private style

[SFJoe]

originally posted by Hank Beckmeyer:

Good work in the vineyard makes that "little help" unnecessary, assuming you haven't planted gamay in Lodi, for instance.

Often, the people who plant gamay in Lodi think that Chinon is too cold for cabernet franc.

 

[Hank Beckmeyer]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Hank Beckmeyer:

Good work in the vineyard makes that "little help" unnecessary, assuming you haven't planted gamay in Lodi, for instance.

Often, the people who plant gamay in Lodi think that Chinon is too cold for cabernet franc.

Wait?!? There's gamay in Lodi?!?

Yes that's true, but that's another issue - trying to copy another region's strength in an area totally unsuited for it.

 

[Steve Edmunds]

There ain't no fuckin Gamay in Lodi. There ain't no Gamay in California except the Gamay planted for Edmunds St. John. Period.

 

[Hank Beckmeyer]

Jezzus...I stand fuckin corrected then!

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by Rahsaan:
I'm certainly no expert on the business but it seems to me that there is more than $100+ (or even $40+) California wine. The Rich Folks Wine may indeed be in for tough times. But the cheaper stuff that can be sold to average consumers who want ripe full bodied tastes and names they can pronounce will probably hold strong.

Any ITBers with evidence for or against that?

Rahsaan is correct. The $100 gobsters are a drop in the barrel in terms of wine sales. More like half a drop now. Sales of 30+ California wines have fallen considerably, sales of under $20 wines have picked up, and $20-30 wines are down a bit (picking up the trade-downs from over $30, losing trade-downs to under $20).

Unfortunately, it is true that the expensive wines exercise more influence on wine styles than their sales (big margins, but very small quantity) or fan base (see small quantity) warrants. It is one of the peculiarities of the California wine business that many wines aspire to taste like the "prestige" wine of the moment that is one or two steps higher in price. It's thought of as providing value, but the style often follows fashion rather than actual consumer (or even trade) taste. Thus the $10 wine is oak-chipped and darkened to resemble the $20 wine that it wants to be, and the $20 vines are pruned back and overripened to resemble the $40 wine, and so on. All that said, there are still lots of "honest" wines out there, produced in the style that their makers think they do best according to their vineyards and taste. It's perhaps one of the silver linings of the recession cloud that trading down and the search for true value may end up with more of these wines getting tried and noticed.

ITB

 

[georg lauer]

originally posted by Steve Edmunds:
Let's get this straight!There ain't no fuckin Gamay in Lodi. There ain't no Gamay in California except the Gamay planted for Edmunds St. John. Period.

The winery says:
We only made 72 cases of this estate grown and made wine.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

...Unfortunately for them, the public seems to have tired of chasing the "next big thing" from Melka, Turley, Koonsgaard, etc. etc.

The "public" never really chased those wines. They are very small production and have low awareness and a pretty small (albeit wealthy and dedicated) fan base.

To me though, the California wine industry seems incapable of producing the killer app, that is, a real wine at a retail price point less than $20.

To you perhaps, but there are many frequent and highly involved wine consumers, with a variety of tastes, who would disagree. Although I think the situation is definitely worse on the east coast, a lot of the $10-20 "real" wines I think you mean (and maybe would even like) just don't seem to get distributed out there.

Sure, there are plenty of wines that are < $15 that folks seem to like. The issue is that they will eventually tire of them as they all seem to taste the same because they are all products of similar industrial processes.

I don't agree about "all products of similar industrial processes", but this is an interesting hypotheses. It would be very tricky to test in a quantitative way, but I wonder if this is what did in Aussie Shiraz, which has plunged in sales.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

Mark Lipton is one to something. I am no expert on California wines, despite my proximity, but I've long felt that the excesses of the wines correlates with the fertility of the growing regions. In CA one can get a grape fully ripe, as ripe as anyone would want (an then some.) To my palate, the better wines come from marginal growing regions with rocky soils, difficult terrains, cool breezy nights and etc. California is the land of agricultural plenty, but good wines seem to come from sites no one (from the Romans on) were really interested in farming.

But there was a fair number of exceptional wines coming from CA in the 1960s and 1970s. Mostly from people who were not trained at Davis.

I don't think Davis had much to do with overly reducing yields, tons of new oak, ultralong hang time, the obsession with soft tannins and brown seeds and the like.

