Wine Rocks

Wine Rocks goes underground

2009-04-09T09:02:00.001-07:00

Thanks for reading Wine Rocks. I don't plan to support this anonymous blog at this time.

I appreciate all your comments, and invite you to read my Very Close Friend's brand-new blog: http://wblakegray.blogspot.com/

Wine Rocks!

The end of the Colonel Sanders curse

2009-03-10T08:42:00.000-07:00

This has nothing to do with wine, but it's a great story you won't see in the U.S. media.

The Hanshin Tigers are the Cubs of Japan -- a team with a great fan base but a long history of failure. Despite having a good budget as the main team from Osaka, Japan's second largest city, the Tigers have only won the Japan Series once, in 1985.

Celebrating that achievement, the crazed fans had a lookalike of each player jump in the Dotonbori River near the stadium. But they had a problem: none of the locals looked like their leading hitter, American slugger Randy Bass.

A Bartman-like fan decided that the Colonel Sanders statue outside a nearby KFC looked a lot like Bass -- also bearded, and a foreigner. So fans tossed the statue in the river.

Since then, Hanshin has had nothing but failure. As the legend of the Curse of Colonel Sanders grew, Tigers fans mounted dive expeditions into the river to find the statue, but always without success.

The Tigers have the coolest theme song (I like the Denki Groove version), the best logo and the most loyal fans, but the Curse of Colonel Sanders has continued to bedevil them, fans believe.

Until today. At long last, divers found the Colonel and winched him to the surface. He had drifted 250m, and his legs are still missing, but more divers are searching.

Look out Yomiuri, the curse is on its last legs.

What "US wine" means to the rest of the world

2009-03-01T12:16:00.000-08:00

What does the rest of the world think when they hear "U.S. wine?" The answer is very different from what U.S. consumers think.

The Wine Institute announced last week that U.S. wine exports topped $1 billion in 2008. Congratulations to Gallo and Constellation Brands, far and away the drivers of this trend.

For the most part, foreign consumers see U.S. wines in the "premium" price range -- roughly $7 to $10. Shipping and grape costs keep U.S. wineries from competing below that, while there isn't all that much interest in wines priced higher, given competition from the luxury brands of France.

Pricey U.S. wines that do sell well overseas are completely different from wines that consumers flock to here.

Sometimes there's a country-specific explanation. For example, Calera and Ridge are both popular in Japan. Ridge has a Japanese pharmaceutical magnate for an owner, which eases distribution challenges. Calera was featured in a popular wine manga as a sommelier retold the story of owner/winemaker Josh Jensen smuggling cuttings from Domaine Romanee-Conti, and is often seen there as a prudent woman's DRC substitute.

But in Europe, where 48% of U.S. wines go, there's a clear verdict on which of our wines are good -- and it's a lot different from the domestic opinion.

I ran through all the 45 U.S. wines currently available at Tesco, the gigantic UK supermarket. With one exception, they were big company wines. That exception was a McManis Family Vineyards Chardonnay. Bully for the McManis family, longtime farmers who decided to make wine because they couldn't make profits selling their grapes.

Here's what the Tesco website says about U.S. wine (italics are mine):

"When we say USA, we’re really talking Californian wine. The Golden State is still in love with Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon where it dominates the vineyards - producers Robert Mondavi and Gallo show how could (sic) it can be. Merlot and Zinfandel are popular too, and winemakers are producing increasing amounts of Syrah, Pinot Noir, Sauvignon Blanc and Viognier. Zinfandel is California’s very own red grape variety and is often used for the refreshing off-dry white zinfandel rosé wines as displayed in Blossom Hill’s example."

Does that sound like an endorsement of Chardonnay and Cab as the best we have to offer? Not really, especially considering that this is PR copy meant to convince you to buy some wine. It might be a coincidence that the webmaster couldn't properly type in "good" -- or maybe it represented what she was thinking.

If you wanted to buy a non-Constellation, non-Gallo wine in the U.K., you might visit Berry Bros. & Rudd, whose Heathrow Airport shop was a pre-9/11 must-stop on the way out of the country.

BBR pays respect to U.S. wines with 77 labels online, the fifth most of any country (France 1864, Italy 149, Germany 102, Spain 86, USA 77, then Australia 67). More than half cost more than 20 quid, but keep in mind that London is now the world's center of prosperity.

BBR has great wine buyers and I found their selections fascinating, both for what they have and don't have.

They like wines that are iconoclastic here: Qupe, Bonny Doon Vineyards, Au Bon Climat, Frog's Leap, Tablas Creek, Ridge, Andrew Will. Almost their entire selection comes from these wineries.

What BBR noticeably does NOT have is the bulwark of every U.S. wine shop's pricey section: Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. They have a couple, including Dominus and Opus One. But the British wine buyers seem to be thinking that if someone wants a Cab (or Merlot, for that matter), they'll buy a Bordeaux.

Right now the rest of the world often changes its winemaking style to attract the U.S. palate. Wouldn't it be interesting if it were the other way around? Go exports!

Foie Gras ice cream!

2009-02-28T14:14:00.000-08:00

Foie Gras ice cream goes on my Kiliminjaro food list: stuff I had to try just because it is there. As with braised fruit bat and scorpion toast, I ended up enjoying more than just the novelty.

All credit to Humphry Slocombe, the creative San Francisco ice-cream shop, for pairing its creamy, savory product to its best advantage.

Most of Humphry Slocombe's outrageous flavors, like Salted Licorice (my fave so far) and Balsamic Caramel, are available by the scoop or pint. But the Foie Gras -- only occasionally available (maybe when the geese are flying?) -- is sold only in an ice-cream sandwich cookie ($4) made with ginger snaps.

The beautiful and helpful shopkeeper (how will she ever keep her figure there?) let me try the ice cream by itself after I announced my purchase, but before I handed her the money. She also didn't appear disheartened when I immediately reduced the number of sandwiches I wanted.

By itself, Foie Gras ice cream was a little unnerving -- very rich and like all of Humphy Slocombe's flavors, accurate. It tasted so much like chilly, milky foie gras terrine that I wondered if I would encounter chopped-up bits of liver (on my mind because I just read this excellent Japanese noir novel.)

The crunchy, slightly sweet ginger snaps make a perfect counterpoint, both in flavor and texture. You get the rich, creamy, meaty taste initially, and then just as your brain is starting to scream "liver, liver!" the ginger snaps take over. You need to crunch them in your teeth to finish the bite, and that's the final textural impression.

Now I can't want to try the Government Cheese flavor, which the shopkeeper tells me will only be served with an apple tart. Few patrons of pricey ice-cream boutiques know what government cheese actually tastes like, so the shop will have some leeway.

By the way, if you're a foie gras hater, you might feel more comfortable at this silly website where a vegan tells us nobody should eat meat because she has this pet that feels really nice when it lies next to her. Seriously. There are lots of great arguments for vegetarianism; this one has to be the worst I've ever heard. Lucky for her Humphry Slocombe doesn't do lapin a la moutarde ice cream. Yet.

The wine world will miss the Chronicle

2009-02-25T18:19:00.000-08:00

The news that the San Francisco Chronicle might not make it through the year was predictably greeted with hootin' and hollerin' from the freeloading trolls who visit the sfgate.com website every day to complain about the quality of the free news they read there.

If noticed by the wine blogging community, it will also undoubtedly unleash a tide of "who needs 'em" posts.

But the wine world would suffer without The Chronicle, even though the newspaper has ended its weekly wine section. Most bloggers don't want to admit it, but there are certain functions a newspaper plays that blogs cannot substitute for.

Here's a key one: people who weren't even thinking about wine might, in their search for the TV listings or Dilbert, stumble upon an article about Austrian Riesling. That does not happen with blogs. You have to actively search for Austrian Riesling. Or, failing that, you have to be visiting an excellent blog like vinography.com, where you find an article about Austrian Riesling -- in which case you're clearly already interested in wine.

General interest newspapers are one of the few media that get people who aren't currently interested in wine to pay attention. Nobody surfs randomly through the Internet and happens upon Steve Heimoff's blog. But people do flip through a newspaper, when they're done with the sports section, and spot an article about value wines from Argentina. Maybe that's in the back of their head when they go to Safeway to buy tortillas and anti-perspirant, and they pick up a bottle. Maybe that's the bottle that gets them hooked. THEN they read Heimoff and Vinography every day, not before.

Go ahead and mock the traditional media for all its stodgy adherence to the 20th century. Few industries currently get better free publicity from anyone than the local food and wine industries get from The Chronicle. Considering the tiny budgets in the wine industry for outreach to newbie drinkers, the wine world will miss the paper more than any other industry.

Are "special" wines really all that?

2009-02-24T09:29:00.001-08:00

Last week I got a mailer offering me the unique opportunity to spend more than $100 a bottle for yet another limited-production Napa Valley red wine.

Here's how this wine was described: "a blend of three vineyards in the St. Helena appellation which (are) planted to Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and Merlot. The unique terroir of each site is apparent in the complexity of the blend. The backbone of the wine is from a rocky, highly elevated parcel east of St. Helena. Two additional vineyards in the western hills complete the blend; one parcel is north of St. Helena planted in dusty red soil, the other is nestled against the base of Spring Mountain amongst decomposed river rock."

I do not see the point of this wine. I'm not averse to wineries charging more than $100 a bottle -- they have every right to make as much money as they can. But what exactly is this product?

It's not an expression of terroir because the grapes come from such different places. It's not a dramatic blend of valley-floor Cab with nearby hillside Merlot, for example.

It's a Frankenwine that might possibly be three great lots of purchased grapes blended into a delicious beverage. But with a glut of expensive wines on the market, who needs another delicious beverage? If the producer of this wine spent so much money for these grapes that he needs to charge $115 a bottle, he overspent. They need to stand on their own in that price range or go into a cheaper bottle.

The luxury wine market will survive the downturn because people of means will keep paying a premium for name recognition and quality. But there's going to be a shakeout, and I hope wines like this, without a purpose, are among those to go away. A three-vineyard blend is perfectly fine, even expected, in the value section of the wine shop. It's insulting at this price.

Tasting Christian Brothers Cab from the 1960s

2009-02-21T12:04:00.001-08:00

Last night I had the opportunity to taste something really interesting: a non-vintage Christian Brothers Napa Valley Cabernet.

The wine was bottled in 1967, but did not list a vintage year. Christian Brothers commonly made multi-vintage blends, but this may have been their top of the line and they might have ignored the vintage out of modesty. I guess most of the grapes were from 1965 but there was no way to know for sure.

The bottle read "Select Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon" on the front label, and on the back it said the grapes were from "a hillside vineyard." Single-vineyard hillside Napa Valley wines today regularly sell for $150 or more, but this wine was probably about $2 on release, and WAIT till I tell you what it costs now (below).

A religious fraternal organization, Christian Brothers was a major force in Napa Valley in the 1960s, making a variety of very affordable table wines as well as brandy and sacramental wines. Their winemaker, Brother Timothy, frequently made public appearances on behalf of Napa Valley wines, giving a good-humored, pious face to the industry in a country that was just a few decades removed from Prohibition.

One of their winemaking facilities, Greystone, is now the impressive home of the Culinary Institute of America. The Christian Brothers had access to some great vineyards back and despite being a religious organization, they also had serious winemaking talent: Justin Meyer was a member of the order, and he had not yet left to found Silver Oak.

The 40-something wine was drinking great last night. Had I tasted it blind, I would have guessed it was aged Bordeaux, perhaps Pauillac. I also would have guessed that it was a bit younger -- maybe the early-mid '70s -- because there was still some pretty good cherry fruit, along with the characteristic flavors of age like leather and orange peel. The balance was outstanding. This was a wine that went fabulously with food, though I tried to clear my palate completely for each precious sip. Some older wines are more intellectual pleasures; this was a wine fully fit for drinking, and it disappeared quickly.

Nine of us enjoyed this wine with dinner at the CIA, bringing it home at last. I'm sure Brother Timothy, were he looking down from heaven, would have been happy to see the good cheer and fellowship his wine brought us. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Wine is constant proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

The punch line is the price: My benefactor said she acquired this wine in the last month from K&L Wine Merchants for ... $15! I was going to race to the store in question but she said she wisely bought every last bottle. But it does make me wonder what other treasures lie forgotten in the far recesses of stockrooms.

My wine tax proposal

2009-02-19T08:11:00.001-08:00

Wine might be subject to additional taxation soon. Let's get out in front of posturing politicians and propose ways to raise revenue that cause the least pain.

Here's the background: California is nearly bankrupt. The California legislature finally passed a budget today, but a single Republican Senator -- a wealthy broccoli farmer -- was able to shoot down a 12 cent-per-gallon gas tax. And you can bet there won't be a broccoli tax.

Early versions of the budget included a $1.48 per gallon tax on wine -- up from the current $0.20 -- that would have ended Two Buck Chuck.

Would that be a bad thing? Before you get outraged, think on the issue.

Government policy blesses some products -- corn -- and curses others. Government can enrich agribusiness with subsidies or force wind-energy firms to fend for themselves.

European governments get deeply involved in making choices for the wine industry, favoring certain regions and grapes.

The U.S. government is more removed, but not completely. For example, wines over 14 percent alcohol are taxed at a higher rate. This hasn't prevented ultrapremium wines from rising in alcohol, but it's the reason that most "fighting varietals" have their alcohol reduced below the limit. Is this a bad thing? I would say no, it's not.

So how would you structure wine tax policy to raise revenue while simultaneously improving the wine on Californians' tables?

I don't like hiking the tax on all wine; why should Two Buck Chuck and Screaming Eagle be taxed at the same rate?

My first proposal echoes U.S. policy: Much higher taxes -- maybe 10 times higher -- for wines with alcohol percentages over 14.5 (the higher number reflects the reality of California terroir). Wineries can continue to make ultraripe Zinfandels and Cabs and people can pay $30 for them instead of $27. Such a change would barely affect daily-use wine at all. But it would encourage wineries in the beginning of the premium price range -- $12 or so -- to stay below 14.5.

Second: A "luxury tax" on wines with wholesale prices over $30 a bottle. The state could charge as much as $5 a bottle on the luxury Cabs of Napa and consumers of these products would hardly notice. However, we would suddenly see a lot more $50 retail Cabs, and a lot fewer $75 retail Cabs.

Third: A slightly higher tax rate for wines made from grapes outside the region where the winery is located. This will make producers howl, but it would also create jobs. European countries demand that wine be made in the region where the grapes are grown, and that has led to many tiny wineries instead of one big factory where all the grapes are brought. Each of these tiny wineries needs a certain number of workers.

I'll stop there. But think about it -- how would you use tax policy to influence the wine industry? If it's going to be done, wine lovers should run the debate instead of what usually happens with government wine policy, which is listening to whatever Gallo wants.

America vs. acidity

2009-02-15T14:48:00.001-08:00

We all know the American market prefers a different taste profile of wine than the European market -- people often mention the U.S. preference for bigger bodied, more fruit-forward wines.

What's not talked about as much is that Americans seemingly don't like acidity.

I got to thinking about this a couple days ago as I enjoyed one of Bronco's wines, a 2007 Harlow Ridge Lodi Sauvignon Blanc. With its suggested retail price of $10, this is one of the most expensive wines in the portfolio of the 4th largest wine company in the U.S.

Bronco didn't get to be as big and successful as it is by misunderstanding the American palate. Its wines are competently manipulated to produce the taste profile it wants. (This wine is only 12.5 % alcohol, which is great, but obviously reduced -- show me a non-manipulated Lodi Sauvignon Blanc at that level of brix and I'll show you some unpleasantly underripe grapes.)

I come to praise this wine, not bury it. You can find it in stores for under $9 and it's good value at that price. It's simple, but easy drinking -- straightforward grapefruit flavor, very clean finish. The one thing that's noticeable to a wine aficionado is the low acidity.

Personally I found that a little offputting; I like Sauvignon Blanc to be mouth-puckeringly crisp. But I'm not the average American drinker. A wine that Bronco obviously fussed with -- at the very least to adjust the alcohol -- was carefully crafted to taste this way.

Some of my friends were horrified by the idea, but I'll take Bronco's side here. They need to sell wine, not take philosophical stands. Plus, this treatment of Sauvignon Blanc is far less oppressive than tarting it up with oak, as was the fashion a mere 15 years ago, to become a poor man's Chardonnay substitute. This wine still tastes like Sauvignon Blanc, sort of. It's food-friendly. It's certainly pleasant.

This wine's low acidity says more about us as a wine-drinking nation than it does about Bronco, or about the wine itself. We've come a long way, but if "acidic" is still pejorative, there's still a ways to go.

Wine doesn't go with chocolates!

2009-02-11T14:34:00.001-08:00

This is not the first or last time I'll say this: the whole idea of pairing wine with chocolate is a myth, perpetuated by the wine industry as a way to stay in consumers' minds.

In almost all circumstances, wine and chocolate are a terrible match. The reason is simple: most chocolate is sweet, and will make dry wines taste sour.

The wine world is full of "yeah, buts ...", so this is for you: if you're planning to give your sweetie a bar of plain 87% cacao chocolate for Valentine's Day, that would go pretty well with Port, vin santo, or most sweet wines. You're so romantic!

But filled chocolates, the kind that come in those pretty heart boxes? They're a nightmare for wine pairing. They simply do not go with wine, and there's no reason why they should.

But, but ... all the wineries I visit tell me this Merlot or that Zin goes with chocolate? Are they lying to me?

Well, um, yes. Most people who visit tasting rooms are not tasting their first wine of the day and their palate is compromised. But they can still taste sweet stuff. Put a chockie in their mouths and they're putty in your hands. This is one thing wineries talk about when they have seminars on increasing sales in tasting rooms.

I understand why there are so many stories on this topic every year. Editors need something to assign. Writers need something to write about. February is pretty dull. Though it would be more useful, who wants to write (or read) about wine pairings with in-season root vegetables?

So Valentine's Day wine-and-chocolate is one of those perennial wine stories, like pink wines in spring and crisp whites in summer and hearty reds in fall. Unlike those others, though, it's an old wives' tale that won't go away. But there's always hope -- remember when food writers regularly recommended substituting margarine for butter because it was so much healthier?

You want something romantic for V-Day? Nothing beats pink bubbly. In this economy, I'm a big fan of Cremant de Bourgogne, sparkling wine made from Pinot Noir and Chardonnay in the traditional method, but cheaper because it's from Burgundy instead of Champagne. Think about it -- Burgundy is acknowledged as a world leader in still wines made from those grapes. Think they don't have a few good ones to pick early for bubbly?

The Louis Bouillot Cremant de Bourgogne Rose is widely available, $14 at K&L Wine Merchants. It's delicious and very affordable. And it's French, so it sounds romantic.

If you want to buy something domestic and romantic, Schramsberg is one of my favorite U.S. bubbly makers. Their 2005 Brut Rose is $41 but well worth it. Sometimes it helps your cause if you spend a little more. Tell your sweetie that Schramsberg has been served at the White House by every administration since Reagan, and it might be what Barack and Michelle enjoy on Saturday. (BTW, guys, when are you getting the kids that puppy you promised them? If you make them wait until the economy improves you might no longer have the big White House lawn for a puppy to romp on.)

So here's what you do: open the pink bubbly. Chat, snuggle. Do what, you know, you were hoping to do.

Then eat those yummy sweet filled chocolates. When the bubbly's gone, and you need a sugar rush. The perfect ending to a perfect evening -- especially as you didn't ruin your 10-year-old Cabernet with a Turtle Chew.

Wine & dog judging: Does the general public agree?

2009-02-11T07:36:00.000-08:00

As someone who judges wines, I was bothered watching the extreme power wielded by judges at the Westminster Kennel Club. They can pick or eliminate any dog they want, and there's never any explanation or discussion.

There's no panel of judges -- just one individual. And the fawning USA network commentators never questioned why decisions were made.

Is this how wine judging looks to the general public?

Moreover, is this how wine judging actually is?

