Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog

The Velvet Bite

I'm going to buy this wine...because I just think it's terribly cool that a winery would honor one of the greatest jazz vocalists in the history of the genre. (Have you ever heard Ella sing "mack the knife"?!!?)

However, I'm probably not going to drink this Domaine Carneros Sparkling Wine while listening to any jazz, including Ella. Here's why.

I've long believed that even given the range and the diversity of the Jazz genre, the absolutely most appropriate drink to accompany Jazz is something that attacks the senses, throat, palate and body with a Velvet Bite.

No pure wine I've ever consumed possesses this quality.

By "Velvet Bite" I mean, first, that sensation of a subtle sting that warms just as the sting diminishes when the liquid is poured over your palate. You need to feel the relief of the alcohol sting diminishing just as the alcohol also begins to warm the throat and stomach. 

There must be a soft clamping down on the palate that does not linger, but also is not escapable. The sensation alerts the senses in a momentary shock like no wine can do, yet fades away, relinquishing its bite in favor of alertness and warmth.

This state, I think, is best suited for listening to Jazz. Bourbon, Whiskey, Scotch and even cognac and armagnac are the proper drinks to pair with Jazz; best suited to provide a velvet bite.

Further, I believe the full affect of pairing the Velvet Bite with Jazz occurs when a shot of any of the above beverages is taken in advance of sipping on a second round of the same. And, how this shot is performed can affect the pleasure of the pairing even more if done right.

The shot, while it should be taken in all at once, should not be targeted at the throat so that it slips down past the palate with minimal contact. On the other hand, taking time to swish the beverage around the palate will also ruin the experience. Rather, the throat should be half to 3/4s closed when the shot enters the mouth. The partially closed throat will promote a slow movement of the bourbon over the palate, followed in quick order by it slowly sliding down the gullet. The technique delivers the bite, but does not sear the palate. And at the same time, a decent amount of alcohol enters the body and the blood stream in relatively quick fashion.

Yes, I'm suggesting that Jazz is best appreciated with a slight buzz. Not a "drunk". But a warm, comfortable, smirk inducing buzz.

It should be noted that after the initial shot of our preferred beverage, the second round can be sipped, and probably enjoyed even more due to the palate, body and mind having been properly prepared by the initial shot.

Wine is simply too week to stand up to the challenging nature of jazz; the subtle, complex and sometimes jolting nature of jazz rhythms require the body to be properly prepared with an anesthesia that both weakens one's grip on convention, yet provides a bite.

Thus, Jazz is best paired with beverage.

Booze & Presidential Politics

Recently Hillary Clinton strolled into a Fort Wayne, Indiana bar and proceeded to very publicly throw back a shot of whiskey and chase it with a beer.  Call me a political cynic but I'd take even money on the proposition that there was a fairly substantial discussion on the bus with her advisers prior to arriving at the bar as to whether or not the presidential candidate should drink...and if so, what she should drink.

I'm willing to further bet that during this discussion the question of whether or not Clinton should have some wine was not even brought up. I'm willing to bet the question was "Whiskey or Beer?"

Here's the thing: on the campaign trail wine is something of the kiss of death, politically, for its elitist reputation.

I went googling for a photo of Clinton with wine and Obama with wine and McCain with wine. Nothing. Poor Obama is already so associated with elitism I suspect that he'd cancel any campaign stop at this point that even held the possibility of seeing him holding a glass of wine. Hillary has made her "Beveragoligical" proclivities clear with her whiskey throw back and public sudsing. McCain? Well, his connection to beer is pretty strong. His wife, Cindy, sits on the Board of Directors of her family's Arizona Beer Distributorship, Hensley & Company, which has been very generous to his campaign.

There is some evidence that wine drinkers are more likely to vote Democratic and beer drinkers more likely to vote Republican. However, this appears to have more to do with issues of gender and socioeconomic status than real drink preferences.

Nevertheless, don't expect any of the current candidates to make a public display of wine drinking. The image of a candidate swilling Chardonnay just has too many negative, elitist connotations in our culture. You know, the pinky-out, I'm-better-than-you, high-falutin-limo-sitting, down-my-nose-looking kind of image that most candidates rightly understand doesn't go over too well in flyover country, let alone in the less liberal areas of the coastal states.

But that's not to say that candidates don't receive support from drink-associated folks. Obama seems to have the support of this group that wanted to encourage folks to "have a glass of wine on the patio and talk about changing the country." However, no one has produced a wine that celebrates Obama, but they have produced a beer.

Meanwhile, the alcohol industry seems willing to support the presidential candidates, though not show too much partisan support. As of March 1st, the Beer, Wine & Alcohol industry has given Clinton $228,000, McCain 160,000 and Obama $158,000 in donations. This number will skyrocket after the the two parties have chosen their nominees.

I can imagine if any of the presidential candidates came to Sonoma or Napa for a public event they just might, possibly, maybe, perhaps show themselves with a glass of wine in hand, risking national humiliation for the opportunity to connect with locals. However, Napa and Sonoma are so completely democratic in make up that the only reason for a presidential candidate to come to this neck of the woods is to slip behind closed doors and privately scoop up some of that wine-soaked money.

So then, we are left with the old, tired stereotype that wine is elitist and beer/whiskey is "of the people". I'm not sure what it would take to rid us of this stereotype. But I do know that it won't be shaken this political season.

Totalitarianism and Gigantism in Napa Valley?

James Conaway is wrong about Napa Valley:

While at the California Preservation Foundation Conference in Napa Valley, Conaway said about Napa Valley (Quoting from the Napa Valley Register):

"Conaway said the undoing of the Napa Valley may be the sprawl of boutique wineries by rich newcomers who would sacrifice our natural and architectural heritage in the name of “showing off.”

First, would it be different if the sprawl of boutique wineries were being built by middle class, old-timers? Second, the implication in the idea that our "architectural heritage" in Napa is being sacrificed, suggests there is a style of architecture for wineries that is "better". Really? Better? How? This strikes me as a form of Nimbyism/Elitism/Good-Old-Daysism.

"He cited the architecture of Dominus Estate — a winery covered with stone-filled gabion enclosures — as an example of “totalitarian” design, an “unapproachable” building that serves the “vineyard elite” that now rule the Napa Valley."

Wow..."Totalitarian"?  It "serves the Napa Valley elite"? How is Dominus "totalitarian"? I need to remember this rhetorical tool. Think up all the words that have ugly connotations and use them when I want to criticize someone, regardless of whether or not these words have any relationship to the topic at hand. Maybe something like this: "In a Nazi-like yelp filled with fascist-implications, the author let loose with a sneaky blitzkrieg of commie-inspired accusations!"

"In the same vein, Conaway disparaged the Frank Gehry-design for what will be Hall Winery in St. Helena, a clear case of a building dictated by “fashion, not function.”

Since when is function the only thing to be considered when constructing a building? One suspects that the Palace at Versaille could have been far more functional were it built as a simple rectangle with only straight lines.

