Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog

Making the Best of Appellations

The assumption of the American Viticultural Area (appellation) program is that there is something unique about those areas that are granted AVA status—that there is something about Oakville, Anderson Valley, Finger Lakes and Green Valley that make them distinct.

However, the subtext of this quasi-appellation program administered by the federal government and completely embraced by the American wine industry is that the wines the emerge from specifically designated American Viticultural Areas are themselves unique because they somehow contain identifiable characteristics that can be traced to the uniqueness of the AVAs in which the grapes were grown.

This is the assumption that Appellation America has always embraced and promoted in its fantastic journalistic efforts and its the proposition that it hopes to bring real clarity to with its recently announced "Best of Appellation Evaluation Program".

As described, the Best of Appellation Evaluation Program "obliges the [program's] assessors to systematically evaluate the wines, individually and collectively, for place characteristics."

Appellation America's publisher, Roger Dial, goes on to explain, "In the days, months, and years going forward we will be doing what our readers continually ask us to do. We’re going to look at every appellation in North America, building an on-going, ever-developing picture of the mosaic of regional character and diversity that we hope will enrich our wine culture."

This is a monumental task that strikes me as being the kind of effort that will bring as much criticism as it does praise. However, the praise will be deserved and the criticism will simply be sour grapes.

What happens when the regional characteristics of Oakville Merlot are defined in a way that identifies one famous Oakville producer's Merlot as uncharacteristic of the  appellation? This won't make the Oakville Merlot producer very happy. But I think this unhappiness is a natural result of winemaking philosophies that treasure style over regional characteristics. Now, I don't want to suggest that focusing on producing a specific style of wine rather than achieving regional reflection is a bad thing. It's just a thing. It's just not a very interesting thing.

Others have previously used the evaluation processes to focus on regional characteristics. For example, Dan Berger, who runs the respected Riverside International Wine Competition, recently announced that Anderson Valley's Navarro Vineyards won that competition's Terroir Award trophy, given to the winery that displays the best regional character in its wine. It should be no surprise that Appellation America sponsors this trophy.

Down the road, if Appellation America is successful, I expect we'll be able to go to their website and read something along these lines: "Carneros Syrah is a wine that typically displays X,Y and Z aromas with flavors of A, B, and C. These characteristics are best found in the Syrahs of X Vineyard, Y Cellars and Z Estate."

I, for one, hope they succeed in their quest. I'm not positive it will lead to more interest in wine or greater sales of wine or more exploration of different wines from America's many AVA's. But I am positive that it will make the wine world much more interesting.

The Van Morrison Theory of Wine

Having reconciled myself to the idea that there is no such thing as an objective criteria for quality in any category of wine, I began deliberating on what I think we all must do to bring reason to our palate and preferences; to put our preferential house in order, so to speak.

What I began looking for were other artistic (yes, artistic) creations that might serve as a model for my personal beliefs about wine quality. What I was looking for were expressions in other art forms that, for lack of a better word, "touched" me in a way that was inescapably real and visceral. Upon experiencing this unique sort of touch, I then asked myself what it was about the work of art that was able to move me...move me to tears, joy, elation, contemplation. If I could identify what it was that moved me through another art form, I just might have a model for describing what, for me, represents quality.

I found my model, and it wasn't too hard to find: Van Morrison.

Listening all the way through Morrison's "Moondance", "Astral Weeks" and "Hymns To Silence" albums touch me deeply, and they do so every time I listen to them. Absorbing Morrison's eloquent "Rave on John Donne", "Into the Mystic", "Crazy Love", and "On Hyndford Street" always stop me in my tracks.

So what is it about this music and artist that is so arresting for me personally? Authenticity. The authenticity of the sound of Van Morrison, the authenticity of the expressions in the works, the authentic input of unadulterated instrumentation carried out by the hands of man, rather that the 1's and 0's of computer-generated sound. There is Affinity to deal with here too. The connection that Morrison's music makes with me has a great deal to do with the substance of his message and feeling, most of which I clearly have an affinity.

Can a wine touch me in the same way? I don't know. I don't think so. But I do know that the qualities that I find in Van Morrison's music can be found in wine and I'm sure that when I see or taste their expression I'll know that I've come across my version of "high quality" wine.

It's important to begin here with the acknowledgment that there is a real similarity between great wine and great music. There can be no mistaking Van Morrison. No one else sounds like him. He has, as it were, a "house style", a sound that identifies him just as a great winery will also have a voice that comes through in all its wines. Perhaps its a deft touch. Perhaps it's a rustic-ness or a purity of flavor that runs across its wines.

Yet while always being unmistakably "Morrison", the man has investigated and experimented with many different genre of music from R&B and Rock n Roll to Country and Jazz. Wineries too do just this as they work with different varieties of grapes. The resulting wines will carry the voice of the winery, but the character of the grape will also come shining through.

Finally, in listening through Morrison's more than thirty years worth of recordings it's quite clear that the personal changes, tragedies, failure and victories that make up his life are communicated in his various musical stages, be they immensely spiritual in nature, Christian in substance, bound to his Irish homeland or born of his aging voice. Wineries too must reflect the changes they are confronted with and, like Morrison, seemingly unable to direct in the form of vintage variation. The winery will always have a voice and will certainly experiment with different varieties, but they too will be subject to the untamable variation in vintage.