I'm sorry to say that in my experience yes, it is. I looked at a dog show and saw myself. It's nice to be a trusted expert.

But it's a wakeup call to watch an expert I don't know or trust act arbitrarily, and realize that's how wineries submitting wines to anything I judge must feel when they see the results.

Some organizations -- notably, Wine Spectator -- make an effort to explain not only their ratings standards, but their individual ratings. But even Wine Spectator relies on individual judges who wield tremendous, unappealable power. If James Laube doesn't like a wine, it's bad. Period.

Then there are competitions like the California State Fair. You sometimes see a comment from an official about the Best in Show wine, but the dozens of winners in individual categories -- best Chardonnay, etc. -- are presented with no explanation whatsoever.

The one thing I can take away from this moment of reflection is a renewed commitment to vigilance, in never letting my standards drop, as well as to humility.

That, and the fact that the puli got hosed. He was far and away the coolest of the finalists. Damn that judge!

Wine should be judged like dogs

2009-02-10T16:14:00.000-08:00

If wines were judged like dogs, Cabernet Sauvignon would not rule the world. We'd all spend less money for wine and enjoy greater diversity.

Conversely, if dogs were judged like wine, a Dandie Dinmont Terrier might be Best in Show every year. Is there anything cuter?

The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show -- great entertainment if you like dogs -- inspired this realization. Dogs are judged not by which is the best overall, but instead by which is the best representation of the ideal of its breed.

Thus when choosing between an Irish Wolfhound and a Samoyed -- Paul Draper's dog -- the judge doesn't automatically pick the much cooler one (sorry Paul).

Think about the implications for wine. A Sauvignon Blanc has never been Wine of the Year for a major publication. But why not? Just about everyone who loves wine loves this food-friendly varietal. The only way it gets big ratings, though, is when it's gussied up with too much wood into a "serious" wine that's no longer great with dinner.

Meanwhile, run-of-the-mill Napa Valley Cabernets routinely get 90-point ratings because that flavor profile is considered superior to almost every other. Look at a list of ratings from any major ratings organization -- Spectator, Parker, Enthusiast -- and you'll see that the 25th best Napa Cab of the year is rated higher than the very best example of most other wines.

Why? Why can't a superb pink wine -- delicious, refreshing, clean finish -- get 98 points for exemplifying near-perfection in its category?

We have so much to learn from dogs.

$15 buys a lot of dead man's food in Oklahoma

2009-02-09T10:45:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite blogs is Dead Man Eating -- a list of last meals requested by prisoners on death row.

Who hasn't had that fantasy? You have one meal left on Earth. What's it gonna be?

For me, steamed blue crabs with Old Bay, a pizza (plain cheese if I can get the crabs, anchovies if I can't), fried potatoes, some fresh fruit in season, and fruit pie for dessert. I'm hoping Alice Waters has the San Quentin concession if I'm ever in there.

Anyway, on Jan. 22 the state of Oklahoma executed a guy named Darwin Brown. For his last meal he apparently got barbecue ribs, chopped beef, hot links, baked beans, plain potato chips, coconut doughnuts and chocolate milk.

I can't fault his choices: Barbecue ribs might be my replacement for the crabs. But here's the thing: Dead Man Eating reports that prisoners are limited to $15 for food that must be available near the prison.

Wow, that's a lot of grub for $15! That makes it harder to understand why people like Brown need to hold up convenience stores ... Anyway, if you're going to commit a capital offense, you might consider Oklahoma as an alternative to Texas, where prisoners always seem to request the relish tray. Could Texas relish really be worth dying for?

Happy Monday!

I have nothing new or interesting to say about A-Rod

2009-02-08T09:34:00.001-08:00

But unlike the hordes of "shocked, shocked" sportswriters, Doug Glanville does. So read him.

Wine tastes strange after dental work

2009-02-07T12:47:00.000-08:00

Yesterday my partner had to have a new crown put in. She got more than the minimum amount of novocaine, apparently asking for more a couple of times.

She had a late afternoon appointment and I was enjoying a glass of Columbia Valley Merlot when she came in. I poured her some and she complained that it tasted bitter -- like lemonade without the sugar -- with a bad aftertaste. Ugh!

She grabbed a ripe banana to cleanse her palate, but discovered that bananas also tasted bitter. Poor her. She fretted, "What if my taste buds are permanently damaged? I don't want to live in a world where bananas taste bitter." She didn't mention Merlot -- I guess that's easier to give up.

I insisted that she keep tasting the Merlot every 30 minutes until our impressions of it became similar. It was a fascinating experiment, and I wonder if taste scientists have done this sort of thing.

The first "normal" taste to come back for her was oak -- she tasted vanilla, and wood, about an hour before she tasted cherry.

She also said she noticed cherry as an aftertaste about 30 minutes before she noticed it on first sip. But she thought that might have been because she could smell the cherry fairly strongly, even though she couldn't taste it.

I don't know that we learned anything important from this, other than "Don't open expensive wines after dental work." But I guess even that's worth knowing.

Cheap wines should not have corks

2009-02-04T08:54:00.000-08:00

If you're buying wines under $15 to drink now, you should rejoice when they have screwcaps or synthetic corks.

Moreover, you should let everyone know that's what you want: your wine shop, the wineries you patronize, wine importers, the wine media. In Australia, where people drink lots of great wine, screwcaps are widespread. The only reason they aren't common here is because the industry thinks consumers don't want them.

But you should.

Here's why: Natural cork always carries a risk of ruining your wine with TCA, a compound that can at best suppress the natural freshness of the flavor, and at worst can make your wine taste like moldy wet newspapers. You don't have that risk with synthetic corks or screwcaps.

Instead, with non-cork closures, you risk that the wine will not age gracefully. What makes corks so great is that they allow the tiniest bit of oxygen, microscopic amounts, that allow the wine to develop mature, complex flavors.

Synthetic corks and screwcaps are new enough -- and the technology is changing quickly enough -- that we don't know how well they will perform over 20 years.

But if you're going to drink the bottle this year, why do you care?

With its future at stake, the cork industry is spending a fair amount of money researching the problem. And it is making an impact. There are no accurate figures for percentage of cork tainted bottles, but some who have tried to calculate how many cork tainted bottles are found at wine competitions estimate a figure of just under 5%. Even a decade ago, the number would have been closer to 7% -- that's a significant improvement.

But it's not 0%. Wines sent to competitions should be the very best bottles a winery has. I've never been to a competition where none of the bottles were corked.

Cork advocates will point out that some screwcaps are so effective at preventing oxygen from entering that they occasionally trap sulfides in the wine, giving the wine a "reduced," sulphuric aroma upon opening. But this goes away with exposure to air, whereas cork taint just keeps getting worse.

In sum: if you're buying $100 wines to drink in 2019 or later, corks are still the way to go, despite the risk. But if you're buying $15 wines to drink now, it's time to change.

Why some good wines start tasting bad

2009-02-02T16:55:00.000-08:00

Have you ever opened a bottle of wine that was lovely for 30 minutes or so, and then the fruit became to fade?

This happened to me yesterday during the Super Bowl with a bottle of 1999 Havens Bourriquot Napa Valley Red Wine, a 67-33 blend of Cabernet Franc and Merlot.

Wow, this was nice at first. Lovely ripe cherry and cherry tobacco, some raspberry, leather, some dried herbs: I loved just smelling it. It was also nice on the palate, with raspberry fruit and well-managed tannins. But the finish was more leather and earth, and perhaps that was a warning sign.

I thought I detected a hint of brett in the beginning, but not enough to detract from a wine that seemed to be at its peak: mature, but still lively.

Within 30 minutes, though, the fruit was all gone, and all that remained was must and dust and maybe a little old leather.

So what was the cause? It could have been:

* Brettanomyces, better known as brett. This is my number one suspect because I think I smelled it, but without lab testing I can't say for sure. If true, the brett really took over fast.

* TCA, better known as cork taint. Corked wine does get worse as you drink it. But my previous experience with cork-tainted bottles is that they were never as lovely as this was to begin with.

* Possibly the fresh fruit flavors simply evaporated. This is only an outside possibility because, while this can happen with very old wines, a decade is not that long, and the fruit didn't seem delicate or fragile at first.

At the end of the day, I'm guessing it was brett. Havens Wine Cellars has taken pride in pronouncing itself "old-world" in style, and to be frank, I've never been a big fan of its wines. Many French wineries tolerate a level of brett in their wines that American wineries have tried to eliminate. I suspect that's what happened here.

But that's the problem with deconstructing a wine: without a lab, you can't be sure.

The experience also reminded me that wine is like a cherry blossom: a temporary beauty. If I had merely enjoyed a half-glass of this right after opening and then moved on, I would still have a delicious memory of it.

Fancy Food Show highlights

2009-01-26T17:20:00.001-08:00

Hot dogs made from wagyu ("Kobe") beef, coffee berry juice, spicy Thai-flavored shortbread -- must be the Fancy Food Show.

There's no way any one person could taste 5 percent of the foods offered at last week's show, a three-day extravaganza at the Moscone Center in San Francisco. It's a foodie paradise, even if it is a little heavy on cheese and chocolates. But still -- you walk by a huge table offering hundreds of different cheeses, any of which you can just stick a knife into and sample. If only you could bring some home!

I started off looking specifically for wine-related food products, such as the fine savory cheddar shortbreads from Canada. (I don't actually recommend the spicy Thai, but the rosemary was nice.) That's how I found the Iron Chef wine. Irrashaimase!

Ahem. An interesting product for wine lovers was BBQ Bath, a brine concentrate from Texas that's used to marinate meat before grilling. It adds flavor and allows you to skip the barbecue sauce, a good thing because most BBQ sauces are wine-unfriendly (vinegary, spicy, sweet -- all problems.) I liked the Lime Jalapeno and Smoked Habanero flavors.

And about that "Kobe" beef hot dog -- yum! It's from Snake River Farms in Idaho, which raises the same breed of cattle, Wagyu, used in Japan to make Kobe beef. They also raise a breed of Japanese pig, Kurobuta, but I wasn't as impressed with the ham made from it.

But with so many great (and not-so-great) food products to sample, I soon lost my focus, instead just nibbling at things that looked yummy.

A few more goodies: green chile stew mix from New Mexico, coffee and Earl Grey flavored shortbread from Washington, juice made from coffee plant berries from Los Angeles. I loved these traditional Greek olive oil cookies sweetened with orange juice and this Bulgarian rose nectar drink.

I couldn't eat anywhere near enough chocolates to tell you which was best, but two I enjoyed for very different reasons were Valerie salt and pepper truffles and DeFranco's espresso secrets.

A few other tidbits of knowledge: Olives vary tremendously by quality. If you don't love the brand you use now, move on. I had sooooo much prosciutto and it varied from great to really great.

And a note to show promoters: If you're peddling a wine-friendly product, take care about the wine you pour. Some guy was trying to sell savory cookies that supposedly go with different specific varietals. I asked to try the one that goes with Cabernet, and he poured me Charles Shaw Cabernet. Mmm, delicious -- not. That's why there's no link here to his product.

Sorry for the delay in posting this. Wine rocks, but my home computer does not :(.

Pardon Barry Bonds

2009-01-17T13:24:00.000-08:00

Baseball writers and political analysts have speculated that George W. Bush might pardon Roger Clemens for lying to Congress before leaving office.

That would be a mistake; Clemens asked for the Congressional hearing so if he lied at it he has nobody to blame but himself.

Instead, Bush should pardon Barry Bonds. By doing so, Bush would be correcting his own mistake as President.

The ongoing prosecution of Bonds has been a costly witch hunt at taxpayer expense, and it all came because the Bush administration made steroids in baseball one of its issues with which to divert the American people's attention from more serious problems.

The Bonds case has dragged on for more than five years. The real villains in the Balco case -- the people who ran the company and provided steroids to athletes -- are done with their sentences.

Greg Anderson, Bonds' personal trainer, spent more time in prison -- more than a year -- for refusing to testify against Bonds than Victor Conte, founder of the company, did for all of his crimes. Conte was sentenced to four months in prison and four months of house arrest.

Here's what Bonds is charged with: lying to a grand jury about using steroids. He was subpoenaed to appear to testify in private, along with a mere handful of other players.

From what we now know, if every player in MLB had been required to appear, we would have learned of hundreds of steroids users. But Bonds was the big fish for the Bush administration -- the arrogant, media-hating asshole who was about to break the home-run record.

Last year -- more than four years after his alleged false testimony -- Bonds was a free agent, but with the indictment hanging over his head he got not one contract offer. Considering his success as a hitter, it seems clear that some team would have wanted him for the minimum salary -- $400,000. Maybe Tampa Bay would have won the World Series with Bonds instead of Cliff Floyd.

Anyway, the indictment has already cost Bonds at least $400,000, not counting incentive clauses, playoff money, a contract this year, etc. Is that worse than the 4-month prison sentence Victor Conte got? Ask yourself: Would you rather spend 4 months in prison or pay a $400,000 fine? Keep in mind that their offenses are not at all equal: Conte founded a company to create designer drugs for athletes and mask them from detection. Bonds was a client of that company.

The indictment was so poorly written that it had to be refiled. This case has already cost US taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and taken investigators and prosecutors away from more serious crimes.

Bush has always been responsible for this. With one stroke of his pen he can end it.

I am NOT arguing that Barry Bonds is a good guy. But for what he's accused of doing, he has been punished enough. So have the American people.

Would you drink wine in your football team's colors?

2009-01-14T11:14:00.000-08:00

I stumbled upon this video on the Internet today, in which a Baltimore Sun writer shows us how to turn beer Ravens purple.

The resulting beer looks very wine-like -- like sparkling Zinfandel, albeit with a bigger mousse than you'd expect. It actually looks more delicious to me than in its original yellow color, but that's because I'm a wine guy, not a beer guy.

So that begs the question: Would you drink wine in your team's colors while watching a big game?

Obviously it depends on the team. Oakland A's fans can have golden Chardonnay, perhaps with a stick of celery. But what about Raiders fans? Malbec served in a silver goblet?

How about San Francisco Giants fans? I've seen some orange wines, but generally they're flawed by oxidation. A few drops of red food coloring in your Sauvignon Blanc, then, with perhaps some olives on the side?

If you're a big enough Philadelphia Eagles fan to drink wine colored green and white -- stay away from my cellar with that stuff.

George W. Bush's greatest achievements

2009-01-11T17:06:00.000-08:00

With President George W. Bush about to leave office, I thought I'd pause from commenting on wine to praise him for his greatest accomplishments while in office.

Here's my list, though I may have forgotten a few. Please feel free to supplement.

*) On perhaps the worst day in this nation's history, and certainly the nation's worst day of his administration, President Bush heroically calmed an entire classroom full of schoolchildren by listening to them read "The Pet Goat."

*) Subsequently, President Bush used his charm and political skills to prevent Dick Cheney from launching a costly invasion of his most hated enemy -- France.

*) President Bush helped Al Jazeera establish itself as a worldwide brand, particularly with his refusal to cancel one of that network's most important sources of exclusive content, Osama bin Laden.

*) By renaming fried potatoes as "Freedom Fries," President Bush stimulated the economy, particularly for businesses engaged in making plastic menu signs for small restaurants.

*) Even with Condoleezza Rice obviously available, President Bush did not engage in extramarital sex while in office. Or if he did, he was Presidential enough to not get caught.

*) President Bush stimulated scientific research for our allies in the European Union with his stance on stem-cell research.

*) Next to prostitution, torture is one of mankind's oldest professions, but the industry had really fallen on hard times until it was restored to respectability by President Bush. Now a whole new generation worldwide is taking the training they need to introduce new methods, perhaps to patriotic members of our own military!

*) President Bush stimulated the shoe industry worldwide by creating interest in a new model.

*) Without President Bush, we probably wouldn't have President-elect Obama.

*) Perhaps most important of all, eight years of President Bush proved that this great nation is strong enough to survive anything at all.

Franzia is Unforgiven

2009-01-09T09:42:00.000-08:00

I'm a fan of Fred Franzia. The guy may lack in social graces, but he's a hero for recessionary times, putting usually palatable bottles of wine in stores for $2. Many, many Americans will enjoy the simple pleasure of a bottle of wine with their dinner this weekend solely because of Fred's "Two Buck Chuck."

However, I'm glad George W. Bush did not issue him a pardon for his 1993 federal conviction for conspiracy to defraud.

What Franzia pleaded guilty to was the wine equivalent of the Black Sox throwing the World Series -- because had he done so with regularity, he would have caused consumers to doubt the truth of what is actually in those precious bottles we spend so much money for.

Franzia admitted selling lesser grapes as Zinfandel. Though his Bronco Wine Co. now uses most of its grapes to make its own wines ("Two Buck Chuck" was still several years away), this news story implies that Bronco was selling these particular grapes to another winery.

Think about it: What assurance do you have that your bottle of $10 Zinfandel actually contains Zinfandel? If it were made from a mixture of Thompson Seedless and Alicante Bouschet, would you know?

You just would assume that Zinfandel wasn't particularly interesting, which means you'd be unlikely to want to spend $20 or more for a fine one from Seghesio or Scott Harvey or Outpost or any number of other great Zin makers. This is why what Franzia did back then is so bad: unchecked, it would have undermined trust throughout the industry, not just in his wines.

Franzia did not pay a heavy price for his involvement in the scheme. Others went to prison, but he did not. His company paid a $2.5 million fine and he had to temporarily step down as Bronco's president, a punishment that I'm sure was just as effective in changing leadership as in baseball when an ejected manager is ordered out of the dugout. You think they don't have phone lines in Ceres?

The biggest penalty Franzia paid, apparently, was shame. Otherwise, he wouldn't have applied for a Presidential pardon in the first place. Sorry, Fred, but you need to bear that shame. It's appropriate.

Apparently Franzia also wants to own a gun, something federal convicts cannot. Maybe he thinks, like Will Munny, "I'm just a fella now. I ain't no different than anyone else no more."

But he's still Unforgiven.

Wine and chocolate do not go together!

2009-01-06T16:38:00.000-08:00

Right now, most major food and wine publications are preparing their annual wine-and-chocolate article for Valentine's Day.

But it's all a scam. Wine and chocolate do not go together.

I sat in on a tasting once of about 75 different wines and maybe 20 kinds of chocolate. The best we could come up with were a few pairings that didn't suck.

The reason is very simple: Chocolate is sweet. It makes wines that aren't sweet taste sour.

The only way to avoid this is to drink an even sweeter wine -- vin santo, or Port, or something like that. In which case you have to ask yourself, why do you need the chocolate?

I'm going to say this again as the commercial candy fest that commemorates the mob massacre in Chicago gets closer. But I wanted to get this out there before your February issues of food and wine magazines arrive with ludicrous wine and chocolate pairing propaganda.

Drink wine with your sweetie. Clear your palates with a kiss. Then share a chocolate. Or do this in the opposite order.

But don't believe that Merlot, or Cab, or Zin, or any other red wine goes well with chocolate. They do not. And there's no reason they should have to.

Drinking and blathering on about it at the New York Times

2009-01-05T17:40:00.000-08:00

Have you seen the New York Times' "Proof" blog? It's a collection of writers posting about drinking -- not the drinks, but the experience of drunkenness.

This fills a niche. There are scores of wine writers and at least a few dozen people aspiring to be spirits or cocktail writers. But all of us concentrate on the flavors we experience, not the feeling we get after imbibing.

I've always found this dichotomy strange, and have been annoyed more than once by an editor prudishly snipping out a reference to being schnockered at the end of a long tasting of Zinfandels, for example. It's the polite secret of the wine industry: Yes, Virginia, professional wine tasters do get tipsy. We just don't admit it.

In fact, it's important in the industry to be able to drink bottle after bottle of wine and not show really obvious signs of drunkenness. If you jump in a fountain or give a technicolor yawn in public, people will still talk about it years later with disdain, perhaps while opening the 6th bottle of the night.

Thus I think there's a good spot in American wine writing for what the Times is doing. The actual results are, so far, hit and miss.

