Why so much syrah?

originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Chris Weber:
If I thought my cab producer was putting syrah in it surreptitiously - not to make a better wine, but to turn some otherwise unsaleable inventory at my expense - I think I'd go looking for a new producer.
Click to expand...

Chris,
First of all, I think the reason your cab. producer puts syrah in his cab. is irrelevant - if he doesn't tell you.
Second, I suspect you are in for several disappointments.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

The gov't agrees with you that his motivation is irrelevant, but also thinks the fact he does it at all is likewise.

I prefer the French model, if it says cab, it's 100%. Anything else is the proverbial pig-in-a-poke.

And no, they're not going to get me, I don't drink Cal cabs.
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
My real objection here is with the cabernet sauvignon. Where there actually should be a little weediness instead I find bacon. It ruins the whole wine. Even if it was crappy wine to begin with at least it could be true to the crappy grape named on the label.
Click to expand...

What about Musar then?
 
Why so much syrah?... Is there a glut of cheap syrah around and people just have to use it up?
...
Click to expand...
Exactly correct. For some reason, many independent growers planted a lot of acres of Syrah during 1997-2001, apparently thinking it would be the "next big thing," despite the fact that there was little demand for Syrah as a bottled varietal from California. Presumably the success of Aussie Shiraz convinced a lot of people "we can do that too." Also, it's a fairly easy-to-grow grape that can make decent wine in a wide variety of conditions. In fact, on average it makes a better wine in the Central Valley than Cab or Merlot. In the hands of quality-oriented growers in Lodi and Yolo, it can be quite good.

Well, demand never caught up, prices plunged and you have to do something with the grapes, so it pops up as the blender-of-choice in many wines, particularly Cab and Pinot Noir where the main grape is much more expensive. In the Central Valley the syrah glut was in fact even worse a few years ago, with a lot being left on the vine or crushed for concentrate or distilled.

I can't speak to your particular Pinot Noir, but given the relatively small and expensive regions that produce good PN in California, compared to the high demand, I suspect that in bottles under $15 we should be grateful for the 20-25% Syrah blended in. It may make for mediocre Pinot but it's probably a much better wine.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I don't find domestic syrah to taste of black olives and bacon. It has the goopy, chocolate syrup quality of hot temperature syrah (gross generalization: paste in objection about ESJ here). I expect that makes it a good blending grape for wines that sell to an audience that likes that taste.
Click to expand...

I think that's more true of pricier Syrahs from people in warmer areas who chase Parkerator scores or like the Aussie model. The cooler climate stuff (Monterey, Edna Valley, Sonoma Coast) is more peppery-fresh berry, and the cheaper stuff from inland (if well-made) tends to be medium-bodied and moderately varietal, with a whiff of olivey-pepper.
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
That's pretty much it. There were lots of articles about ten years ago of how Syrah was the next big thing and so a lot of wineries planted it, but it never took off. In fact, new world Syrah as a category is pretty much off a cliff dead.
Click to expand...

One exception - scan data shows that mid price California Syrahs are actually growing in sales. But it is from a very small base. I think the growers were thinking it was going to be a tidal wave like 2000-2005 Aussie Shiraz or 1990s Merlot. Not even close.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
But more to the question, what FlaJim said. I suspect people started to realize there was little to appreciate in a trophy syrah that couldn't be had in a cheap, industrial shiraz. Why pay $25+, often $50+, for a beverage that you can buy with a cute critter on it for under $20?
Click to expand...
Scott,
First - caveat - I live here.
Second, if we are talking about the plethora of Parker and Spectator highly rated (and hence, highly priced) syrahs from CA, I agree.
From anywhere else or from producers in CA not "in the loop," I think a case by case analysis is warranted. At any price.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Kay was talking about mass-market and so was I. It's not wine, it's beverage. I should probably have lowered those price points, but for a while there, people were buying $25 wines at Safeway.

True, price isn't everything and there are people doing some interesting stuff in CA with syrah.

(I don't understand your caveat, but I have no interest in pissing off the nicest guy on the interwebs!)
 
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
originally posted by Brad Kane:
That's pretty much it. There were lots of articles about ten years ago of how Syrah was the next big thing and so a lot of wineries planted it, but it never took off. In fact, new world Syrah as a category is pretty much off a cliff dead.
Click to expand...

One exception - scan data shows that mid price California Syrahs are actually growing in sales. But it is from a very small base. I think the growers were thinking it was going to be a tidal wave like 2000-2005 Aussie Shiraz or 1990s Merlot. Not even close.
Click to expand...
With such a long time lag to production (years), and such a long potential production of the vines (decades+), it amazes me that growers chase fads the way they so often do. The price signals in the market are obviously strong, but resisting them and making something you believe in seems more likely and potentially more satisfying than chasing the peak of the market.

