Daily Wine News: Reimagined Wine

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 02-28-2014

Kirk Grace, projecting grape yields.

Kirk Grace at Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars.

“If anything useful came out of the wreckage, it was Mr. DeLissio’s opportunity to reimagine his wine program.” In the New York Times, Eric Asimov writes about Joseph DeLissio’s efforts to reshape the wine program at River Café after Hurricane Sandy.

M. pulcherrima may be just the first of many new yeast tools available to winemakers interested in preventing their products from straying uncomfortably close to the realm of plastic jugs and flaming desserts.” In Scientific American, Jennifer Frazer explores rising alcohol levels in wine.

“The vineyard itself is small, just about half an acre, and slopes at 11 degrees down toward the barn.” Fred Swan profiles Wise Acre Vineyard, a project of Lynn and Kirk Grace that I’ve heard incredible things about.

In Palate Press, Mary Cressler chats with Paul Durant and Erica Landon, founders of the Oregon Chardonnay Symposium, to find out “why it was so important for them to build an event revolving around a grape variety that represents less than 5% of total plantings in the state.”

As America’s wine culture mature s, France’s devolves. As S. Irene Virbila reports, “drinkers in France are snatching up bottles of rosé pamplemousse (grapefruit-flavored rosé) and rosé mandarin or black currant at an ever-growing rate.”

In Forbes, Cathy Huyghe explores the business model of urban wineries

“On his long, slow flight back to Australia, Schubert reflected on his even slower return from the destruction of the war a few years before.” Wine-Searcher offers an excerpt from “A Year in the Life of Grange,” a photo essay by Milton Wordley and Philip White.

Mike Veseth applauds the Wine Spectator “for giving its readers a nudge off the beaten path.”

Huge thanks to the Serious Eats team for introducing the world to “19 Winery Dogs and Cats.”

Ted Loos Interviews Jay McInerney

Posted by | Posted in Interviews | Posted on 02-27-2014

Photo by EJ Camp.

Photo by EJ Camp.

While the most anticipated event of last week’s Wine Writers Symposium was Robert Parker’s keynote address, the most entertaining was Ted Loos’ conversation with Jay McInerney.

McInerney began his talk by telling attendees about how he learned about wine. While earning his master’s at Syracuse, McInerney landed a job at a decent wine shop in a dodgy neighborhood, as the owner hoped the neighborhood “might gentrify someday.”

At this point in the Loos/McInerney conversation, I decided to start recording. Only the first few seconds are missing. Check out the transcript below!


Jay McInerney: …In the hopes that the neighborhood might gentrify someday. Number one, he had a section of good wines, which kind of gathered dust. And he also had a big selection of wine books. So when I wasn’t working on my book, I would read through the books he had there. And also, it was a tradition among the clerks, since we were so badly paid, to take home a bottle every night.

So I started at the bottom. At that time there was a Yugoslavia, and we had Yugoslavian Cabernet and a Yugoslavian Chardonnay. So I kind of started there and worked my way up.

The height of my ambition as a thief was that I worked my way up to a Freixenet, the Spanish cava. And that was for special occasions, including the day that I got a phone call at the wine store saying that my first novel had been accepted for publication. It was pretty exciting. I might have taken two bottles of Freixenet home that night!

So in a way, these two careers were intertwined. Bright Lights, Big City was published in 1984 and it turned out to be a much bigger success than I could have imagined. I was sort of planning to have a career as an English professor, and eventually it seemed that I might actually have a career as a novelist. And when I got my Master’s degree, I left Syracuse and moved to New York.

So I was happily pursuing my career as a novelist — I think I wrote probably five or six novels between 1984 and 1995. And in the meantime, I had become a bit of an oenophile. The release of Bright Lights, Big City — or the big sales of it — happened to coincide with the release of the 1982 Bordeaux vintage. So I was very fortunate to lay down some of those, which I still have, and I am very grateful for Robert Parker, for telling me and everybody else that this was a very special vintage. He was right, and almost everybody else said that it wasn’t. God those wines are still good!

So that was my first love, Bordeaux. And I don’t think I really drank anything that excited me from California for quite a long time. Anyway, in 1995, a friend of mine took over the editorship of House and Garden Magazine, which you may remember, a venerable Conde Nast title. And she wanted to really kind of bring it into the contemporary era. So in addition to food, she felt that the sort of people that were interested in fabrics and American Beauty roses might also be interested in Cabernet Sauvignon. And she wanted a wine column. As a connoisseur herself, she felt that most of the wine writing at that time was pretty boring. Or, it was technical.