What the blog seems to spotlight mostly are regretful essays from binge drinkers. This is definitely a way many Americans relate to alcohol, and it's a shame that it is.

But I for one would like to see more essays about why people like drinking in the first place. There's a great line very early in the movie "Trainspotting" about heroin: "People think it's all about misery and desperation and death and all that shite, which is not to be ignored, but what they forget is the pleasure of it. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. After all, we're not fucking stupid."

I really liked David Kramer's essay "Buybacks" about his feeling of being special at his neighborhood bar in Manhattan: it managed to convey both the reasons people like to while away their lives in bars, and the reasons they probably shouldn't.

He writes: "McManus is one of those rare New York bars that still understands and holds dear the concept of the buyback — a drink on the house for every few you buy. And depending on the bartender and the length of my drinking session, the buybacks could be plentiful. Every now and then, the cadence of the buybacks would increase and I would find myself going one-for-one with the bartender, which made it difficult to slip out in a moment of polite one-upmanship.

I thought this was just great. I knew that buybacks didn’t go to just anybody. They were a perk of the inner circle, the handful of patrons who were genuinely liked and trusted by the staff. So a buyback didn’t just mean free beer — a great concept on its own. It meant acceptance. It meant I was on one of the rings of the inner circle."

... but later ...

"I told her about that split-second, how I was frozen on my bar stool and didn’t know what to do. But then every free drink that I had ever had, and the potential of that ending — forever — flashed before my eyes. No more special treatment. No more buybacks … The thought was staggering. I just had to do something."

Good stuff. Read the whole post.

That said, after Kramer, there's work to do: too much grimacing, not enough winking. Hopefully the Times will find more writers to highlight interesting things about drinking, because otherwise "Proof" will deteriorate into an unending elegy of eloquent regret, alleviated by occasional glitters of bright celebration. Sound like any activities you know?

Marilyn Manson's absinthe ("Mansinthe") rocks

2008-12-31T22:11:00.000-08:00

The bottle of Mansinthe sat on my desk, amusing me, for weeks.

I like weird packaging: I had a box of Mud & Bugs cereal on my desk for a while, and I kept for several years the cardboard container for a Japanese-made can opener that assured me, "This product will be your lifelong companion. We can see that it has mild heart."

You can see the appeal: Is that really an absinthe-addled Marilyn Manson on the label? If so, the stuff's really as bad for you as its 19th century reputation suggests. And no wonder -- it's 66.6% alcohol. (Surely that number is no coincidence.)

Mansinthe is made in Switzerland, and the back label copy is in Swiss-German, not one of my best languages. But I can report that the primary botanicals in this concoction are Swiss wormwood, green anise and fennel. It's produced in an 80-year-old distillery that was re-engineered when Switzerland lifted the absinthe ban in 2005.

Press materials for the product claim that Manson "was intensely involved in development by constantly tasting samples, critiquing and providing feedback to the distillers. Marilyn Manson has been drinking absinthe for years and has had the connections and opportunity to taste all qualities, including vintage absinthe. His palate for absinthe is well developed and he would not accept an inferior product that would also bear his name."

Yeah, that name. Mansinthe. I just like saying it. "Taste of Mansinthe, big boy?" Created in Switzerland with San Francisco in mind (though "Manjuice" might be even more appropriate -- an alcoholic eggnog endorsed by O.J. Simpson, perhaps?)

Anyway, the Mansinthe brought me pleasure similar to Marilyn Manson's music: fun as long as I kept it at arm's length. Curiosity didn't overcome me for weeks. Until today.

I couldn't let the year end without tasting Mansinthe. Would it be better than a Manwich? Or a Manhandler? Or Men at Work?

Mansinthe is very light green until you add a little water (at 66.6% alcohol, I don't see how you could drink it straight). Then it turns an eerie shade of yellowish-green that gives the impression of glowing slightly.

The aroma is strongly licoricey; the anise dominates other botanicals to the extent that it's almost medicinal. I feared the Mansinthe, but I refuse to let fear determine what I put in my mouth (don't tell my HMO).

I closed my eyes, took a sip -- and was very pleasantly surprised. Mansinthe is quite smooth, with flavors of anise, fennel, eucalyptus, and even a hint of almonds. The finish is long and breath-cleansing, but in a good way. If you like pastis or sambuca, you'll like this. Despite its potency, I found it refreshing for the palate.

Now I know what you're asking: where can I procure some Mansinthe? Try the official website, which complains bitterly about another blogger who panned the stuff. I wonder if Marilyn Manson bothers to write a screed complaining about every blogger who doesn't like his music. Don't slam me, Marilyn, I like your Mansinthe. I'm laughing with you. This time.

Dear reader, may your 2009 be filled with happy surprises in the mouth.

Sebastiani sale for the best

2008-12-23T08:17:00.000-08:00

Don't shed a tear for the sale of Sebastiani Vineyards and Winery. Sebastiani wines are more likely to continue to be good (I'm a fan) than they would have been if the winery was unsold.

Here's why: the dynamic branch of the Sebastiani family had already left the building, literally. Don Sebastiani left the company in 2001 to form his own eponymous company, which is one of the most energetic, creative companies in northern California. They make lots of wines you know, like Smoking Loon and Pepperwood Grove, and a host of smaller production wines you might not have encountered with crazy names like Used Automobile Parts.

Don Sebastiani, grandson of Sebastiani Vineyards founder Samuele Sebastiani, is an innovator who goes with his gut. I don't know why he left the family company seven years ago, but he didn't lose his shares in it and it seems clear from the San Francisco Chronicle story that he was a major force in engineering the sale.

Without Don running it, the company was under the nominal leadership of Mary Ann Sebastiani Cuneo and her husband. They were not dynamic leaders, but the winery has continued to make good wines because of its outstanding winemaker, Mark Lyon.

Lyon is an unabashed fan of new technology and new thinking. He makes ripe wines with great fruit that are easy to appreciate right now. He's creative and has a great palate. Yet what will serve him best in overseeing the transition in ownership are his political skills.

The buyers are not Heublein or Coca-Cola or even debt-stretched Constellation; instead, it's the rapidly expanding Foley Wine Group out of Santa Barbara County. So far, this group has shown a commitment to fine wine. It hasn't blown up the production levels of popular labels until they bear little connection to the founders' intent (i.e., Inglenook, or more recently Ravenswood.)

Like other businesses, unless they're blessed with the terroir of Domaine Romanee Conti (and even to some degree if they are), wineries need to keep moving forward. Cuneo wasn't able to marshall her family's support, and support of owners and management are needed for essentials like replacing expensive equipment.

Foley has money, apparently, and its leaders should be smart enough to keep Lyon on board. The Sebastiani family winery name is safer in Foley's hands.

Besides, it's not like there isn't still a family-owned winery named Sebastiani making some pretty good wines. That Used Automobile Parts Bordeaux-style blend is actually pretty good.

The power of 90 point wines

2008-12-05T16:27:00.000-08:00

This is a true story, but it has to stay anonymous.

A major wine merchant that provides its own wine ratings recently offered a red wine for sale with an 89 point rating. It wasn't an expensive wine, selling for about $10. As for its quality, it was solid, but not a sock-knocker: 89 points was appropriate, and at $10, it was a great deal.

The wine didn't sell. Not a famous region, not a well-known brand. Having tasted it, I would choose it over 95% of the other $10 red wines out there, particularly the generic giant brands. But the average consumer did not.

The merchant removed the wine from sale. A few weeks later, it offered the same wine to its customers, this time with a 90 point rating.

The wine sold by the case: scores of them, in fact.

There were no other changes to the price, description, or logo, or anything else. The only thing that changed was one point in the rating.

Think about that the next time you reach for a 90-point wine to put in your shopping basket.

Beyond supertasters -- are some people just super percepters?

2008-12-04T16:20:00.000-08:00

Are you as sensitive to small differences in quality of music or movies as you are about wine? If so, maybe you can relate to this experience.

I went to the eye doctor today for an annual checkup. I have poor vision and am a big fan of ultra-thin lenses. I'm also a big fan of eyeglasses in general and have about a dozen. I've had to cut back, though, since reaching the age where I need progressive lenses -- I can't just buy my two favorite frames at a time.

Anyway, the doctor was testing my vision and she remarked, "You're very sensitive to small changes." Apparently I'm noticeably better than the average person at saying this twist of the knob makes my vision better, and that one makes it worse.

I may be sensitive, but in fact I wear a variety of different prescriptions because I'm loath to discard glasses I like from years past. Sometimes I wear progressives (these replaced bifocals, for you bastards who have perfect eyesight), sometimes not. I have some frames (generally wider) I wear to the movies or hiking, and a pair just for the computer. I sense the differences, but I accept whatever the qualities of my vision will be from the different glasses. Sort of like loving both Pinot and Cab for what they are.

I told the optometrist that I was probably no more sensitive than the average person -- but having been a critic for much of my life, I was more likely to pronounce A over B. She disagreed; she said other patients simply couldn't tell the difference between much larger adjustments.

Though fully correctable, my vision is my worst sense. There's no way I can claim to be even close to as visually perceptive as the average person. So what's going on here?

She got me to wondering if there's a gene for sensory distinctions. It's not just wine on which I can choose A over B. I have been a movie critic and a music critic. I've written (for pay) restaurant reviews, book reviews and theatre reviews. Until today I have always assumed that the reason was simply my willingness to express myself.

But maybe not. Thanks to Dr. Linda Bartoshuk, we know about supertasters and non-tasters. I am friends with a few non-tasters; their lives are simpler and less costly than mine (unless they let me order the wine ...)

I also have long known people who profess to care little about what music is on in the background, or what the view out their window looks like. I am intensely sensitive to these things. I can't ungrit my teeth if I hear the Journey singer's voice, for example, and I insist on living and working in places with a view of some green.

Is it possible that some of us are more perceptually acute across an entire range of senses than others? Or do some of us simply pay more attention to details (perhaps at the cost of unshakable concentration on work tasks, never a strength of mine)?

How big is your Pinot?

2008-12-03T19:17:00.000-08:00

Last night I opened a huge Pinot, both in bottle size and palate weight: 2001 Sine Qua Non "No. 6" Shea Vineyard Yamhill County Pinot Noir.

The wine was delicious, no question. Lots of cherry fruit with a very long finish. It wasn't complex initially but as it got some air the aroma added a little violet perfume and a little slate. Generally, though, this was a pleasant mouthful of fruit that lingered on the palate.

The body wasn't huge -- I've enjoyed Sine Qua Non Syrah, and this wasn't that. But it was made in that style. It was medium-full bodied, and the mouthfeel was muscularly sensuous.

I liked the wine. My companion liked the wine. The waiter liked the wine.

So why do I feel something missing?

I'm not a Burgundy purist -- the alcohol level (14.2%) doesn't bother me, and while the absence of great complexity isn't a plus, that wasn't why I had a nagging, nitpicking feeling.

It comes down to weight on the palate -- I simply do not want a Pinot Noir to feel heavy. I don't mind that quality in a Cab, Merlot or Syrah. But for Pinot, I want something -- always -- that's a little bit more delicate. This wine was like C.C. Sabathia in a ballet outfit -- impressive, but out of place.

Increasingly, though, because America loves both big reds and Pinot Noir, the two are intersecting. That's a shame. To me, what makes Pinot Noir great is that it's not a big red. Except when it is.

Shiraz, lies and redtape

2008-11-28T19:35:00.001-08:00

This is what we drank with Thanksgiving leftovers: Mount Langi Ghiran Cliff Edge Shiraz 2001 ($25 on release). I like the wine, but the label plays annoying games with the truth.

It's a young-vines wine from Mount Langi Ghiran, whose flagship Shiraz is an old favorite. I picked it because I wanted something juicy, and it delivered, with a lot more complexity and also alcoholic wallop than I had a right to expect.

But what the hell is this wine, exactly?

The back label reads, "The dramatic 'Cliff Edge' vineyard was selected as a future source for the internationally acclaimed 'Langi Shiraz.' The complex wine is a blend of fruit from our selected regional and Cliff Edge vineyards, where a unique 28 acre net soars over this special parcel of grapes protecting them from the elements of this ancient land."

The runon sentence is trying to disguise the fact that this is not a single-vineyard wine. I read "selected regional" so I scoured the bottle for an appellation. I *think* it's Victoria: the word is written in small type just above "Produce of Australia" and "Alc 15.0% by Vol." But who knows: maybe that's just where they bottled it.

I had to read the description more than once to understand: there's a 28-acre net, over a new vineyard. Some grapes from that vineyard went into this wine, but probably it's less than 50%.

The side label reads, "The granite cliffs of Mount Langi Ghiran tower over our vineyards in the Grampions region of Victoria."

Parse that for a sec: The winery owns vineyards in Grampions, but does this wine come from there? Gloria Ferrer owns vineyards in Spain; that doesn't make its Sonoma bubbly "cava."

Anyway, my irritation at the Rovian label doesn't diminish my appreciation for the wine. Aromas of rich blackberry, blackberry liqueur, graphite, black licorice, vanilla, dried cherry and leather. On the palate, plenty of fruit -- juicy, generous blackberry and mulberry with a solid line of acidity and a streak of graphite down the center of the tongue. It finishes long and strong. Doesn't taste hot, despite the 15.0% alcohol.

In Sept. 2004, Harvey Steiman of Wine Spectator gave it 90 points, writing, "Bright and lively, with a juicy core of blueberry and mulberry fruit at the center, shaded with white and black peppercorn aromas and racy acidity that adds an almost citrusy note as the flavors linger. Drink now through 2010. 7,000 cases made."

I can see that. It's a little richer now, with more complexity in the aroma, and the "racy acidity" has kept it fresh. I would extend its expiration date for some years, depending on how you like your Shiraz. It is drinking great right now, but seems like it might also be enjoyable in 2015.

Maybe by then they'll admit its provenance.

Wines with Thanksgiving leftovers

2008-11-28T18:17:00.000-08:00

I still think wistfully of the first time when I put all the Thanksgiving leftovers, except salad and cranberry sauce, into one big Teflon pan and stir-fried them together.

I say the first time, because I tried it when I was a junior in college, and it was surprisingly delicious. Why not? Turkey, mashed potatoes, stuffing, corn, some broccoli if I remember correctly, pan fried in olive oil. I felt like a culinary genius at an age when Pop-Tarts were still a legitimate breakfast choice.

However, I tried the same trick a couple more times later in life but never recaptured the magic. (Though one Christmas I did make amazing stuffing with some leftover black beans and rice because I was short of bread.) Now I reheat the stuff separately, sigh.

So what wine do you drink with the melange of seen-better-times food?

The obvious answer is whatever wine is leftover. From our party yesterday, however, there was none.

I like something juicier today than I did on Thanksgiving day. I always have leftover white-meat turkey, because I eat the dark meat first, but it will be drier today, and there's only so much resurrection that leftover gravy can do. Similarly, leftover stuffing is a lot drier today.

Plus, I lean toward minerally, austere whites on the day itself, and today I'm ready for a change of pace.

Grenache is probably my favorite choice -- good acidity, plenty of fruit. There are plenty of good ones from Spain (called Garnacha) and also from southern France. I tend to lean toward American wines on our Thanksgiving holiday so I'm ready for a change from that today as well.

A lot of people like Zinfandel on Thanksgiving, as it is the American grape. (Yeah, I know about Croatia, blah blah. So it has immigrant roots. Don't we all?) I prefer it today, though, because I'm more in the mood for it.

This may be heresy for some, but I don't mind opening a nice Merlot today. Sparkling Shiraz, if you have one, is another good choice.

Hope your turkey day went well. Mine did!

Choosing the right wines for Thanksgiving

2008-11-25T14:47:00.000-08:00

Every publication has to do the Thanksgiving wine story every year. Here's an inside scoop: They all hate it.

Why? Because you can't say anything new. That doesn't feel right for a magazine, so they look for a different theme every year.

I've written about Thanksgiving wines too many times already myself. But I'm not going to say anything new and different on this blog. Instead, here are the straight-up basics:

1) Thanksgiving is a lousy opportunity for fine-wine pairing. While just about anything works with turkey, cranberry sauce is a killer for red wines. So are sweet potatoes, especially with marshmallow topping.

2) Big family gatherings are the worst time to uncork special bottles. Your Aunt Agnes who normally drinks Manischewitz might be the first to fill her glass with your Lafite-Rothschild. "It's a little dry," Agnes says, before surreptitiously pouring it out.

3) Therefore, don't spend too much, and don't stress too much. Don't bring anything that costs more than $20 to a family Thanksgiving dinner.

4) You can't please everyone with one wine, so don't try. Open several different bottles -- whites, reds and rose's -- and let people pour what they like.

5) Did I say rose'? Great match. And many are on sale.

6) My personal favorites with Thanksgiving are Riesling and Sauvignon Blanc. They have the acidity to cleanse the palate of heavy foods like stuffing and mashed potatoes and gravy. If the chef uses sugar in the vegetables, Riesling is the better choice.

7) If you want red wine, go for something light-bodied with good acidity. Pinot Noir is the classic choice for combining quality with food friendliness. Italian Sangiovese-based wines are also a good way to go.

8) Think bubbly! It's a party, right! Not only that, it's a good match for the food. This is a good day to avoid your normal Brut and get a slightly sweet wine -- an Extra Dry, for example (did Karl Rove get to name sweet bubblies?) Your relatives will prefer it, and it's actually a better match with the food.

9) Forget Cabernet, except long after dessert, in the TV room with the football game. But personally, I say forget Cabernet all day long -- the food will make it taste lousy and you will have wasted your prized bottle.

10) I like to serve a nice tawny Port after dessert, but light white dessert wines are also a good choice.

11) Don't stress! No matter what you serve, you're not going to make the pickiest relatives happy. As for the rest, they'll be happy with the great company and the occasion, and as long as the wine is reasonably palatable, it works. Save the heavy thoughts for a day when the meal and wine are the star. If that's true on Thanksgiving, you need to spend more time thinking about your family and friends.

Happy Thanksgiving from all of us (heh heh) at Wine Rocks.

Admiral Ackbar on Beaujolais Nouveau

2008-11-20T16:08:00.000-08:00

Beaujolais Nouveau arrives in stores today, and we interviewed prominent aviator Admiral Ackbar, whose enormous nostrils give him great olfactory sensitivity. This is what he said:

"It's a trap!"

Ackbar was referring to the marketing scheme of the Beaujolais region, in which they have successfully convinced consumers that wine in its larval stage is something worth celebrating. People pay more now for a Nouveau wine -- which should be swished and spit at the winery just to make sure its development is coming along -- then they do for completely finished wines from good growing regions that have spent 6 months maturing in oak barrels, gaining aromatic and gustatory nuances.

"It's a trap!" Ackbar added, because retailers tell their less knowledgeable customers that Beaujolais Nouveau is a great match for Thanksgiving dinner.

In fact, Beaujolais Nouveau has the shortest retail shelf life of any wine: if it's not all sold by early December, the retailer is going to have to put the remainder in the $2 bin at the front of the store. That's closer to its real value: given the choice between Charles Shaw and Beaujolais Nouveau, I could go either way.

"It's a trap," Ackbar concluded.

Robert Parker on terroir

2008-11-17T08:34:00.001-08:00

Robert Parker is often accused of not appreciating terroir. His response to the charge is characteristically provocative.

"I don't know how you can define terroir," Parker says.

Parker spoke at a 2005 Bordeaux tasting last month at the Culinary Institute of America, Greystone in St. Helena. He took questions on many topics, but the topic of terroir was the only one that got him riled up. Clearly, it's a sensitive spot.

But he does have a point.

"I've never seen anybody say, 'This is Chambertin' in a blind tasting," Parker says.

He went on to explain that in that one 32-acre vineyard in Burgundy, which is divvied up into more than 20 parcels with different owners, some wineries make consistently rich, full-bodied wines, while others make consistently austere wines.

