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.

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.

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?

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. 

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 Little Luck is Always in Order

So it happened again.

I won another poker tournament.

This time I was not up against a final player who  appeared more interested in his vodka than the game. Rather, I was up against a player who had recently made it to the final two tables of the World Series of Poker.

This was the second hold'em tournament I've won in the last six I've entered, including a 7th place finish also. Upon winning a good friend suggested I needed to do this more often, that I was a damn good poker player. I am, however, inclined to find explanation for this success, for now, in another fact that is all too easy to forget about: luck.

It's just like the winemaker. How much luck is really involved in making a good bottle of wine? Enough to pay deference to the Gods I think. I'm thinking here of the weather. I recently heard a story about the Tennessee winemakers who not only lost a crop due to a deep freeze, but many of them lost their vineyards due to the freak cold snap. And in California at this very moment we are at the point where an untimely frost could devastate those vineyards that are now budding out just about everywhere. And this doesn't even get us to the issue of rain in the fall. I submit that in order to make a good bottle of wine, one has to agree to put themselves in fate's hands.

I got lucky when I was dealt two aces and two other players were dealt two kings and two queens. It was a big bet and a raise before it got to me, allowing an all in bet by me that led to two calls. I was lucky. The other two players played well, but were unlucky.

I suppose the issue is perspective. I've always looked curiously at those who say, "I don't believe in luck". As though any rationalization for such a statement could ever justify its absurdity. The grapegrower is a firm believer in luck. They hope for it. The better grapegrowers are sensible enough to pray for it even if they are atheists.

For those of us who really want to see lots of very good wine on the market, but aren't involved in growing the grapes we too should hope and pray for luck where the weather and grapegrowing is concerned. Right now across Sonoma and Napa vines are taking on that tinge of green as small buds open and spread patterns of green across the vineyards. It's a marvelous sight. Like all spring occurrences it's a symbol of hope. New beginning. But hope implies potential. What we are looking for this time of year is the opportunity for the grapegrowers to apply their skills and talents. But they'll need a just a little luck for the next month to assure they get to that point.

I needed a little luck to win number 2. Skill and talent played a role but it would not have mattered had I not been lucky.

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?

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.

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

Winemakers Really Do have Something to Say

I have a confession. I'm not too often convinced that winemakers have very much of interest to say.

This comes from a guy who has worked with a LOT of winemakers, at least in the capacity as their publicist (I've never dragged a hose through a winery that I didn't first trip on in my life. And my singe experience hand punching down Noir in small bins convinced me this was the kind of word I am simply not cut out for.

But to get back to backhanded slap at winemakers, what I really mean to say is that, in my mind, unless you can get a winemaker away from his barrels and tanks that seem always to be calling him, and unless you have a rapport with the winemaker to the point that they trust you, the most you are likely to get out of these folks is something along the lines of things I've written on back labels—nothing of too much interest.

This is what makes Steve Heimoff's most recent book, "New Classic Winemakers of California: Conversations with Steve Heimoff", so impressive. His subjects have quite a bit of interest to say.

Steve is the West Coast Editor of Wine Enthusiast Magazine. So, his familiarity with his subjects and their subject matter is not in dispute. His previous book, "A Wine Journey Along the Russian River" and his independent voice that can be read in his regular wine column as well as in his wine review, both demonstrate his vital and intimate connection to the wine industry. This is quality that doesn't always come through in many wine writers, if only because it doesn't exist. But I'm convinced that this new book is as wonderful as it is precisely because Steve was able to convince his subjects that he cared about the things they were talking about just as much as they did. No small feat, this.

"New Classic Winemakers of California boils down to a series of in depth interviews with a couple dozen of California's most dynamic winemakers. This is candid stuff. It can also be quite intricate in its details with discussions of clones, fermentation, the philosophy driving "cult" wines and "High Octane" wines, to discussions of what terroir is intellectually and what it is practically. Steve demonstrates a real feel for the interview process.

Among those who are interviewed in the book are John Alban, Mark Aubert, Heidi Peterson Barrett, Andy Beckstoffer,  Merry Edwards, Genevieve Janssens, Greg La Follette, Dan Morgan Lee, Rick Longoria, Javier Tapia Meza, Tony Soter, Brian Talley, Michael Terrien, and Margo van Staaveren.    

These and the others, to a person, are the folks who in 40 and 50 years will be referred to by other winemakers and growers as "Mentors". The point is, Heimoff picked the right crew to get intimate with.

Again, I want to suggest that this is pretty dense read. It's not a beginners book. However, it is the kind of book that makes the well seasoned enthusiast much more seasoned for their time spent with the book.