So, we have a solid connection and similarity between music and wine that allows me to use the music model to understand and define my notion of "great wine".

Can then, a wine be, above all, "authentic"? Most certainly it can. A wine can be a representation of a place and people. It can in its origin and treatment be authentically OF a real place. And it can authentically represent the voice and interpretation of a winemaker or winery without losing that authenticity of place. That is to say, aging a wine in oak or whole cluster pressing the grapes or use of particular yeasts that are not native can all be expressions of a winemaker's unique touch or voice, and all the while not necessarily extract what the place from which the grapes came brought to the wine.

I think I need to admit that just as I have developed a certain intimacy with the music and message of Van Morrison, I'd need to develop an intimate relationship or understanding with the winery and its wines' 'places" to be able to say, "Ah, this is authentic". And this of course brings us back the fundamental truth that leads to this uncomfortably long  and indulgent post: that there is no such thing as objective criteria for greatness in wine, but rather only the comfort that comes with familiarity and affinity that lets each of us define greatness.

There is one more final question that all the above begs: Who's familiar experiences and affinities will define your criteria for greatness?

A Selection of Lyrics from Van Morrison's
"RAVE ON JOHN DONNE" From the "Inarticulate Speech of the Heart" Album

Rave on, you left us infinity
And well pressed pages torn to fade
Drive on with wild abandon
Up tempo, frenzied heels

Rave on, Walt Whitman, nose down in wet grass
Rave on fill the senses
On nature's bright green shady path

Rave on Omar Khayyam, Rave on Kahlil Gibran
Oh, what sweet wine we drinketh
The celebration will be held
We will partake the wine and break the Holy bread

Rave on let a man come out of Ireland
Rave on on Mr. Yeats,
Rave on down through the Holy Rosey Cross
Rave on down through theosophy, and the Golden Dawn
Rave on through the writing of "A Vision"
Rave on, Rave on, Rave on, Rave on, Rave on, Rave on

Rave on John Donne, rave on thy Holy fool
Down through the weeks of ages
In the moss borne dark dank pools

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.

The Best New Wine Writing Talent Is Found On Blogs

Those of us who are regularly looking for evidence that the online world of wine is able to reach into the physical or non digitized world of wine need examples to that effect. We have a new one.

Gary Vaynerchuk of Wine Library TV has been published...ON PAPER.

The publisher is Rodale and the book, "Gary Vaynerchuk's 101 Wines: Guaranteed to Inspire, Delight, and Bring Thunder to Your World", I schedule for release on May 13. This is good news for the online wine publishers such as bloggers because it helps legitimize this medium and it gives other publishers a little more confidence in looking into our world for other voice that might deserve a wider audience.

Gary is not the first blogger to see his work published. Tyler Colman (AKA Dr. Vino) will see published later this year, "Wine Politics: How Governments, Environmentalists, Mobsters, and Critics Influence the Wines We Drink" and "A Year of Wine: Perfect Pairings, Great Buys and What to Sip for Each Season."

I can't stress how important this kind of move from the blogging world to the world of print is for the rest of us who blog and who believe that being settled in the blogosphere means living with the appearance that our work is less credible. Despite the explosion of blogs and their impact on consumers, politics and our information intake, ink on paper still represents something more credible...even more important.

I can almost guarantee that there will be more such moves. But it will come slowly. Nonetheless it will happen that writers once tied to their wine blogs will find themselves published on paper.

The best new talent in the wine writing genre today exists in the blogosphere.

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?

Confessions of Self-Damaged, Ego-Centric Whore

Two sets of unsolicited wine samples showed up at my door yesterday. (Thank you, both!) They will get drunk, but they won't get reviewed here at FERMENTATION.

I was looking back over some earlier posts of mine and one in which I offer some resolutions for a coming year noted my desire to find someone competent to review wines at Fermentation. I think when I wrote that I must have been thinking that this lack of wine reviews at Fermentation was holding back my blog from a larger readership.

I guess this desire wasn't as strong as I thought it might be because I've never seriously looked for anyone to  review wines here. And I'm not going to begin either.

Why not post wine reviews at this blog? There are many good reasons for this:

1. Because I find bad reviews of wines more interesting I'd end up writing more of those. This is not good for my business. Wark Communications can do a very good job representing wineries that produce wines that don't appeal to me. But it's unlikely that wineries that know in advance their wines don't appeal to me will want me to represent them. I think that makes me one step down from a whore.

2. I have an extraordinarily prejudiced palate that narrows far too much the scope of wines that appeal to me.

3. I can't review wines nearly as well as 30% or so of the folks already doing so on the net nor as well as 50% of the reviewers that have gigs with wine magazines and newsletters. Who wants to sit in the 2nd and 3rd quartile of anything?

4. I think I've diminished my palate over the years through too many cigars and cigarettes.

What this all boils down to is that I don't review wines at FERMENTATION because I'm a self-damaged, ego-centric whore with a hint of integrity.

It also means that wineries should save their samples for wine bloggers that are better suited to reviewing wines.