"Which Chambertin is the best representative of Chambertin?" Parker asks. "Who has the right to say, 'This represents the terroir or Chambertin?' "

I don't share Parker's palate, though I respect it -- he is the most consistent rater I know, and is entitled to set his own standard for excellence. That said, I've had the opportunity to taste many wines he has rated over 95 points, and I find they share a richness and intensity that I usually don't want with dinner.

However, he's right on the terroir question. He says simply, "We know good wines come from good sites."

I have tasted hundreds of Cabernets from Napa Valley, and also from Lodi. I can't tell you what a Lodi Cab should taste like. Nor do I believe I could tell a Napa Cab from a Tuscan Cab or a Barossa Cab in a blind tasting (that may say more about Tuscany and Barossa than Napa.) But I know that I've had only one Lodi Cab in my entire life that I considered the equal of a good Napa Cab, of which I've had dozens. Sure, there are bad Napa Cabs, but it's simply much more likely for a winemaker to make a good Cab there than in Lodi. That's terroir.

Parker is also correct that people angry about poor ratings use terroir as a rejoinder.

"Sometimes when I hear that question (about terroir), it's said in a pejorative way because the wine is too rich or too good," Parker says.

It's easy to forget that Parker was a lawyer before becoming the world's most influential wine critic. His writing is not lyrical like, say, Gerald Asher or Jancis Robinson. But he does logically break down an issue and argue persuasively for his side.

Many of us don't want to admit that there is no identifiable "gout de terroir" of our favorite regions. But science continues to strip away our illusions. The barnyard notes Chateauneuf-du-Pape was famous for turned out to be brettanomyces -- a spoilage flaw that some drinkers like. The relative lightness of Carneros Pinot Noir seems to be because of the clones planted there, not the soil or climate.

There are general principles of terroir related to climate, such as that Napa Cabs must be higher in alcohol than Bordeaux to taste good, because otherwise they won't be ripe enough.

However, when you talk about the characteristic flavors of individual vineyards, you're talking about climate, soils, clones and winemaking approach. You can't change the climate (well, we are, but that's another topic) or soils, but change either of the other two and those characteristic flavors change. Yet is winemaking approach what people mean when they use the term "terroir?"

Parker's right: good terroir means a place where good wines come from. Whether or not you agree with his definition of a good wine, his definition of terroir is spot on.

Wine Spectator vs. Wine Enthusiast

2008-11-13T15:31:00.001-08:00

Which wine would you rather drink?

Wine A: 81 points. Shows muted black cherry and spice aromas, with tightly wound plum, medicinal and herbal flavors and dry, papery tannins. Drink now.

Wine B: 90 points. This is a vigorous young Cab that will reward aging. It’s bright and savory in cherry-berry, herb, new oak and spice flavors, with rich, sweet tannins. Better after 2008 and through 2012.

You could see the punch line coming -- this is the same wine, a 2004 Salvestrin Estate Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. Wine A is the Wine Spectator review, Wine B is the Wine Enthusiast review.

Tasting notes vary but this is a pretty good example of complete disconnect. Feel free to post more.

Gallo plays the bad guy, again

2008-11-11T15:38:00.001-08:00

The long view of Ernest & Julio Gallo is that they expanded the U.S. market for wine and kept vineyards operating in areas that could have been turned into almond or apple orchards.

That said, during their heyday they were hated and feared throughout the industry for their ruthless style.

For the last decade or so, after Julio's death and in Ernest's later years, we saw a kinder, gentler Gallo in many areas. But the company still holds unusual sway over the U.S. government -- Gallo was the main force behind trade negotiations with Europe in which our country's main position was defending Gallo's right to use "Burgundy" as a fanciful name, as well as Korbel's right to keep making "California Champagne."

Now, Gallo is using that power over government -- which increases with the Democrats in control, as Gallo is a major contributor to the Democratic party -- to screw small wine producers as well as U.S. wine drinkers.

The company has chosen the busiest time of year in Sonoma County to try to ram home an extension of the Russian River Valley AVA that would allow vineyards of much less quality in the door.

Russian River Valley is one of the best AVAs in America, and is a pretty good mark of quality. Diluting it benefits nobody except Gallo, which just happens to own 350 acres that it wants included in the AVA.

Winemaker Merry Edwards is trying to spearhead the fight against it, but she's a small independent businessperson who's busy overseeing her own new crop of wines -- as are all the other small producers who are the natural opponents of this move.

An excellent Wines & Vines article is here. Read it, then visit the TTB website here to post a comment. Consumers need to speak out to prevent Gallo from pulling this off.

Obama scores some Kendall-Jackson Chardonnay

2008-11-06T14:38:00.000-08:00

First the press release, then the comment ...

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NOVEMBER 6, 2008

KENDALL-JACKSON SENDS WINE TO PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA

Congratulatory gesture spurred by President-elect’s affinity for winemaker’s chardonnay

SANTA ROSA, Calif. – A recent story in People Magazine profiling the family life of then-candidate, now President-elect, Barack Obama, mentioned that a bottle of Kendall-Jackson chardonnay sat on the Obama’s kitchen countertop. It now seems only fitting that the California winemaker send a few congratulatory cases of the brand to the incoming President for his new wine cellar on Pennsylvania Avenue. So the company is doing just that.

Kendall-Jackson Wine Estates today sent two cases of its finest to President-elect Obama, care of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C. The cases contain America’s #1 bestselling chardonnay for the past 18 years—Kendall-Jackson Vintner’s Reserve Chardonnay.

“Our Vintners’ Reserve Chardonnay was a favorite in the Reagan Republican White House,” said winery founder Jess Jackson. “Now with a new Democratic administration coming in and charged with bringing our country together, we find that our wine provides some common ground for that.”

... I've cut off the end of the press release, which goes off on a bizarre tangent about Jess Jackson's love for his horse Curlin. But you get the drift.

Like many, many Americans, Obama likes his Chardonnay with a little residual sugar. Well, the man told us he wouldn't be a perfect President. But he is a man of the people.

Salut, Mr. President!

Chateau Montelena deal falls through

2008-11-05T13:52:00.000-08:00

Chateau Montelena announced today that it will not be sold to French interests after all.

The story came across PR Newswire, paid for by Chateau Montelena. Many people probably don't know this, but a company has to pay several hundred bucks to send out a press release this way.

What this means is that Chateau Montelena really wants to tell the world that the sale didn't happen. They could have sent out emails and faxes to a few papers and magazines. Instead, they want wider coverage and were willing to pay to get it.

Why? I think the obvious answer is that they'd still like to be bought.

I don't have any inside sources at Chateau Montelena, so I can only speculate at why the deal fell apart. The obvious guess has to be the international credit crunch. The speculated price was over $100 million and it's unlikely that any buyer would pay that much in cash or assets.

What does the future hold for Chateau Montelena? I guess this establishes that Jim Barrett would like to cash out. But in this economy, he may not be able to.

The reported price tag always seemed like a lot to me for a winery that, while it has past glories, isn't one of the hot names in Napa Valley these days. The brand is still recovering from Wine Spectator's investigation of TCA in its wines a few years ago. And large historic properties aren't making the hot $100-plus bottles these days; microwineries have all the buzz.

I speculated a lot at the time of the sale on the impact the movie "Bottle Shock" might have on Chateau Montelena's future as a brand. Apparently the answer is "little." The film grossed just $4 million at the box office, less than was spent on the campaign to promote it.

I wouldn't read too much into this event as a statement on the investment value of Napa wineries. Chateau Montelena was overpriced and the timing was lousy.

Still, this is not a day for dancing in the streets of Calistoga.

Yes, we did.

2008-11-05T09:59:00.000-08:00

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

Google advertising: Is it worth it?

2008-11-03T18:42:00.001-08:00

Not being independently wealthy, I signed up to put Google ads on this site.

The second ad I got -- and it's up there as I type this -- is for the "Yes on Prop. 8" campaign, encouraging my readers in California to vote to remove the right to marry from same-sex couples.

Wow, talking about selling out for filthy lucre. I don't even have a check yet, and when I get it, the check will probably be for $0.03. For this I have given up control of my own blog.

Is it worth it?

Vintners Hall of Fame predictions

2008-10-31T17:18:00.000-07:00

In last year's election, the Vintners Hall of Fame voting body tended to pick people whose names appear on wine bottles. That's the only way I can understand Mike Grgich getting in but Warren Winiarski missing out.

Maybe that will change this year. It's hard to guess what a voting body will do: look at the gigantic industry built up around predicting the Presidential election.

That said, here are my predictions for the 2009 Vintners Hall of Fame, along with the ballot descriptions (please note that this is not necessarily who I would vote for; I'm just handicapping the race):

Warren Winiarski: Winiarski gave up a teaching position at University of Chicago to become a winemaker. He worked at Robert Mondavi Winery before forming his own company, Stag's Leap Wine Cellars. The very first vintage of Cabernet Sauvignon produced at his new winery won the Judgment of Paris tasting, instantly proving that California red wines are as good as any in the world. Winiarski continued to make good wines at Stag's Leap for the next 30 years.

Jess Jackson: In 1974, Jess, a founding member of Family Winemakers of California, converted an orchard in Lakeport to a vineyard. By 1982, the first Kendall-Jackson labeled wine went to market. Jackson created a new style of Chardonnay that made it the most popular varietal in America. He has also embarked on a quest to elevate the best Sonoma County wines to the highest level of respect in the wine world.

Jack & Jamie Davies: Jack & Jamie Davies resurrected the abandoned Schramsberg estate in the mid-1960s. With Jack overseeing production and Jamie doing the marketing, they established Schramsberg as a world-class house of sparkling wine. Every President starting with Richard Nixon has served Schramsberg wine at some official White House functions.

Frederick & Jacob Beringer: The Beringer brothers emigrated from Mainz, Germany in the 1860s to seek their fortune in the wine industry and became leaders of the California wine industry in its rise to greatness from the 1870s until the 1890s. A Beringer Riesling won a silver medal at the Paris Exhibition of 1887. The winery and house they built are still major Napa Valley attractions today.

Randall Grahm: Known as an enfant terrible during his years at UC Davis, Grahm told everyone who would listen he would make the first great American Pinot Noir. Instead he found himself entranced by what he calls "ugly duckling grape varietals" and has succeeded in introducing many American consumers to a world beyond Cab and Chard. His amusing marketing still defies pretensions.

It will be interesting to see if wine writers will vote for Robert Parker. It's impossible to deny Parker's impact on the California wine industry. The question is, how many wine writers and critics will want to enshrine him in the Hall of Fame?

For me, the baseball analogy is Steve Carlton (congratulations, Phillies). Baseball writers disliked Carlton because he never spoke to them during the peak of his career. But when the time came to vote for the Hall of Fame, they had to acknowledge his undeniable greatness. We'll see if Parker gets the same judgment.

Vintners Hall of Fame ballot is out

2008-10-30T18:39:00.000-07:00

The ballot for the Vintners Hall of Fame is out. Here are the nominees:

General category:
Gerald Asher
Robert Lawrence Balzer
Andy Beckstoffer
Jack & Jamie Davies
Paul Dolan
Gary Eberle
Randall Grahm
Jess Jackson
Jerry Lohr
Zelma Long
Carole Meredith
Justin Meyer
Robert M. Parker, Jr.
Richard (Dick) Peterson
Richard & Robert Sands
Stephen Spurrier
Bob Thompson
Warren Winiarski

Pioneer category (dead 10 years):
Leon Adams
Frederick & Jacob Beringer
James Concannon Sr.
Eugene Hilgard
Charles Kohler
Hamden W. McIntyre
Frank Schoonmaker
Albert Winkler

Wine writers and critics will vote on these nominees, and the winners go into the Vintners Hall of Fame next spring.

My first thought is that the Beringers are absolute shoo-ins. Eugene Hilgard was an important professor, but who has heard of him outside of wine academics?

Last year, Mike Grgich got in, but Warren Winiarski -- who also won the Judgment of Paris tasting, in the red-wine category -- did not. If Winiarski doesn't get in this year, it's a travesty. The guy is in his 80s and deserves to enjoy it.

I tasted '05 Bordeaux with Robert Parker

2008-10-26T16:49:00.002-07:00

Robert Parker was on stage talking about how wonderful 2005 Chateau Haut-Brion tastes, but my glass smelled like copper, cheese and scorched earth. I whispered to people on both sides of me, "Is there something wrong with this wine?" I think we got a bad bottle but I, never shy of expressing myself, was afraid to raise my hand.

You have to be Tim Mondavi to challenge Parker; he was one of the few people to do so last week at Parker's 5th annual wine seminar & tasting at the Culinary Institute of America at Greystone.

Though open to everyone, the event draws mostly wine industry luminaries who can afford the $2,000 cost to spend the afternoon tasting amazing wines with the Emperor.

The lineup of wines was stellar: all 2005 Bordeaux. "I think in my 30 years this is the greatest vintage I've tasted," Parker said.

He explained that while the top chateaux have made comparably great wines in other years, 2005 was superb across the board. "I've never seen in Bordeaux so many minor wines from little appellations -- so many good wines at that level," he said.

However, while Parker praised the "value wines," what we tasted were the superstars. Whaddya expect for $2,000?

Southern Wine & Spirits provided 11 bottles of each of the wines. Parker estimated buying one bottle of each on the open market would cost a total of $12,000 to $14,000.

The lineup:

Chateau Smith Haut Lafitte Blanc, Pessac-Leognan
Chateau Pape Clement Blanc, Pessac-Leognan
Chateau La Conseillante, Pomerol
Chateau Bon Pasteur, Pomerol
Chateau Trotanoy, Pomerol
Chateau L'Evangile, Pomerol
Chateau Cheval Blanc, Saint-Emilion
Chateau Haut-Brion, Pessac-Leognan
Chateau La Mission Haut-Brion, Pessac-Leognan
Chateau Pape Clement, Pessac-Leognan
Chateau Lafite Rothschild, Pauillac
Chateau Latour, Pauillac
Chateau Mouton Rothschild, Pauillac
Chateau Margaux, Margaux
Chateau Ausone, Saint-Emilion
Chateau Pavie Macquin, Saint-Emilion
Chateau Angelus, Saint-Emilion
Chateau Troplong Mondot, Saint-Emilion
Chateau Larcis Ducasse, Saint-Emilion
Chateau Pavie, Saint-Emilion

Obviously, many of these wines were fabulous. I was swooning over the L'Evangile when Parker said, "I think my colleagues at Wine Spectator -- didn't they score this wine 100 points? (pause) Someone said yes? Shame on you for reading that."

He got his biggest laugh of the day with that line. After taking a sip, Parker said, "I think this is beautiful. Maybe the Wine Spectator got that right."

Parker said he came early to the auditorium to ensure that the correct wines were poured -- an obsession of his.

But I was not the only one to occasionally wonder if my glass held the same ambrosia as Parker's. I was writing these notes about the Lafite Rothschild -- "Mmm. Black cherry, raspberry, plenty of fruit, good structure and backbone; long, long finish. Wow, this is delicious." -- when Parker called it "backward and tight."

"I would much rather have the '03 and the 2000," Parker said.

Tim Mondavi, from the back row, said, "It's rich, it's delicious. I think it's fabulous." Thanks, Tim! Parker said there may be bottle variation.

When I retasted at the end of the day, oak had come to the forefront, and it did seem tighter. So maybe we had aeration variation. But it was still too nice to call "backward."

Parker's own 100-point wine, Chateau Margaux, was pretty and easy to love: plenty of berries on the nose with a slight savory prosciutto-like note. On the palate, it had lots of raspberry and blackberry and very gentle tannins -- a very nice fruit bowl, though without the promised complexity of the aroma. It raised the question, for me, of what makes a wine perfect.

This was not my favorite wine of the tasting, nor was it a wine that would make you drop to your knees and thank God (that would be the l'Evangile or the Ausone). But I do believe any red-wine drinker, even Alice "I'm making a career out of bashing Parker" Feiring, would like it. Complete consensus in wine is rare. Parker's comment was, "You get great purity of fruit." If that makes it a 100-pointer, so be it.

Parker understands the impact his scores have.

"I love Bordeaux. I love to buy it," he said. "If I like a wine and give it a good score, it increases in value and so does my wine collection."

My neighbor turned to me and said, "There's the quote of the year," and indeed, that statement looks a lot worse written down than it sounded at the time. I don't want to play gotcha on this, because while I don't always agree with Parker's favorites, I usually prefer him to his often-shrill detractors. Parker is passionate about wine and has phenomenal taste memory; he can put wines like these in historical perspective almost as well as the winery employees who taste them all the time.

Anyway, sticking with the topic of cost, Parker believes the '05 Bordeaux are like luxury houses in today's market: many are in the hands of investors who thought they would flip them but have discovered the market is softer than they thought.

"They're stuck with them for a while," Parker says. "But that's not a bad thing."

The Ausone, which was just amazing, is a great example. Parker says recent auction prices put it at $3,000 a bottle. Even if it's the best wine of a great vintage, and smaller production than the rest, there aren't many people in this economic climate who are willing to fork over $3,000 for one bottle. I wouldn't. Well, maybe. If I learned that a zombie virus had been released on the East Coast and the flesh-eating undead were inexorably taking over, I would buy a bottle, sure, if no good vintages of Romanee-Conti were available on the way to buy pickaxes.

But I'm not a grown-up lucky sperm; $3,000 has meaning to me. If it didn't, why wouldn't I spend it? I'd rather have a bottle of '05 Ausone than spend three nights in a luxury resort hotel. This wine was intense.

Parker says it's a 50-50 blend of Merlot and Cabernet Franc. The aroma is like falling on your face into a blackberry patch in a pine forest by the sea (channeling my inner WineX), except I left out the notes of huckleberries and citrus. The flavor is actually a little closed now. There's plenty of blackberry, but it's quite tannic and dense. With the jump-from-the-glass aroma, overall it's very impressive. Parker said, "This is probably a 100-year wine." It was one of several times he said he wished he could live longer to drink these wines in a later state of maturity. (Understandable for a man with a great palate, he loves to eat and is getting pretty wide. His face is still young for a guy in his 60s.)

I wouldn't call Parker eloquent, but he is succinct; maybe that's his greatest strength. "The greatness in wine, or the greatness in food, is the ability to build intensity without heaviness," he said, talking about the Ausone.

I've got more to say about this tasting, but this post is getting long, so I'll stop here and post a part deux tomorrow.

Food & wine pairing on the Russian River

2008-10-24T15:32:00.000-07:00

I haven't been to this event, but it sounds like a great time.

On Nov. 1 and 2, 73 wineries in the Russian River area will have a dish of food at their tasting room for you to enjoy with their wines -- all for one event price ($60 for 2 days, $40 for Sunday only). It's called "Tasting Along the Wine Road."

That's a great deal considering that $10 seems a standard tasting fee at one winery lately. Not that I think that's a good idea, but still ... if you're going to drop $60 tasting wine, you might as well nosh some black truffle macaroni and cheese or rabbit shepherd's pie while you're at it.

There's only one flaw: unlike an event that happens in a single place, this one is spread out over many miles on winding roads. Designated drivers can pay $20 for just the food -- and the food does sound well worth the money. (Not noodles and gravy: Hearty Duck Ragu with Pinot Noir, Walnuts and Pomegranate).

Good luck convincing a friend to chauffeur you around without even one little sip of Carol Shelton's Zinfandel. I recommend bribing them with a bottle at the end of the journey.

Wine Spectator Great Cabs by the numbers

2008-10-22T23:10:00.001-07:00

Here are some quick fun facts about the pull-out sheet of "Great California Cabernets" in the current issue of Wine Spectator:

There are 113 wines on the chart.
97 points 5 wines $197 average $275 high $95 low
96 points 6 wines $138 average $200 high $95 low
95 points 10 wines $225 average $750 high $75 low
94 points 21 wines $177 average $450 high $75 low
93 points 29 wines $115 average $250 high $45 low
92 points 42 wines $104 average $275 high $50 low

Total 113 wines $137 average
$750 high (2005 Screaming Eagle Oakville)
$45 low (2005 Stephanie Napa Valley)

Wines from Napa Valley: 110
Wines from Sonoma County: 2
Wines from Paso Robles 1

Does this really represent the reality of California Cabernet? Will the high-end market bear an average price of $137? Is everything outside of Napa that weak in comparison?