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.

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!!

Sugar and the Mental Gymnastics of the Wine Drinker

I often wonder about the personal dynamics a person undergoes when their prejudices bump up against a reality that puts the lie to those prejudices. It turns out I find myself in just such a position. What I've found is that it's best to embrace one's convictions and let go of long held prejudices if peace of mind is one's goal.

The prejudice: Simple Palates and Novice Wine Drinkers Like their Wine Sweet. Experienced Palates and Dedicated Wine Lovers Like their Wines Dry.

The Reality: Ive discovered that of late, no matter when I'm in the mood for wine, I find myself reaching for something sweet. And not just a slightly sweet Zinfandel, but a really sweet ice wine or dessert wine; Sauternes, Late Harvest Zin, Semillon infected with Noble Rot. The list is long, but it's sweet.

I've found myself of late sipping Austrian Ice Wine and Sweet German Riesling as I go about my business in the office in the late afternoon. It is incredibly pleasant and has the additional bonus of usually being quite low in alcohol.

Yet on more than one occasion I've got this image of myself in my mind of an old lady sipping her afternoon sweet sherry. I don't particularly like that image, I think because it doesn't square with my long held opinion that I'm amongst the wine loving elite that drinks "serious" wine.

I wonder to what extent expectations of what it means to be a "wine drinker" weigh on those who may not consider themselves among the elite, but really do like their wine sweet. I wonder if these folks simply don't want to be associated with the "Sweet Palates" and Old Lady Sherry Drinkers and as a result turn to drinking beer or bourbon.

I've always viewed sweet wines not only as being for those who aren't "SERIOUS" wine drinkers but also as a "gateway wine" that can draw the uninitiated into the "Serious Wine Drinker" fold. In fact, whenever I open a sweet wine I make sure I give my kids a sip. My hope is they'll grow up with good thoughts about wine running around their head.

My solution to my own prejudicial contradictions is to embrace them. I will drink these damned sweet wines as much as I want and I'll do it with a smile on my face. And if anyone wants to call me less than serious about wine I can just as easily pour them a glass and dare them not to like it. Getting to this place in my mind actually took some mental gymnastics. But I got there with my self respect intact and with my superior attitude intact too.

I wonder however if that superior attitude that many serious wine drinkers have doesn't too often drift out into the world of would-be-wine-consumers and turn them off.

I think it must.

On to the next Ice Wine....

Time To Recognize the Vines

Upon reading my last post about my status as Wine Czar, Harold Baer, publisher of the Colorado Wine News, passed on to me a very interesting initiative carried out by Yalumba, Australia's oldest family owned winery.

Yalumba has created an "Old Vine Charter".

What is it?

OLD VINE = a vine that is 35 years of age or older
ANTIQUE VINE = a vine that is 70 years of age or older
CENTENARIAN VINE = a vine that is 100 years of age or older
TRI CENTENARIAN VINE = A vine whose life has spanned 3 centuries

While this last designation is odd insofar as what separates it from a CENTENARIAN VINE today is 8 years, the project is interesting. According to the folks at Yalumba they hope to spur discussion with their in-house Old Vine Charter. There is regulation in Australia that defines "Old Vine" or any of the other other designations that Yalumba lays out here.

I once heard Will Bucklin of Bucklin and Joel Peterson of Ravenswood offer similar definitions of old vine as well as offer similar distinctions for vines of varying ages.

The really critical thing about the idea of "Old Vine" is that a vine of significant age does NOT necessarily deliver grapes that will necessarily produce "better" wines. However, most everyone who has worked with well established, older vines (particularly those more than 50 years of age, seem to agree that these vines establish a natural balance of fruit and vegetation growth and they appear to weather both very cold and very hot weather particularly well.

Others will suggest these wines tend to produce fruit that is particularly intense or powerful. That is not my experience.

What I HAVE noticed about old vine vineyards however is that when particularly old, say in the 80-100 year range, they almost always are field blends when located in California. They almost always possess some combination of Zinfandel, Carignane, Alicante Bouschet, Grenache and Petite Sirah.

It is this that I believe makes Old Vine vineyards so unique and in many cases account for the unique character that is often assigned to the wine produced from these grapes.

The best example of this phenomenon is the Old Hill Ranch planting in Glen Ellen that was first planted in the middle of the 19th century. Today one finds more than 25 different varieties of vines planted in its primary 14 acres.

