Loving the Smell of Band-Aids

When I was in my twenties, I belonged to a tasting group with equally “deep” tasting experience. We considered ourselves experts and would nod at each other knowingly as we tasted a bottle of funky, smelly Burgundy and say seriously, “goût de terroir.” We thought we really knew our stuff as we forced ourselves to drink and appreciate those awful old wines full of Brettanomyces, or Brett as those in the wine-know call it. All we knew is they were expensive and famous so that must be what great wines tasted like.

Brettanomyces is a strain of yeast that gives all sorts of lovely aromas and flavors to wines like: Band-Aids, sweaty horse saddle, barnyard or merde – it's funny how if you used the same word in English no one would dream of considering it a positive, but when we said it in French somehow it worked.

We loved, or thought we loved, wines full of that supposed goût de terroir and merde. If we tasted those wines today we would grimace and pour them down the drain. There were whole regions of wine dominated by the off-smells caused by Brettanomyces. Happily those days are gone and young wine tasters are spared this experience. Wine after all should taste of fruit, not shit and real goût de terroir is a wonderful thing that does not remind one of Band-Aids.

However, it is true that just a bit of Brett can make a wine more interesting and layered, but by a bit I mean just a tiny bit.

As it is such easy sport to lampoon The Wine Spectator,  it is easy to fall into the trap of never noting its successes. The March 31st 2006 issue contains some very good information in the form of a very nice article on Brettanomyces by Daniel Sogg. It is well worth reading for anyone not sure what the Brett fuss is all about. You will of course find this article way at the back of the magazine behind all the points and celebrity auction photos.

A great article in The Wine Spectator: no merde.

Pointless Character or Characterless Points?

Notice a pattern here?

• 2001- 95 pts. “Aromatic, structured and firm reds with racy character
• 2000- 100 pts. “Rich and opulent reds”
• 1999- 92 pts. “Balanced reds with firm tannins and bright fruit”
• 1997- 99 pts. “Superripe, opulent, flamboyant”
• 1996- 98 pts. “Textbook, structured, fruity racy reds”

What we learn from this is you get points for “superripe, opulent and flamboyant” and negative points for “aromatic, balanced, structured and textbook.”

Frankly that sucks, but actually it’s Suckling. The above ratings are the opinions of current Barolo and Barbaresco vintages by James Suckling as published in March 2006 Wine Spectator. I should stress these are only Mr. Suckling’s opinions as few people in the world share them and no respected source agrees with him. This is a strange position to take as generally a reporter would not report information that all of his most trusted sources says is incorrect.

What is clear is that Mr. Suckling painted himself into a corner with his wildly over-enthusiastic endorsement of the hot 1997 vintage that led to his preposterous “perfect” rating for the hot 2000 vintage. What is ironic is now he is giving the thumbs down to the hot 2003 vintage, which could produce better wines than either 1997 or 2000 simply because the winemakers had the experience of two hot vintages under their belts when the blazing sun of 2003 blasted the vineyards. They really knew how to handle the 2003’s, while the 1997, the first of the trio of scorching vintages, mistakes were made left and right by winemakers unaccustomed to such conditions.

It seems obvious from his descriptions of the wines that Mr. Suckling does not like nebbiolo unless it it bloated beyond recognition. His take on nebbiolo is like someone who douses pristine fresh oysters with Tabasco: thus making the raw materials pointless. His ranking of 2000 over 2001 would be laughable is it hadn't cost so many people money and distorted the true character of nebbiolo for countless wine drinkers new to the great wines of the Piedmont. What he is trying to do is to take the edge out of nebbiolo – the very thing that makes it unique. Nebbiolo without cut and precision is a wine that has no reason to exist.

Those who want to experience actual nebbiolo varietal character would be wise to focus their purchasing on the 2001, 1999 and 1996 vintages for aging, while stocking up on the lovely 1998’s for drinking while you wait for those three great vintages to spread their wings. Certainly there are many wines worth buying from 1997 and 2000, but they should be tasted with the understanding that these wines are atypical and not as highly regarded by the producers or press as the vintages listed above.

Notice a pattern here?

• 2003 95 pts. Exotic and powerful

The Tabasco bottle is now pointed at Bordeaux.

Lessons Learned from The National Enquirer

The wild claim I made in my last post, "The Best Wine I Ever Tasted" worked perfectly. Without the hyperbole, I could never have gotten anyone to read a tasting note about a lowly Muscadet. Sensationalism works!

