NoBullGrape

Longwinded

Some are claiming that I am getting a little longwinded, so I will keep this short.
Eric Asimov has a meandering column in today's New York Times on the wide range of regulations that cover US wines and the percentages of grapes that are required in each. He usually gets to the point very well, yet these regs are so out of touch with reality that his column sort of meanders without much punch.
Please note, I think he comes out against the change in vintage dating regulations we discussed yesterday in the last graph of his story...

Time to weigh in on vintage dating

As many blogs have written, the Wine Institute has gotten TTB to consider lowering the percentage of wine from a particular year in wines labeled "vintage."  At the present time, all US vintage wine must contain 95% wine from the year claimed on the label.  The Wine Institite (a group we have discussed before that seems to have become more powerful the more it focuses on the wants and desires of big players like Gallo and Constellation as opposed to AVAs and smaller quality focused growers) is pushing (and will probably get) the federal government to lower their requirement to 85%. That sounds like plenty, yet when you think that 15% of the wine in a Cabernet Sauvignon from California labeled 2002 could have come from the 2004 harvest, the proposal loses some of its appeal.
However, I think there is a larger problem here.  The Wine Institute and US industry should be urging an increase, not a decrease in the percentage.  There may be winemaking claims that justify a lower number, yet they are making a horrible PR mistake.  In a world that is embracing quality, the US should be urging other countries to join their HIGHER levels,not lowering them.  It is a shame as this is an opportunity missed to highlight quality US wines.
I know some other bloggers whom I respect disagree, yet I think they are forgetting who is calling the shots (big companies) and who loses (the customer) in this case.
I urge you to join me in reviewing the proposed rule and voicing your opposition to the proposed ruling here.
Move fast as today is the dealine for comments!

Wine storage

Many of the wine growing locations that we have discussed over the past few weeks -- Champagne and Port in particular -- store or age their wines before selling.  Today's Wall Street Journal (subscription) has a column on one writers findings about how well bottles age in cellars versus relatively inexpensive wine refrigerators. Obviously a bottle of Champagne that sits on the lees in chalky cellars at Krug for 10 years before it is sold has been kept under some extraordinary circumstances, but this article looks at what kind of impact we have on that bottle of wine we bought a long time ago and are saving for a special occassion.  This is of particular interest for wines from most places in the world -- Napa, Bordeaux, New Zealand, Argentina, etc. -- because, unlike Champagne and Port, they are not always ready to be drunk when we buy them.

Here's what happened as reported by Jeff Grocott from the Wall Street Journal:

So which bottles were which? My pessimistic hunch was that my own wines would be the ones the panelists guessed had been kept under less-stable conditions. But when I began pulling off the Post-Its to reveal each bottle's storage method, in every case the bottle our panelists had described as the better-stored of the pair came from -- surprise -- my own chiller. "The defense rests its case: Your refrigerator didn't do the wine any harm," Ms. Frederick said. "That little wine refrigerator isn't too shabby."

 

I draw a few lessons from this: Wine, it turns out, is pretty tough. Second, there's no guarantee that a wine store or restaurant is doing any better than I am at home. And then comes the most humbling lesson: During our tasting, I admit I was hard pressed to tell a difference between one bottle of Gigondas and the next. Pour more! I like them all!

 

So I've stopped worrying about my chiller, and for our anniversary, I've stashed another bottle of Barolo on the top shelf. Will it be in perfect shape? Who knows. I'm sure we'll love it anyway.

My wife and I don't have much patience so we have very few aged bottles around, but we have found something similar.  Every time we move the bottles go through a tremendous shock.  After moving out of a house with a basement that was sort of cellar-like, we live in an apartment and -- assuming that the multiple moves had compromised our few older bottles -- now store everything in the bottom of a closet.  When we get daring,we open an old bottle to enjoy it, but also to see if the harsh treatment has ruined it.... Like the Journal reporter, we have found that the wines we leave to the movers harsh treatment and store in the bottom of a closet taste great and show no signs of wear... 