From the gut, I think "Yes, no, maybe." Even with the economy depressed, people are still willing to pay more for Napa Cab than just about anything else. But I expect $200 wines to suffer if they don't get 95 points from somebody.

As for the appellation question, Sonoma County seems underrepresented. Maybe the wineries there need to advertise more. You know where.

Obama wins the World Series

2008-10-20T09:47:00.000-07:00

Fox is cursing its luck at getting a Tampa Bay - Philadelphia matchup instead of a Red Sox - Dodgers showdown. But Barack Obama, once again, has seen events break in favor of his taking the White House.

Here's why. Obama's 30-minute ad buy next week will push back the start of Game 6. Everybody watching the Series will most likely watch at least a portion of Obama's presentation because we won't be confident that we won't miss the first pitch if we try to skip Obama entirely.

The Red Sox and Dodgers have much bigger fan bases. But California and Massachusetts are already solidly Democratic states. Even larger Red Sox Nation is all solidly Democratic (since McCain seems to have given up on New Hampshire).

In contrast, while the Phillies have only regional appeal and the Rays have one of the smallest fan bases in the majors -- they're in Pennsylvania and Florida, two of the most important swing states in the nation.

What a media buy for Obama! I don't know if he has bought regular ad time during the Series, but he might have, as he advertised plenty during the League Championship Series.

McCain, meanwhile, is running low on funds. A World Series ad would have been an expensive indulgence for him if it had been Sox-Dodgers. Now it might be too late for him to get on the ad schedule.

Obama's very smart and very organized. But sometimes, it helps to just be lucky. Way to win one for the swing state, Matt Garza.

"Can you recommend a good wine club?"

2008-10-19T17:55:00.000-07:00

A reader of my post ripping the Wall Street Journal wine club asked this question: "Could you recommend a good wine club? Something similar to WSJ, but without the lies?"

It's a very good question, and I hope this answer is worthy of it.

I don't usually recommend to friends that they join mixed-winery wine clubs because such clubs are often used to unload wines that aren't selling, sometimes for good reason.

Winery wine clubs are different: for some wineries, that's the only way you can buy their most interesting single-vineyard wines. You will have to buy a curiosity or two that you don't want to get the good stuff, but that's a decision many people find worth making. I've bought wines I don't want for years to move up on some mailing lists.

I always tell my friends that, instead of a wine club, find a good local retail shop who you trust, strike up a discussion with the wine buyer, and let them recommend a mixed case for you. It's the same idea as a wine club, but you have much more input (i.e., if you don't like Chardonnay or you love Petite Sirah or whatever, you can buy more of that.) If you don't like the wines they recommend, try it with another shop. You'll get much more accountability, and when you find a wine you love, you can quickly buy more.

However, if you're in an area without any good wine shops (like, say, Pennsylvania), this might not be an option.

In that case, I'll mention a couple of very good California retailers who have wine clubs: K & L Wine Merchants, and The Wine Club (despite the name, it's a 3-store California retail chain). I have shopped at these stores myself and they have good wines at good prices. I haven't looked into their wine clubs in detail, but they have the selection to create good ones.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Wines Til Sold Out, a New Jersey-based retailer that sells only one wine at a time, literally until it sells out. Quality is a mixed bag -- understandable because they switch wines more than once a day -- but they list third-party reviews right on the site, prices are very good, and you get free shipping on four bottles.

Keep buying and trying! That's like forming your own wine club of one.

Biggest sake event of the year

2008-10-17T17:41:00.001-07:00

Here's a brief shout-out to Joy of Sake, the biggest sake-tasting event of the year in San Francisco.

It's scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 23 from 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the Galleria Design Center, 101 Henry Adams Street. Tickets are $75. Official details are here.

I strongly advise arriving as early as possible. The food is generally very good, but tends to run out early. There will still be plenty of sake to taste at 8 p.m., but if you're going to spend $75, you might as well have some sushi, barbecue and other goodies.

The sake selection is simply unparalleled. You'll be able to taste a great variety of sakes that never make it to the U.S.

I like to start with the delicate (and expensive) daiginjos, then work my way through the ginjos and junmais. But you can also just bounce around the room; why not?

If you don't take detailed tasting notes, at least put check marks or stars on your program next to the sakes you like. That way, you can remember what to buy the next time you're at True Sake or your favorite sushi joint.

Pace yourselves; sake is slightly higher in alcohol than wine (about 16 to 18 percent). There are few spit buckets and it's easy to get really polluted. That may be part of the draw, but you can get wasted a lot cheaper with a bottle of good Bourbon. If you're going to drop $75 on the event, you might as well get the most out of it.

I often like to fill my glass a little higher with my very favorite sake of the night and drink that one "for the road." Of course, I usually take BART home ...

Nextel supports Sarah Palin for President

2008-10-15T20:20:00.000-07:00

Here's the subtext of Nextel's advertising: You don't need brains or training to be President. In fact, people would be better off if Congress studied the issues less.

Nextel is running an ad called, "What if firefighters ran the world?" In this ad, a soot-stained firefighter runs a Congress-like meeting by consensus. "You want clean water, guys?" Of course we do.

The firefighter mocks the paperwork of the bill they're supposed to vote on. Who cares about details? Firefighters will do what's right.

This could be a Palin-for-President ad -- it's essentially her political program ("We're going to get to Washington and fix it up, you betcha!") -- but it's very clever of Nextel to choose firefighters as her stand-in. Everybody likes firefighters.

Let me state that I also like firefighters. They're heroes.

So imagine the ad without firefighters in it -- imagine factory workers instead (nothing wrong with factory workers, but that's a less emotionally-charged image). Who needs a bunch of pointy-headed policy wonks to tell us about pollution and alternative energy? We can all just agree that we support clean water as well as puppies, good quality chocolate and sleeping late on Sundays. All in favor? Aye.

Unfortunately, this is NOT how good government works. But it IS what the Republican party has been telling red-state America, at least since George W. Bush's first campaign in 2000, and arguably for about six years before that. You don't need experts or discussion of issues. You need real likable people who you'd like to watch football with. Or, in the case of this ad, that you'd like to have on your side when your house is burning. Don't vote for the smart guy, vote for your buddy-to-be.

In financial political contributions, Nextel plays CYA, donating to Congressional incumbents on both sides with only a slight 55-45 Republican lean.

But in intellectual political contributions, this ad is the most pro-Bush, pro-Palin, pro-"good ole boy" ad on the air today.

Wine & Spirits Top 100 tasting

2008-10-15T18:48:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder what these events are like? Here's what you got for $125 on Tuesday night in San Francisco:

You walk up red-carpeted steps into the U.S. Mint building, which is practically never open to the public. Just seeing the inside of this place is worthwhile. The trimmings are all steel, perhaps to repel Goldfinger (though who would ever push away Pussy Galore?)

You grab a Wine & Spirits logo glass and walk between various theme rooms. Each room has small tables holding two (or occasionally 3 or 4) wines from each winery listed in the top 100. Pours are more generous than in tasting rooms, and some people ask for seconds, although with all these wines to sample, it's easy to just keep moving.

Each room also had 2-4 items of food prepared by local restaurants. I wish I had taken better notes on these foods, because some were outstanding, like pancetta-wrapped chicken with sage skewers, tarako potato salad, and roast duck mini-sandwiches.

Bubbly and crisp whites are outside; that's where I started, sampling '03 Iron Horse and '97 Diebolt-Vallois just to warm up. There were unlimited oysters on the half shell, but I tend to just taste wine until I feel hungry to keep my palate fresh.

Bubbly highlights: 1988 Veuve Clicquot Brut was one of the best things I had all night, rich and Sherry-like on the long finish.

Crisp wine highlight: 2007 Santorini Assyrtiko, an amazing Greek white with plenty of Meyer lemon and fresh herb character. One of the best Greek whites I've had.

In the "rich whites" room, I got into a depressing conversation with the importer of 2006 Tahblik Marsanne. Great wine, earthy and interesting, but he admitted that it keeps getting dropped by different distributors because few consumers risk $15 on Australian Marsanne.

The "floral whites" room allowed me to try the 2006 Fox Run Seneca Lake Reserve Riesling, which stands up to good German Rieslings in its price range. This is one grape New York does better than the West Coast.

I loved the 2005 Hartford Court Far Coast Vineyard Sonoma Coast Pinot Noir, a very pretty wine with nice cherry fruit that I wish I'd had a whole bottle of for dinner. On the other end of the scale, the 2004 Lucien Le Moine Les Epenots Premier Cru Pommard was the most intensely aromatic wine I sniffed all night, with graphite and smoked pork jumping out of the glass along with black and red fruit.

In the Rhone Family room, the 2007 E. Guigal La Doriane Condrieu was a revelation: bright and beautiful, with plenty of apple and floral flavors and a rich, long finish.

The least-pleasant room was the Cabernet Family; the bright lighting made it noticeably hotter than every other spot, and people were visibly redder and sweatier. Perhaps the organizers were trying to push patrons into the underattended Italian/Iberico chamber, but it didn't work.

And how could it, with an opportunity to taste gems like the 2004 Diamond Creek Red Rock Terrace Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon? Great wine, quite complex and elegant. I admit I didn't linger in this room, but I can see why people did.

I tasted maybe 80 wines and didn't lose my palate (I always spit, of course), but did find myself explaining how to find a good eyeglass shop to somebody who clearly didn't care. You know you're absorbing a little too much alcohol when you sound loud, even to yourself. So I bailed, having one last sip of '88 Veuve Clicquot for the road.

If you get a chance to attend this event next year, do it.

Have you ever poured Champagne on yourself?

2008-10-13T08:41:00.000-07:00

I have. When I got a phone call offering me a job I really wanted, soon after muddling through a professional-sounding acceptance, I got off the phone, cued up the Ramones' version of "Do You Wanna Dance?", pulled a bottle of Schramsberg out of the fridge and did a little jig on the patio, pouring the bubbly over myself and my wife.

My wife, who hadn't been warned, had fetched bubbly glasses when she saw the wine and was surprised to taste it running down her face. I still remember it as a great moment in my life; she probably remembers it an unexpected eye-burn.

This column by ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski reminded me of that day. I clicked on it because the link implied that Wojciechowski was going to rant against Champagne in sports, and I was prepared to be offended. Instead, I agreed with all of his points, particularly that wearing swim goggles to a Champagne spraying is wimpy.

His main point is that events need to be really important to merit spraying perfectly good bubbly (though let's hope ballplayers use Cook's or Andre). First-round playoff wins don't suffice. And neither do small raises or promotions.

That said, most of us have had a Champagne spray-worthy moment in our lives. Did you take advantage? You can't wait: it's got to be that moment, not an hour later.

Let me add that I'll be keeping some affordable bubbly chilled and ready in the fridge on Nov. 4.

Private label wines: the future is now

2008-10-08T17:32:00.000-07:00

Sssh -- here's an industry secret. Private label wines are all around you, hiding in plain sight.

Many, many wineries now offer special deals on their excess juice to big grocery stores and wine chains. Sometimes it's the only way to ensure that the chain carries the winery's main product.

Moreover, these big chains are motivated to sell these wines because they're the most profitable -- so inevitably, they're the wines you see in handwritten signs as "the store's top 10."

Please don't misunderstand: there's nothing sinister about this practice at all. In the UK, private label wines -- many commissioned by supermarkets -- have taken over the bulk of the industry. People are not put off by buying Tesco Malbec from Argentina.

Moreover, I believe the bulk price for juice that will go into private-label wines is as fairly priced as anything in the wine industry. That makes intuitive sense: Take away the well-known winery's name from the label, and all it has to sell is the quality of its juice.

But here in the US, people still cling to the idea that they can get a "hand-crafted" artisanal wine for $11.99. Fat chance, folks. For the most part, wines in that price range are made from juice that was bought on some country's bulk market.

So retailers go to great lengths to hide the fact that their "special purchase" wines are, in fact, private labels.

Embrace it, folks. Private-label wines may not have individual vineyard character, but you've generally got to spend $20 or more for that anyway.

If you're only spending $12, you've probably had plenty of private-label wines already without even knowing it. Accept.

Scotch with dinner: A pairing guide

2008-10-07T16:38:00.000-07:00

Normally I don't drink hard liquor with dinner; the exception is that I occasionally like a little Tequila or mezcal with Mexican food. But whisky, for me, is something to enjoy after the meal.

Last week I attended a Scotch-pairing dinner hosted by the makers of Highland Park, who were introducing their new 40-year-old bottling, which sells for a rich $2000.

Highland Park makes some great whisky. I particularly like their 18-year-old, a relative bargain at about $85. It's spicy, rich and fruity, with a chocolatey on the smooth finish.

But does Scotch, even good Scotch, go with dinner? Chef Mark Sullivan at Spruce restaurant in San Francisco was tasked with proving that it does.

A couple of his dishes succeeded marvellously. The opening course of French Pumpkin Soup with Chestnuts & Sage was a great success. It was paired with the Highland Park 15-year-old, smooth with a mild peatiness, but it also went well with the other Scotches on the table.

The key was the richness of the soup -- creamy, very slightly sweet, with noticeable nuttiness that played well with the whisky's flavor profile.

The second biggest hit was dessert: Nougat Parfait with Vanilla-Roasted Apple and Scotch Caramel. The apples were poached in Muscat and finished with some of the 25-year-old Scotch served with the dish. I don't recommend pouring a $250 whisky on your own dessert, but surely a cheaper Scotch would work just as well. (Maybe not Old Smuggler ...)

I loved the Savory Roasted Rabbit with French Lentils and Chantenay Carrots, and it was also quite good with the 30-year-old Scotch. But to be fair, this dish would have been excellent with a huge range of drinks: white or red wine, sake, beer, cider, you name it. So I credit Sullivan for making a great, booze-friendly dish, though I don't know if it was Scotch-specific.

Highland Park's story is interesting. The distillery is way, way up in northern Scotland in the Orkney Isles. The remoteness is the only reason the company still has enough single-malt to make the 40-year-old.

Back in the '80s, blended Scotch made up the majority of sales, and the industry was suffering, so most distilleries sold their single-malt barrels to go into blends (Chivas Regal, Johnnie Walker, etc.)

Highland Park would have done the same thing, but the transport costs from Orkney meant they weren't competitive on price. So the distillery suffered through hard times with a lot of whisky aging, unsellable, in its cellars.

In the '90s, single malts took off, and now many distilleries found themselves with shortages. There's no way to go back in time 25 years and make more single-malt whisky; you just have to wait. But here's Highland Park, sitting pretty on a surplus.

I'll be honest: The $2,000 40-year-old was only my second-favorite whisky of the night, after the 18-year-old. It's very rich, and much peatier than the rest of the lineup, with molasses and cocoa notes and a very long finish. If you should splurge at a cocktail bar for a taste, do NOT add a wee drop of water -- the whisky did get a rounder texture with water, but a less interesting flavor and a shorter finish.

I also preferred the 25-year-old (noticeably sweet, with notes of molasses and caramel corn) to the harder-edged, more expensive 30-year-old.

The 40-year-old was not served with dinner; it came afterward on its own. This mildly undermined the message that you can have Scotch with your food. But I did come away from the dinner with a new appreciation for Scotch's food-friendliness. Hold the haggis, please.

Wine in a recession: Winners and losers

2008-09-29T16:48:00.000-07:00

Even during a depression, people keep drinking.

This was true in the 1930s -- one of the main arguments used to repeal Prohibition was that a revitalized alcohol industry would stimulate the economy.

And it's still true today. The most recent statistics from ACNielsen show that wine sales continue to rise, and wine sales in the $12 to $15 range are rising faster than low-end sales (below $6).

But there will be more losers than usual, and not always because of sales figures. Many wineries have needs for continuing credit. Keep in mind that farm failures are often a symptom of depression, as farmers of all types operate with little safety net.

So who in the wine industry is best and worst suited to survive a true depression?

Recession winners:

Distributors: Distributors always win. They'll take less inventory and pass the pain backwards to wineries. Being a distributor is like being the house in Vegas: the only way you can really lose is if people stop playing altogether.

Box wine producers: This format has never taken off in the U.S., despite its popularity in Europe and Australia. But premium boxed wines are great value and Americans who try them will be converted. And who makes the most boxed wines? It's ...

The Wine Group: Constellation Brands basically gave up the low-end of wine to The Wine Group when it sold them Almaden and Inglenook earlier this year. The Wine Group runs a very lean operation and has wider distribution than Bronco, its main competition. That said, Bronco is privately held and vertically integrated and should be just fine as well.

Champagne producers: The expansion of vineyard area for Champagne was well-timed, allowing producers to put the screws to longtime growers on grape prices.

Consumers: There will be bargains. If the economy stays down, $20 will buy you the same quality of wine that cost $50 last year. If you still have $20 to spend, that is ...

Recession losers:

Grape growers: Farmers always lose in a recession. If wineries can't pay the grape prices they want to pay, they'll source wine elsewhere. Look for plenty of 2008 and 2009 wines that used to be single-vineyard or subappellation to be labelled simply "Napa Valley" instead.

Importers: The weak dollar was already a huge problem. A "buy American" campaign -- a real possibility -- would be devastating.

New ultrapremium wines: This is a terrible time to try to establish a price point over $30 a bottle. Discounted wine will be available all over the place.

Bars and nightclubs: People are already going out less and ordering fewer call brands. Modestly run bars will still have solid business, but the profit margins aren't going to be the same. Nightclubs will face a severe winnowing.

Specialty wine stores: Though consumers will keep buying wine, they'll be more inclined to pick it up at a discount at grocery and warehouse stores. Stores that sell only wine need to start advertising their value wines immediately.

Producers of unusual varietals: Consumers are less willing to take a chance on something new when money seems more precious.

Constellation Brands: The company is heavily leveraged after its spending spree of this decade. Constellation's strength is its many market channels, but the worldwide credit squeeze is a bigger problem for Constellation than for other behemoths like Gallo and the Wine Group.

Which presidential candidate is better for wine lovers?

2008-09-25T15:31:00.000-07:00

Let me first stipulate that wine is not a great basis for picking a President.

That said, this is a wine blog. Let's try to gaze four years into the future to see which candidate would make wine lovers' lives better. Of course, the main issue is who makes the economy better, because a strong economy means more of us can drink more and better wine.

But let's look at some other issues strictly as they relate to wine.

Barack Obama

Strengths
* Greater support for alternative energy sources could lead to larger subsidies for solar power use -- a boon to wineries, which tend to be in sunny spots. Lower winery costs should mean more and cheaper wine.

Weaknesses
* Less of a free-trade advocate than McCain. Even in small doses, protectionism is bad for fans of European wine. Moreover, the official U.S. trade position in negotiations with the E.U. is usually what Gallo and Korbel want (like the right to call their wine "Burgundy" and "Champagne"), instead of what would benefit U.S. wine drinkers.
* Supports strengthening laws requiring equal access for disabled people -- a real expense for small rural wineries. Some will choose to not open tasting rooms.

John McCain

Strengths
* Wife is a beer distributing tycoon; bound to be sympathetic to large beverage alcohol companies
* Long history of support for deregulation; wine is one of the most regulated industries

Weaknesses
* Wife is a beer distributing tycoon; bound to be sympathetic to large beverage alcohol companies, possibly at the expense of small producers. Likely to vehemently oppose challenges to the three-tier system
* Potential for tougher immigration standards makes wineries dependent on foreign labor nervous. Say what you want about illegal immigrant labor, without it, wine prices will go up and supplies will go down
* Likely to appoint social conservatives to U.S. Supreme Court. Social conservatives frown on alcohol; this could have long-term consequences

So who's better, on balance? It's not obvious to me. McCain has both greater strengths and bigger weaknesses than Obama, who is not an obvious friend to the wine industry or the wine drinker.