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

Mark Lipton is one to something. I am no expert on California wines, despite my proximity, but I've long felt that the excesses of the wines correlates with the fertility of the growing regions. In CA one can get a grape fully ripe, as ripe as anyone would want (an then some.) To my palate, the better wines come from marginal growing regions with rocky soils, difficult terrains, cool breezy nights and etc. California is the land of agricultural plenty, but good wines seem to come from sites no one (from the Romans on) were really interested in farming.

But there was a fair number of exceptional wines coming from CA in the 1960s and 1970s. Mostly from people who were not trained at Davis.

I don't think Davis had much to do with overly reducing yields, tons of new oak, ultralong hang time, the obsession with soft tannins and brown seeds and the like.

Perhaps true -- Davis ruined the preceding generation which succeeded those of the 1960s and 1970s, but I the current generation is not much known to me (out of self-selection).

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Hank Beckmeyer:

originally posted by MLipton:
How are Disorderists who groove on wines from the Loire and the Jura to find happiness with wines made in a region that gets 50% more sunshine? Yes, maybe vineyard practices and careful site selection can reduce that difference, but is it reasonable to expect that CA wines will ever retain the acidity of their Old World counterparts without a little "help"?

Mark - Really? You can't enjoy a well made Californian wine just because of 50% more sunshine? I can - and I can also enjoy a wine from the Jura or the Loire, too. I enjoy them for what they are, and I enjoy them because they are different.

Please don't put words in my mouth, Hank. You have made an unwarranted assumption that I was referring to myself in that statement which, as it happens, is incorrect. That being said, I know of several participants here who, not for lack of trying, don't find many wines made in CA to their tastes.

In my case, the one grape that most bedevils me is Syrah. I have long loved the Syrah-based wines from the N Rhone, but the vast majority of CA Syrahs bore me if not outright horrify me (the same can be said for those from Australia). Yes, Steve Edmunds's wines are a grand exception, though he would probably be the first to admit that his wines aren't likely to be mistaken for Hermitage or Cornas. I have also liked some of the Syrahs from Terre Rouge and Lagier-Meredith and I have high hopes for future releases from Cowan Cellars, but those are the rare exceptions. As I said, there's no mystery here: I don't even like many Syrahs made from sunnier regions of France.

As another facet of this question, look at the problems winemakers in the Mosel are having with the warmer years they've faced in the last decade. Years like '03 and '06 were real challenges for them because of the lower acidity resulting from the warmer temperatures. Or look at Alsace's problems.

Good wine is good wine, no matter where its grown.

What is good wine? How do you define it? Is that wine that you like, or is wine that is technically sound?

Good work in the vineyard makes that "little help" unnecessary, assuming you haven't planted gamay in Lodi, for instance.

So can you point me to the outstanding examples of CA Melon de Bourgogne? Chenin Blanc? Riesling? I agree with your larger point -- that you have to plant the right grapes in the right places -- but what then are the right grapes for Napa or Paso? Mourvedre? Carignan? Grenache? Nero d'Avola? Aglianico?

Mark Lipton

 

[Florida Jim]

" . . . I have high hopes for future releases from Cowan Cellars, . . ."
Me, too.
But the smart money is on Steve.
Best, Jim

 

[VLM]

originally posted by MLipton:

What is good wine? How do you define it?

The standard definition is whether or not it is vlm-tr approved, otherwise it's plonk.

I'm sorta like the positive control and Jay Miller (the bad one) is the negative control.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by MLipton:

What is good wine? How do you define it?

The standard definition is whether or not it is vlm-tr approved, otherwise it's plonk.

I'm sorta like the positive control and Jay Miller (the bad one) is the negative control.

Thanks for clarifying, VLM. Until I see covariance statistics, though, I'm not going to be entirely comfortable.

Mark Lipton

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

...Unfortunately for them, the public seems to have tired of chasing the "next big thing" from Melka, Turley, Koonsgaard, etc. etc.

The "public" never really chased those wines. They are very small production and have low awareness and a pretty small (albeit wealthy and dedicated) fan base.

Well, the wine drinking public isn't the public either, but I get your drift. I still think that the "chasers" account for a disproportionate amount of spending and that it says something that no one cares about most of these wines anymore.

To me though, the California wine industry seems incapable of producing the killer app, that is, a real wine at a retail price point less than $20.