Of course, there are strong price signals and crazy momentum investors in other markets as well, but fewer of those require several years before you see any return or can sell at a profit.
 
originally posted by Hank Beckmeyer:
It can really round out a thin, weedy pinot noir...
Click to expand...
Yes, they used to call that "un bourgogne traditionnel" in Burgundy, didn't they?
 
Scott,
Never believe in labels.
What I meant was, I make syrah.

Christian,
I wonder if we just called the stuff shiraz if it would sell any better? I know some folks do that but have no info. as to whether or not it works.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
I can't speak to your particular Pinot Noir, but given the relatively small and expensive regions that produce good PN in California, compared to the high demand, I suspect that in bottles under $15 we should be grateful for the 20-25% Syrah blended in. It may make for mediocre Pinot but it's probably a much better wine.
Click to expand...

This is my point. To me it is a not a much better wine. It is a bottle of confusion. Further I feel like I'm being ripped off if I buy a wine that is labeled pinot noir and it is actually 15 or 20 percent syrah, not because syrah is cheaper than pinot but because now the pinot no longer tastes like pinot. And that goes double for cabernet sauvignon.

Does this make any sense?
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:


This is my point. To me it is a not a much better wine. It is a bottle of confusion. Further I feel like I'm being ripped off if I buy a wine that is labeled pinot noir and it is actually 15 or 20 percent syrah, not because syrah is cheaper than pinot but because now the pinot no longer tastes like pinot. And that goes double for cabernet sauvignon.

Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...

Martin Ray is smiling somewhere.
 
With such a long time lag to production (years), and such a long potential production of the vines (decades+), it amazes me that growers chase fads the way they so often do...Of course, there are strong price signals and crazy momentum investors in other markets as well, but fewer of those require several years before you see any return or can sell at a profit.
Click to expand...
It is puzzling, given how often they get burned with such a long supply chain. Bill Turrentine, the grape/wine broker, developed a famous and amusing Growers' Wheel of Fortune that illustrated the manic-depressive cycles of planting in the industry. It might be on their website. There are growers who just focus on what they think does best in their region, or try to farm counter-cyclically, or just diversify. The Syrah bubble was worse than usual - it happened quicker despite the fact that some of us were warning about too much Syrah very early in the cycle, then got much further out ahead of demand than other planting spikes.
 
Christian,
I wonder if we just called the stuff shiraz if it would sell any better? I know some folks do that but have no info. as to whether or not it works.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...
A number of people do sell it as Shiraz, particularly in the under $15 segment. But I've never really looked at the data to see if it sold better that way when you keep all the other variables (price, merchandising, distribution etc.) equal. But now Aussie Shiraz sales are declining, so the temptation to Shirazize is weaker.
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
I can't speak to your particular Pinot Noir, but given the relatively small and expensive regions that produce good PN in California, compared to the high demand, I suspect that in bottles under $15 we should be grateful for the 20-25% Syrah blended in. It may make for mediocre Pinot but it's probably a much better wine.
Click to expand...

This is my point. To me it is a not a much better wine. It is a bottle of confusion. Further I feel like I'm being ripped off if I buy a wine that is labeled pinot noir and it is actually 15 or 20 percent syrah, not because syrah is cheaper than pinot but because now the pinot no longer tastes like pinot. And that goes double for cabernet sauvignon.

Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...

It makes sense and it certainly is a bottle of confusion if you are looking for the classic or typical PN flavors/aromas. But I would still call them better wines on average, given my experience with overcropped Pinot Noir from the wrong terroir, which is where the Syrah blending takes place. Interestingly, Gallo imported in bulk PN from the Pfalz for a while to put under the Turning Leaf label. It was thin, weedy and not very pleasant but recognizably Pinot. Nevertheless, PN from the "wrong place", e.g. Corsica, Macedonia, Central Valley, most of Australia, Paso Robles, may not even provide any Pinot character. It's kind of like the old debate - is it more important for an appellation to be a guarantee of quality or typicity? There are good arguments on both sides.
 
Perhaps one impetus toward blending Syrah with PN has been the growing "Shirazification" of many CA PNs. In a world where PN is transparent and uniquely perfumed, adding Syrah makes little sense; if the dominant model is robust, alcoholic and dark PN, though, addition of Syrah isn't so hard to understand. In fact, which is now cheaper: Syrah or MegaPurple? Maybe that is the driving force for the increased blending of Syrah, assuming that there is an increase.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
And of course bacon flavors can also come from toasted oak.
Click to expand...
bacon flavours...toast...maybe fined with eggwhite? Hm. Maybe I Should try this for breakfast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top