McCain is no prude and his wife's fortune came from beer. There's certainly no reason to fear him the way wine drinkers rightly fear the teetotalling social conservatives who support him. At the same time, unless Strom Thurmond returns from the dead, there's nothing worse in Washington for the wine lover (not the wine industry) than a protectionist, and Obama is talking about reopening trade agreements to protect American workers.

I have to go back to the point in the beginning -- who's going to improve the economy the most?

Obama would seem to have a large edge here, and getting larger all the time. McCain has reacted to the economic crisis in unsettling, mercurial ways -- Fire the SEC head! Cancel the debate! -- yet as of this morning he hadn't even read Bush's proposed bailout legislation (or had it read to him, no slight intended as Obama gets briefings too.)

On balance, the wine drinkers' vote, such as it is, probably goes to Obama purely because of his superior grasp of economic issues. But it's just as close a call as the actual election is shaping up to be.

Fox News gives Palin Syrah a Threat Level Orange!

2008-09-24T12:59:00.001-07:00

I hope this story stays up on Fox News long enough for everyone to have a good laugh.

Here it is in a nutshell. A tiny wine bar in San Francisco sells a Chilean wine called Palin Syrah by the glass.

Before Mrs. Moosekill burst onto the national scene, it was a "strong seller" at Yield, according to Fox. How strong, we don't know, but generally tiny wine bars go through less than a case a week.

Now, sales are down. Apparently the Democrats in town don't want to order a wine with the name Palin. Logical, cute, no big deal.

I found this story prominently on Fox News' home page with the headline "Stop Wining: Drinkers Pull Cork on Palin." It's front page news.

Here's the lead: "An organic wine from Chile has oenophiles in San Francisco turning up their noses. But there’s nothing wrong with the wine. It’s the name that bothers them: Palin Syrah."

I confess I never heard of Palin Syrah before this story, not that I speak for all oenophiles, those damn liberal elitists.

Here's my favorite Fox sentence from this story by Jennifer Lawinski: "Now that the wine has been unofficially blacklisted by San Franciscans, its place on Yield Wine Bar’s list is threatened."

Oh MY GOD!!!!! Forget the financial crisis, we've got a wine *threatened* with losing its place on the list at Yield Wine Bar!

Threat Level Orange! Awooo awooo! Let's get a hazmat team over to Yield immediately! If we all work together we can solve this political crisis.

No questions from reporters, please, the situation at Yield is entirely too dire.

The baseball wild card ruins September again

2008-09-21T17:38:00.000-07:00

Once a year, the baseball curmudgeon appears from his hovel in late September to point out that the wild card has ruined the pennant race, again.

Nobody listens or cares. This is America, home of the third chance, where any moron can be President. We like a World Series that includes the 10th-best team in baseball.

We don't actually like three rounds of playoffs -- the broadcast networks aren't interested in the first round, and lower World Series ratings reflect viewer playoff fatigue.

But we like the fiction that a wild-card team keeps more teams in the race.

Let's look at the impact this year. If there were no wild card, the Tampa Bay-Boston race would be thrilling. Both teams would have thrown more resources into an all-out chase. Similarly, the Phillies-Mets race would require minute-by-minute scoreboard watching.

Unfortunately, all four of those teams appear to be in the playoffs. If the Mets blow their shot, it won't be to their fierce rival -- it will be to the Brewers, a team against which they've never played a single really important game.

How many teams had additional interest because of the existence of the wild card?

None. The Brewers were in the NL Central race and that also would have been more intense without the wild-card safeguard. The Astros thought they were in the wild-card race, and they had a few days in September of appearing to be getting close. But statistically they never had much chance, and their long-term goals would have been better served by trading down in July, rather than trading up.

So in sum, once again, we have two and arguably three great races ruined, and no real additional fan interest. Plus we're saddled with a week of games that even intense fans can't completely follow -- who can watch three 3-hour games a day for a week?

The wild card. It's bad.

Wall Street Journal wine club: Looks like lies to me

2008-09-16T15:41:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal announced today that it has created an online wine store, along with a wine club. Sadly, it looks dishonest from day one.

The Journal is not the first publication to try to leverage its supposed integrity into wine sales. The Times of London has had a successful wine club for years. The San Francisco Chronicle -- the only newspaper in the US with a dedicated wine section -- has been running one for the last couple of years.

Readers of the publications can wonder about how much impact the club has on editorial decisions. Will a wine get John and Dottie's approval now because the Journal managed to acquire 5000 cases at a discount?

My bigger problem with the WSJ wine site is that it gives little information about the wines and is even outright deceptive in a couple of cases.

For example, here's the front-page description of The Holdings Cabernet Sauvignon: "Smart California Cabernet 'rescued' from a Napa blend."

Now, what do you think that means? A Napa Cab-Merlot blend was going to include this wine, but the Cab was so good that the WSJ is selling it on its own?

Noper. If you view the details, you learn that this is a Paso Robles Cabernet that the WSJ claims is usually sold to Napa wineries to "beef up" their blends.

Do we get any proof of this, like the name of the vineyard? No. It appears that the venerable Journal may have just made this up.

In fact, Napa wineries do sometimes add out-of-AVA wine to their blends; up to 15 percent from another area is allowed. But rarely do Napa wineries buy Cab from Paso for this purpose, mostly for pure logistical reasons. Lake County fruit is closer and cheaper. Mendocino County fruit is closer and often of higher quality.

Moreover, the Napa wines that are "beefed up" in this manner are usually the cheap ones.

Here's another example: about Cooper Point Chardonnay, the Journal writes: "Enjoy this exclusive medal-winning Chardonnay from Hahn Family Estate."

Gold medals are a dime a dozen, but it doesn't seem as if Cooper Point has even spent this dime. Click on "View Details" and you learn that Hahn Family Estate has won a bunch of medals for other wines.

Moreover, the Journal quotes a Robert Parker review of a different, older wine from Hahn: "Offers delicious drinking and excellent value." In fact, Parker has never reviewed a Cooper Point wine.

I could also complain about how the Journal's 12-bottle mixed case offer doesn't tell you exactly which wines you're getting. But I'm not willing to spend $100 to find the details. Good luck if you do.

Let's hope the Journal cleans up its act. Deception like this builds distrust in the wine industry.

Joy of Sake gets competition

2008-09-12T18:52:00.000-07:00

Relations between two heavyweights of sake in the Bay Area -- World Sake Imports, a major sake importer, and True Sake, the world's first sake retail shop -- have always been a little standoffish.

They need each other because True Sake sells some of World Sake Imports' products. But True Sake stopped actively participating in World Sake's biggest event, the gigantic Joy of Sake tasting, a couple of years ago.

True Sake is staging -- or upstaging, if you will -- its annual event to directly compete with Joy of Sake. The third annual Sake Day event will take place Oct. 1 at Fort Mason, a large site. Tickets are $85, which gets you some sake-paired food as well as the chance to blind-taste a bunch of sakes.

Joy of Sake is on Oct. 23 this year at Galleria Design Center -- a somewhat smaller (but more stylish) venue than in past years. Tickets are $75.

Does the Bay Area sake fancier have enough in their budget for two big events in 23 days?

I've been to Joy of Sake a number of times and always recommend it, but with reservations: there's never enough water, the food runs out early, and the crowding is annoying. That said, the food is usually great while it lasts -- a number of local restaurants usually make one creative dish each -- and the sheer number of good sakes is unparalleled.

I haven't been to Sake Day, but the description makes it sound like it's targeted at Joy of Sake's weak points. There are fewer food items, but maybe they won't run out as early. Instead of a massive number of bottles on tables, this event offers more guided tastings and even a blind-tasting experience.

On its website, Sake Day is described as "the definitive sake exploration and tasting event in the Bay Area." Clearly the organizers are trying to steal Joy of Sake's thunder.

Is there room for both? I hope so. But the timing showdown is bad for both events. If one event were to move a couple months earlier or later, more people would be likely to attend both.

Sake truce, anyone?

Wine does not go with chocolate!

2008-09-10T21:26:00.000-07:00

On Thursday, Crushpad in San Francisco is hosting an event to create a red wine that goes with chocolate.

It's an interesting event for Crushpad, a cool business that helps people make their own wine (for thousands of dollars). It's great marketing.

But it's not going to work. Red wine does not go with chocolate.

But ... but ... but ... all the tasting rooms say, "This wine is great with chocolate." And every year for Valentine's Day, magazines do articles about which wines go with chocolate.

Folks, I have sat in on some really long chocolate-wine pairing sessions: dozens of wines, dozens of chocolates. And I'll tell you, red wine and chocolate just doesn't make either one taste better. The chocolate taste gets more abrupt; the wine tastes sour and hotter. Red wine and chocolate are two great tastes that need to be enjoyed separately.

So why are so many people obsessed with it? I blame wine marketers, particularly at tasting rooms. People like the taste of chocolate and don't understand wine. You put chocolate in their mouth and they taste chocolate, and convince themselves the wine helps.

If you really want a wine to go with chocolate, you need something sweet, because sweets (chocolate or any candy) will make a dry wine taste sour. Try vin santo, the Italian dessert wine. I had an Israeli pomegranate wine that was excellent with chocolate. I've had low-alcohol sparkling muscat that was decent with chocolate.

But I'm still mystified by the whole exercise. Finish your wine. Then eat your chocolate. What's wrong with that?

Best QPR red wine? Syrah

2008-09-06T19:53:00.000-07:00

This week I had a conversation with an East Coast wine broker who told me, "Syrah is dead." People will buy Yellow Tail, and they'll buy Central Coast Syrah at $7.99, but sales are flat for higher-end Syrahs. Red wine drinkers are much more willing to buy Cabernet at all price points.

This is crazy, folks. Syrah is the best red-wine value out there right now. If you like Cab, you can always find a Syrah you'll like better at a lower price.

Just for fun I ran a list of 2005 California Syrahs rated 90 to 94 points by Wine Spectator. There are 66 wines in this group. Of them, 39 cost $50 or less; 13 cost $30 or less.

I ran the same list on Cab: 2005 California Cabernet Sauvignons and blends rated 90 to 94 points. There were nearly twice as many wines on the list -- 125.

Of those 125 well-rated Cabs, only 16 cost $50 or less, and just 1 wine sold for $30 or less.

A Cab defender could point to the fact that twice as many Cabs get high ratings. But there's a reason for that: There are simply more top-of-the-line Cabs made. Many wineries issue multiple single-vineyard and/or reserve Cabs. Few wineries have more than one top of the line Syrah.

What I'm looking at is the price performance. I might disagree with Wine Spectator on an individual wine, but in the aggregate, they're a good benchmark of quality. I believe their group of 66 Syrahs is about as good as their corresponding group of 125 Cabs with similar scores.

So why spend more than $100 for a Cab when the same winery's Syrah, at $35 might be just as good?

Folks, if you're spending $300 a bottle, go ahead and buy Cab. But if you're not in that price range, Cab's QPR (quality-price ratio) just isn't very good. Switch to Syrah and you'll be happier -- wealthier too.

What wine goes with moose?

2008-09-02T17:42:00.000-07:00

With Sarah Palin on everybody's mind, the wine geek's question is, naturally, what does one serve with moose meat?

Moose is often compared to beef, but a more apt comparison is buffalo, which like moose has a much lower fat content than beef. Moreover, even farm-raised buffalo graze naturally, as does moose, whereas most commercial beef that you buy has been raised and fed in an entirely different, less natural way that changes the taste of its meat.

As always, preparation is key. Moose can get tough fairly quickly because of its low fat content. If eaten as a steak, it's should be better rare, but this is not a popular way to serve it. Burgers are a better way to eat moose (and the Palins apparently like them) because chopping the meat prevents it from toughening prematurely. Long-cooking, especially braising, is another good way of tenderizing the meat.

With a moose steak, I recommend a good Cabernet or Merlot. These are of course classic steak pairings and they're as good with moose as they would be with buffalo or beef. I might prefer Merlot slightly purely as a food pairing because of its gentler tannins and rounder taste profile, but I prefer drinking Cab and I think either would be just fine.

A moose burger, to me, calls for a Zinfandel. Don't overdo the hot sauce, though, because that will make the Zin taste hot. I also wouldn't overwhelm the more-delicate-than-you-think moose meat with blue cheese or other other strong flavors. And as much as I like pickles on a sandwich, they are death on wine. Serve your mooseburger with a nice slice of cheddar (mmm), perhaps some grilled onions and a glass of Zin, and you're good to go.

Moose stew is a bit trickier, depending on what's in the stew with the meat. If it's a meat-and-potatoes dish without a lot of adornment, you might try a nice Syrah. But if it has some peppery spice and fresh herbs, you could go with a Grenache-based wine, perhaps something from Spain or southern France.

Instant replay in baseball: Screw homers, use technology for strikes

2008-08-31T11:36:00.000-07:00

Baseball has hurriedly started an instant-replay system. But as usual with MLB, they're solving the wrong problem.

Long fly balls that might be fair or foul don't happen very often: 18 times so far this season, according to MLB.

Terrible calls on balls and strikes happen every single day, in almost every single game.

But now we have the technology to fix the problem in such a way that would eliminate arguments forever. I'm not talking about video replay: I mean having a laser-boundary system (similar to that used in tennis) that would determine where the ball crosses the plate and actually make the ball-strike call.

Think about it: the calls would always be right. There would be no appeal, no argument. It would speed up the game, rather than slow it down as viewing a video replay inevitably will.

Moreover, pitchers and hitters alike would love the laser strike zone system immediately. Pitchers could master the corners of the strike zone because they could practice throwing to the strike-calling system. As for hitters, they would never have to expand their strike zone because an umpire just made a poor call on them for strike two. Everyone would be confident in where the actual strike zone exists.

I see one key rule change that would simplify everything. Currently the strike zone is defined by each player's body: where his knees are, where his chest is when he crouches. This rule dates to the 1800s and is an anachronism. Not only that, umpires routinely ignore it.

Why should tall players have a bigger strike zone, and shorter players a smaller one? Taller basketball players don't get a different-sized hoop. Why not define the strike zone the same way for everyone? Define it as a square, say 2 feet to 4 feet high above the front of the plate. Or whatever. Just make it standard.

The umpires' union might resist a laser strike zone, but they could be won over because the system wouldn't eliminate any umpires' jobs. You would still need somebody to watch over every base; no laser system can make out/safe calls. Umpires are generally very good at those.

It's such an elegant idea, yet I haven't read anybody talking about it. So maybe you heard it here first.

Sauvignon Blanc: Drink now

2008-08-28T14:20:00.000-07:00

It's hot lately, which has me drinking a lot of Sauvignon Blanc.

Sauv Blanc is my overall favorite summer wine. The acidity is very refreshing. There are other good ones: I drink more Albarino all the time, bubbly is always welcome, and a well-chilled dry rose is a great thing to sip outside (preferably in the shade). But Sauv Blanc is my go-to wine.

Lately I've been running through some of the 2006 Sauv Blancs I still have in my cellar and/or fridge, and I'm noticing a theme: they're losing their charm much faster than I expected.

Don't misunderstand me: these 2006 wines are still drinking decently. But the edge is gone from many of them, and it is that crisp acidity that I'm after.

A few months ago I tasted through some 2005 Sauvignon Blancs and they were a different type of wine altogether: richer, some with more opulent fruit, and interesting in their own way. But they weren't the lean, refreshing wines I sought.

Obviously this is a very general observation, as some Sauv Blancs are going to get old and flabby faster than others.

That said, if you have any Sauv Blancs from 2005 or before, don't expect to get the same refreshment you get from an '07. They still have their uses (pairing with pasta salads comes to mind, because of their more apparent fruit). But you need to think of them as a different kind of wine.

And if you're in restaurant, absolutely turn your back on anything before 2006. Sauv Blanc may be more like sake than any other wine: Drink now, it's not getting any better.

Looking for a good nigori sake?

2008-08-24T19:48:00.000-07:00

Kamoizumi "Summer Snow" Nigori Ginjo is the holy grail: a nigori that sake aficionados can love.

Nigori is the White Zinfandel of sake. It's tremendously popular, particularly with people just discovering sake. It tends to be very sweet. And experts turn up their noses at it, usually with good reason.

Nigori sakes are white and cloudy because they contain bits of rice that didn't complete fermentation. They have an interesting, chewy texture. What turns off sake aficionados, more than their sweetness, is their lack of complexity -- you don't get the fruity, floral flavors and aromas that are the hallmark of quality sakes. Nigori sake reminds me of amazake, a warm, sweet, nonalcoholic rice drink sold at winter festivals in Japan. Imagine saying that a wine reminds you of cocoa.

John Gauntner wrote in 2005 on his authoritative sake-world site, "I have not had a full glass of nigori-zake in at least umpteen years, maybe more."

I'm generally in the ABN (anything but nigori) crowd myself. Just as with White Zin, I think nigori sakes are great for the industry because they introduce new drinkers who can move up later. But I don't order White Zin off the wine list either, even the reserve list.

Here's an example of the U.S. market affecting Japanese sake production: enough people here like nigori sakes, and are willing to spend money for them, that a few companies make upscale versions. (There's a difference from white Zin; the most expensive white Zin I could find online was $14.99.)

For Kamoizumi brewery in Hiroshima prefecture, making a premium nigori falls in line with company history.

The Maekake family who run Kamoizumi committed to unfiltered junmai production in 1971 when most of Japan insisted on charcoal filtering. Where most breweries saw impurities, Kamoizumi tasted complexities. But Kamoizumi junmais had a touch of color at a time when all sakes were expected to be clear. That decision had to be a lot more difficult than the decision to take Nigori upscale.

Kamoizumi "Summer Snow" Nigori Ginjo ($28 for 500 ml) is good enough to seduce an ABN drinker. In fact, my bottle emptied with surprising alacrity.

Hiroshima is known for its soft water, a good base to start from. This sake is not chunky; instead it has a viscous mouthfeel. Yet it also rings with acidity and is not at all like the sweet, stewy nigoris that dominate the market.

There's a strong olive-oil note in aroma and flavor, something I don't usually detect in sake. You also taste notes of white peach, cream (of course), lemon zest and clay. The medium-long finish never cloys. It's only very slightly sweet; with an SMV of +1, it's akin to a German halbtrocken Riesling. I have tasted many expensive non-white Zinfandels that have more residual sugar than this.

It's the best nigori sake I've ever had. Is that damning with faint praise? No, but at the same time I'm not sure it's convincing to the typical nigori drinker, since I'm openly ABN. Yet I really liked this sake; my bottle emptied rapidly. If nigori is the White Zinfandel of sake, this one's the dry Pinot Noir-based rose.

I held history today

2008-08-21T22:49:00.000-07:00

Today I held in my nervous hands a bottle of the most famous white wine in U.S. history: the 1973 Chardonnay that beat the best of Burgundy at the Judgment of Paris tasting.

That's winemaker Mike Grgich's signature on the bottle.

Also, look closely above the word CHARDONNAY. A common misconception about this wine is that it's purely from Napa Valley; indeed, it's often called the Chardonnay that put Napa on the world wine map.

In fact, the grapes are from "Napa and Alexander Valleys." I never see that kind of combined AVA listing anymore with two exceptions: Pride Mountain Vineyards, which sits right on the Napa/Sonoma border, and Schramsberg, which is commendably completist in listing its grape sources on the front label, even if it's 2% Marin County.

So in a sense, this wine not only represented a victory for the U.S. winemakers; it was the first victory for the cult of winemaking over the appellation system.

This bottle will probably never be opened, and shouldn't be. Even the greatest Chardonnays can't be expected to last 35 years. The contents were noticeably cloudy (no, I didn't shake it up.)

I wish I knew how good it tasted in 1976. Ironically, the bottle's owner, who had consumed a few in the past, told me, "It wasn't Montrachet." He still thinks the Judgment of Paris tasting was little more than a publicity stunt. If so, it was a highly successful one.