New Wine Magazine Arrives

I'm constantly watching for the emergence of new wine-related media. In particular I'm partial to publications that don't cater to the average wine drinker, but rather try to fill that smaller niche of sophisticated wine folks. Basically I'm greedy.

Such a publication has emerged and based on the first issue I recommend it highly.

The Sommelier Journal is new and focuses most of its attention of publishing for sommeliers and wine professionals. Yet, any one with a higher level of wine knowledge will appreciate the magazine. The editor of Sommelier Journal is David Vogels, and experienced publisher in other markets but who for years has had a very keen interest in wine. As he describes below in this interview, David came to the conclusion that  restaurant wine professionals in particular were a group that might benefit most from a niche publication aimed at them. The Sommelier Journal was born.

Below is an interview I conducted with David via e-mail.

TOM: Sommelier Journal seems to be aimed directly at wine professionals in restaurants and other members of the wine industry. Given this focus, how is the content of SJ different than what might be found in the Wine Spectator, Wine & Spirits Magazine or another consumer oriented wine publications

DAVID: You're correct that we consider Sommelier Journal's primary audience to be industry professionals. With that in mind, we assume a higher level of wine knowledge among our readers than would be assumed by a consumer magazine. I tell our writers to imagine that they're addressing a sommelier who might be working toward the Advanced level exam of the Court of Master Sommeliers. We try not to be didactic, but we don't want to underestimate the sophistication of our readers. On the other hand, I also hear from wine connoisseurs who are not working in the industry that they have found a good deal of valuable information in our pages.

TOM: In your first Tasting Panel Report on the status of the 1994 California Cabernets, you created a panel of palates made up primarily of Sommeliers and restaurant buyers. Would you expect a panel of this kind of composition to come to different general conclusions about wines than a panel made up of all retail buyers or a panel made up of professional critics? And if so, why?

Since that first panel, I've conducted three more of similar composition in different parts of the country. I do find that these restaurant professionals have a different approach from that of wine critics. Both groups certainly appreciate good wines, but I believe our panelists are more focused on structure and balance than on power and weight. They're always thinking about how the wines will pair with food, and that subject comes up frequently in our discussions.

TOM: Explain the philosophy behind the presentation of your wine evaluations, which use not only the 20 point scale, but also focuses on statistical norms and deviations among the panelist. And while you are at it, what are you thoughts on the 100 point wine rating scale and why not use this much more familiar and influential system to rate wines.

DAVID: The whole subject of wine ratings is going to be addressed in our June issue. I don't want to denigrate the 100-point scale--it definitely has its place, especially among consumers and collectors. But we have found in our research and conversations that sommeliers simply aren't that interested in ratings. They'll take suggestions, but then they want to taste for themselves and trust their own palates. So most of our wine reviews take the form of recommendations from a wide variety of qualified tasters, with detailed notes that will help the reader decide whether to try the wines.

We also want our tasting panels to represent a broad range of experts from all over the United States. I thought about not publishing any scores at all, but we decided we needed some basis of comparison if we were going to discuss a flight of wines from a certain vintage or appellation. So we chose a 20-point scale because it's more precise than four or five stars, but more flexible than the 100-point scale. On a 100-point scale, people are reluctant to award anything less than 75 or 80; I find that with the 20-point scale, panelists will often go below 10 if they are really disappointed in a wine.

Then we had to decide how to present the scores. If we just gave the averages, a producer might say, for instance, "Our wine was rated 18.1 out of 20 by Sommelier Journal," and I didn't want people to be able to separate the score from the discussion. So with the help of a statistician, we came up with this "boxplot," which is a statistical analysis designed to show a consensus of a small group where they may be a wide range of opinion. It's almost intentionally obscure, but it does provide what we call a "Snapshot" of the group's evaluation. If anyone wants a really detailed explanation of how this "box and whiskers" analysis works, there's one on our website with graphic examples.

TOM: What is your overall impression of the state of wine information publishing in America? Do you see robust competition for readers and solid reporting, or are you more sanguine about the state of this industry?

DAVID: The industry as a whole--both wine and restaurants--is growing exponentially, despite the current economy and exchange rates. Obviously, there are quite a few wine publications out there already, covering everything from winemaking to wine collecting. With Sommelier Journal, we believe we have found a niche that was previously almost empty, so we don't feel that we're directly competing with anyone. I think there's a wealth of information on wine available from many sources. There are also many fine wine writers, some of whom appear in our magazine. I don't believe there's as much good editing, and I think that's something we can provide to our audience.

TOM: Tell me about how the idea for the Sommelier Journal arose and what persuaded you to go forward with it.

DAVID: My family company has published a professional journal for more than 40 years. It happens to be for orthodontists, but we do think we've learned something over the years about putting out a monthly magazine for a professional audience. I got into wine as a consumer and collector, then started reading more about it, traveling to wine regions, and trying to learn everything I could. I decided to take classes for a few weeks in the wine program at the Culinary Institute of America at St. Helena, really just to improve my own knowledge, and passed the foundation level of the Certified Wine Professional exam. As a publisher, just talking to my classmates and seeing how many people were serious about wine education, I started to wonder whether these people had their own publication. We started looking around and doing some market research, and we found there really wasn't a magazine that fit the profile we had in mind. Through our research and interviews, we confirmed that restaurant wine professionals saw a need for something like Sommelier Journal. Then it was a matter of putting together the staff, editorial material, and advertisers you need to publish a magazine.