I always thought there were certainly two schools of writing then.

There was the English school of writing, which had a lot to do with the flowers, you know? Everything smelled like flowers. And knowing nothing about flowers myself, that wasn’t very helpful. And then this was sort of technical school, about new oak regimens, malolactic fermentation. I can honestly say that in 1995, I had no idea what malolactic fermentation was, and it didn’t really help me to enjoy what I was drinking.

So basically, you had Parker there, really helping to guide you through. And he was actually writing tasting notes. And there wasn’t a lot of really interesting and fun wine writing, which is ultimately what persuaded me to take this on.

Initially I said look, I don’t know enough about wine to write. I’m just a fan. And my friend said, well why don’t you just write about it from a novelist’s point of view? You know, be honest about what you don’t know, but why don’t you just tell the stories about the people that make it?

And the other thing I thought eventually was that, so much wine writing — particularly tasting notes, of course — is an attempt to literally describe the flavors of wine. And I have to admit that I don’t think this is my strong suit. But I think as a novelist, something that I do bring to wine is basically a new set of metaphors, and similes and analogies.

So when I started this thing, which I thought I might try for six months, I was basically working with what limited tools I had. And I started comparing wines to, you know, actresses, pop songs, poems, automobiles.

Ted Loos: Do you need a partial list of actresses? Jessica Simpson, Audrey Hepburn, Christie Brinkley, Grace Kelly, Angelina Jolie. And Angelina Jolie you were comparing a Domaine de la Romanée-Conti.

Jay McInerney: Really? I must have been drunk!

In my defense, there were some male figures there as well. I know at one point I compared a Turley Petite Sirah to Arnold Schwarzenegger. And also to a Chevy Suburban.

Ted Loos: Because it’s the Craft of Writing Day, I’d be curious to know how you toggle back and forth. I imagine, for novels, you’re sitting on the deck, you know, happily writing. But for your Wall Street Journal column, how do you deal with deadlines and go back and forth?

Jay McInerney: Well, sometimes it’s hard. I’ve actually been working on a novel for the last two years. And just this past year I asked the Journal to dial me back to once a month, just so I could finish the novel.

On the other hand, I have to say I kind of look forward to writing about wine. Fiction is my day job. And writing about wine still just seems incredibly fun to me. So I almost look forward to the moment when I realize I have to drop the day job and focus on the wine writing.

It’s a great, great luxury to have that to turn to. Because frankly, there’s a lot of days when I stare at my computer screen, and I find myself having incredible difficulty conjuring imaginary characters. Whereas, one of the things that I love about wine writing is that there is thousands of fascinating characters in the wine world. I mean, there aren’t a whole lot of dorks and boring anal-retentive people in the wine world, you know? Most of them have a really good story. Read the rest of this entry »

Daily Wine News: Small Differences

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 02-27-2014

Sigmund_Freud_1926

From Wikipedia.

In his Wine-Searcher debut, Mike Steinberger writes about “the narcissism of small differences.

“If you really enjoy something, is it pretentious to learn and use some of the vocabulary that goes with it?” Tom Natan writes an excellent piece exploring whether or not wine jargon is really any more “pretentious” than, say, sports jargon. (Hint: It isn’t.)

“The quality of sparkling wines made beyond Champagne’s borders has never been more exciting and that excitement is a very, very recent phenomenon.” Tom Stevenson considers the potential of sparkling wine outside Champagne.

Elsewhere in Wine-Searcher, Paolo Tenti profiles Giuseppe Quintarelli.

“If sherry catches on in this country, it will be people like Brown and Tseng who make it happen.” In the Washington Post, Dave McIntyre explains why Sherry isn’t just for grandma.

In the San Jose Mercury News, Jessica Yadegaran profiles Fredric Koeppel of Bigger Than Your Head.

In the Press Democrat, Dan Berger remembers when a 1971 Chateau Laville Haut-Brion changed his life.

In Grape Collective, Jameson Fink explores Idaho’s Snake River Valley with Indian Creek Winery.

Fred Swan applauds Calera and Ridge for their back labels.