If it were up to me, I would want to regulate the use of the term "old vine" long before I got to the term "reserve". It is more easily quantifiable than anything that can be done with the term "reserve". In addition, while there is no quantifiable improvement in quality that comes with making wine from old vines, there is a strong presumption that there is something special about these vineyards.

One thing California has never done is look to the few remaining old vine vineyards and see them as landmarks. They should be recognized and designated as such. They represent a significant part of the state's agricultural history. And given the status of grape growing in this state they deserve to have that significance recognized.

It is unlike that the state or federal government would ever work on moving toward a rule for use of the term "Old Vine" on American wine labels despite the fact they should. Given that, would it not be interesting and useful for an appellation organization to create a policy similar to what Yalumba has put in place. It would be nice to see a symbol on a label of Russian River Valley Zinfandel that told me that by using the term "old vine" we know that it means the grapes used to make the wine came off a vineyard that is at least 75 years old.

Go With the Accoutrerments

I avoid giving gifts of wine to folks who are serious wine people. This is largely the case because I can't afford to do it really well. And whether mentioned very often, I think this dilemma surely is noticed by others too.

What kind of a wine to do you give a person who is a confirmed wino? To have any meaning it really must be something that is either coveted though not obtained by the person or altogether unexpected and delightful. The former is likely very expensive because if it is coveted, though not obtained, it's likely rare. As for the latter, you can rule out any wine that is in common and ample distribution. It doesn't fall into the category of delightful to this person. And while the recipient my not expect to get a 3 liter bottle of Two Buck Chuck, you still have the "delightful" aspect to deal with.

Wine "buying" is different than "wine sharing". Sharing is in large part the very purpose of keeping wine after you get by the fact that you prefer it to water and soda with food. But "buying" is really a singular pursuit isn't it. Part of the fun is the chase, the discovery and even the satisfaction with finally taking the step of obtaining that which you've coveted or discovered.

It has always seemed to me that to really do a good job of giving wine to a full fledged wine lover one must be willing to spend and spend liberally.

But if the idea is to present your best friends and family with a gift of meaning (and I think this really should be the case) it's much easier to offer the wine lover something coveted though not obtained or altogether unexpected and delightful without going the wine route. (One note: for those who are simply casual wine drinkers, a good bottle of wine can be a fine gift.)

However, this does not mean that a wine related gift isn't a good idea for the wine loving friends and family on your list. In fact, it's a great idea and allows far more creativity on the part of the gift-giver.

Among the wine related gifts I prefer to give are:

Rare or First Edition Wine-Related Books. My favorite online place to look for such edition is Alibris and AbeBooks. Both these sites allow fairly detailed searches that will, I guarantee, turn up volumes of great interest to any wine lover.

Old Wine Paraphanalia. Cork Screws, glasses, funnels, decanters, wine buckets, even framed labels or box ends from early 20th century wines. These are often harder to come by. Online one can find them at Wine Antiuques, Bacchus Antiques, and Butler's Antiques.

You will be surprised. Though possible to spend serious money in either of these categories, it is quite possible to find a really delightful item that is affordable.

Don't bother with wine for the wine lover. Go with the accoutrement.

Wine Tasting is a Lonely Pursuit

Folks who find themselves arguing against ratings systems for wine, particularly the exacting 100 point scale rating system, often retreat, eventually, into what can only be called the "Final Point": Wine tasting is ultimately a subjective thing!

It's often a point that is offered as coup de grace in an attack on rating wine. A more robust assertion looks like this: "Even if one can accurately describe a wine using a rating system and words, the critic's palate is just that...his own, and that means my palate is as sure as his."

John Bender, a professor of philosophy at the University of Ohio and a sometimes wine writer, takes on in full this notion of subjectivity of wine tasting in a wonderful little exploration in the recently released book, "Wine & Philosophy". In his contribution to this collection of essay entitled "What the Wine Critic Tells Us", Dr. Bender argues that this Final Point is not so final.

Dr. Bender makes the case that well-trained and experienced tasters can indeed objectively perceive the specific qualities in a wine such as sugar levels, tannins, degrees of Bret and any number of other physical characteristics of a wine that lend themselves to detection by the palate. Further, he notes, correctly I think, that what is perceived in a wine by experienced palates can be validated by simple testing in a lab.

This is not a controversial claim.  His next claim however is an interesting and somewhat less specific one.

What about evaluations and qualitative descriptions of wines? Is it a subjective statement when I assert that "this Merlot is under ripe and displays unfortunate vegetal characteristics"?