"Tourists play into this trend, Conaway said. “They’re attracted by the spectacular.” Be wary of catering to tourists, he said. “Tourism can devour the thing it loves.”"

Indeed, tourism has just killed the wine industry. I mean, imagine a winery actually including direct contact with the customer as part of their marketing plan. What are they thinking?? That's just crazy!!

"Conaway, who is an editor at large for Preservation magazine, said George Yount, the valley’s first white settler, would hardly recognize the place today. The Napa of his day was marked by abundant wildlife, clear-running streams and dense forests on the western hills, Conaway said. If conference attendees were to venture into the hills today, they would find forest “scrapped raw” by vineyard development, he said."

I have to assume this quote is taken out of context or at least the context of this quote just isn't included in the article but that it exists somewhere. George Yount? The implication is that Napa Valley would be better off the way George Yount found it in the middle to late 19th century with its Grizzly Bears running around in mass numbers and not a human being to be found outside of a band of Native Americans. I wish I knew what Conaway was trying to get at here.

"Perversely, the very success of the Napa Valley wine industry — wine grapes are “one of the most valuable legal crops in the country” — has created the conditions that threaten it, he said. The valley is attracting the mega-wealthy who want a piece of the action, he said. Vineyards have been planted on questionable terrain. The homes of the rich are infected by “gigantism.”"

What's the threat? Someone please show me the threat that are vineyards? And someone else has to point me to a time when wealthy folks DID NOT build larger homes for themselves?  "Infected"??? "Infected by gigantism"?  And finally, which vineyards have been planted on "questionable terrain"?

I wish I was at this talk, damn it! The message delivered by these quotes just can't be real. Can they? If these are the real thoughts of Mr. Conaway, then they must lead to his concluding of one of two things: It's just too darn bad what's happened to Napa Valley and we should mourn the loss of pristine wilderness or we should create laws that regulate how wealthy one can be to own a winery or vineyard as well as the style of architecture that is allowed on private property.

Rejoice Ever More

Depending on your spiritual and moral disposition, there may not be anything too wrong with beating a dead horse. This post might reveal my spiritual and moral disposition.

I wonder if the critical establishment surrounding wine is too unforgiving. I wonder if the predilection among the reviewing class is that it tends to oversubscribe to the notion that a wine can be too wrong, rather that right enough for those who will put up with its character.

Oddly I was once again brought back to this issue of reviews, quality, preference and standards in wine upon viewing the last episode of HBO's brilliant "John Adams". The last episode, entitled "Peacefield" is a brave and beautiful meditation on legacy, and that all too human combination of joy and sorrow that appears to be a symptom of the end of life.

I've been very pessimistic lately of the probability that any set of quality standards can be rationally conceived when it comes to wine. And even after taking the counsel of a number of the "Wise Men" of the wine reviewing trade, taking to them my doubts, and having been reassured by them that some measure of standards can be construed if only we have an appreciation of man's unchanging physiology, I find I remain pessimistic on this issue.

In the last episode we see the former President Adams in the last years of his life at his family home. Death and irrelevancy surround him as his dear wife and best adviser Abigail dies, his daughter dies of breast cancer, his revolutionary compatriots slowly wither and die and his own significance in political matters seems to amount to very little other than his symbolic value as one of the remaining founders. And yet, Adams is able to overcome all this and is able to insist to his youngest son, "Rejoice Everymore!" as he takes in the beauty of nature on an early evening stroll.

I wonder if there is a brand of wine connoisseurship and wine writing that places the focus on rejoicing rather than reviewing, even in the face of the competition, the business, the tackiness and the need to be bigger and better? I wonder if the world of wine can be described by its chroniclers more as an adventure, intellectually and sensually, than as a world of ranks and precedents?

This would take a great deal of forgiveness on the part of those who tell wine's story; forgiveness of imperfection, forgiveness for wines being less than we desire, and writers themselves seeking forgiveness from those who have relied on the writer to offer joy, hope and discovery rather than decimals, points, numbers and flaws.

I'm not suggesting that reviews of wines ought to disappear. But I wonder if they might become something more. I wonder if the best writing might be known as that which rejoices in simply finding something new that isn't quite up to our standards but which is best described as surely up to another's standards.

Implications For All Involved

A variety of academic studies seem to have determined quite convincingly that the non-wine expert and even the non-wine interested don't like the same kind of wines that the "experts" and those who have had wine training tend to like.

The corollary to this is that the ratings of wine experts and wine critics seem may have little value for those who are not trained in wine.

The most recent confirmation of this comes from a Working Paper published at the website of the American Association of Wine Economists entitled, "Do More Expensive Wines Taste Better. Evidence from a Large Sample of Blind Tastings."

The basic findings of this working paper are that the average person prefers less expensive wines, while the experienced wine drinker (called an "expert" in the paper) tend to prefer wines that are more expensive. The study included blind tastings by more than 6000 individuals.

At the end of the working paper, the following questions are posed: "is the difference between the ratings of experts and non-experts due to an acquired taste? Or is it due to an  innate ability, which is correlated with self selection into wine training?"

Both excellent questions.

I think the implications of this and similar studies with similar findings is immense, yet I'm not sure I've even come close to wrapping my mind around their meaning. Last week I played with the notion that there can be no such thing as objective quality in wine and that any criteria for quality set down by experts or non experts alike is merely an assertion of preference and not anything that can be called objective, if not mere tradition that is capable of, and has, changed over time.

But there is something else to be considered here. Is it possible that a large percentage of those that eventually find themselves to be either experts on wine of taken by wine in general are also much more likely to be a part of that 25% of the population that are called "supertasters"? This has to be considered. Recently Dan Berger, in an article at Appellation America, took a much closer look at the "genetics" behind wine preference. I sense that what Dan might be on to and what the researchers behind this newest study are confirming, might just need to meet up in the middle.

Something else to consider given these findings is the real world role of the wine critic. Given these studies, is it over the top to suggest that articles in daily newspapers and general readership magazines that review wines would be better off not reviewing wines at all, but rather providing more general interest or business-related wine stories?

Finally, this. Among those of us who are interested in wine, we rarely, very rarely, drink a wine knowing little about its provenance, including the producer, the appellation and the price. And whether we say so or not, I believe we place a strong correlation on price and quality. This leads me to conclude that if we see very similar styles of wines being produced at the higher price categories, we may be in danger of cementing in place that style of wine as the style that is equated with "quality". The implications of this possibility are important to consider.

On Dogs, Wine & God

Arthur, of redwinebuzz, commenting on today's earlier post about what should be the standard for quality in wine, makes the case that a high high quality wine is that which best displays their classic traits and characteristics of the variety or combination of variety and terroir. (Correct me if I mischaracterize you Arthur. Using dog breeding as an example, he writes: "What makes a Doberman a classic example of the breed? The way it best displays the traits and characteristics that define the breed."

It's the perfect analogy, I think.