While not the best wine I ever tasted, that Muscadet was a great wine, but wines like this just aren't on the radar today. Press reviews only focus on current releases and the public show little inclination to go beyond the wines and varietal of the moment. 

Wines like this, great as it may be, are the orphans of the wine media of today. 

Pinot impossible in Burgundy

At least that is what Decanter Magazine is reporting. It still remains unclear what's the main cause of the increasing girth of wines around the world. The culprit of the moment seems to be Robert Parker, but perhaps Mother Nature is more to blame. It would seem even she has more impact on vineyards than Mr. Parker. A quick look at the string of warm vintages in places like Piemonte and Oregon has to send up a few warning signals to even the skeptical.

Pinot impossible in Burgundy over next 50 years - decanter.com - the route to all good wine.

Pinot Report?

The Pinot Report

Pinot Noir of the Year

Loring Wine Company

Pinot Noir Santa Rita Hills Cargasacchi Vineyard 2004

“Deep ruby purple color; deep, slightly closed aromas with hints of pepper and cassis; big, bold flavors of black cherry and cassis, deep layers of pepper and spice notes; moderate tannin; smoky oak; great structure and balance; very long finish.” The Pinot Report

The tasting notes above come from The Pinot Report. This Loring Pinot Noir is their selection for the best pinot noir released in 2005. I mean to take no issue with this wine in any regard as I have never tasted it or any other wine from Loring. It may be wonderful. However, the tasting note itself reflects the dangers faced by pinot noir today. Let’s take a look at his comments;

• “Deep ruby purple color”
• “aromas with hints of pepper and cassis”
• “big, bold flavors of black cherry and cassis”

There must be some mistake here as these descriptors certainly can’t describe great pinot noir. Where are the references to the brilliant light garnet color, the elegant and complex bouquet and the haunting delicately long finish. Here we have an opaque purple wine tasting and smelling of cassis. Isn’t that Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon?

The Loring may or may not be a great wine in its own right, but if it tastes anything like The Pinot Noir Report says, great pinot noir its not. If you are going to report on pinot, report on pinot.

Lafayette Escadrille

From Decanter:

“The unofficial boycott of French wine in the US has cost the country an estimated US$112m (£64m), according to an official study.”

We can rest assured that this boycott has cost the elite producers of Bordeaux, Burgundy and Bordeaux not one cent. Dom Perignon, Chateau Latour and Le Montrachet are selling just fine in the USA thank you very much. As always, it it the less famous that take the brunt of such political posturing.  The small French wine farmer is threatened with extinction and this boycott will have no impact on the war one-way-or-the-other. If we are not careful we will lose a grand agricultural tradition and only corporations will remain - and we know what that means for wine quality. A boycott of French wines only damages the small producer, while the big names are unt0uched.

With American opposition to the war passing the 50% mark here at home, it would be difficult to buy many of the things we want if the supporting the war become the litmus test by which we spend our money. Most of the countries of the world oppose this war. The Germans stood with the French on this issue, but I hear of no boycotts of Mercedes or the Rheingau. Why are we picking on French winemakers?

I’m going to to my bit and keep drinking as much French wine as possible. Some political statements are easier to make than others.

Zul on Nero d'Avola

I'm not sure who is pictured here on the right, Dana or Zul. Whatever the case, Zul himself inhabits the world of Enemy Vessel (www.enemyvessel.com) and posts on The Wine Therapy Forum, hosted on the Enemy Vessel site. Yes, Enemy Vessel is primarily a wine forum so don’t be put off (I wasn't) by the vitriolic attack on President Bush on the front page. You’ll find the link to the wine forum at the bottom of the page. The Wine Therapy Forum is host to some of the most interesting wine posts on the Internet, although it sometimes seems to be a little club-ish and the personal forum of Joe Dressner. Unlike the over-moderation of most forums, here the patients run the asylum and threads can spin off into off-topic hell – or heaven depending on your point of view.