TOM: Do you have an opinion about the world of Wine Blogs?

DAVID: I'm not into blogs as much as my son Phil, who's our business manager. He keeps constant tabs on Fermentation and several others. From what I've seen, though, the blogs are a valuable source of good writing and informed opinion on wine. Some of the best tasters I know are bloggers. The other service that blogs provide is a mechanism for almost instantaneous feedback, with each blog attracting its own little universe of contributors. We're going to try to emulate that networking capability to some extent on our own website, although we don't have any immediate plans to produce blogs.

TOM: It seems that more than any other group in the wine industry, sommeliers would be among the most concerned with the issue of how the proliferation of high alcohol wines might affect the diners experience, if it does at all. What can you tell us about any concern you hear from sommeliers on this issue and how do you view the issue of high alcohol wine and food.

DAVID: As I mentioned earlier, I think our tasting panelists are primarily concerned with how the structure and balance of a wine will affect its performance with certain kinds of cuisine. I hear a lot of discussion about things like acidity, residual sugar, oak, and tannins. If the alcohol level seems to get in the way, sommeliers are sure to mention that. On the other hand, I don't hear widespread condemnation of alcohol levels in general. The pendulum seems to be swinging the other way to some extent, at least in California.


TOM: Among the general wine buying public the job of the Sommelier seems to be least understood and maybe even least appreciated. Do you agree? And, can you comment on the current state of the relationship between the diner and the sommelier?

DAVID: To the sommelier, that relationship is almost a sacred trust. I think more and more diners are becoming aware of that, although obviously there are many who don't know or care what a sommelier is. I find that the younger generation of drinkers, people in their 20s, are becoming increasingly sophisticated about wine, and that includes how to order it in a restaurant. So I think the position of sommelier is actually gaining credibility and exposure. In many restaurants, of course, there may not be a person who holds the title of sommelier, but someone--the owner, the manager, the bar supervisor--has the responsibility to communicate with the guests about wine. We're here to help those people do their jobs better.

You can find PDF downloads of various articles in the first issue of the Sommelier Journal by CLICKING HERE. I recommend you do this if you want something a little beyond the ordinary.

You can subscribe to the Sommelier Journal BY CLICKING HERE. One year of 12 Issues is only $59. 

What Makes a GREAT California Pinot Vineyard?

And your mission is, if you choose to accept it:

Create a criteria for choosing the top ten (the "Grand Cru") Pinot Noir vineyards in California.

Not Top Ten Producers, but Top Ten Pinot Noir vineyards.

This topic of building such a criteria came up today when I was speaking first with a pretty well known Pinot producer and it arose again when I was speaking with a very knowledgeable wine writer who has a real passion for Pinot.

All three of us agreed that the following criteria would be essential:

1. Wines produced from the vineyards should be highly rated, consistently, from a variety of critics.

2. The price of the wines produced from the vineyards should reflect the quality and demand.

3. The vineyards should be in production for at least 7 years.

But here's where we got stuck: Should one criteria be that the vineyard's fruit has been used by a variety of different winemakers? I personally say, Yes! In the first place, I think the endorsement of a vineyard by a variety of winemakers is an important indication of its strength and attraction. I also think that you control against a critic's potential bias in their ratings for a single winemaker's style of wine by demanding that the vineyard's fruit has been used by multiple winemakers.

Now, excluding vineyards from which only one winemaker has successfully produced wine is a problem. This, for example, means that Marcassin and Kistler Estate vineyards are both out of the running for Grand Cru status. That sort of strikes me as wrong, but there are still the issues I brought up above.

So, again, here's the question:

WHAT CRITERIA WOULD YOU USE FOR NAMING THE TOP PINOT NOIR VINEYARDS IN THE CALIFORNIA NORTH COAST?

This is of course a game, similar to naming your all time baseball dream team. But, just like this favorite pastime, trying to name the Grand Cru Vineyards of California makes one think about WHAT MAKES a vineyard great. And this is a question any self respecting wine geek must be attracted to.

Is Knowing More Important Than The Nose?

In a recent story in the San Jose Mercury News, Laurie Daniel explored a topic that remains very important to winemakers and wine geeks: The degree to which Pinot Noir currently does or is capable of exhibiting regionality in its character. Interestingly, the extent to which this issue is important to non-geeks seems to me to extend only as far as the occasional comments by casual wine drinkers that they "like California Pinot more than French" or believe "Oregon Pinot Noir is better than California Pinot."

Of course these kinds of general comments about the source of Pinot aren't exactly what the proponents of terroir and dedication to regionality are looking for.

They are looking more for the kind of schooled judgment that Daniels reported about in her story that looked at a seminar at the last World Of Pinot Noir Event where six Pinots from different parts of California all made from the 115 clone of Pinot were examined. The point of the seminar was to determine if regional difference could be determined between the wines.