The Doberman, or any dog breed, is a good example of what I'm getting at when I ask WHY should one standard of wine quality be embraced over another. Over time, dog breeders have bred out or bred in certain characteristics based on an evolving standard for the breed. This implies that over time, the standard for this dog has changed. Which of the varying standards for a breed that have existed over the past 200 years is the "best" or highest quality?

I wonder if it's possible to argue that a flabby, fruit-forward, high alcohol Cabernet is the style that should be thought of when we ask what are the criteria for high quality wine? I think clearly that all it takes for that standard to be recognized is buy-in by a combination of producers, critics and members of the trade.

To suggest that this style of Cab is not the standard by which quality should be judged, seems to me to be no more than preferring another style to this one that can also be achieved by pampering a grapevine with equal compassion.

What I'm getting at is this (and I'm not sure I like where I am): The quality standard against which Cab-based wines, Pinot Noir, Riesling or Rhone are to be judged amounts to a preference that may have no objective warrant other than "it is agreed that we like this style better than that one".

Someone can proclaim that "high quality Cabernet-based wines must have a moderate tannin structure that will provide the wine with youthful grip and structure." That's fine. But, this statement strikes me as meaningless unless we can say WHY this should be the standard. Simply saying "This is what classic Cabernet" tastes like is really just a statement about the historical record and not WHY that style of Cabernet ought to be considered the standard.

I'm coming to the conclusion that whatever standards for quality in wine might exist, it really is just a statement of agreement among those that are educated, not a statement of anything objective.

Now, this is interesting territory, isn't it?  In the first place it means deferring to "experts" to tell us what is "quality", just as Eric Asimov suggests we should be doing. On the other hand, it provides the experts with no other justification for telling others what high quality wine looks and tastes like because it's all about preference, which is, as far as I can tell, an entirely subjective notion.

To go back to the Dog analogy, this means if you want to gain consent that your Doberman is an excellent example of high quality dobermanship, then you need the buy-in of those who, at this moment in time, have agreed that the characteristics that your Doberman possesses are the same as their preference in Dobermans. It's the same for wine. If you want consent that your wine possesses the characteristics of high quality wine, you need the buy-in of those that, together, have agreed that the characteristics that your wine possesses happen to be the same that they agree amount to quality.

However, the experts' agreement that these characteristics amount to "high quality" is not based on anything objective beyond the fact that experts agree. Furthermore, a novice with a different set of criteria for "high quality" could put those criteria forward and only be honestly contradicted by the experts with the following contention: "But I like the other style better."

This is all much like the argument that atheists and theists have: What is moral and what is immoral?

The theists will argue that if we reject God's moral code, we are simply left with "what's right and wrong is what ever you believe is right and wrong and you have nothing but your own relativistic world view to back up your moral code." On the other hand, the theists will also argue that by pointing to God's righteousness and his status as the creator of everything, the theists have substantial warrant or authority to say X is good and X is bad: God tells us so.

Now, while I would argue that the theists' reliance on God's moral code amounts to relativism of exactly the same sort that the atheist MUST admit they believe in, the theists do have something of a compelling point about having a standard for right and wrong and being able to point to an objective source for that standard: The Righteousness and Perfection of the Almighty God.

In the context of wine, the experts are God and the $2 Buck Chuck devotees are the Abyss of Relativism. The experts have a Standard. The $2 Buck Chuck Quaffers have whatever makes them feel good.

But you have to ask yourself this about the followers of God/Experts: What reasoning did they use when they decided that God/Experts were the right voice to follow?

Ignorance & Quality: The Big Wine Question

"In yet another anti-intellectual effort to take fancy-schmancy wine down a peg or two, a new book purports to demonstrate that price bears little relation to quality and that the experts don’t know what they are talking about."

This is how Eric Asimov at The Pour begins a post that I think is deliciously provocative.

The "effort" he is referring to is a new book entitled, "The Wine Trials". The book describes a set of blind tastings of wines costing between $2 and $150 undertaken by 500 experts and non experts alike. The less expensive wines are preferred or, as the author says, "hide the label and the truth comes out."

So what? We've heard this before. A tasting or study reveals that often less expensive wines beat more expensive wines in blind tastings. Asimov answers the question of "So What" this way:

"Since when is popularity an indication of quality?....I’m not arguing for snobbery, but I am arguing for standards....Look, people like what they like...But you cannot rationalize ignorance. It’s perfectly fine to be ignorant about wine. Nobody should feel obliged to know a thing about it...But ignorance is not a virtue, nor is knowledge the equivalent of being a snob. People who know something about wine have made a commitment to it, so their opinions ought to matter more."

I think Eric, as a wine writer and reviewer and wine expert, is reacting to this book and its ideas a little differently than the average person does because in essence this book is taking aim straight at him: the expert. The whole point of the wine trials is to use "experts" as a punching bag in order to make a simple statement: when it comes to wine trust your palate, not the expert.

Just as Eric has not read this book, neither have I cracked it. But even so, I think I can say this: The book  does not suggest that less expensive wines are of higher quality (as I think Eric suggests the book is saying), but rather that less expensive wines tend to be preferred. The reason I assume the book is not making this distinction is because were it to make such a distinction it would destroy the very premise of the book: that as consumers we should rely on our own palates to determine what we prefer. Surely the author would not contradict Eric Asimov's palate were he to taste a $2 wine and a $40 wine and prefer the $40 wine, would they?

But now to the heart of Eric's provocative post that you must read. It begs a very important question:

WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD BE USED AND WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE SET DOWN TO DETERMINE QUALITY?

Is it possible that what wine experts understand as "quality" is really only the possession of the knowledge of what has been preferred by experts in the past and in the present? (there is that word "preferred" again.)

What makes Ridge Montebello Cabernet better than Charles Shaw Cabernet?
What makes Dom Perignon better than Andres Sparkling Wine?

Eric suggests that those that can not recognize that the Monte Bello and the Dom are of higher quality than the 2 Buck Chuck and Andres are ignorant. To be ignorant is to be without knowledge.

What knowledge do those that prefer the less expensive wines not posses that those who prefer the more expensive do posses? It strikes me that not knowing what the experts prefer has nothing to do with any objective standard of quality, but rather with how widely the two groups have read on the subject.

So I have to ask again:

WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD BE USED AND WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE SET DOWN TO DETERMINE QUALITY?

This question can be asked by an individual about their own approach to wine criticism AND it can be asked about the wine criticism generally.  One thing is for sure, if you are going to review wine, you damn well better be able to answer this question for yourself. And if you aspire to expert status, I think you at least are obligated to answer this question in general.

Now, I happen to agree with Eric Asimov. I too believe that "standards" ought to apply to the art of wine evaluation as they should to any critical evaluation of any work of craftsmanship or art if we are going to go about comparing things and if we are going to take those comparisons seriously. I further believe the process of coming to a determination of what those standards are is another word for "education". Coming to the conclusion about standards is exactly what drives those of us who choose to contemplate wine and the culture of wine.

So, let me end with one more question: Did those folks who took part in "The Wine Trials" apply appropriate standards in, seemingly, determining that less expensive wines tasted better?