The best part of this forum are the regular postings of “Zul”, whose insights and knowledge of Italian wine (not to mention the rest of Europe) are worth a paid subscription to read. On a recent thread for example, Zul offers information you would be hard pressed to find in an English language publication. Follow the link below to that thread and keep an eye on The Wine Therapy Forum for his posts. Zul on Nero d'Avola

Robert Parker is the Enemy

Robert Parker is the enemy. Why on the Wine Therapy forum his name is banned. You can't even type it, as when you type Parker, only the word "censored" appears. The British press blames him for their loss of power and curse him for single handedly destroying their own personal backyard, Bordeaux.  Comments from Parker and his crew (Rovani et al) are met with hails of indignation and threads with hundreds and hundreds of posts drag on in circular arguments on his forum.

 But I think they are all wrong. Robert Parker is not the enemy. If there is an enemy it is The Wine Spectator, a publication with the same journalistic standards as Us magazine.

If there is one characteristic that makes for an excellent critic, it is consistency and no palate I have ever seen is as consistent as Parkers. If he gives a wine 95 points or 88 points I know exactly what it will taste like. It does not matter that personally I will usually prefer his 88 point wine to his 95 point wine, what matters is he successfully communicates the character of a wine to me because he is so consistent in his likes and dislikes. This makes for a great critic. Greatness in a critic does not mean that they agree with you, but that they can guide you towards your likes and dislikes reliably. I don't think anyone does this better than Robert Parker. For this he is worthy of our respect and admiration. He is a finely honed tasting machine.

The attacks on Parker come because he is on the top. Humans just love to pull people down. What Parker offers is his opinion, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that his opinion on certain styles of wines is so reliable makes his opinions useful. 

All of these attacks seems to have created an us-versus-them mentality over at The Wine Advocate and that's too bad as they would be better served by concentrating on what they do so well, instead of getting mired in circular arguments with Steve Plotnicki.  Taking on the persona of a statesman instead of a street fighter is a better strategy.

The Straight and Narrow

As the debate rages on multiple forums over Pierre Rovani's take on the premature oxidation of white Burgundy, you can't help but be struck by the extremes in the way people perceive wine. Some like it straight ahead and some like a more indirect approach. I see no exact advantage of one school over the other, but one thing for sure is they don't see eye to eye. I suppose its like listening to Miles Davis or Ornette Coleman: they are certainly different, but both are considered great.

There can be little doubt that Robert Parker and his associates are of the straight on, or what I call linear style, of the wine pendulum. That's why there is little debate (on this side of the Atlantic anyway) over The Wine Advocate reviews of Bordeaux and new world cabernet sauvignon, but introduce wines that dance around your pleasure centers like Burgundy or Barolo and a firestorm of controversy breaks loose – even on Parker’s own forum. Cabernet takes a straight line to that pleasure button and creates less of a critical mess.

I think that for wines like Burgundy and Barolo/Barbaresco, the only reliable places to go to are specialists; like Allen Meadow's Burghound or Antonio Galloni's Piedmont Report. Mass publications trying to cover the entire world of wines can not handle the curves thrown by such elusive and constantly changing wines. As reliable as The Wine Advocate is for Napa and the Medoc, the coverage breaks down with it come to non-linear wines, which is just not their specialty. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Ultimate Geekdom

What must constitute the ultimate example (at least penultimate)  of embarrassing wine geekdom are the members of the Robert Parker Forum -- sorry I always "forget" its called the Mark Squires Forum -- that actually use photos of themselves with Robert Parker as their avatar. Such avatars just scream, "get a life!"  These are the guys you don't want to be stuck sitting next to at wine dinners!

Hot, Hot, Hot

Hot, Hot, Hot. Eva Longoria could not be hotter: literally, figuratively, professionally and any "ly" you can come up with these days. Her picture graces every scandal sheet and tacky celebrity magazine lining the check out counters of every supermarket in the country. They are empty headed magazines for people without a life of their own. So what is Her Hot-ness Eva doing on the cover of The Wine Enthusiast?

The breathless cover story feature in The Wine Enthusiast goes on to document the fact that as good as she looks, Ms Longoria doesn't know a thing about wine other than the fact that she adores pinot grigio and really loves French wines although she doesn't know the names - Desperate Housewifes must be showing on French television. It's hard to imagine a more embarrassing article in a magazine pretending to be a source of expertise. The article is not embarrassing for her, but for the editors of the magazine its hard to imagine anything much worse.

What I suppose I am most amazed about is that considering that The Wine Enthusiast is little more than a bad  imitation of The Wine Spectator,  is that it is able to survive at all. Why in the world would anyone lay out good money for a second rate version of the People magazine of the wine world? Publications like these survive because there are millions of dollars funneled into advertising by big money wine beverage producers. The Wine Enthusiast issue featuring the sophisticated palate of Ms Longoria was paid for by wines that she would love.