Thank oenococcus oeni for some of wine’s deliciousness.

Daily Wine News: Weedy Wines

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 02-26-2014

Flickr, Ann Althouse.

Flickr, Ann Althouse.

“Are we beset by a wave of underripe, weedy wines that do California no justice? I see little evidence of that.” Jon Bonné comments on Robert Parker’s appearance at this year’s Wine Writers Symposium.

“I believe the assembled writers felt honored to have the opportunity to hear Mr. Parker speak in person to a group of peers, but I am not sure that a whole lot of opinions were changed.” Elsewhere, Kort Van Bronkhorst offers his take.

And in case you missed it, here’s mine!

Alice Feiring comments on the French Agriculture Ministry’s decision to prosecute Emmanuel Giboulot for his refusal to apply a mandatory insecticide treatment to his vineyard aimed at Pierce’s Disease.

“In reading the book I kept thinking that what Jon terms a revolution is really a move back to a classic norm.” Robert Haas of Tablas Creek reviews The New California Wine.

“You may have noticed that $8 malbec you’ve been buying for years just doesn’t taste as great as it used to.” In Table Matters, Shelby Vittek explains why.

In Grape Collective, Christopher Barnes chats with wine importer Juan Prieto. By day, Prieto is  the sports psychologist for the New York Mets.

Elsewhere in Grape Collective, Jameson Fink interviews Steven Grubbs, the sommelier at Five & Ten.

Kyle Schlachter shares his “Initial comments on Premiere Napa Valley 2014.”

They’ve doubled production each year since they started, all on a shoestring budget.” Look out for amphorae to be the next hot winemaking vessel.

In Bloomberg TV, Antonio Galloni explains why he “Wants to See a Wine Bottle on Every Table.”

On a personal note, I attended the Wine Writers Symposium as a faculty member to talk to attendees about pitching and placing. The takeaways from my discussion are up on my company’s website.

Parker’s Remarks: Memorable but Disappointing

Posted by | Posted in Commentary | Posted on 02-25-2014

Parker at WWS14(Editor’s note: Last week, Robert Parker spoke to attendees at the annual Wine Writers Symposium. Alder Yarrow has put up a video and Richard Jennings has published a rough transcript together with his thoughts. I’ve published a transcript of Parker’s response to smart questions posed by Tony Lawrence and Jon Bonné. More snippets will be published in the coming days. But here’s my commentary.)

“I want all of you to succeed.”

When Robert Parker spoke at the annual Wine Writers Symposium last Wednesday, he opened with these words.

While he meant well, such words would have been better suited to, say, the Wine Bloggers Conference. Or a high school English class.

Eric Asimov, Ray Isle, Jon Bonné, and Karen MacNeil sat in the audience. As did Jay McInerney, one of the nation’s greatest living novelists. So did about a dozen magazine editors. As did Lisa Perrotti-Brown, Parker’s boss.

This was the audience. Just 62 writers participated in the symposium. Those who follow wine would have recognized more than half the room. So while his intentions were good, the comment was stunningly patronizing.

As Parker continued, he was personable, humorous, and disarming at times. But over and over again, he came off as divisive and dismissive. He said nothing to convince the crowd he’s more thoughtful than the stereotype he’s created for himself.

Although the appearance was certainly memorable, it was disappointing.

Throughout his remarks, Parker lamented the “myth” that’s evolved about him and his palate and called for more “civility” in the discourse about it. But only once did he admit that he “sometimes overdoes it and gets carried away.”

Remember: This is the critic who praised a Philadelphia BYO in 2010 by celebrating the fact that there wasn’t “a precious sommelier trying to sell some teeth enamel removing wine with acid levels close to toxic, made by some sheep farmer… and made from a grape better fed to wild boar than the human species.”

This is the critic who, just last month, lambasted “a vociferous minority,” who are “perpetrating nothing short of absolute sham on wine consumers.” The sham, which celebrates lower alcohol wines, is a “phony anti-California, anti-New World movement by Eurocentric, self- proclaimed purists.”

In discussing this particular screed, Parker told symposium attendees he wrote it “to encourage conversation on the subject… because we need to discuss it civilly.” He also cited this particular piece to tell the crowd that he doesn’t “like absolutists” – moments after telling us “truth” and “history” are on his side.

The lack of self-awareness would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

With retirement so obviously on the horizon, wine writers — and consumers — expect more from Parker.