To you perhaps, but there are many frequent and highly involved wine consumers, with a variety of tastes, who would disagree. Although I think the situation is definitely worse on the east coast, a lot of the $10-20 "real" wines I think you mean (and maybe would even like) just don't seem to get distributed out there.

I have no way to confirm or disprove that statement. I try to still taste as broadly as I can, I even had some CA chardonnay off a list in Seattle when I was there at the suggestion of the wine person (I ordered a 2001 Radikon ribolla on my own). It wasn't exactly cheap, but it wasn't awful and it bordered on real.

My point is that these wines are far and away the exceptions way out in the tail of the distribution. Exceptions just prove the rule.

Or is that wrong? Do you think there are substantial enough numbers that it represents a distinct population?

Sure, there are plenty of wines that are < $15 that folks seem to like. The issue is that they will eventually tire of them as they all seem to taste the same because they are all products of similar industrial processes.

I don't agree about "all products of similar industrial processes", but this is an interesting hypotheses. It would be very tricky to test in a quantitative way, but I wonder if this is what did in Aussie Shiraz, which has plunged in sales.

I think this is exactly what happened to Aussie shiraz. When too many are indistinguishable, it becomes wine food product. The same thing happened to gloppy wines from Spain and Italy. It hasn't seemed to have been as bad in France, but it's hard for me to tell.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by MLipton:

What is good wine? How do you define it?

The standard definition is whether or not it is vlm-tr approved, otherwise it's plonk.

I'm sorta like the positive control and Jay Miller (the bad one) is the negative control.

Thanks for clarifying, VLM. Until I see covariance statistics, though, I'm not going to be entirely comfortable.

Mark Lipton

We correlate -.99.

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by MLipton:

Good work in the vineyard makes that "little help" unnecessary, assuming you haven't planted gamay in Lodi, for instance.

So can you point me to the outstanding examples of CA Melon de Bourgogne? Chenin Blanc? Riesling?

Mark Lipton

Historically, yes. Chalone Pinot Blanc was really Melon de Bourgogne -- it was great (not like Muscadet, but that's terroir, isn't it?), and Chalone also made outstanding Chenin Blanc. But I haven't tasted those wines in years so I don't know what they're like these days. Stony Hill used to make great Riesling -- again, don't know what it's like now. I have a bottle of Dashe Riesling to try that I'm looking forward to. But once again, with Dick Graff and the McCreas who made those wines, we're looking at non-Davis trained people.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Claude Kolm:

originally posted by MLipton:

Good work in the vineyard makes that "little help" unnecessary, assuming you haven't planted gamay in Lodi, for instance.

So can you point me to the outstanding examples of CA Melon de Bourgogne? Chenin Blanc? Riesling?

Mark Lipton

Historically, yes. Chalone Pinot Blanc was really Melon de Bourgogne -- it was great (not like Muscadet, but that's terroir, isn't it?), and Chalone also made outstanding Chenin Blanc.

No shit, those old Chalones were great. How are they these days?

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by VLM:
Exceptions just prove the rule.

Or is that wrong?

Yes.

 

[Yixin]

...enjoy them because they are different.

That's what child rapists say, too.

 

[Eden Mylunsch]

originally posted by MLipton:
-- but what then are the right grapes for Napa or Paso? Mourvedre? Carignan? Grenache? Nero d'Avola? Aglianico?

Mark Lipton

Since you asked, in the Napa Valley (excluding the Carneros District), I'd vote for Cabernet Sauvignon. You have my permission to graft over everything else, unless of course you'd like to retain some Merlot and Cabernet Franc so as to continue producing Bordeaux-style blends.

I'm more forgiving when it comes to setting up the approved-variety parameters in the Paso Robles AVA. Cabernet Sauvignon has proven to be very well-suited to the area, as have most of the Rhne varieties (both white and red). Simple economic sense precludes the use of Syrah, but Mourvedre and Grenache do just fine there, and I'm very encouraged with the quality of the Italian varieties coming out of the area. I haven't seen much Nero d'Avola (yet), but Luna Matta Vineyard is growing some excellent Aglianico and Nebbiolo. Neither will be immediately mistaken for their Italianate counterparts but they're credible warmest-climate grapes that will have their potential unveiled as soon as more winemakers figure out how to make the best of a good thing.

-Eden (unless they screw it up)