 The Wine Enthusiast,  as it is published now, has no reason for existing except to suck in money from the Coca Cola side of the wine industry, so save your five bucks and stick to The Wine Spectator for celebrity updates.

A Turkey of a Recommendation

This morning on NBC's The Today Show, famed restaurateur, author  and winemaker Joseph Bastianich was the expert quest recommending wines for Thanksgiving. His recommendation for the turkey? None-the-less than Robert Mondavi Pinot Noir. I'll repeat that just in case you missed it: Robert Mondavi Pinot Noir. Now thousands of the millions who saw the segment will search out the Mondavi and for many of them it will be their first experience with pinot noir. While I realize that Bastianich had to make a recommendation of a wine that was readily available, it seems he could have found something better than the Mondavi when he was given such a bully pulpit to promote an interesting wine and, yes, there are interesting wines available that are produced in quantity. As a winemaker and restaurateur that gives the public image of supporting small production wines, this was not a choice that well reflected that image. To make matters worse, he kept referring to the Mondavi as a wine made by the father of the California wine industry, when (as we all know and I am sure he knows) the Mondavi family no longer makes the wines sold under the Mondavi label as now they are made by corporate giant Constellation Brands, who while they may own most of the California wine industry, certainly did not father it.

The consumer has a rough road when the experts treat such opportunities so lightly. 

Closer to Fine - Wine

There she is in a full page photo with feature story in the December 15th, 2005 issue of The Wine Spectator. Emily Saliers, 50% of The Indigo Girls, a folk-rock duo that makes clear their left-wing, anti-establishment politics. The article doesn't focus on politics of course, but on the fact that Saliers is now a restaurateur and wine lover. The caption below her photo lists her favorite wines as; 1994 Silver Oak, 1996 Opus One and 2000 Petrus.  Now there are some radical left-wing wine choices. It seems very strange that an artist who has prided herself as being a free-spirit would list wines that epitomize conservative choices (both wine and political choices) when there are so many wine growers in the world that make spectacular wine AND agree with her politics, indeed with her entire view of life. What this means I am not sure. You can certainly chalk it up to new money and little wine experience (and too much Wine Spectator reading) and hope that Saliers eventually follows the spirit of her art as she selects her wines. Celebrity and business-expense-account drinking are the only reason contrived wines like Opus and Silver Oak exist and articles like this just keep them going.

Haves and Haves-nots

The obvious story of Mondovino would seem to be the haves vs. the have-nots. The rich and powerful Mondavi, Antinori, Frescobaldi and the Bordeaux aristocracy against the small passionate producer. In fact, we have the roles reversed in this case, the "have-nots" are really the "haves".

The story of Mondovino is that the "haves" of the wine world are not those with money and titles, but those with passion and, most of all, great vineyards. The "have-nots" in this case are the big money folks are more concerned with manipulations, marketing and consultants. Let's face it, these are things you can control and buy, but great vineyards are hard to come by and almost impossible to buy in the great old-world regions.

Since they lack great vineyards and true passion they create brands not wines. Industrial producers like Bossiet build their success on being the exact opposite of the vineyard based Burgundian tradition, a patchwork of small plots and diverse owners that are a marketing executive's nightmare.

I suppose you could ultimately blame the consumer, who is more interested in consistency and fame than real complexity. That is why the greatest winemakers are not press or marketing driven, but driven by an inner vision and love for their land. These are people who want to lead the consumer, while the Boissets and Mondavis of the world are led by the consumer.

Mondovino

Mondovino made it to DVD before coming to McMinnville. This truly surprised me as there are hundreds of wine professionals in the hills surrounding the Mack Theatre. Besides that, the Mack often brings in movies that don’t qualify as blockbusters. In its own way, Mondovino was a true wine blockbuster far more than Sideways. I thought this would be a slam-dunk success for the theatre and a real happening for the wine community here in the Willamette Valley. However, last Friday’s showing of the film brought out only a thin crowd of twenty or so wine folks. The premise of the film supports the small winemaker, vineyard-focused style of winemaking that predominates here, but the problem may lie in the insulated nature of winemaking here. More exposure to the broad world of winemaking is essential for winemakers with high goals and it’s a shame more did not take advantage of this opportunity.