Where can you find most Japanese sommeliers?

2008-08-18T18:18:00.000-07:00

Answer: 30,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean.

The majority of Japan's certified sommeliers are actually flight attendants. At Japan Air Lines, 741 of the 1000 flight attendants have passed the Japan Sommelier Association's exam.

It may not be as rigorous as the UK/US Master Sommelier program, but it does require a knowledge of wine regions, varietals, service questions, and everything else a sommelier exam implies.

The last time I flew JAL, I remember drinking a 175-ml bottle of Bordeaux blanc that was actually pretty decent; I may have had a second. The last time I flew American Airlines, the only wine offerings were FishEye, sweet stuff from the Wine Group. I had sparkling water.

So maybe the sommeliers in the sky matter. The next time I fly JAL, I'm going to ask the flight attendant for the right pairing for roasted peanuts and pretzels. See how she does with that one.

Older vintage than wine list -- send it back

2008-08-15T21:07:00.000-07:00

"Older equals better" was once a wine belief. People evaluated wine based on how it would age. Many restaurants carried extensive older-wine selections.

Wine has changed. Strong tannins are no longer needed to protect against erratic and high temperatures, so reds are made without them. Older is not necessarily better.

White wines are rarely better older. There are exceptions: some Rieslings and a few Chardonnays are the most prominent. But the great majority of white wines are best on current release.

If you order white wine and the vintage presented is older than listed, send it back.

Vintage changes happen. A restaurant doesn't reprint every day. Sometimes a supplier switches to the new vintage. Fine. That's the wine industry.

If they switch to an older vintage, somethings's wrong.

Case in point: Last night I ordered a 2005 Mastroberardino Falanghina with dinner. The waiter presented the 2004.

I balked. Falanghina might age, but why should I take that risk? I wanted it for its light, crisp, orange blossom, floral character. Maybe it's richer at 4 years old, but that's not what I want.

The waiter paused at our table for a while, dumbfounded. He said that's all they had at the bar. I told him to bring me the wine list.

A couple minutes later the owner showed up. He explained that Wilson Daniels lost the Mastroberardino distribution rights, so a different distributor carries it now. The previous distributor delivered the wine and won't take it back. The distributor carries several must-have spirits brands, and the restaurant has a bar, so they can't really fight back.

There's a happy ending. He recommended a wine I would never have ordered: 2005 Domaine Bertagna "Les Croix Blanches" Bourgogne, $44 on the list. Who orders a general AOC Bourgogne? You assume purchased fruit, big vats of grapes of uneven quality trucked in from wherever.

Apparently this is a single-vineyard wine: a 4-acre vineyard outside any official Burgundy subappellation. "The white crosses" makes me think it's a graveyard, but maybe that's just because I love zombie movies. And Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That's good terroir.

Excellent wine, the Bertagna: licorice note on the aroma with cherry fruit; cherry tobacco palate, a menthol note. Good acidity. Light-medium, body, easy to drink a lot of. 13% alcohol. Very nice with oxtail tortellini with crispy Parmesan and caramelized onions, and also with sous vide game hen. A real find.

And all because I sent back the too-old white wine.

Bud Selig solves the wrong problem, again

2008-08-14T16:39:00.000-07:00

We interrupt this wine blog to bitch about baseball.

Today Bud Selig announced that because of this year's 15-inning All-Star Game, in which the managers nearly ran out of pitchers, he's considering adding two additional pitchers to the roster for each team.

It's a ridiculous idea, and it won't solve the "problem" of an extra-inning game using up a pitching staff -- which, incidentally, is not a problem at all. Fans and players alike would have loved seeing J.D. Drew pitch the 16th inning. The only people who would have objected would have been the general-sports columnists who live to find things to rant about. But I digress.

The All-Star rosters are already too large: 32 players for one game. In one real baseball game, a team could get by with 21 players because they're only going to use the 4 starting pitchers who don't start the game in an exceptional circumstance. So the All-Star game rosters are already 50 percent larger than they need to be.

These overly large rosters influence the way the game is played. Instead of leaving the best shortstop and second baseman in the league out there for nine innings, the managers feel pressured to let everyone play. They might hold back one position player and a pitcher or two but for the most part, every batter gets at least one at-bat, and every pitcher faces at least one batter.

How is that going to change by adding two pitchers? Will these two be designated the "emergency pitchers," to be used only in extra innings? Not likely. The Players' Association would object for good reason: Many players earn a bonus if they make the All-Star team. I find it hard to believe the Players' Association would sign off on creating two uneven classes of All-Star pitchers.

So how will going from, say, an 11-man pitching staff for ONE GAME to a 13-man pitching staff change anything?

It will mean the All-Star Game will look even less like real baseball. Pitchers will run in to face one batter just to get an appearance, regardless of the score or situation. That will slow the game down, and the long opening ceremony already makes the game feel overlong.

This year's All-Star Game was one of the most exciting in memory. The tantalizing thought of seeing position players pitch added to the drama. This is not a problem. It doesn't need fixing. Leave it alone, Bud Selig.

Vineyards full of pot

2008-08-10T08:40:00.000-07:00

Wine and marijuana have been linked culturally since the 1960s, when hippies discovered that pot pairs better with wine than with hard liquor.

Now they're linked agriculturally as well. There's an AP story today about Yakima Valley vineyards growing marijuana instead of grapes.

Economically, it makes some sense. Wine grapes are a fickle crop. This year, for example, frost in Napa and Sonoma Counties appears to have cut grape crop sizes by about 20 percent. Vineyard owners also have to worry about what effect smoke from the California wildfires will have on the taste of their grapes.

Vagaries of the wine market send grape prices up and down: if you have Pinot Noir planted right now, you're in good shape, but if you have Merlot, you might be begging for a buyer. Yet it takes about four years for a newly grafted vine to produce grapes, so vineyard owners can't easily switch to follow the market.

Marijuana, on the other hand, is a weed. A farmer can grow a new crop every year, presumably adapting whatever the variety of the moment is.

How about the prices? While premium Napa Valley Cabernet might sell for $5000 a ton, most farmers get considerably less. In Yakima Valley, $1500 a ton is a good price.

According to the Marijuana Price Guide, marijuana sells in Washington for $11 a gram. That's about $10 million per ton. Really makes Screaming Eagle seem affordable, doesn't it?

I'm comparing wholesale and retail, and that's not right, but unfortunately I don't know wholesale marijuana prices because there is no public California Pot Growers' Association website. But if you want to compare retail prices, a $500 bottle of wine costs roughly 65 cents a gram, or a little more than 1/20th the price of the pot sold on the street. In other words, skateboarders are peddling a product that's about 20 times as costly -- and thus 20 times as profitable to the farmer -- as Screaming Eagle.

Of course, you don't risk arrest by growing Cabernet Franc. No wonder that the AP story on the Yakima Valley pot vineyards suggests most are run by absentee owners.

The DEA claims they can find these vineyards by checking water-use records, as marijuana needs to be irrigated more than premium wine grapes.

It does make one wonder: why grow only one or the other? Why not use an established winegrape vineyard in the heart of Mendocino County, for example, to grow a few marijuana plants? While I'm not a viticulturalist, it would seem that the weed in the vineyard wouldn't hurt the grapes -- current theory is to leave weeds alone in the vineyard to bring the soil into balance. And besides, at $10 million a ton for the pot, maybe the farmer would start wondering if the grapes are detracting from the weed.

Puts those "no trespassing" signs on vineyards in a new light, doesn't it?

Bottle Shock: More fun than a barrel of ... funky wine?

2008-08-07T22:59:00.000-07:00

"Bottle Shock" isn't purely accurate history. But it is pretty fun. If you're a wine lover, it's highly enjoyable.

I admit I nitpicked historical inaccuracies throughout the movie. For example, one of the main characters, Sam the intern who sleeps with both Bo Barrett and assistant winemaker Gustavo Brambila, is a complete concoction. (FYI, while we have nothing against man-love-triangles out here, Sam is a girl.) But it's not a documentary, nor does it pretend to be. And it's right on the essentials: Chateau Montelena did make the Chardonnay that beat the best wines from Burgundy at the famous Judgment of Paris tasting in 1976, forever destroying the near-universally held notion that only France could make great wines.

Though set in Napa Valley, the film was shot mostly in Sonoma because that city still looks rural, unlike the glitzy tourist strip Highway 29 has become. The film looks absolutely beautiful, and reminds me how lucky I am to be able to visit California Wine Country frequently.

The pacing is good: crisp editing means the film doesn't drag. I liked the tone as well: mostly comedic, but with occasional touches of social relevance. The rollicking '70s soundtrack propels the film.

The acting is world-class. Alan Rickman brings layers of nuance to Stephen Spurrier: he's stuffy, he's a wine snob, yet he's also open-minded and secretly wants to shake up the status quo.

Bill Pullman looks a little like a young Jim Barrett and has plenty of charisma. Funny story: the producers, who showed up at tonight's showing, said they hoped to land Dennis Quaid but he bailed two weeks before shooting. Pullman was directing a play in San Francisco and they asked him to do it, and he agreed. Starring role, cast at the last minute. That's the kind of kismet that goes into winemaking, and apparently filmmaking as well.

Perhaps what I liked best was that, like "Sideways," the film gets the whole idea of wine and winemaking right. We see the real equipment; we see the way professionals really taste and hear the way winemakers really talk. In fact, at the show I attended plenty of wine professionals were there and the largest complaint was that some of the vineyards had drip irrigation lines that weren't in use in 1976. The producer apologized for that: apparently she wanted to use different vineyards without the lines but the director liked the scenic shot. If that's the biggest technical error, you can tell the film's pretty accurate.

I don't know if "Bottle Shock" will be a hit or not: It's self-distributed. (Here's an irony: it cost $5 million to make and $15 million to promote and distribute, not unlike the ratio for a good bottle of wine.)

But it's fun, and heartwarming (Go USA!). I'm rooting for it.

Canadian wine speaks with a Chilean accent

2008-08-05T03:48:00.000-07:00

Most of us in the US don't think much about Canadian wine, beyond the occasional ice wine. But it's growing fast in popularity up north and no wonder: much of it is as Canadian as the Dallas Stars.

Wineries are allowed to label their wine as "Product of Canada" even if the bottle includes as little as 5 percent Canadian grapes. This is why New York-based Constellation Brands spent $1.09 billion in 2006 to buy Vincor, Canada's largest winery.

Since the purchase, Constellation has been shipping cheaply grown and harvested Chilean grapes by the boatload up to the Great White North to go into bottles that proudly fly the maple leaf flag.

This is not the only international skullduggery going on in the world of wine. Because of Australia's lengthy drought, some big Aussie wineries (Yellow Tail) have shipped cheap South African juice to Oz to go into bottles labeled as Australian wine. But the Aussie laws are tighter, and your bottle of Yellow Tail must contain at least 85 percent Australian wine. Not so for their hockey-playing partners in the Commonwealth.

Does this ever happen in the US? Not likely. It's legal -- and in fact, US laws are looser than Australia's, as only 75 percent of the juice in the bottle must be from this country.

But it makes little economic sense to put wine from another country under a US label because, thanks to our army of relatively cheap illegal labor from Mexico, California's Central Valley can produce bulk wine at competitive prices with Chile or South Africa. Sure, Chilean bulk wine is a little cheaper -- you won't find leftover Lodi grapes in Yellow Tail anytime soon. But when you add in the cost of shipping, and factor in more uneven quality in Chile at the bottom end of the grape market, it doesn't quite pencil out to put non-US wine in the bottle.

In Canada, on the other hand, well, let's just say there's quite a bit of chile in the maple syrup. So to speak.

Napa Valley's Ad Hoc restaurant: Pretentious, overpriced and not very good

2008-07-31T22:43:00.001-07:00

Ad Hoc restaurant in Yountville has generally had great press. Owned by French Laundry chef Thomas Keller, Ad Hoc is listed in the San Francisco Chronicle's Top 100 Bay Area restaurants. Food & Wine magazine went further, listing it as one of 25 Tasty Places to Try in the whole world.

I like Keller -- he's a nice guy who is completely passionate about food -- and I love the French Laundry (who doesn't?). But I had the laughably bad experience recently of taking some friends to Ad Hoc who didn't know who Keller is. All they wanted was a great meal in Napa Valley. Instead, they had a terrible time, and though I didn't hate it quite as much as they did, I could see the experience through their eyes.

At Ad Hoc, as at Chez Panisse in Berkeley, you don't get to order. The restaurant makes only one fixed-price menu per night, which is released only a few hours before the restaurant opens.

That's great for chef Jeffrey Cerciello, who also runs the kitchen at nearby Bouchon. But it's not great for customers. I have been to Chez Panisse several times and they are much more accommodating to people's reasonable wishes for minor menu adjustments (food allergies, for example). While not unpretentious, Chez Panisse also prepares more flavorful food than Ad Hoc. It's the same idea, but they're not in the same league.

One member of our party is deathly allergic to shellfish, which made Ad Hoc's opening course, steamed clams on a bed of stewed peppers, a problem. The kitchen substituted an ordinary lettuce salad, but she didn't miss anything because the clams were overcooked and flavorless.

Our second course was well-prepared: roast chicken with spinach and rice. Simple, unexciting, but well-prepared -- if you like dark meat, which I do. The white meat was dry and bland.

That said, this was the only hit of the four courses we were served. We got a sufficient amount of chicken, but the portion of rice for our party was less than you get at a Chinese restaurant for one. We asked for more rice and the kitchen begrudgingly brought us another half-scoop, eventually. This is a far cry from what Chronicle critic Michael Bauer experienced during his review visits in 2006, when servers asked people if they wanted more meat. They sniffed at our request for rice -- Rice! -- as if we had asked for another hunk of foie gras.

After that we got a couple slices of a pretty decent cheese with some good roasted almonds and sliced melons. Finally, we got a dessert of "parfait" that tasted like vanilla yogurt, with "house-made granola" on top. It was what I usually eat for breakfast, except I add higher-quality fruit than Ad Hoc provided, and the yogurt wasn't as good as the Strauss Organic I eat at home. We each had two bites and left the rest.

Our tab, with a disappointing and overpriced bottle of Weinbach Gewurztraminer that our server upsold us on (Ad Hoc's wine list, particularly by the glass, is unexciting), came to more than $100 per person.

I'm used to paying $100 per person for a meal -- though when I do, I prefer to get my wine in real wine glasses with stems, not the cutesy little water glasses Ad Hoc uses. So I didn't panic, though this meal was definitely not worth it. But my tablemates, who all thought the meal was lousy, were shocked and outraged, and I had to agree with them.

The menu itself was $45 a person, no substitutions, for the four courses. We liked the main course -- though Good Frikin Chicken in San Francisco makes a better chicken dinner with more interesting spicing and side dishes for $9 -- but everything else was a waste: tasteless appetizer, lousy dessert, and while we liked the cheese course, what artistry is there in slicing cheese?

My companions couldn't understand why we couldn't get more interesting food at a restaurant run by America's most acclaimed chef. I have to agree. If a restaurant is going to tell us what we must eat, it needs to serve more than one well-prepared, unexciting course.

I think I know why this place has accumulated such buzz among foodies: it's unique (nearly). It's high-concept. It's Thomas Keller. It's "simple, homey, family-style dining" served pretentiously in a city that thrives on pretension.

It just isn't very good.

Very, very few diners have the courage to pronounce that such a high-profile restaurant is weak. Nobody wants to admit the emperor has no clothes. But Ad Hoc is as nakedly dull as a piece of unspiced roast chicken breast.

"Bottle Shock" self-distribution makes Chateau Montelena sale look sweet

2008-07-31T21:49:00.001-07:00

A few days ago I blogged about how Chateau Montelena's sale represented a bet by the Barrett family that "Bottle Shock" -- a film about the winery's historic win in the 1976 Judgment of Paris tasting -- was not going to be a big hit.

Yesterday, I learned something from a New York Times story that the buyer and seller must already have known: despite positive audience reactions at the Sundance Film Festival, the movie failed to find a U.S. distributor, and is being self-distributed in just 12 cities by the director.

While it may be theoretically possible for a self-distributed film to be a hit, it seems about as likely as turning water into wine. None of the other self-distributed films cited in the Times story were hits. "Wicked Lake," a horror film, is a typical example. The film made its West Coast Premiere in San Francisco in June. It played exactly two showings -- not two nights, just two showings -- at the decrepit Roxie Cinema. The film has a myspace page that hasn't been updated in a while. Apparently there are no upcoming showings. And this is one of only 5 other self-distributed films cited in the story.

I'll reiterate my previous argument that the buyer and seller of Chateau Montelena had to take into account the imminent release of a Hollywood film that makes the winery look heroic. When you consider the likelihood that the film's audience won't be much greater than the readership of this blog, it makes the Barretts look pretty darn smart for selling now. If the new French owners of the winery want to capitalize on the film, they probably need to get into the movie theater business.

Sauvignon Blanc: Wine Spectator likes it "intense" and "fleshy"

2008-07-28T16:45:00.000-07:00

How would you describe a great Sauvignon Blanc? Crisp? Fresh? If so, you're not going to impress your local wine snobs.

Wine Spectator's Aug. 31 issue carries an article recommending California Sauvignon Blancs from a panel tasting. The magazine gives 11 wines a score of 90 or above. Of these, seven have the word "intense" in the description.

Wine Spectator also reviews 13 California Sauvignon Blancs under a designation of "top values," with scores from 84 (to consumers, this is a negative) to 89. Only one of these has the word "intense," and it's a personal favorite of mine: Geyser Peak. Another wine, Bogle, "has good intensity."

Clearly, "intense" separates the serviceable Sauvignon Blancs from the great ones in the mind of Wine Spectator.

I have often thought the major wine-rating publications don't appreciate Sauvignon Blanc, which is one of the world's most food-friendly wines. A crisp Sancerre will go with anything but will rarely score above 90 points. But throw it into new oak barrels so it gets fatter and less useful at the dinner table, and the score goes up.

Think I'm kidding? How does the word "fleshy" grab you for Sauvignon Blanc?

To me, that sounds like a wine to avoid if I'm looking for a good glass to have with shellfish or green salad or any of the other reasons people usually drink this varietal.

Once again, though, "fleshy" separates the top wines from the lower-scoring ones in the Spectator's opinion. Three of the top five California Sauvignon Blancs are "fleshy." Only one of the 13 wines rated under 90 points is "fleshy."

So in sum, winemakers, if you want the big scores from Spectator, your Sauvignon Blanc needs to be "intense" and "fleshy." Mmmm. Sounds like a good rack of pork ribs. And I know that's what I look for in Sauvignon Blanc -- not.

How long does sake last?

2008-07-25T12:12:00.001-07:00

How long will unopened sake taste its best?

The answer: Not as long as wine, or as long as most merchants want you to believe.

Generally, artisanal sake keeps its fresh, lively flavors for a little less than a year from its release date. Most sakes have the bottling date written on the bottle, though they often use the Japanese imperial calendar, which counts years from the time a new emperor takes over. 2008 is Heisei year 20, which means if a sake is from year 18 (2006), look for another sake. They also might say 08 or 07; again, 06 is too old.

As always, there are exceptions. Honjozos can keep their crisp, simple flavors longer because of the added alcohol. Yamahais are more shelf stable and might last an extra year.

But generally speaking, you don't want ginjo or daiginjo sake that's two years old. Many importers simply throw it away, but grocery stores and wine shops loath throwing away product, so check the dates carefully.

Now here's a question: What happens to the flavor when sake gets too old? How can you tell?

It doesn't spoil and taste foul. The effects are much subtler, and I believe one of the reasons premium sake has had slow acceptance in the US is that many people have had sakes that are too old because they sat too long somewhere in the importer-to-distributor-to-restaurant chain.