It would seem so, but Dr. Bender cautions us, "not so fast". Bender makes a rather interesting claim that because our opinions are open to argumentation by others, open to being changed by a good argument, it just might be that something close to an objective qualitative claim about the aesthetic value of a wine might be possible. It just might be that I could convince you that this Merlot IS too vegetal, rather than "balanced" and "complex" as you claim. Bender makes this final appeal:

"Since standards or sensibilities are open to argumentation, they can be judged as more or less plausible or more or less experienced. When it comes to aesthetic sensibilities, one can be convinced to make a change. This process need not be seen as any more "subjective" than a debate over justice is necessarily subjective."

I think Dr. Bender is inclined to believe that there are aesthetic standards for different wines that have proven themselves reliable and helpful to consumers and the market and that they have developed over the years, if not centuries. I think his argument here is offered to support this contention, which, by the way, is an objective observation of the realities of the wine market. However, the existence of well excepted standards and the fact that folks can be convinced through a finely constructed argument to accept them does not make them objective truths any more than Christian, Muslim or Jewish claims to the ultimate moral righteousness of their God's moral claims make them objective truths. Standards of what a wine should be always will be judgments, despite the source or the force of conviction that stands be hand an argument for those standards.

Dr. Bender goes on to discuss the role the "sensibility" plays in our evaluations of wine. That is to say, If I am much more sensitive to acidity than you, it would simply be impossible for you to argue that I SHOULD find what I perceive as an edgy, overly acidic wine to be crisp and refreshing as you do. You can't make the argument I should because the objective nature of my palate does not allow me to.

This all leads me to conclude that wine tasting and particularly the evaluation of wine is a LONELY PURSUIT. Only I can taste what I taste. If we are lucky our palates will align and we can together discuss the characteristics and merits of a wine. Perhaps I'll change your mind about this Zinfandel's merits or that Cabernet's qualities. But in the end, my palate is mind, your palate is yours and they shall never actually meet.

When is Wine Info Reliable?

What is "reliable" information?

This question might take on more significance when discussing matters of life or death, the value of your home or information upon which you are going to base business decisions. With regard to wine and our passion for the beverage I'm not sure it's nearly as important. After all, if someone tells you, "This is the best wine in the universe" and it turns out not to be...big deal.

But it still remains something we should all keep in mind as we peruse blogs like this one, the various wine magazines, as we listen to wine experts and as we take in the various wine-related political riffs that folks like myself and other bloggers and writers indulge in from time to time.

How then does one determine if the information we suck up is reliable? There are some basic rules that deserve repeating.

Is a source cited?
When you read or hear that X did or said Y, can you get to that source? The fact that blogs and increasingly non-blog but Internet-housed information does this quite well generally is an overlooked asset to the blog format. We tend to link. The other day I ranted a bit about what appeared to be a web site that stereotyped gays. And I linked to the site. That allowed a number of folks to look at the site and offer their opposite impressions. Look for citations.

Know who is Doing the Talking
These days if I can't know the name and the affiliation or background of the person making the claims or doing the commenting I simply won't spend time at that website. It's a matter of putting one's name behind something. Increasingly, I won't give much time to a blog or website that doesn't give me a way to contact the person doing the writing outside the comment section. If they feel the need to be detached from their reader, I don't feel the need to be their reader.

Objectivity
It seems a diminishing commodity these days, but given the amount of biased (celebratory bias?) one is exposed to these days, a source that self consciously tries to be a genuinely unbiased source is a real treasure. In the wine world there are a few of those sources: Wine Business Monthly, Wine Market Report, Wines & Vines, Practical Winery & Vineyard, Vineyard & Winery Management. What all these have in common is they serve the trade...business. They attempt to be sources of information that others can use to run a business. Those behind these publications surely have biases. But they rarely come out in the news and research they report.

The entertainment an lifestyle publications are biased. In fact you want them to be if you are looking for a good, provocative, interesting read. The reviews of wines are by definition the source of bias. What else could they be. And, the editors and writers bring to the table a solid idea of what they believe is a compelling story. There is no way to do this without using one's bias. If a reader knows this, they can get a great deal more out of the wine publications.

Experience
I'm looking for experts. I'm looking for folks that have been around the wine business long enough that they've seen and heard a lot. I expect them have a bias, but I also have a great deal more respect for these folks. They've tasted widely, talked to more folks, including others like themselves and, importantly, they've seen trends come and go. These folks may not give us unbiased information, but that is different than unreliable information. My experience is that the information I get from those that have been around this business for 20 years or more is going to be of a higher caliber, better filtered, more contextual.

More and more I'm thinking about what's reliable information and what's not. I've not been burned of late by relying on bad information. But of late I've seen more opportunity to be burned.