Are the times a-changin'?

[Brad Widelock]

I have been reflecting on Jim's recent post and the numerous replies. What I am trying to understand is this: what will signify a paradigm shift in California winemaking? What does winemaking history in California tell us about changes in winemaking? I assume that there are those on this board, with their own valid reasons, who have never enjoyed nor appreciated California wines. I do sense that there is a cohort who recall a time when they were very enthusiastic about California wines and considered them well made, food friendly, pleasurable and perhaps worthy of cellaring. I think there is some consensus about the reasons why there was a shift away from these wines. There seems no doubt that there was a change. How did you as a wine drinker know this shift occurred? I would feel remiss if I did not acknowledge that through this period people like Steve Edmunds kept, as Monk said, "making their own music," for which I am thankful.

Now I find myself buying, drinking and selling a lot more California wine. Slowly I am finding a better quality to price ratio in California wines than I have in many years. For example, the Tendu wines and several of the selections from the Hobo Wine Co. I am not speaking of the Zinfandel but the Folk Machine Pinot Noir, the Parts and Labor red blend and the Toccai. I am not suggesting that the revolution is here, but clearly things are changing. What will it take for us to get to a point where we can say that California wines are no longer under the grip of Sauron and have returned to the light?

Brad

 

[Peter Creasey]

I tend to resist generalities...even as I make one here. Unlike quite a few years ago, today, other than certain Zins and certain Pinot Noirs, the comfort level, e.g. price, quality, seems easier with wines from across the pond...especially with food.

. . . . Pete

 

[Kay Bixler]

It would seem there always have been and probably always will be excellent wine coming out of California. But here on the East Coast we generally see only the current fashion. When the fashion is 15% + pinot noir it seems like CA sucks, when the fashion is 11% - trousseau it's great. And through all this, as you point out, people like Nalle, Edmunds St John, Ridge and countless others just continue making good wine that, I assume, they themselves enjoy.

 

[MarkS]

I think this is a generational shift. New Millenials getting into the business and thinking differently. Happens all the time in life. Everybody wants to make their mark, somehow, and starting a seat-of-your-pants winery using someone else's grown grapes seems an awfully good (and cheap and easy) way to do it. I'd still like the model to shift more to what is more common in Europe and the East Coast of winemakers growing their own grapes instead of simply relying on other people to do the task.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by MarkS:
I think this is a generational shift. New Millenials getting into the business and thinking differently. Happens all the time in life. Everybody wants to make their mark, somehow, and starting a seat-of-your-pants winery using someone else's grown grapes seems an awfully good (and cheap and easy) way to do it. I'd still like the model to shift more to what is more common in Europe and the East Coast of winemakers growing their own grapes instead of simply relying on other people to do the task.

It's not economically viable for these guys to buy vineyard land. Many of them tend the vineyards that they source fruit from, but lack the resources to buy the vineyard and any reasonable ROI would involve substantial price hikes.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Brad Widelock:
Now I find myself buying, drinking and selling a lot more California wine. Slowly I am finding a better quality to price ratio in California wines than I have in many years. For example, the Tendu wines and several of the selections from the Hobo Wine Co. I am not speaking of the Zinfandel but the Folk Machine Pinot Noir, the Parts and Labor red blend and the Toccai. I am not suggesting that the revolution is here, but clearly things are changing. What will it take for us to get to a point where we can say that California wines are no longer under the grip of Sauron and have returned to the light?

Brad

There has definitely been a huge change and it's possible because consumers are shifting towards these wines. Glad to see you mention Kenny's wines (Hobo, Folk Machine, etc.) because most of the wines that get mentioned, while excellent, fall into a couple of broad camps: very idiosyncratic (like Chris Brockway's fun and delicious wines) or Burgundy-centric (IPOB). I'm really psyched to be able to drink and Alexander Valley cabernet sauvignon at 12.9% alcohol and snappy, herbal zinfandel at $20. The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?

 

[drssouth]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?

My cellar started out nearly all California based. Remnants (hundreds of bottles) still remain. Mostly Cab, PN and a few Zins are there

The most disappointing thing when opening these is that they often are not even a little bit more interesting or complex or providers of pleasure than the day they were bought. Boring!!.. Cellaring for 10-15 yrs should (?) allow for some maturity/change/improvement.

 

[MLipton]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?

Well, RMP had his role in it, either as driver or enabler. When he gave those jaw-droppingly high scores to tjhe early Turley wines and then Dalla Valle, it certainly got the ball rolling (the push to surmaturite).

Mark Lipton

 

[mark e]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?

Don't think so. Leo McCloskey was a prime mover behind the former (and folks like Helen Turley). UCD preached the gospel of specific pure yeast strains, certainly not ambient yeast.

 

[Larry Stein]

I also believe that as certain wine regions get press, that adds to the growing list of such wines. The Santa Cruz Mtn. region is the poster child for this, especially for Pinot Noir. I went to the Pinot Paradise Grand Tasting a few years ago. This event is for SCM wineries only. I tasted around 50-60 wines. Except for one wine (and even then it was a stretch), there wasn't a *single* one that was over-ripe (none of that nasty cola stuff) or alcoholic.