I'm A Twit!!

Am I a Twit?

God knows I've had this shingle hung around my neck by a few dismissive folks over the years.

But I've never willingly adopted the moniker. Until Now.

TOM'S NEW TWITTER FEED.

Yes, I joined twitter. I'm not quite committed to the TwitterRevolution as I'm not sure how it will increase my productivity as a blogger or quality as a blogger or the readership of my blog. Nor am I sure how it will increase the quality of the work I do for my Wark Communications clients. Both these considerations will determine if I remain a Twit.

It seems to me that one's enthusiastic adoption of Twitter into their daily lives amounts to taking the real plunge into social networking. Blogs are one thing. Scanning social networks (Open Wine Consortium) is another. But relenting to receiving tiny messages at random times from any number of of folks you choose to follow really seems like a leap to me.

I'm trying to figure out what place the following twitter message has in my daily life: "It's colder today. Sun trying to get through."

At this point, I think there might be potential to use Twitter as a way to point Fermentation readers who use twitter toward intriguing news and information that may not warrant a post at Fermentation. In addition, it might be a way to guerrilla-ize my communication work on behalf of Wark Communication clients. For example. I might send out this kind of twitter: "Mayo Winery Launches New Reserve Room Food/Wine Menu: http://www.mayofamilywinery.com/mayofamily/page/reserve_room.jsp (shortening the URL, of course)

If I take this route I'll find out somewhat quickly what type of client info is acceptable to my "followers"—that does sound nice: FOLLOWERS...Like I have some sort of torch-wielding army at my disposal.

In any case, there is an experiment underway here.

I'd love to hear from others who live in and around the on-line wine world just how useful or intrusive they've found Twitter to be.

The Internet & Giving Wine a Fighting Chance

A new website has opened its doors that reminds me just how extraordinarily empowering the Internet is.

Prior to the Internet's development it would have been impossible for a brick and mortar version of Israeli Wine Direct to survive anywhere in the United States. The focus and selection of wines at this new on-line retailer is so specific and exclusive it quite literally would have been passed by and perhaps glanced at no matter where in America it opened its doors.

On the Internet, however, it has more than a fighting chance.

Israeli Wine Direct works in a very similar way as WineMonger, Truly Fine Wine and Kermit Lynch (why Kermit Lynch is not selling on-line I do not understand). Richard Shaffer walks Israeli vineyards and wineries looking for small, undiscovered, high quality wines made in that country but which are not currently available in the U.S. The latter qualification is not hard meet since very little Israeli wine is sold in the U.S. Yet it turns out that Israeli vintners are churning out  delicious wines. Shaffer imports them, sells them at Israeli Wine Direct, but also distributes the wines in the United States.

While the current number of wines at offer at IWD won't come close to matching the number of wines offered at your local brick and mortar store, they do deliver more Israeli wines than probably any brick and mortar store anywhere has ever offered at any one time. And while the names of the vintners won't be familiar, the types of wines produced in Israel and sold at IWD will be familiar: Caberent, Pimativo, Merlot, Shiraz, Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Chardonnay, Riesling.

Israeli Wine Direct is the kind of on-line wine store that should attract at least a glance, if not an order, from all those wine lovers that fancy themselves wine explorers and who revel in the diversity of what different places and people can do with the grape.

Tales of the Obsessed

How does one measure the damage done by someone's pursuit of their obsession?

I think inevitably it is a measure of the disregard one shows toward those other parts of the obsessed one's life that suffer as a result of otherwise due amounts of attention being spent on the object of the obsession. This begs the questions, can any obsession be healthy and can an obsession really be termed that if the those other parts of one's life remains intact, functioning or happy.

I think the answers are "no" and "no".

I have to bring this up because I know a fella who is going through a divorce instigated by his soon to be ex-wife. Among her complaints is "an obsession with wine and wine collecting that has disconnected him from his family and created an undue degree of debt attached to the family's finances."

Wow!

If not directly involved, one never know the true extent of claims made in the course of a filing for a divorce.  But knowing this fella as I do, it's unlikely that the claim is untrue and it's further unlikely that he'd ever try to deny this claim.

-He maintains two off-site wine storage facilities.
-I've watched him join three winery wine clubs in a single day
-He has two credit cards devoted entirely to wine purchases
-He will not drink out of anything other than Riedel and he has a different glass for every varietal
-He's always the last person to leave a tasting
-He sold a car to pay for 2005 Bordeaux futures
-He went to Napa for last summer's vacation, while his wife took the kids to Orlando.

I don't know if this tale gives any of my readers pause. It did me.

In fact, it made me examine my own life to make sure my own interests are not in danger of becoming obsessions. I think we slide slowly from an "interest" to "obsession" often without even knowing it's happening. And I think an interest in wine can be particularly prone to becoming an obsession given the variety of wines that exist and the fascination that this variety can breed.

Lesson: If you are going to start a family, make it your only obsession.

A Cache of Wine Info Worthy of Access

I was reminded recently of an amazing resource of which we all ought to be aware.

Josh Hermsmeyer, dedicated winemaker and blogger, sent me a note letting me know that on March 28 the Sonoma County Wine Library will be hosting a talk by Steve Heimoff, author of New Classic Winemakers of California. Steve will be discussing winemaking with five of his New Classic Winemakers including Randy Ullom, Eric Cinnamon, Merry Edwards, Greg La Follette and Michael Terrien. The even will no doubt offer fantastic insight into the current state of winemaking in California.

But what I was reminded of was the Sonoma County Wine Library.

It has been a while since I thought about this wonderful resource, let alone visited the place (it is located in the Count Library in the town of Healdsburg).

These days we scour the Internet seeking the info we need on wines, winemaking, wine history, etc. But here at the Sonoma County Wine Library lies a treasure trove of fascinating historical and technical data on the wine industry.

I recently wallowed in Wine Library's on-line resources, snooping around to remind myself of the various nuggets it held. The nuggets are many.

To-date the Wine Library has not placed its contents on-line. Rather, it delivers abstracts of its contents based on searches. This is a shame. As much as I adore libraries with their rows and stacks and old paper smells, most of us look to the Internet for our research needs. What a boon to the the world it would be if rather than being able to retrieve abstracts of the Library's contents we could retrieve the actual contents and read them on-line. This of course would take a tremendous effort and gobs of time and money to accomplish. It would take an industry willing to step up with enormous amounts of funds to see the scanning begin and finish. Yet I'm convinced that such a project would be of enormous value.

Josh is the current president of the Sonoma County Wine Library. I wonder if this topic has come up in the various board meetings. Surely funding of the library is tight. But what a legacy Josh might leave if he and others led an effort to take the contents of the library and put them all on-line.