We expect more because of the examples set by similar luminaries.

Look at Jancis Robinson. Late last year, Robinson celebrated the “democratization of wine” with the following: No longer are wine critics and reasonably well-known wine writers like me sitting on a pedestal, haughtily handing down our judgments. Nowadays, our readers can answer back, they can throw stones at us, they can make up their own minds. That’s altogether a lot healthier.”

We also expect more because Parker tells us to.

In his opening, he praised the “good talent” that exists in the wine writing community and noted that today’s writers have “infinite possibilities.” Just before taking questions, he said, “it’s sort of a shame that when I look around this room, it’s just a tiny, tiny number of people I’ve ever met, which is sort of sad.”

Parker paints himself as an elder statesman – and acts like he wants to fill that role. But over and over again, he undermines that portrait.

At the symposium, Eric Asimov, Ray Isle, Jon Bonné, Karen MacNeil, Jay McInerney, and others took part in all the events. They were eager to hang out with younger, less accomplished writers. Yet Parker vacated the symposium the moment his time slot ended.

Early in his remarks, Parker described his personal philosophy as “live and let live.” He concluded with an admission that “we’re much closer together in what we believe than what separates us.”

If only he could live up to his words.

Robert Parker Responds to Jon Bonné

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 02-25-2014

Jon BonnéWhen Robert Parker spoke to attendees at last week’s Wine Writers Symposium, virtually everyone assumed there’d be at least a few fireworks.

After all, in an “Article of Merit” published on his website (subscription required) in late January, Parker laid into the sommeliers and wine writers who champion obscure varieties and low-alcohol wines. (For background, check out the responses from Alder Yarrow and Jason Wilson.)

Few writers have been as vocal as Jon Bonné in their frustration with California’s modern style. Indeed, his 2013 book, The New California Wine,  celebrates those producers who remain committed to “restrained, compelling wines that [speak] clearly of their origins.”

So I wasn’t surprised that Bonné stood up to ask Parker about his recent screed.

Jon Bonné: First, a huge thanks to you for coming today. I know we are not necessarily the easiest crowd to get in front of. I want to go back to a couple things you had said before, one of which is that California is making more world-class wines today than we ever have. I would certainly agree, I think most folks in the room would agree, but I also want to go back to the essay you wrote not that long ago, when you described the low-alcohol movement as a “phony anti-California, anti-New World movement by Eurocentric, self- proclaimed purists… spurred on by a very tiny group of wine producers who claim Europe as their spiritual mentor, which would be fine were it not for the fact that the along the way, they virtually trash just about everything in the USA, South America or Australia.”

I don’t know exactly who you were referring to. I know Scholium Project and Raj Parr’s wines were sort of name checked later, on the bulletin board, which I do still read.

I guess my question is, whether it’s a wine like Sandhi, whether it’s other wines in California – and to your point about power, and really having stuffing in the bottle, certainly there are diluted wines and certainly there are under-powered wines, but there are also wines that are being made in a style that I don’t know if I would necessarily say they’re low alcohol, but I’d say they are different from the style that was dominant in California for a while. Those aren’t necessarily flukes. I mean, I would say certainly there’s critical disagreements about them, whether it’s me, whether it’s Eric or Jancis or whoever. Under the notion of live and let live, why not allow more diversity? Why not allow California to explore the full potential of what it can do that might show nuance in addition to that.

Robert Parker: Well, you’d be surprised — I actually agree with what you’re saying. And I’ll read something here, written about 20 years ago, that I think confirms that. Even though that passage you just read is, you know, a call-to-arms so to speak, I’m not saying that these wines shouldn’t be made. I am saying I think it’s a mistake to have a formula where your objective is to have low alcohol and you’re going to pick the grapes at a lower brix just so you can have low alcohol and then somehow slam the word elegant on it. You’re not getting an elegant wine; you’re just getting a wine that’s lower in alcohol.

California is not really conducive to making low-alcohol wines in many ways, but we’re seeing a change. We’re seeing projects like Steve Kistler’s in Occidental. Okay, he’s able to get exceptional flavor concentration in his Pinots at about 12.5 to 13 percent alcohol. But that’s related to the micro-climate, and obviously somewhat to the viticulture that he’s employed.