There are now a bunch of very small wineries that are just starting to get some press that are following the new paradigm. There's one in my home town called Waxwing Cellars. Scott makes Syrah and Pinot Noir from Flocchini and Spring Hill Vnyds. on the Sonoma Coast, and Lester Family Vnyd. in SCM. I only found out about them because my stepdaughter brought a bottle of '11 Spring Hill Pinot for Thanksgiving last year. It was really terrific. Alcohol was 12.1%(!). The wines are all mid-13s or lower.

Sure, I'm tooting my horn for them because Scott (winemaker) is a great guy. I'm also trying to show that there are folks off the radar (not the Brocs, ESJs, etc) who are making wine in the "new" style.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?

The "physiological maturity" thing? Not at all UC Davis-related. That was a the intersection of the taste of influential high end winemakers or owners and critical ratings, both involving a hatred of anything remotely green or herbaceous and an obsession with a certain style of tannin. Topped with the generic American tendency towards more is always better, i.e. ripeness and body good, therefore more ripeness and body better. All of it pushed along by wine geeks and gatekeepers who automatically associated lower yields and longer hangtime with better wine.

If anything, I would guess UC Davis influence would cause one to be leery of high-pH, late harvested grapes.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?

Don't think so. Leo McCloskey was a prime mover behind the former (and folks like Helen Turley). UCD preached the gospel of specific pure yeast strains, certainly not ambient yeast.

Kenny's thesis at Davis was on ambient yeast fermentation compared to inoculated yeast. He's been interested in it from the beginning. Davis is a legit research university and I'm sure that the faculty there looks at all sorts of things. The anti-Davis mentality was from a failed fucking lawyer who con jobbed people with physiological maturity and "tasting the grapes". What an asshat.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?

The "physiological maturity" thing? Not at all UC Davis-related. That was a the intersection of the taste of influential high end winemakers or owners and critical ratings, both involving a hatred of anything remotely green or herbaceous and an obsession with a certain style of tannin. Topped with the generic American tendency towards more is always better, i.e. ripeness and body good, therefore more ripeness and body better. All of it pushed along by wine geeks and gatekeepers who automatically associated lower yields and longer hangtime with better wine.

If anything, I would guess UC Davis influence would cause one to be leery of high-pH, late harvested grapes.

The UC Davis influence are all the wines from the 70s and 80s that people like now (Clos du Val, Mayacamas, etc.).

 

[scottreiner]

originally posted by VLM:

The UC Davis influence are all the wines from the 70s and 80s that people like now (Clos du Val, Mayacamas, etc.).

I will in no way claim any expertise in this realm, but this flies in the face of everything I (thought I) know.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by scottreiner:

originally posted by VLM:

The UC Davis influence are all the wines from the 70s and 80s that people like now (Clos du Val, Mayacamas, etc.).

I will in no way claim any expertise in this realm, but this flies in the face of everything I (thought I) know.

Really?

 

[scottreiner]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by scottreiner:

originally posted by VLM:

The UC Davis influence are all the wines from the 70s and 80s that people like now (Clos du Val, Mayacamas, etc.).

I will in no way claim any expertise in this realm, but this flies in the face of everything I (thought I) know.

Really?

UC Davis was always to me pushing inoculated yeast, riper harvests, more use of technology (fixing wines), etc....

 

[Claude Kolm]

When I started visiting French vineyards in the mid-1980s, French vignerons talked to me about physiological maturity and how they tasted grapes before picking; at that time, CA producers went almost entirely by the numbers (Davis influence, I'm pretty sure) in deciding when to pick, except for a few outliers like Ric Forman, most of whom who had worked in France, and who also tasted before picking. "Physiological ripeness" was then hijacked by CA, supposedly following the French principles, but in fact perverting it to something very different.

 

[MarkS]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by mark e:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
The big thing was busting the myth of "physiological maturity" and the use of ambient yeast fermentation.

Those were UC Davis inheritances, right?

Don't think so. Leo McCloskey was a prime mover behind the former (and folks like Helen Turley). UCD preached the gospel of specific pure yeast strains, certainly not ambient yeast.

Kenny's thesis at Davis was on ambient yeast fermentation compared to inoculated yeast. He's been interested in it from the beginning. Davis is a legit research university and I'm sure that the faculty there looks at all sorts of things. The anti-Davis mentality was from a failed fucking lawyer who con jobbed people with physiological maturity and "tasting the grapes". What an asshat.

Back in true form here! Nice to see that being in the business hasn't made you docile. (I was beginning to worry there, for awhile)

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by VLM:

The UC Davis influence are all the wines from the 70s and 80s that people like now (Clos du Val, Mayacamas, etc.).

I don't think so. All the great names in fact did NOT go to Davis -- the McCreas, Dick Graff, Paul Draper, Bob Sessions, Ric Forman (went to Davis, but in food studies, not enology), Joe Swan, Martin Ray, Bob Travers, etc., etc.