Daniels writes:

"The wines had similar color intensity but otherwise did display big differences, but it was nearly impossible to tell whether those differences were due to vineyard location or to factors such as picking decisions, oak treatment or myriad other variables related to the hand of the winemaker."

Mmmm... this is of course the perennial problem: Are we tasting the hand of the winemaker or the hand of God.

I thought about this article as I had dinner on Monday with a group of fine folks in Nashville. In the course of the dinner we tasted a lovely red blend made by Kip Summers from Arrington Vineyards located just outside Nashville. Had I not known the wine was made from Tennessee-grown grapes I could not have guessed under any circumstances that it came from this state. And, I suspect that no one else, not even the most schooled and educated palate on earth, could either.

Houston...we have a problem!

Just how much tasting of wine must be done by an individual, how much competence must they possess in the field of wine before regionality in a wine even matters?

Of course the most interesting question of all is what makes the regionality of a wine matter at all...outside of course for folks like me who work to market wine on the basis of regionality: "This wine is brilliant expression of the unique terroir of X Valley".

I wonder if it's enough, even for the most geeky of wine geeks, to simply know the wine was made from grapes grown in Oakville or "Joe's Vineyard" or Greece or Champagne, etc? I wonder if the importance of the regionality or terroir that a wine expresses is really less important than the simple knowledge that one is drinking something from a particular area?

In the case of the Tennessee wine I was thrilled to know I was drinking a wine from this state that I truly enjoyed. I liked that I was partaking of a particular region's unique fare. It make me feel cosmopolitan and gave me the confidence to state that Tennessee is making some very fine wines.

Is that enough?

Who To Trust?

Can you trust a wine retailer's recommendation? They are, after all, in the business of selling wine and one presumes that a wine they have on their shelves can't be ignored, let alone dissed by them.

This is the question at the heart of a very interesting story in the LA Times by Jerry Hirsch that focuses on Wilfred Wong, Beverage & More's Online Cellarmaster and the person who reviews wines exclusively for BevMo and who's reviews and ratings show up on shelf talkers at BevMo.

I've worked with Mr. Wong. I know him. I've judged with him at competitions. Let me say up front that this man has a killer palate. It's perceptive, educated, experienced and nuanced.

Nevertheless, the question remains, can a retailer review of a wine it is carrying be trusted? And this is the underlying issue inside the LA Times article. It should be noted that this is not the first time Wilfred and his job as BevMo's wine rater in chief has been covered in the media. Last year the SF Chronicle did a story focusing on Wilfred that touched on the issue

The answer to the question is Yes, a retailer's rating can be trusted.

If one is going to discount the objectivity of Wilfred's notes and ratings, then one is obliged to discount any and all ratings and reviews any retailer, anywhere in the world provides for a wine they carry in their store. If this is the perspective one is going to take, then the skeptic would at least ask the the retailer's rating be written and determined by someone who is not focused on wine buying at the store.

That's exactly the situation with Wilfred Wong. He does not report to BevMo's buyers.

This had to be a touchy PR situation for the folks at BevMo and I think they acquitted themselves well. Calling into question the objectivity of a rating system, be it a retailers or publishers, is just about the worst thing that can happen. Every publisher of wine scores knows this. This is also why I've always viewed those who claim the Wine Spectator skews its scores toward advertisers as simply not looking at the big picture. Do the mental exercise. Imagine the Wine Spectator or Wine & Spirits being caught red handed manipulating scores to give bigger numbers to advertisers. How would you react?...OK....Now, how would others react...OK....Now, what happens when a wine publication's reviews no longer have any credibility? Is there anything a publisher could do that would be dumber than skew scores for advertisers?

If one chose not to trust BevMo's Wilfred Wong-rated wines, I'd want to know specifically why? I want to know upon what basis they believed them compromised. Without such a detailed explanation then I'd prefer to stick with what I know: BevMo made a very smart moving hiring one of the best palates in California.

A Spectator's View of 2005 CA Pinot

OK...more than likely we are all buying up 2005 California Pinots because they have largely all hit the market. At least those of us who enjoy experimenting with CA Pinot are looking to this vintage.

Being a guy who appreciates statistics and being further a guy who understands that the Wine Spectator is an important trend setter for quality considerations, I decided to take a look at what the Wine Spectator has had to say about CA Pinots from the 05 vintage.

Here's what we have.

2005 CA Pinots Reviewed by the Wine Spectator
(Appellation, % w/ 90 Points or more, % w/80 pts or less, total wines reviewed)

California Pinots----26% w/90pts----(7% less than 80pts)-----417 wines reviewed
Russian River--------27% w/ 90pts----(6% less than 80pts)------179 wines reviewed
Carneros---------------14% w/ 90pts------(6% less than 80pts)......35 wines reviewed
Sonoma Coast-------30% w/90pts------(3% less than 80pts)------67 wines reviewed
Santa Lucia-----------41% w/90 pts-----(0% less than 80pts)-------34 wines reviewed
Santa Rita-------------30% w/90 pts-----(4% less than 80pts)-------55 wines reviewed
Anderson Vly--------42% w/90 pts-----(4% less than 80pts)-----24 wines reviewed

Interesting isn't it. Look at Santa Lucia and Anderson Valley.