The contents of the library are somewhat eclectic. Without too much self indulgence I have to relate one find that made me laugh. In searching the Library's content on-line using as a search term the name of the first PR firm I ever worked for (Gracelyn Associates), up popped a press release I wrote in 1992 on behalf of the firm. It was a release meant to draw attention to the firm, rather than our clients. A bit of self promotion, if you will. A part of the press release showed up as a result of the search:

New study shows outcome of '92 election may rest on grapes - August 1, 1992

Preliminary results of a new study show that the quality of an election year vintage in California's vineyards may influence which party wins the White House more than economics or foreign policy. The exhaustive study, conducted by Gracelyn & Burns over a two-hour period, shows that in years when California experiences a good to outstanding harvest, Republicans tend to take the White House. In average to poor election-year vintages, Democrats are more likely to head the executive branch. "This revelation is startling," said Gracelyn Guyol, founding partner of Gracelyn & Burns, a food and wine public relations agency based in Northern California's premium wine country. "This changes the entire dynamic and meaning of politics in America. Politicians should be watching the grapes instead of the polls as the election draws near."

I hadn't thought about this press release in years. It got tremendous pick up in the media, including the Wall Street Journal. I remember suggesting we do this tongue in cheek press release to Gracelyn, the owner of the firm and thinking she'd say no on the spot. She laughed and said, "Let's Do It!" There is much much more than just old press releases in the Sonoma County Wine Library's contents. Here is a wonderful story on what one might find there. The content deserves to be made accessible. Perhaps one day.

The Persuasive Writing Skills of Children

My daughter recently had to take a writing test mandated by the state. The format of this particular test was to have the kids write a "persuasive letter". The topic, which the kids could take either side of, was "Should schools add an additional two weeks to the annual school schedule?"

I thought it outstanding that persuasive writing skills of the 7th graders were tested simply because good persuasive writing might be the most important type of writing a child should learn to do well. It is a skill that will be used their entire life.

Paul Chartrand, a former Maine State Legislator and now wine importer, has certainly put the talent of persuasive writing to good use in a letter to the Kennebec Journal Morning  Sentinel that argues against the pending Direct Wine Sales legislation in that state. What Mr. Chartrand's letter demonstrates is that good persuasive writing combined with a disregard for the truth can often make a poor argument appear much better than it is.

From Mr. Chartrand's letter:

"For a small state, Maine already has an incredible choice of wines and beers available to customers through our wholesale and retail distribution....Can a Maine retail customer buy every single wine available in the United States?

No. Why?

Wineries not selling in Maine have chosen to bypass the state in their nationwide distribution plans in order to avoid the time and cost involved, while focusing their resources on larger markets. They could pay Maine license fees, register their products and develop distribution, but they refuse to undertake that task."

There's nothing about this part of the letter that is untrue. In fact, Mr. Chartrand's description of why many wineries choose not to distribute wine in Maine is dead on. But what's brilliant about this short description of the circumstance that result in many wines remaining unavailable to Maine consumers is the subtle insinuation that the wineries that choose not to distribute their wine in Maine are just lazy. They just don't want to go through the process. But here's where Mr. Chartrand's writing skills are on display. He wisely fails to note that it's not simply a matter of "registering" one's wines and a simple task to "develop distribution." Rather, a wholesaler in Maine must agree to distribute your a wine before the winery can enter the state. As in most other states, the only wines that are distributed in Maine are the one's that are chosen by distributors, making Maine, like most others, a state whose selection of wines are determined by a very tiny group of folks who have no contact with consumers and usually have no interest in distributing a wines that are made in very small supply.

Then Mr. Chartrand goes on to use a writing technique I like to call, "Inserting and twisting".

"Instead they [wineries, presumably] whine, pressuring Maine customers and government for an easy way into the state, avoiding the work and fees the rest of us pay to sell here. Rather than admitting Maine customers are not so important to them, these wineries cleverly blame big government."

Wow! That's good writing!! Wineries are whiners who don't care about Maine wine lovers. Why? Because they want the right to obtain a permit to sell wine directly to Maine residents without going through a distributor. I know, the underlying reasoning is loopy in the extreme, but you have to appreciate the deftness with which the knife was inserted and twisted. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chartrand is on his way to arguing that the conditions under which Maine residents obtain wine ought to remain as complicated as possible and as expensive as possible for wineries. Why? Well, because, of course. Note there is no reason offered here why Maine residents ought to be prohibited from obtaining wines distributors don't offer other than the implication that making wine difficult to get into the hands of Maine residents is the way it is and the way it should be.

But now watch this flawless turn in the argument:

"My company spends thousands of dollars and hours every year for the privilege of legally selling our wines in 25 states, including Maine. No question about it, alcohol sales requirements are expensive and burdensome. The United States and Maine have antiquated systems. But it won't be fair unless it changes for everyone. All I, and other Maine wine dealers, ask is a level playing field."

Wow!!! In five short sentences Mr. Chartrand has admitted that Maine's laws are burdensome and antiquated and inefficient, while implying that there ought to be some sort of national standard set to level the playing field for wine sales and distribution...all after he just got finished defending a patently unfair system of wine distribution. And in addition, he makes the brilliant move of ginning up sympathy for his own plight. And again, Mr. Chartrand makes the strategically proper decision not to mention that under the legislation now being considered, Maine's laws would offer a level playing field for those that want to go through a distributor or those that want to sell direct to consumers. IMPORTANT RULE OF PERSUASIVE WRITING: AVOID THE TRUTH AND EVEN SUGGEST THE OPPOSITE IF DOING OTHERWISE WILL HURT YOUR ARGUMENT.

Chartrand finishes with flourish:

"If the newspaper wishes Maine government to subsidize distant wineries while Maine business suffers, so be it. It does not surprise me that your last letter on this came from Kennewick, Wash., home to many such "whine-eries.

In a year of budget deficits, I vote for continuing to collect all fees that Maine can collect from alcohol sales."

Once again, Chartrand does not mention that all sales of wines direct to Maine customers from out-of-state shippers would be taxed [see rule above] or that the wines that would be shipped are most likely those that are not distributed in the state, can't be found in the state and would not lead to any cannibalization of sales at Maine retail stores. Another good move in this persuasive letter.

But then comes the flourish: "Whine-eries". Wow!!! Not bad. Chartrand has turned those Maine wineries, who under this legislation would be allowed to finally ship direct to Maine residents, into nothing but whiners.

The cynical would simply call this projection on the part of Chartrand, who I suspect simply can't abide the notion of fair competition. But you have to admit, it's a bold rhetorical move.

I'm going to show this letter to my daughter as an example of what can be created when really, really good persuasive writing is combined with a disregard for truth .

It's (frog's) LEAP DAY!!!

Today is really a bonus, isn't it? I mean, is today an extra day? Are we living on granted time today it being Leap Day and all? I really can't figure it out. From what I understand, today—FEB 29—is added to the calender because we, as a people, choose to use poor mathematics in mapping out our calender. Today is like that little "R2" that that 1st graders use when learning division: Today accounts for the "remainder minutes" that are left over during the past 4 years.

Nevertheless and despite all that, It seem appropriate on this day to honor one of the cooler wineries in Northern California: FROG's LEAP.