I have no problem with that. I’ve never actually used alcohol at any level as a litmus test for judging a wine, it’s just not important to me. Also, for most of my career, the little strip labels that had the alcohol lied anyhow!

What I’m railing about there is that if you intentionally go out and say, well, I’ve got to make a lower alcohol wine so I’m just going pick earlier, you’re really just picking under-ripe fruit that isn’t going give the full expression of terroir or of that fruit.

I had this argument with Adam Tolmach at Ojai, who I visited probably every year for 10 or 15 years, and one year he brings out this Chardonnay that he picked at some ridiculously low brix number. And he says, “Now this is what I’m going do in the future because it’s low in alcohol.”

And it had no flavor! The acidities were too high. Now you could say, well, okay, “that’s your taste.” But I can guarantee, if he sticks with that program, he’s not going to make it, because that’s not what people want. He can find a smaller group that may endorse this sort of wine. But when I look across the entire field of play, I have no problem with these kind of wines. I just don’t think that people making those wines should be trashing the other wines that are big, rich, full-bodied, and alcoholic as some sort of beverage for Neanderthals.

That’s when I really get upset. I wrote that column to encourage conversation on the subject, because I think it needs to be discussed, and because we need to discuss it civilly. I think that now there are terroirs that Californians are discovering where you can get the concentration of flavor.

See, I’m going to flunk a wine if it doesn’t have the requisite flavor focus and intensity of flavor. It’s not going pass muster with me, because then I think they haven’t picked the grapes at the proper time. They haven’t gotten the full phenolic expression of the grapes or the terroir or the vintage character.

And I just want to read something I wrote, God knows, I think it was the first written in 1990.

Exceptional wines emerge from a philosophy which includes the following: permit the vineyards terroir, slow micro-climate, distinctiveness to express itself; 2) allow the purity and characteristics of the grape varietal or blend of varietals to be faithfully represented in the wine; 3) produce a wine without distorting the personality and character of a particular vintage by excessive manipulation. Excessive manipulation to me would be picking too soon, or picking too late; 4) follow an uncompromising, non-interventionistic winemaking philosophy that eschews food-processing industrial mindset of high-tech winemaking. In short, give the wine a chance to make itself naturally without – ah, I hate the world naturally! — without the human element attempting to sculpture or alter the wine’s intrinsic character.

Now, I don’t want to sound like that was a dogma annunciated by Alice Feiring, but in many ways, there’s a lot of similarities. And I think I have never deviated from that point.

When I first started, winemaking was on a real dangerous, slippery slope. They were bringing in micropore filters that could just strip the hell out of wines. There was too much fining going on, there were all kinds of techniques. But I think what has happened is that when you start throwing around things like, oh, mega-purple is being used now and tannins are being added and all these yeasts and enzymes — I really don’t know any quality producer that does that, and if they do it, then they’ve done it very well. And I’m totally against that.

You know, I never talk about the fact that I’ve had a vineyard with Pat’s brother since 1986 – our first vintage was 1990 — and I’ve never spoken, but I’m going to say one thing about it. (Editor’s note: Parker is referring to Beaux Frères in Oregon.) When people are looking at me and accusing me of loving fruit bombs — I do like fruit, don’t get me wrong – but that vineyard? In most vintages, we’ve had sulfur levels where we didn’t have to put SO2 on the label; they were that low. And we can go back now 20 years and see that at those low levels, the wines are still stable. That was a dangerous game. That vineyard is bio-dynamically farmed. I’m not totally in agreement with that — and I won’t let them advertise it — but I’m in agreement with the philosophy, less chemicals and doing things as naturally as possible. I just don’t think you can go from that and say, oh, it automatically makes better wines and people who are fertilizing and using pesticides and stuff are making crappy wine. I just don’t believe that.

We don’t fine or filter and I think the wine is relatively delicate and not a big wine. And we’ve had only two or three vintages over 13.5, 14 percent alcohol. In my mind, I know the best wine we’ve ever made out there was the 1994, which was 15.5 percent alcohol!

So there’s always these contradictory things that you run across. But anyhow, if I had one hope, it’s that all of us would stick together a little bit better than we’re doing. And that we move forward as a group of real wine lovers. I would hope that some of you — and I’m inviting you — when you disagree with something I say, or you want to ask a question about anything, pick up the phone and call me. I am not going bite anybody.