Now, you can take this as an indication of what the folks over at the Wine Spectator like in their Pinot and what they think of the Pinots from these appellations OR you can take it as an indicator of quality from these different regions. This all depends on how well your palate matches up with the palate of the Wine Spectator critics.

That said, I'm pretty darn proud of my favorite little appellation that could: Anderson Valley. I did a similar comparison with the 2004 vintage that's a bit more extensive. You can find it HERE.

1997 Whatever....

"most Americans were satisfied with the system as it is except for a small, very vocal segment who say they can’t get their bottle of 1997 whatever.”

Count me in as part of that small, vocal segment of folks who really do love the "1997 Whatever". What a great wine that was, huh! I'd loved it's fruity component of So What. And who can forget that wine's firm and crisp Too Bad. And the wine was legendary for it's long, smoky Nevermind.

The wine that all vocal wine drinkers will be looking for today, the 1997 Whatever, is the creation of Craig Wolf of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers Association. Mr. Wolf made note of this very hard to fine legend of a wine in a New York Times article by Eric Asimov. In the article Mr. Wolf pull off a pretty neat trick as he responds to the movement to open up direct shipping laws: He very capably denigrates both consumers and wine producers in once sentence. That's not easy to do...you have to work at it.

The implication of his "small, very vocal segment" is that these wine lovers, the ones that purchase LOTS and LOTS of wine from retailers, restaurants and wineries, really don't matter to him and the wholesalers he represents. And I can understand that. It's awful difficult to really pay attention to this big spending, influential, but small, group of wine lovers when your main concerns is making sure 15 year-old Lisa Schoolgirl isn't ordering 1997 Whatever on her laptop while hiding under her bed covers at night (a trick that is always followed by her faking sickness the next day so she can stay home from school and convince the delivery person that, yes, she really is 21 years old even though she lost her drivers license. Craig Wolf is worried about this group not getting wine, as well as worrying that the small, vocal segment of adults don't get their 1997 Whatever. He's a busy guy.

But Mr. Wolf also finds a way to denigrate the producer. "Eh...it's just 1997 Whatever". I suspect the owners of Chateau Whatever work pretty hard to make and sell their elusive bottling that Craig has now made famous. In fact, I'll bet the VP of Marketing at Chateau Whatever spends a GREAT DEAL of time begging his few distributors across the country to PLEASE sell the wine they said you would!! Who knows, maybe the folks at Chateau Whatever decided to drop their wholesalers and start selling their wine direct to retailers and to consumers. After all, why give away margin to a distributor who is so willing to denigrate your wine and wines of other small producers right there in the NEW YORK TIMES!!!!

If you ever wanted a pure explanation of how the wholesaler community views fine wine lovers and producers of fine wines in America, all you need to do is re-read Craig Wolf's statement today in the New York Times. Make no mistake. He knew he was talking to the NEW YORK TIMES. He knew he was talking to a reporter who's article would be read by millions including the vast majority of the winemaking community and the fine wine drinkers in the United States. He chose his words carefully. So let me remind everyone what he carefully chose to say about wine drinkers and fine wine producers:

"most Americans were satisfied with the system as it is except for a small, very vocal segment who say they can’t get their bottle of 1997 whatever."
Craig Wolf, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers Association

A Graphic Display of Wine

Logos!

Over the years we've done more than our fair share at Wark Communications. We're pretty good at it. The real key to creating a good logo is to understand perfectly the idea that a simple image is supposed to convey and who you are primarily going to be communicating to with the logo.

Why do I note this?

Well, your chance to prove your Wine-Related-Logo-Creation-Skills are upon you.

The venerable Wine Blogging Wednesday folks are having a logo design contest that will result in a new logo for the group. We don't know what the prizes might be yet, but consider it a challenge any good, self respecting, graphically inclined wine lover might want to pick up and run with.

To get you started, here are my "Thinking Tips" for your approach to logo creation:

1. Determine the top two ideas associated with the thing the logo will represent

2. Before you begin creating, play a series of word association games (words represent ideas)

3. Know how the logo will be used (will it be reduced in size in places, will be primarily in a 72dpi format)

4. Try to stay away from think fonts when creating an logo to be used on the Internet

5. The logo should have a color and black and white format

6. Try to present variations (The name spelled out, just the initials, black and white, color, vertical, horizontal)

I've never participated in Wine Blogging Wednesday because I don't review wines. However, I follow its results religiously as do numerous other folks. I also consider Wine Blogging Wednesday one of the most successful Internet-based group wine efforts every.

NOW....GO LOGO!!

Deconstructed Wine Reviews

So,  a certain percentage of those little advertisements we see on shelves of retailer outlets that we call "Shelf Talkers" are speaking with a forked tongue, according to the Washington Post.

This is not the first time this issue has come up. I recall a similar news story making the rounds a couple years ago.

In this case, the Washington post looked at 100 different shelf talkers and found that:

"Accuracy varied from shop to shop, but overall, 6 percent of the signs either advertised a score that was higher than the one the wine actually had received or invented a score for an unrated wine.Nineteen percent referred to a different vintage from that of the wine for sale. A vintage mismatch could be chalked up to sloppiness rather than deliberate misrepresentation, but it can be just as misleading. In our checks, the vintage available was usually unrated or had received a lower score, though there were occasions when the actual wine displayed had received a higher rating."