There are a TON of things to like about Napa Valley's Frog's Leap besides their having the best label in the American wine industry. Among them:

1. Their wines are so well priced it's as though they never noticed that it's not 1990 any more.

2. They make an astoundingly good Rose.

3. Owner John Williams has presided over the creation of what might be the "greenest" winery in Napa Valley.

4. They are such die hard Giants fans they actually put the opening day on their events page on the web.

5. All their grapes are grown organically. I don't know if this accounts for the quality of their wines, but I do know it means they must pay much greater attention to the vineyard. That's a good thing.

In some respects Frog's Leap Winery is "old school" in that it has been around for over 25 years. So many wineries today are the toast of the town in part because they are new which means wineries like Frog's Leap don't get the attention they deserve. But today is there day. Today is Leap Day. In the wine business it really should be known as (Frog's) LEAP DAY.

Go visit their website. Buy a killer bottle of wine and celebrate this extra 24 hours you have been given by the time-keeping powers that be.

It's Time We Joined Together—The Open Wine Consortium

It is most often the case that single individuals are the cause of change or the inspiration for change in (and the evolution of) the wine industry. This is not unique to the wine business.

However, it must also be noted that associations, organizations and, yes, CONSORTIUMS can and have pushed issues forward, and caused significant change in this industry. The California Wine Institute, Family Winemakers of California, Wine America, AWARE (for those of you who remember this group), Specialty Wine Retailers Association, Coalition for Free Trade and Free the Grapes all represent groups that bring together like-thinking people to pursue change and have been successful in their efforts.

There is a new organization that is in its infancy, but which I believe possesses the potential to also bring significant change to the wine industry.

THE OPEN WINE CONSORTIUM is bringing together folks who embrace the change that technology in particular has wrought within the wine business and that it will continue to bring. As with all significant changes, these tech-driven changes in the wine industry has caused something of a fragmentation among those who both embrace the change and those who have at best only dabbled with the possibilities that new technologies can bring to sales, communications, publishing, and marketing in the wine business.

The OPEN WINE CONSORTIUM aspires to be the group that funnels disparate interests and technologies and people into a more cohesive and activist agent that can consolidate the changes and technologies into tools we all can use and understand to make winemaking, wine consuming and the wine business more efficient and vital.

IF YOU ARE IN OR ALONGSIDE THE WINE BUSINESS, IF YOU USE NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO COMMUNICATE, SELL, MARKET OR PRODUCE WINE, IF YOU HAVE NOTICED THAT THE WINE INDUSTRY AND THE CONSUMERS IT SERVES ARE DABBLING IN SIGNIFICANT, TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN TOOLS....

    ...THEN YOU SHOULD JOIN THE OPEN WINE CONSORTIUM.

Traditionally, organizations have embraced bureaucracy. The Open Wine Consortium will also, insofar as there will have to be directors, boards, committees and working groups to drive its initiatives. But understand too that just as the technology that drove this new Consortium into existence is in fact propelled by a 21st century notion of openness, so too will the Open Wine Consortium take on its chosen challenges with a philosophy of openness that is supported by the new technologies it hopes to harness for all to use and help further change the wine industry.

If this organization is successful, what we'll find are the traditional, more established elements of the wine industry—its associations, symposiums, businesses, conferences and people—adopting and approaching new technologies and new ways of thinking that will lead to more intimate ties between producer and consumers, quicker integration of open standards for data configuration, quicker embrace of the newly minted and tech driven wine companies and a wine industry more willing to embrace the changes that the broader culture has already dove into face first.

JOIN THE OPEN WINE CONSORTIUM

I'm Choosing to Torture the Kids...It's Only Fair.

It's a fair rule I think that on your birthday you get to do whatever you want...within reason and mostly within the law.

With that in mind, I'm choosing to torture my kids today.

No, I'm not going to force booze and wine down their throats. I'm going for the next best thing:

I'm dragging them to a Jazz Club in San Francisco. They could think of other things to do. But, they know the rules about birthdays.

There I'll pour booze and wine down my own throat and the kids will satisfy the two drink minimum via Shirley Temples, Roy Rodgers or whatever else the kids are drinking these days. But the best part is the great fun I'll have hanging with the wonderful wife and exposing the kids for the first time to the transporting and sublime nature of a real night club (sans smoke) where real jazz  is played.

While I can imagine there might be a few folks out there who take as kindly to this idea as some of them did to the idea of exposing my children to small sips of wine at a young age, I really can't imagine what would provoke me to care about this particular brand of NannyPrude.

That said, here's the plan. The wife has something planned for late in the afternoon that involves loading us all up in the car and heading south to San Francisco. That's followed by an outrageously good dinner at a fine SF steak house where I will closely study what is likely to be a 25 page wine list filled with esoterica and wines ranging in age from 3 to 30 and beyond. But first, it's important to start off with a Manhattan straight up. After all, a certain civilized approach is necessary before the gorging, isn't it?

I'll instruct the waiter not to trim any fat off my steak since that glint of fat attached to the scorched medium rare flesh is really what makes it all worth while. The creamed spinach will come in a fine, silver serving tray (is there a better way to expose kids to the joys of spinach?).

And I'll get to down my Manhattan, imbibe my fat-lined steak, indulge in the best (the only?) way spinach can be prepared, savor my old wine and watch my family carry out their purpose in life: make me smile.

Then it's off to Pearls to see the Collective West Jazz Band and spend an hour or so trying to explain to Trey and Hayley the difference between "Big Band", "Be Bop" and "West Coast Cool" and why jazz always sounds different and better in a club than on an iPod.

I'm not sure it's an altogether good thing to allow your kids to see you so fully pamper yourself. But their presence is necessary in this case. Ginny is used to and quite good and encouraging me, so I'm covered their.

Surprises. Manhattans. Great Wine. Fat-lined and marbled steak. A platter of creamed spinach. Jazz. More wine. Kids. Wife. Yep. Must be my birthday.

All Is Good In The World

Roger Clemons is testifying in front of Congress on steroids use in baseball.

Barry Bonds is effectively out of baseball.

My beloved San Francisco Giants are predicted to come in last place.

But none of that matters...

PITCHERS REPORT TO SPRING TRAINING TODAY!!!

All is good in the world.

Just as the coming of spring is the moment when hope takes over for vineyard owners who see a new growing season rapidly approaching, so too is the opening of  baseball's spring training camps the time when I imagine that for the first time in my life my San Francisco Giants just might win the world series...for the first time in my lifetime.

I can't even begin to imagine the appropriate wine to open were such an event to take place. I suspect there really isn't a wine that could be opened that actually conveys the importance that moment would have.

Sweet Victory At Last...suggests a Yquem. But even the sweet golden brown glare off an older d'Yquem would be a pale offering to the baseball Gods.

Vindication After The 54 Year Wait...suggests a 1954 First Growth: Perhaps the luck it would take finding a 1954 First Growth that is drinkable would be appropriate given the luck it will take for the Giants to win the world Series this year.