Having been the butt of jokes and ridiculed – and obviously, when you’re ridiculed, there’s really no way to respond; you just ignore it — but I would like to see more civility. And I think that by and large, we’re much closer together in what we believe than what separates us.

Daily Wine News: Unfair Blasts

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 02-25-2014

Parker at WWS14“For Parker to follow his broad over generalizations and unfair blasts at producers and writers with a call for greater collegiality on the part of wine writers struck me as more than a little disingenuous.” Richard Jennings comments on Robert Parker’s address to the Wine Writers Symposium.

“Along the way he made and buried wineries. He can’t see that. Producers’ desire to rate highly in his newsletter drove richness in wine, and eventually alcohol, to unprecedented levels. He won’t admit that.” Elsewhere, Fred Swan offers his take.

“If I were to find an older, forgotten bottle in my cellar, I would happily serve it at a dinner party. But grüner is so good young that I would rather drink it than sock it away.” Dave McIntyre ponders the longevity of Gruner Veltliner.

“The Bordeaux en primeur system needs a radical overhaul. The wines are tasted too young, the samples are often manipulated to make them taste softer, the opening prices are frequently determined by journalists rather than true demand and, worst of all, consumers get a raw deal.” Tim Atkin writes an excellent piece in Wine-Searcher.

“Corks are maddening things.” Harvey Steiman writes a strong defense of screw caps.

Robert Camuto is woried about plans to move the world’s greatest collection of vinestock.

The Albany Times Union explains why New York’s “at rest” proposal “is needless and would cost wine sellers and consumers.”

Wine Business applauds the “Winners of the 13th Annual Napa County Pruning Contest.”

In Punch, Sarah Baird “joins the Krewe of Cork for a look into the revelrous world of Fat Tuesday’s wine worshippers.”

“I think of Coravin as a wine bar in your house, where your freedom to experience and learn about this wonderful beverage is limited only by the number of bottles you own.” Jameson Fink chats with Greg Lambrecht, inventor of the Coravin.

Parker Comments on “Parkerization”

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 02-24-2014

Parker at WWS14

Robert Parker at the Wine Writers Symposium.

Last week, some of the nation’s top wine writers gathered in Napa Valley for the annual Wine Writers Symposium.

The most anticipated event took place at 8:30am on Wednesday. While wine writers typically aren’t a morning bunch, the room was absolutely packed a full thirty minutes before Parker’s arrival.

Those who followed #WWS14 on Twitter were able to follow (and react) to Parker’s remarks in real time. Bill Ward collected some of the best quotes, and Fred Swan has already reacted. I recorded the event and will be publishing most of the transcript in parts.

While personable (at times) and disarming, it was mostly disappointing. I’ll offer more substantive thoughts later this week.

In the meantime, here’s a question posed by Tony Lawrence, a wine educator in Philadelphia.

Tony Lawrence: What is a “Parkerized” wine?

Robert Parker: Maybe one of you can tell me what it is!

In the 60s in Bordeaux, the most famous enologist was a guy named Émile Peynaud. And he had a lot of clients. And he was the first one to sort of begin to advocate some more radical things that weren’t being done, and more selective process, in making better wine. Some of his critics started using the term Peynaudization, because they said that all the wines tasted alike.

I think “Parkerization” is a derivative of that. I think it’s the people who don’t read the Wine Advocate, who don’t see the breadth and diversity of wines that we cover. Pull out one Australian Shiraz that I gave it huge score to and say “Parker likes these bombastic fruit bombs and it’s been Parkerized — the wine isn’t worth a damn anymore.”

Again it’s just sort of a simplified, knee-jerk reaction to try and put my palate in a little cubbyhole, or in black and white terms. You know, I’m hoping one day it gets into Webster’s Dictionary, but so far it hasn’t happened! You know, people that know me are just shocked by some of the things they see about what I’m supposed to drink.

When I judge wines, I do believe that flavor intensity is critical. And I’m looking at wines that I want to see improve in a bottle and be better in five and 10 years than they are today. You cannot have a diluted, shallow wine being produced and call it elegant and feminine, or whatever, and expect that wine to do anything in the bottle. It’s just going to fall apart because there’s just nothing there to begin with. You need some power, you need some richness, you need some intensity.

Just here, a few days ago, at Press, we had one last bottle of 1969 Chappellet.