Alcohol getting too high

I'm sensing a true backlash against the higher and higher alcohol levels of US reds.
Every day I read another respectable commentator noting their love for lower alcohol wines and/or their outrage at higher than palatable alcohols levels on wines.  Today, the fine man at Fermentations added a valuable voice to this debate.  He found a pinot noir at over 16%!!!
This reminds me of the time when I asked the sommelier at a fine Napa restaurant that will remain nameless with an impressive list of local wines for a Cabernet Sauvingnon below 14.5%.  The look on his face made one think I had killed someone... He couldn't come up with a single one.  We then retreated to 15%.  At this lower barrier, he was able to recommend three from his list of over 200 Napa and Sonoma Cabs.  I don't know enough about winemaking, but it seems that the increase in alcohols has gone hand in hand with the higher ratings "fruit forward" wines are getting these days.  I know Parker is always seen as the leader in this group, but he is not alone.  My problem is not with the levels themselves, but what this means for the consumer.  When alcohol levels are at 15 or 16 (assuming they taste good, are balanced and don't have that dry burning sensation on the back of the throat on most of these wines), friends just can't have more than a bottle with dinner.  This means fewer wines will be tried, less wine discovery will take place and more wines will be associated with heavy alcohol than great pairings with good food. 
Wondering if others have found this.  Also wondering if the trend of using a  spinning cone to lower alcohol levels has any effect on taste, substance, etc. and how wide spread its use is.   

Wine regions agreeing

I mentioned the Napa Declaration earlier, but I am reminded by it again as there has been a wide range of  coverage about the event and its repurcussions.  The San Francisco Chronicle wrote a front page article about it, GrapeRadio has the audio from the press conference as well as supporting interviews up, and Wine Spectator wrote about it.  As a reminder, the Napa Declaration is an historic coming together of both US (Napa, Washington and Oregon) and European (Champagne, Port and Sherry) wine regions to pronounce their shared belief in the importance of place, the effect it has on the wines that are produced from the grapes and how important it is to educate consumers about the sanctity of all wine growing areas.  I can't say enough positive things about the importance of location.  Winemakers can wax poetically about the effects of microclimates, etc. (and I believe them), yet I see this as a truth-in-labeling issue.  If we found out our "Florida Orange Juice" really came from Louisiana or Oklahoma, we would cease buying the product immeditely and it would be a scandal.  The same should go for wine.  Napa comes from Napa.  When I buy a Napa wine I expect to get a wine made with Napa grapes in it.   I shouldn't have to look on the label to see if it comes from Napa California or Napa China.  And anyone who hides behind the claim that there are other words on the label that  differentiate the products  is just trying to use a loophole to mislead the consumer.
From an article by Cyrill Penn in the San Francisco Chronicle the EU and US governments can't agree on how to handle these names and how to end this practice.  This is a shame.  But I don't think it should take a government mandate to put consumers first, it should be the winemakers -- like those that signed the Napa Declaration -- who take the lead and end this practice once and for all.   
The Napa Declaration seems to be a watershed event where wineregions from different places came together to agree on something very simple. In a world where the wine press likes to pit region vs. region and Old World vs. New World, I think we should herald this kind of cooperation and urge others to use this as the kind of thing that needs to happen more often so that consumers can focus on the wine, not the ugly policy differences.

Clones

Clones, those distinct sub-species of different grapes that winemakers talk about have gotten a great write up in today's LAT.  Patrick Comiskey does a great job of making what is normally a boring subject quite exciting.  He talks in depth about the manner in which Chardonnay first failed and then prospered in Oregon.  This area, famous for its Pinot Noir, never produced great Chardonnays in its early years because -- they have now figured out -- they were using the wrong clones of Chardonnay for the unique Oregon soil and weather.  They have now found replanted and are (apparently as I have yet to try any) making great Chardonnay.  The thing that sticks out to me is the importance that the location has on these clones.  It is one thing to have a bottle labeled "Chardonnay." It is another to have a bottle that includes the Chardonnay that thrives in a particular climate... in this case Willamette Valley.
Patrick clearly got his hands dirty and did some great research (probably while at their famous International Pinot Noir Conference) and we, the reader, really gain from his work.
Enjoy!