Before anyone extend this little bit of nastiness into a general discussion of the problem with the 100 point rating system it should be noted that just as much fraud could occur were there no such rating system.

That said, a 25% inaccuracy rate on in-store shelf talkers really has to be called a failure by any measure.

I've designed and had printed shelf talkers...more than I care to own up to. But I've never once put a score on them that the wine did not earn. That said, I have built shelf talkers that make use of the dreaded ELLIPSE (...)

Let me show you how that's done:

"Appealing...yellow apple, tropical fruit...Drink Now"

This is an "ellipsed" version of this review:

"85 Points—Simple yet appealing with yellow apple, tropical fruit and a touch of fruit cocktail. Drink now. Tasted twice with consistent notes"

Is this accurate? Yes. But barely. And this is not even the worst example of the use of an ellipse on a shelf talker or an advertisement. I'm proud to say I've not ever been convinced to go over the line.

However, this would be over the line...way over the line:

"The vineyard is a good one...Flavors of Blackberries and Cherries"

Unfortunately it could come from this review:

"82 Points—A troubling wine. The vineyard is a good one, but this Cab is hot and overly ripe, with stewed flavors of blackberries and cherries. There's a heaviness that doesn't work, especially at this price"

This is not a specific example of something I've seen before, but I have seen stuff just as bad.

The point of course is that an old review on a new wine might be bad, but it might not be the worst kind offense.

Who's Surprised??

If I had a dollar for every time I heard a person say "If you don't charge more for the wine they won't take it seriously" I'd have enough money to fund a research project on why people believe the more expensive it is the better is.

Of course no one does give me a dollar every time I hear such a thing so it's a damn good thing we have the folks over at the California Institute of Technology to do this research for us.

For some of you reading this the following will fall into the category of "duh, tell me something new": Research shows people get more pleasure from a wine when they know it costs more.

The research was carried out by Antonio Rangel and colleagues at California Institute of Technology. Basically they had subjects taste different wines and all the people new was the prices of the wines. However, in some cases less expensive wine was labeled as much more expensive than it really is and vice versa.

"They [researchers] asked 20 people to sample wine while undergoing functional MRIs of their brain activity. The subjects were told they were tasting five different Cabernet Sauvignons sold at different prices.

However, there were actually only three wines sampled, two being offered twice, marked with different prices.

A $90 wine was provided marked with its real price and again marked $10, while another was presented at its real price of $5 and also marked $45."

Folks liked the wines they were told were more expensive.

"Our results suggest that the brain might compute experienced pleasantness in a much more sophisticated manner that involves integrating the actual sensory properties of the substance being consumed with the expectations about how good it should be."

Ya think?

OK...so to those of us who know wine and the wine industry well this isn't much of a shocker, but it's nice to have scientific confirmation of what we already know. But how about this part of the research:

"On the other hand, when tasters didn't know any price comparisons, they rated the $5 wine as better than any of the others sampled."

Why would this be the case? Americans like sweet, smooth liquid and most certainly like their wine that way. That's why inexpensive wine, the kind most often bought, is smooth and sweet.

But here's my favorite part of the article that reported on this research:

"Next step: pain.

Rangel wants to see if people perceive pain differently, depending on their expectations. He hopes to administer mild electric shocks to subjects and measure their reaction when told a shock was going to be stronger or weaker."

Any Volunteers?

Subliminal Wine Reviews

There is a wildly subversive and subliminal quality to this story.

The Office of Champagne, USA has issued a press release exalting the fact that "Belgian Customs       authorities seized and destroyed a shipment of over 3,200 bottles of André       sparkling wine. The shipment was seized at the port of Anvers, Belgium,       on Tuesday."

The Gallo-produced products were seized and destroyed because the wine carries the terms “California       Champagne” and “André       Champagne Cellars”. Using the term "Champagne" on a wine not from the Champagne region is a violation of       export laws that protect the place names of wine       regions.

What's really interesting is that the press release comes with a link to a video of the Andre Sparkling Wine being destroyed. The video itself is perhaps the best subliminal statement about wine quality I've seen in ages. Toward the end you see the once sparkling liquid now browned by its exposure to shredded cardboard wine cases, glass, label paper, bins and who knows what else, being drained into bins from the container in which the wines were destroyed. The brown, ugly liquid can't be any good to drink, now can it? It OBVIOUSLY isn't champagne. In fact, is this what most American wine that tries to sparkle really looks like???

I'm a big supporter of this notion that integrity demands that place names ought to mean something. "Champagne" falls into that category. I'm unaware if Gallo had an exemption to the recently negotiated treaty concerning place names. Nor do I have any idea if this shipment had been in the pipeline for some time or if Gallo wanted to get away with something.

The point is that Gallo SHOULD be changing the label of Andre's so that it merely says "Sparkling Wine". It's not Champagne. It's wine that sparkles.

