonstration of this can be found in the news report that Appalachian State University in North Carolina has created a "Wine Studies" department.

Most states in the U.S. are "third tier" wine producers. That is, they are not understood to be sources of fine wine like first tier states such as California, Oregon and Washington. Yet it is states exactly like North Carolina, Virginia, Texas and Michigan, among others, that have seen tremendous growth in the number of wineries that operate in these states. You know that this trend has been recognized when higher education institutions there begin supporting the local wine industries with curriculum.

The story about Appalachian State University is an interesting one on a couple levels. The first is an observation made by Norm Oches, the secretary and education chair of the North Carolina Wine Growers Association. Oches says:

“Many people forget about the marketing part, but they should be thinking about that the day they put the plant in the ground. As many industries move outside the United States for production, the wine industry will stay put."

I've never heard it put quite this way, but Mr. Oches is correct. Local wine industry's simply can't be "outsourced". It's one of those great, bit "Duh" statements, I'll grant, but it's also the kind of statement that has political implications as outsourcing of American jobs is still a meaningful issue for many Americans. I'm thinking this observation might be something various local industries keep in mind as they fight battles against the forces that want to make it more difficult for small wineries to market their home-grown products. Rhetoric is important.

The other interesting statement in this article comes from Dr. Grant N. Holder, a chemistry professor at Appalachian State University who is working to get the program off the ground. In discussing the global nature of the wine industry he notes:

"the wine industry is very competitive, as every region of the world produces wine with the exception of the Middle East."

He should know better. I wonder why he doesn't.

Fine Wine Blogging

I don't know what the traffic stats are for the wine blog THE ZINQUISITION.

However, I do know it should be higher than it is, higher than most wine blogs in fact, given the quality of the posts that St. Vini puts together.

EXAMPLE A: GALLIC SYNDROME TO STRIKE NAPA