I remember interviewing Philip Togni, who made the wine, and he said it was the greatest Cabernet he ever made. I said, “come on, Phil, greater than any of the wines you made up on Spring Mountain at your winery?” He said, “Yes, it’s the greatest wine.”

So one of my old colleagues, Jay Miller, found it being offered at an auction and ended up buying the entire allotment, which I think was four cases at $35 a bottle. And we had this wine — 45 years old now — and it’s brilliant. It’s powerful, it’s rich, some nuances have started to develop, and it could go for another 45, 50 years, where it’s stored. There has to be matter, there has to be intensity.

I remember talking to the great Hermitage winemaker, Gerard Chave, about his 2003 which, you know, there was no acidity in it, none. I mean, literally. And the pH was over four. I said, “you’re going to put this wine in a bottle, and you think it’s going to age?” And he said, “yeah, ’cause it’s just like my father said the 1929 was. Because it has so much dry extract, so much fruit and extract, that it will survive on that.”

Now, of course, it’s a little too early, 11 years later, to say whether he’s right or wrong, but I bet he’s right. They’ve been making wines since 1481; they usually get it right.

Daily Wine News: Lolloped Out

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 02-24-2014

hirsch“The party was still going strong when I lolloped out sometime after one, and the I.P.O.B. crowd partied on, apparently attempting to prove that excess in the pursuit of balance is no vice.” Jay McInerney hangs out with the group beyond IPOB.

“While family connections are traded as currency in Napa, Rory Williams’ work in the fields sends a notable message about his willingness to earn his peerage, so to speak.” Jon Bonné profiles Rory Williams of Calder Wine, “a new Napa talent, with an eye for the past.

Punch launches “That Wine Lyfe,” a new series that chronicles the consumption of America’s wine pros. First up? Grant Reynolds of Charlie Bird.

From the Napa Valley Register: “The 2014 Premiere Napa Valley Barrel Auction raised $5.9 million during 4 1/2 hours of spirited bidding Saturday afternoon.”

Jancis Robinson writes about  the Canary Islands.

“It’s great to be here in Shanghai, or as they call it in Bordeaux, ‘Our 2013 Warehouse.'” The HoseMaster gets his hands on Robert Parker’s upcoming speech in Singapore.

Lenn Thompson explains why he’s “still so enthusiastic about the future of Long Island wine.”

“I have been impressed by his thoughtfulness as a winemaker, and his attention to vine physiology as the root of his winemaking.” Lily-Elaine Hawk Wakawaka visits Santa Barbara County to chat with Tyler Thomas about his new position at Star Lane.

In Wine-Searcher, Adam Lechmere profiles Jean-Charles Boisset.

“In many wine regions of the world, aficionados can bike or hike between tasting rooms. But Michigan offers a novel vineyard-to-vineyard option: by ski and snowshoe.” New York Times travel writer Elaine Glusac writes about “a 7.5-mile cross-country ski trail [that] links two wineries and a cider house in the Leelanau Peninsula.”

Daily Wine News: Astonishingly Complex

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 02-21-2014

waterwine“You will almost certainly be rewarded if you permit yourself to be challenged.” Eric Asimov tastes through an astonishingly complex collection of amontillados.

Bill Ward gets “a healthy dose” of Robert Parker at the Wine Writers Symposium.

In Serious Eats, Maggie Hoffman asks “17 somms from around the country about the wineries they’re most excited about right now.”

“To experience real pleasure, in most walks of life, you have to leave the mainstream behind.” Jamie Goode compares music to wine.

“Robert Nadeau, who produces “huge” Zinfandel wines near Paso Robles, California, said he sensed trouble when reddish silt started coming out of his faucets.” In Bloomberg, James Nash looks at the impact of this year’s drought on the California wine industry.

In Wine Enthusiast, Joseph Hernandez talks to Ray Walker about his decision to launch Maison Ilan in Burgundy and “how he owes his newfound life to his wife and why he’s never looked back.”

Harvey Steiman reports on the latest shake up at Evening Land.

“When it’s made with a devoted attention to detail, and quality, grappa can be quite the smooth operator.” In Palate Press, Michelle Locke gets to grips with grappa.

“It does seem like a travesty to mix champagne with anything but a plate of oysters, it must be said that stout… plays remarkably well with its unsuspecting spouse.” In Punch, Daniel Krieger looks at the history of The Black Velvet.