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 Wine Czar Has Arrived

Inspired by Paul Gregutt's excellent story on the meaning of wine terms, I began fantasizing about being named the American Wine Czar and being given complete control over wine regulations in the United States. I've fantasized about this before but given the wonderful fantasy it is, the topic deserves an update.

My first set of acts as the American Wine Czar are:

THE OLD VINE" REGULATION
Any wine produced in the United States that carries the term "Old Vine" or "Ancient Vine" or any other derivation of these terms that imply the vines are actually much older than average must have have been made with 100% grapes grown on vines that have been in the ground for 75 years or more.

THE VARIETAL REGULATION
Any wine sold in America that carries a varietal designation on the label must be made with 100% of the named variety.

THE DIVERSITY REGULATION
Any company that sells wine to consumers that is not also a producer must carry at least two wines from no less than five different states.

THE CONSUMER WINE PROPERTY REGULATION
Any consumer that takes legal possession of a wine may ship that wine to anyone anywhere in the United States unfettered by any agency or law of any state.

THE SPINAL PROTECTION ACT
No wine sold in the United States may be contained in a bottle that weighs more than 25oz.

The "HANDCRAFTED" REGULATION
No wine sold in America may carry a back label that asserts the wine was "hand crafted" unless documentation is submitted to the Wine Czar that verifies the wine was actually produced entirely while being held in the hands of one or more employees of the producer.

THE "RESERVE" DISCLOSURE REGULATION
The term "reserve" may be used on any wine label of American-produced wines only if on the back label the producer explains why the wine in the bottle is of higher quality than all other non-"reserve" wines made by the same producers.

THE "100 POINT" ACT
A 100 Point rating scale may only be used to rate a wine or promote a wine or to advertise a wine if the person or company assigning the rating is able to explain the difference between an 88 point wine and an 89 point in purely aesthetic terms.

Most Interesting Wine Stories of 2007

The 2007 calendar year is coming to an end an that prompts me to think harder about the past two months, to make assessments and to try to learn some lessons before we move on the perfectly lovely arbitrary notion of a "new year".

The wine new of 2007 when looked at retrospectively turns out to be truly educational as well as a signal of what to anticipate in the coming year and years. Here are my most interesting news stories of 2007

Ernest Gallo Dies
You don't see a death like this every year. The man was 97 years old, the patriarch of the most important wine organization in the world and had led a company that literally spanned the entirety of the modern history and development of the modern American wine industry. I can get kind of morbid when these types of passings occur and start thinking who among us has the potential to illicit the kind of full on pause when they pass and the kind of jaw dropping awe when we are forced to consider the meaning of their lives to our industry. I can think of only one living person in the American wine industry who possessed similar industry personification potential.

The Case of Wine & Family and Books
The reception that Julia Flynn Siler's "House of Mondavi" received did not totally surprise me. W hat surprised me was that it was published to begin with and received such wide distribution. Though probably  a case of my being blinded by being inside the forest rather than in the clearing, I'm still stunned at how well this book on the travails and successes of the Robert Mondavi Winery did. Most books sell few copies. This book sold MANY copies. It's a testament to Flynn Siler and her publisher. But it should also be message: the goings on in the wine business ARE interesting to those outside it. I see the success of "The House of Mondavi" similar to the success of Sideways: There is ample room to exploit the goings on of the wine business that will be of great interest to the general, beer and coke drinking society.

$162 Billion and Counting
That was the amount that MKF Research determined the American Wine Industry contributes to the economy. This is a big Frigg'n number and was not lost on policy makers in Washington when it was unveiled there in January. It's hard not to take seriously an industry that generates this kind of contribution to the economy. When you combine this revelation with the related revelation that America will soon become the largest wine drinking country in the world and all sorts of ideas start swirling in your head from the change that has overcome our culture to the willingness of non-traditional wine producing states to support their developing industries to the potential to use the American wine market to explore new ways to promote and market wine.

Gary Vaynerchuk
It's very difficult to predict the course any public personality will take in the future, particularly Gary's. But it's important to note things about Gary's success with and and as a result of WineLibraryTV: 1) It has been a very long time since a true "personality" has emerged from the American Wine Industry that has the potential to transcend the cynical gaze of the industry itself and appeal to an audience of "regular people". Gary is doing that. 2) Gary emerged from an online presence. I think he'll eventually shed his association with the world of wine online. But the fact that he burst on to the scene in the form of ones and zeros is significant to a lot of people and should be significant to a lot more people.

"Screw'em"
That was the message that emerged from the Illinois Legislature during the middle of the year as lawmakers their bent to the will of wholesalers and striped Illinois consumers of the right to purchase wine from out-of-state wine merchants. The push to keep wine from being shipped from out-of-state retailers to Illinois consumers was a truly cynical effort on the part of nearly every organization involved. The same effort was made in Oregon, where it failed. And it was the same effort that succeeded earlier in places like California, New York, Michigan and Texas, all states where lawsuits are in place opposing this kind of anti-consumer and unconstitutional lawmaking. The successful effort in Illinois to screw consumers raises a very fundamental question: What will it take to demonstrate conclusively that state-mandated monopolies that deliver unchecked power to wholesalers are not just wrong, but almost always result in immoral results?

No More Wine X