Ah...it doesn't matter. I'll hope in spite of the fact no wine could do the trick in the event my dream comes true. My thirst for a Giants World Series victory can only be quenched by seeing my team receive that coveted trophy. And even if they fail (again) this year to make my dreams come true, I nonetheless can dream, just as the hopeful wine growers start to do this time of year.

All is good.

Herbie Hancock and the $15.99 Cabernet

Ever been part of one of those jaw dropping wine moments when in the course of a single blind tasting of what are considered really top notch Pinots or Chards or Bordeaux, the night's top wines are revealed and it's the ringer, the $15.99 bottle of wine, that actually takes first place among the tasters?

I just love those moments. I don't know what they mean, but I do love them so for the sheer entertainment value. The best part, of course, is the post revelation explanations when all those involved look down at their score sheets and confirm that, "yep, I liked it better than the $120 El Magnifico...but I have to admit, I ate a lot of that blue cheese before tasting it and also It came after that blockbuster, and I've had a cold lately, and my electro-lights are out of balance and, and, and, and..."

Well, we had just such a moment last night at the Grammy Awards when Herbie Hancock walked away with Album of The Year. Let me say that again...HERBIE HANCOCK? walked away with Album of the Year—beating out Kanye West’s "Graduation" and Amy Winehouse’s "Back to Black".

This is the equivalent of The Fruit Bomb Association choosing a 12.5% alcohol, "elegant" Cabernet from British Columbia over the 15.1% molasses monster from Napa Valley in a blind tasting.

For what it's worth, I enjoy Hancock when he does his straightforward jazz, rather than his various attempts to cross over into Pop. This recording however, while straying into pop by virtue of its Joni Mitchell subject matter, is nonetheless brilliant interpretive jazz. Contemplative, appreciative, smoky, vocal and sincere.

Download or buy this recording and listen to it with a nice $15.99, low alcohol, elegant Cabernet.

Drink No Wine Before IT'S Time

There's a certain ritual that seems have played out somewhat consistently over the course of my adult life that began during my college years and continues to this day: The good friend arriving relatively late in the evening at your home for a stay and the subsequent (and immediate) kitchen table sit-down right then and there upon their arrival to catch up before any sleep is had.

It's not as though the immediate sit-down couldn't wait until the morning when the guest is refreshed. It could. But the combination of instinctual hospitality as well as the joy in seeing them prevents you from waiting. It must happen now. There is something very intimate about catching up with that old friend who knows so much about you and whom you've not laid eyes on for some time, sitting in front of you late at night when everything is quiet and dark.

For the last 20 years that ritual has almost always been accompanied by the cracking open of wine. And almost always the guest likes wine and knows I am in the wine industry. That means they have expectations that the wine they will drink in your presence will be something better than they are used to consuming. When it's 11pm and a good friend who you love is in the house, you don't want to let them down.

Last night a very dear friend of Ginny's (Terry) arrived and set this ritual in motion. While one of the greatest problems with wine is that there is just too damn much of it that it can be confusing for the average sipper, that diversity is also what gives us who have wine on the brain one of our greatest pleasures: trying to pick just the right wine for a specific occasion.

The point, which I'm slowly getting too, is that those of us with a wine-infused brain can turn almost any set of events into an occasion that calls for just the right wine.

-Finally finished setting up that brand new 52 inch flat screen TV? This calls for a BIG California Chard.

-Your child finally took their first steps? Where's the Prosecco?

-Finished that report for the new CFO? Then it's time to crack open that German Riesling you've been chilling

-The SF Giants finally win the World Series? Then it's time to....Oh, there is no wine that could be drunk to truly celebrate such a turn of events.

This of course begs the question, did Orson Wells mean that he shall "Drink no wine before ITS time" or that he shall "Drink no Wine before IT'S time".

The ultimate point here is that this choosing of just the right wine to drink for a specific occasion is one more way wine lovers turn their obsession into a cerebral endeavor, which I argue wine drinking is for anyone who believes there is such a thing as the right wine for the right time.

I choose Old Vine Russian River Valley Zinfandel from the 2002 vintage. Not only was it fat and juice and peppery, it had the added benefit of being a sleep aid with its 16% alcohol content.

Wynton Marsalis & The Traditions of Wine

It occurred to me as I watched Wynton Marsalis' Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra offer a musical history of Duke Ellington's ballads that there is a distinct lack of exploration into wine's history and traditions here in America. Is this because there is no interest in such a thing, because there is no money in it or because there is very little tradition and history of American winemaking to warrant the effort?

Marsalis will certainly go down as one of this era's most important and most accomplished jazz musicians. But when his story is told, it will be his devotion to educating the masses on Jazz history and the traditions of jazz that mark him as among the most generous jazz musicians that ever lived. Marsalis brings a 14 piece orchestra across the country. Though the leader of this remarkable group, Marsalis is in no way the focal point of the group. Instead, he generously gives the spotlight to all the other members. More importantly, between each piece, Marsalis delivers short tales about the song just played and the next on the docket, providing the audience with something of an historical context for the evening's playbook. It is a wonderful experience for anyone with a curiosity about jazz traditions and history.

Does anyone care about the history and traditions of American wine?

Is anyone inclined to make a career, or even a practice, of celebrating the traditions and history of American wine? We have Copia in Napa Valley, but this not so much an organized effort to communicate the history of American wine as it is a celebration of culinary pursuits in general.

What might a celebration of American wine and its traditions look like? What could possibly be said?

-There is a distinct ethnic character to the history of wine in America that tells the story of what was brought to America with the Italian, German, French, English and Portuguese immigrants. In fact, some have pointed out that the various field blends planted throughout California can be separated out by the ethnicity of those who planted them; that is to say,  an Italian field blend would be different than a German field blend

-Social policy in America clearly could be explored through wine by looking at the response to Prohibition by winemakers across the country.

-The westward movement could be explored by looking at how vineyards moved across the country

-There are of course a number of individuals helped move forward the wine industry in America who are fascinating folks.

It's not as though there is nothing of substance and interest to look at when considering the history and traditions of American wine. I simply suspect there is no interest in making this effort by those that could do it well and little interest to boot by Americans in general in learning about the history and traditions of wine. There is, in short, no call for an evangelist for American wine.

This will change. But I think it will be a couple decades before there is room in American's minds and the kind of market to support an effort to educate and celebrate. I'm hoping I'm around to see this turn of events.

Provoking The Future of Wine Journalism

Of late (say the last 3 to 5 years) I noted something of slight detour in wine journalism. Rather than a dedication among wine journalists toward praising and congratulating wines as a rule, there is a slight move toward the secular and cynical when it comes to wine. But it's ever so slight and that's because among those who read most of the wine writings, there is not that much call for peering behind the color and taste of the wine.

Nevertheless, has anyone noticed the willingness among serious wine writers to question and closely consider what goes on in the world of wine and in the glass? We've always had those who place wine in a social and political context...at least one or two of them who write for a small audience. But today it seems more are willing to look at wine this way.

I'm not talking about reporting on scandal and society's underbelly, which often leaves me feeling a tad soiled upon reading this kind of story. I'm thinking about critiques of governing wine styles, open questioning of the critic's role in wine, the various business stories that count up the beans and the close investigations (usually in book form) of the "wine culture".

You don't write stories about  how a product is understood by people, critics and business unless unless that product has come to matter. Where that threshold is for how much a product or industry must matter to the public at large lies, I'm not sure. However, I do know we've crossed it when it comes to wine.

The Internet, with its blogs and chat rooms, will tend to cross that threshold more willingly than the traditional wine media if only because its members have less at stake and more concern to jump up and down shouting, "look at me!". In the last two weeks a variety of wine business stories broke out of the Internet and hit the traditional media. And in the recent past we've seen stories on how the character of wines have changed, why they should change back and what the international and globalist implications of wine might be.

I think the trend among the traditional wine media and the non-wine media is to continue to look for stories that have broader implications than just how a wine might be sumptuous or great to pair with lasagna, though this kind of writing will always rule the day.

I wonder if wineries have noticed this trend? And I wonder if their marketing and PR shops have noticed it too. If they haven't then there is the risk of acting as though no one is watching or as if very little matters to the public and media beyond what their wines taste like. That would be a mistake. But here's where the action and reaction comes in. We most certainly will see wine companies get into some tepid water now and again in the media. That will lead to wine companies being a bit more careful in how they act and speak. This will lead to the media peering in more closely. This will lead to even more searching journalism. This will lead to even more careful explanations by wineries of their company line.

This...in turn...offers opportunities to the winery that wants to gain attention by speaking honestly, forthrightly and provocatively...because it seems to me that wine writers, traditional and not-so-traditional are more frequently looking for "provocative."

Terroir's Reign

"While wandering the aisles of a Lithuanian supermarket recently..."

If you aren't willing to at least investigate a wine blog that begins a post like this then you really shouldn't be in the business of open minded wine inquiry.

It has been a while since I recommended a new wine blog. But Reign of Terroir, written by three highly educated wine lovers and educators, is well worth a recommendation if only for the intellectually rigor and thoughtfulness they put into their posts.

To-date, those posts are not many. ROT was begun late last years so it's just notw gaining speed. An early post identifies their purpose with the blog: "we will provide a wide variety of commentary on all things vinous. From International Terroirs and Travel to local Vineyards and Wineries, from Tasting Notes to Restaurant and Book Reviews, and much more, we will do our best to provide sober and useful information on the World of Wine."

And so they do. In fact the writers of this wine blog range widely in their interest. I was personally and finally taken with the blog upon reading a fairly long post about the royal history of the Bordeaux region that went on for five very long paragraph before wine or vines was ever mentioned. What impressed me was, as always, really good, entertaining context.

Reign of Terroir also includes a recent post on what is one of my favorite topics to consider on many levels: Terroir. This post, which includes in its title the mind whetting "Part 1", explores the various ways the idea of Terroir has been defined. Not an uncommon topic, but in the hands of a Reign of Terroir writer we find very insightful offerings and the lure of more to come. Outstanding.

Of course as I'm want to be, I find myself disappointed that more is not being written at ROT. It's the 16th of January and but 4 posts have been posted this year. That's not enough to satisfy me and my curiosity with this blog. Perhaps they'll step it up.

That said, I very much like this new wine blog. It has an intellectual rigor to it that is not common enough on blogs, yet each of the three contributors also writes with great style. The subjects of the posts are varied, yet always brought back to the point: what can we know and how can we better enjoy wine.

The Paradigm of Wine

I love reading predictions, particularly those that come at the beginning of the year. They usually are very good recaps of those trends that flew just below the radar the year before. Laurie Daniel of the San Jose Mercury news has a nice set of predictions for the wine industry in 2008. They amount to higher prices on imports due to the weak dollar, the "greening" of the wine industry and more transparency in wine packaging and the emergence of wine from obscure places. It's a very read.

But reading it, I began to notice that Laurie did not make note of any significant structural changes to the wine industry. By that I mean changes that change the way we interact with wine, the way we sell wine and the way the wine industry actually functions.

This shouldn't be a surprise since paradigm shifts in any industry or discipline are rare to say the least. Also, they tend to happen slowly, gradually coming into being. But have you ever wondered just what kind paradigm shift could arrive in the world of wine that would result in a structural change?

This is a pretty straightforward industry. Grow a crop, process it, market it, get it to market and sell it. This basic format has been with us for centuries. And it won't ever change. What changes and what brings around apparent paradigm shifts are revolutions, technological or attitudinal, in the way we approach this very straightforward industry.

Are any such changes coming or are we in the midst of any now?

Growing Grapes: To date it appears that photosynthesis still rules the day. I don't see any paradigm shifts in the works. Organic grape growing is not a shift. If anything it is retro in nature.

Making Wine: Again, fermentation is still king here. Technology simply allow us more precise control of the process. The recent emphasis on BIG wines isn't so much a paradigm shift but a reminder that the winemaker has control over the process in a way they did not in the past.

Marketing Wine: Despite the different ways we now have for marketing wine (meaning, how we communicate with those who will buy it) it always comes down to the same thing: "Hey, buy this...It's really great!!".  Explaining why the wine is great is where the creativity comes in. But I suspect the English Port barons who brought the wines into England centuries ago at some point turned to their customers and said the same thing: "Hey, but this. It's really great!!".

Getting Wine To Market: Here's the paradigm shift. The combination of common carriers and Internet sales is changing everything. The laws still need to catch up with the technological capability and the desires of the customers. They'll catch up. There's just too much to be gained by all concerned for them not to. This paradigm shift is a blow to the state mandated three tier system, but it's not a blow to the general system of using wholesalers, who will always be needed to bring wines to market.

I was talking to a colleague about this subject and they suggested that I hadn't given consideration to one possible paradigm changed: The retirement of Robert Parker, Jr. Would the elimination of the Wine Advocate really bring about a radical shift in the wine industry? I don't think less wine would be purchased. Nor do I think marketers and consumers would stop relying so much on reviews and scores...they'd get them from others. What would change, I think, is that certain wineries could not depend on Robert Parker to be their marketing and PR agent. But that's no paradigm change. Wineries go through PR firms and marketing agents pretty quickly the way it is.

The Art of New Year's Eve Excess

The Art of Drinking on New Years Eve

First let's begin from the premise that New Year's Eve is, or at least has become, an accepted excuse to indulge.

Now, let's change the traditional understanding of the idea of "indulging" from meaning excessive consumption of drink and make it mean excessive consumption of good drink.

This change is meaning is important because it's necessary to justify opening absurd amounts of very good wines and spirits and also assumes a certain degree of soberness. The soberness is important under this understanding of excessive because without out a certain degree of soberness we can neither appreciate nor think about the absurd amounts of good wine and spirit that we will be consuming.

THE COCKTAIL
So, first things first: The Cocktail. Every good evening begins with a fine cocktail, well prepared. The proper cocktail, I think, must be a Manhattan. While Maker's Mark is a great everyday bourbon for Manhatta