Old sake usually tastes dull. Sake has lower acidity than wine to begin with; older sake will lose the perception of crispness, and taste flat. You won't likely smell or taste any of the fruity notes of fresher sake. Sometimes I get a slight acetone note. But when I encounter an old sake, my reaction isn't "ewwwww," it's more like, "aww," because I'm disappointed that there's nothing there. If you have this reaction to a sake in a restaurant, take a look on the bottle for the year.

How long does an open bottle of sake last? A little longer than wine, but not by much. And unlike wine, I don't believe I've ever had a sake taste better the second day: sake is always better the day it's opened.

Most sakes will still taste pretty good for 3-5 days, especially if you use a preservation system like Private Preserve (neutral nitrogen gas you spray into the bottle, it's cheap, most wine shops sell it, I'm a big fan). They'll still be drinkable for up to 2 weeks. After that I would cook with them. But always take a sip first -- that's how you learn to answer questions like this.

2005 Clos Pegase Mitsuko's Vineyard Carneros Chardonnay

2008-07-23T16:56:00.000-07:00

The ultimate test of any wine is how much is left in the bottle at the end of the night. I open a different bottle every night, but finish about one per month (my wife is a lightweight; one glass is enough for her.)

I call it the Empty Bottle Test. It's entirely different from professional tastings, in which people take two small sips of each wine being tasted, scribble down as many notes as we can, and assign a rating. I've done this kind of tasting many times and acknowledge its importance. That said, certain types of wines dominate professional tastings -- rich, full-bore wines that stand out amongst their peers. Food-friendly wines that are easy to keep drinking until they're done tend to get overlooked.

Winners of the Empty Bottle Test often surprise me. Some wines are delicious for two sips; others for two glasses. When I'm bored, I stop drinking; I'm a wine lover, not an alcoholic.

The 2005 Clos Pegase Mitsuko's Vineyard Carneros Chardonnay ($24) didn't seem like a great Empty Bottle Test candidate because it contains a formidable 14.7 percent alcohol -- a lot for a white wine. I don't know how well I would have scored it in a panel of 50 other Chards. My initial tasting notes were pretty simple: toasty, lime fruit, well-balanced, smooth mouthfeel, not overly rich. These are all positives, but nothing that screams "95 points!!!"

The key in there is "well-balanced," a term that often presages an empty bottle. I also think the palate tires more quickly of wines that scream at you with technicolor flavors. It's odd: the more shock and awe I feel from a wine on first sip, the less likely I am to be interested in a third glass.

In looking up the wine, I was surprised to learn it undergoes malolactic fermentation, with a cultured bacteria imported from Burgundy. I detest butteriness in wine, and generally "no malo" is a big selling point for me. Possibly the French bacteria is gentler than the native bacteria; it would be interesting to line up some other Carneros wines and do a taste-off of different malo-causing bacterial strains. The wine is aged in French oak barrels, and that's apparent from the yummy toastiness, with none of the strong vanilla notes you would get from American oak.

So who's Mitsuko?

One of the perks of the wine industry is that you get to have vineyards named after you. Mitsuko Schrem is the wife of Clos Pegase proprietor Jan Schrem. They met in Japan, where Jan established a publishing empire. He's a fascinating guy with an art collection that's as good as any in Napa Valley, though unlike at Hess Collection, very little of it is open to the public. Jan Schrem is obsessed with Bacchus, the god of wine, and collects sculptures of him in various incarnations. Check out the image of Bacchus on the front of the Clos Pegase website. Here's a game you can play on your next visit to Napa Valley -- who can count the most Bacchuses (Bacchi?) at Clos Pegase.

Though getting up in years, Jan and Mitsuko still enjoy a good meal and provocative political conversation. I had the pleasure of meeting her in Calistoga, where she served Sauvignon Blanc from her namesake vineyard with grilled eel on cucumber -- a great combination.

With this Chard, I had roast chicken with Middle Eastern spices, hummus, pita bread and green salad, and it was excellent. But even after the leftover chicken was bagged up and put away, the wine kept tasting delicious.

Oh yeah -- it's sealed with a screwcap! Thank you, Jan and Mitsuko, for being modern thinkers on this issue. All white wines should be screwcapped -- but that's a topic for another day.

Wine rating: **** out of 5.

This wine is available at several stores online for less than $20. This one in New York had the lowest price I saw today, at $18.99.

Chateau Montelena bets against Bottle Shock

2008-07-22T16:32:00.000-07:00

Timing is key in selling anything. Nobody wants to sell something that's going to double in value in a month -- you would hang on and sell it then, right?

So the news that Chateau Montelena owners Jim and Bo Barrett are selling their winery to the owners of Cos d'Estournel in Bordeaux right now -- two weeks before the release of the movie "Bottle Shock" -- is a strong comment on what they think of the film.

"Bottle Shock" is the best potential advertisement for Chateau Montelena one can imagine. It's a feature-length film with a great cast (Alan Rickman, Bill Pullman) about the 1973 Chateau Montelena Chardonnay that won the Judgment of Paris Tasting against the best white wines from Burgundy.

"Disclosure" (1994) established Pahlmeyer as a premium brand when Demi Moore used a bottle of its Chardonnay to seduce Michael Douglas. Pahlmeyer's prices have been high and the wine has been critic-proof ever since.

More famously, "Sideways" sent Pinot Noir sales skyrocketing, and made the Sea Smoke mailing list one of the most coveted spots in the country.

So here's a true-life story that's going to make Chateau Montelena heroes to all Americans. It's a feel-good movie where America triumphs over France. If it's any kind of success, Chateau Montelena Chardonnay is quickly going to become the most coveted wine in the country -- and the $42 price tag won't be much of a deterrent. People who like the movie will want to try the wine.

So why the hell would the Barretts want to sell now?

There can only be one reason: They've seen the movie (it premiered at Sundance). And they don't think it's going to be a hit.

It's a daring bet. The reported price for the winery was $110 million. But if "Bottle Shock" succeeds, new owner Michel Reybier stands to rake in a fortune.

Chateau Montelena's Chardonnay will be in such demand that they'll be able to buy up all the Napa Chardonnay on the bulk market relatively cheaply, bottle it under their label, and sell it for more than the $42 they're asking now. And they'll be able to get away with that for several years in a row. There's a huge profit to be made because the cost of the bulk wine can be as low as $2 a bottle.

Moreover, there's no reason to expect a drop in quality by producing 10 times as much because, quite frankly, Chateau Montelena Chard hasn't been all that great for the last several years. I'm not saying it's bad -- it's OK -- but just using Wine Spectator scores as a rough guide, the wine has only gone over 90 points once since 1986, and hasn't reached 89 in the last decade. Wine Spectator's not the dictator of quality, but my own tastings of the wine have supported that record: it's competent, nothing more, and rarely if ever worth the retail price.

There's plenty of Napa Chardonnay on the bulk market that ends up in private-label wines that sell for $10 that is of about the same quality as Chateau Montelena; believe me, I've tasted them. Nobody will ever be able to tell the difference.

So Reybier is betting on "Bottle Shock," and the Barretts -- who have long been rumored to have been involved in the early financing of the movie project -- are now openly betting against it.

It's truly ironic: If the movie is a hit, it will tout the greatest success an American wine ever recorded -- but a French winery owner will be the one reaping the benefit.

Animals Attacking Humans movies

2008-07-20T13:00:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I attended a five-film festival of Animals Attacking Humans movies:

* Phase IV (1974), intelligent ants vs. scientists

* Alligator (1980), giant gator vs. urbanites

* Jaws (1975), Bruce the Shark vs. swimmers

* Day of the Animals (1977), wild mammals (and birds) vs. hikers

* Piranha II: The Spawning (1981), flying carnivorous mutant fish vs. vacationers

The score, at the end of the fest: Humans 4, Animals 1.

I can't believe I sat through all 5; I originally showed up just to see Phase IV because I won free tickets from a local radio station. But it was 5 movies for 1 ticket, and I hadn't seen Alligator ... next thing I knew, I was getting my hand stamped to eat some oysters (a little protein instead of just popcorn), and returning midway through Jaws to tough it out for the duration.

Cinematically, Jaws was the best of these flicks, though not because Steven Spielberg was the best director. James Cameron made Piranha II (and it's such a mess that it's amazing he got greenlighted for Terminator.)

The most fun film, though, had to be Day of the Animals, particularly when low ozone levels turned Leslie Nielsen into a rapist and wrestler of grizzly bears. (Wine Rocks does not recommend or condone either.)

This got me to thinking, what are the best Animals Attacking Humans movies ever?
Here's a short list of seven that I actually liked:

* The Birds (1963): Birds vs. Tippi Hedren's friends

* Deep Blue Sea (1999): Intelligent sharks vs. Samuel L. Jackson

* Grizzly (1976): Fake grizzly vs. helicopter

* Grizzly Man (2005, documentary): Real grizzlies vs. real hubris

* Willard (1971): Rats vs. Ernest Borgnine

* Piranha (1978): Killer fish that can't fly vs. raw sewage

* Arachnophobia (1990): Venezuelan spiders vs. fat juicy Americans

I don't want to start listing Giant Animals Attacking Humans, because other than The Mist (2007), the Hamlet of giant bug films, most are Roger Corman-type rubber suit quickies.
But that said, here's a quick snuffly-nose shout out to

* Night of the Lepus (1972): Giant metrosexual rabbits vs. intelligent screenwriting

'Nuff said.

Is smoke a bad taste in wine?

2008-07-17T10:47:00.000-07:00

There's a fascinating article in today's Santa Rosa Press Democrat about how the wildfires in northern California might affect the taste of 2008 vintage wines.
The underlying question is this: If '08 California wines taste like smoke, will consumers cough? Or is smoke just another expression of terroir?
Philosophically, I think smoke is part of the '08 terroir. Grapes are supposed to reflect their environment. Easily the most noticeable aspect of the California environment this summer (outside of blissfully foggy San Francisco) is the harsh, smoky air. Eyes are burning, outdoor activities are being cancelled.
Yet this is a natural event. Fire is part of the environment. We can argue about how much of a role humans play in setting up the conditions for wildfires. But wildfires predated human civilization; it's a way for a forest to start renewing itself. Some seeds only germinate after fires, and a strong argument exists that humans have altered the Earth more by suppressing wildfires than causing them.
So the question is -- how much of a terroirist are you? If the natural aroma of '08 California wines includes wet ashtray, would you rather drink a heavily filtered, manipulated wine?
This is something winemakers will begin deciding when they start harvesting grapes in six weeks or so. Methods exist to strip smoke flavors from wine, though it's just about impossible to isolate only one taste element.
I suppose that large wine companies like Gallo and the Wine Group will filter out the smoke flavor as a matter of course. They make branded products and try to achieve the same taste year after year.
But what about avowed "terroirists" like single-vineyard Pinot Noir producers? Will Williams Selyem advertise seven flavors of smoke? (This year's Westside Road Neighbors wine tastes like Winston, while the Sonoma Coast is more Marlboro-esque.)
I enjoy a hint of smoke as a flavor element in many Syrahs, particularly from the Rhone region of France. That smoky note doesn't seem dependent on wildfires, instead stemming from a chemical compound in the grape. Some Merlots and Sangioveses have a slight tobacco flavor already so the smokiness might fit right in.
But I don't know how I'll react to smoky Pinot Noir (unless it's Sea Smoke, of course) or Chardonnay. I'd like to have the opportunity to find out -- but I suspect this is a decision the winemakers will make for us.
Smoky, filtered and flavor-stripped, or declassified: that is a choice many in northern California are dreading right now.

Keep the All-Star Game relevant

2008-07-16T15:17:00.001-07:00

Making the home-field advantage in the World Series dependent on who wins the All-Star Game was a great move. Last night's game proved why once again.
The game went 15 innings and most of the players were still at the top of the dugout watching. Pitchers who originally wanted the day off pitched, and pitched well. Players stole bases, there were close plays and blocking the plate and all the trimmings of a game that mattered.
Contrast that to one of the last games that didn't matter: the 2002 game, an 11th inning "tie" that ended because both managers considered it more important to get everyone in the game than to try to win.
Earlier in that game, AL centerfielder Torii Hunter robbed Barry Bonds of a home run, and Bonds playfully embraced him after the inning. What better sign could you ask for that players didn't care much about the outcome?
You didn't see any American Leaguers hugging Russell Martin last night after they were thrown out at home plate.
The players whine to the media about the rules change every year. They try to say that they're professionals who care about the game, and they would play just as hard if nothing were at stake.
Bullshit. We saw how they play with nothing at stake: distractedly. Hugging their opponents. Refusing to pitch even one inning because they've had only one day of rest.
I don't know if the idea of World Series home-field advantage means much to Orioles reliever George Sherrill, or Texas shortstop Michael Young, or many of the other players who played key roles in the extra-inning win.
But it is clear that none of them will dare slack off in the All-Star Game when there's something collective at stake.
Sure, some players were motivated in the past, when it was just a meaningless exhibition. But now, they're all on notice. If you're the one who makes the game-losing error (Dan Uggla, you are sooooo lucky), at least one team is going to be cursing your name come October -- and Fox announcers are going to point out repeatedly that you're the one who blew it. In a game where the average salary is $3 million, that sort of pressure is much better motivation than a little extra cash.

All-Star pizza wine: Martin & Weyrich Sangiovese

2008-07-15T23:27:00.000-07:00

For the All-Star game, I ordered pizza with linguisa sausage, roasted red onions, garlic and capers.
That called for Sangiovese. The obvious choice was Italian, but I pulled a great surprise out of the cellar: 1999 Martin & Weyrich Il Palio Paso Robles Sangiovese.
I haven't been a big fan of American Sangiovese, and neither has the public: sales have been poor, so in the last five years a lot of wineries have replanted their Sangio vines. Over the long haul, this is good for US Sangiovese, as the people still making it are committed to farming it the right way (it's bushy and ripens unevenly), as opposed to making a few hundred cases because it's trendy.
Martin & Weyrich makes some of my favorite Sangiovese in California year after year. There are a few other good ones: Altamura and Sebastiani have succeeded, and Shafer's Firebreak had some good vintages. But those are all pricier than Martin & Weyrich's: their current release (the 2005) is just $16. (Check out martinweyrich.com)
I don't remember what the '99 cost, but it was a bargain. This wine is holding up great. It has generous aromas of ripe cherry with some plum, cherry tomato, orange and dried cherry. On the palate, it's striking how much fresh fruit it delivers: ripe cherry with dried cherry, along with orange and cherry tobacco. The vibrant acidity keeps it fresh, with a medium-long finish. If you have a bottle of this in your cellar, it's drinking great right now, and probably has at least 2 more good years.
It's just 13.6 percent alcohol -- amazingly low for a Paso Robles red. It's well-balanced and a great pleasure to drink. Normally I don't finish the bottle, but this one was gone before the All-Star Game reached extra innings. It was great with the pizza and would have been a good choice with just about any kind of meat or pasta dish. This wine was much more elegant and less pretentious than the Fox All-Star Game broadcast, that's for sure.
Martin & Weyrich earn my MVP award for the night.

Who do you love: the planet, or your Pinot?

2008-07-14T19:11:00.001-07:00

Styrofoam is environmentally awful. Yet I just ordered up 3 cases of it.
If you've ever mail-ordered wine, you know that the most popular form of shipper is a molded styrofoam case to protect the bottles, with a tight cardboard box around it.
That styrofoam causes a litany of environmental ills. I have read other bloggers call for the end of its use in wine shipping. And in a different position, earlier in life, I used to encourage wineries to use alternatives, like hard corrugated cardboard, when shipping wine to me.
But now that I'm "in the biz," I see why the styrofoam addiction is hard to break.
It's simple: Cardboard does not offer anywhere near as much protection against a few hours spent in searing heat.
No container will keep wine cool indefinitely. If your wine sits outside for two days, it's in trouble no matter what it's packed in.
But a styrofoam container will prevent quick changes in temperature. So if your wine spends the morning bouncing around on a UPS truck on a 95-degree day, it will likely not reach the 80 degrees or so that would cause permanent damage.
We have 3 cases of very important wine to send cross-country in the middle of July. I like to consider myself an environmentalist; at the very least I'm an environmental-issues voter.
But I had to draw the line today at risking the quality of these 3 cases of wine in order to protect the planet. And I don't even feel guilty about it.
What's the alternative? We could pay for overnight shipping -- but that costs more than $150 a case. Or we could put the wine in an all-cardboard container, and maybe it would be ruined because the UPS driver doesn't get us the wine until late afternoon or evening.
It really hits home, how far I'm willing to go to protect the environment. In theory, I am. But if I order a case of limited-production Pinot Noir, shipping in July or August, I will not ask for a cardboard shipper. I confess: My Pinot comes before my planet.

How smug are you?

2008-07-12T17:52:00.000-07:00

Today I was accused on a baseball chat board of being unbearably smug.
I admitted it -- in talking about baseball, I am smug. Somebody else raised the question, are you as smug in talking about wine?
I don't believe so. Wine and baseball are too different.
I have met people who are smug about wine: generally, people on the mailing lists of what they consider to be all the right wineries. I have dined with many people who consider whole classes of wines beneath them: the anything-but-Chardonnay crowd, for example. Quite often while visiting Napa Valley I have heard tourists smugly mocking the drinking habits of their neighbors back home. "They drink White Zinfandel!" they'll sneer, while in the process of paying $50 for a run-of-the-mill Napa Cab because of its name value.
I don't believe anyone's personal wine tastes can be criticized by others. If you like White Zin, find yourself a brand you like and enjoy it. Why not? There's a time and place for any competently made wine. On a hot day, with a plateful of barbecued pork ribs in spicy sauce, White Zinfandel would taste a hell of a lot better than any Napa Cabernet.
I do smugly criticize one group: Points chasers. People who buy wines only because they got a great Parker score aren't making an aesthetic decision: they're buying wine purely for status. I feel smug towards them because I'm fairly certain that if they had the greatest wine in the French Laundry's wine cellar in their glass, but it didn't have a famous name, they would never appreciate it.
But generally speaking, I'm a drink-what-you-like guy. I encourage people to try many things so you can discover what you like. But I'm not going to tell you your judgments are wrong. One of my best friends, who has a great palate, refuses to drink any Pinot Blanc; he just hates it. I think a good crisp Pinot Blanc is fine with raw fish dishes or salads. But I don't need to convince him. He knows what he's doing. And frankly, I feel the same way about Pinotage (ugh, it tastes like rubber tires.)
Baseball, on the other hand, is not an area where aesthetic choices matter. Much of baseball theory is statistically provable; I can demonstrate to you that intentionally grounding out to advance a runner, or sacrificing in the first inning, is a bad play, yet many fans would still applaud it.
With wine, I'm not sure anything is statistically provable. Other than technically flawed wines, there are far fewer areas in which one can be clearly right or wrong. It's just not an area for smugness.
So if you're making fun of your neighbors' wine choices, stop. You're the one who's wrong.

Free cellar management software!

2008-07-11T14:30:00.001-07:00

Alder Yarrow is one of the best people I know in the wine biz. He runs the best wine blog in the country, Vinography, and is generous enough to link to every other wine blogger on the planet.
If you read Alder's blog, you'll know that he's populist to a fault. Alder can't stand pretension and hates wine writers telling people what they should drink and how and when they should drink it. Sometimes I think he goes too far -- for example, when he wrote that wine and food pairings don't matter -- but his heart is always in the right place, which is to demystify wine and debunk the idea that you have to pay more to get a better bottle.
Today, Alder announced that he has been using the expertise from his day job, computer software design, to create new wine-cellar management software.
This fills a huge gap in the marketplace. There isn't really any good software out there. I have never been able to figure out how to use Cellar Tracker. Personally I manage my own cellar with a simple text list of wines that I try to go through every six months or so to see what needs to be drunk (current list: 44 bottles I should have drunk already.)
I'm a bit of a Luddite, as you can tell from the design of this blog, so I'm not going to try to describe his software. Instead, I encourage you to visit vinography.com and download the beta. Tell me how it works; I've got 44 bottles to get through.

Drinks for the heat

2008-07-09T16:25:00.000-07:00

I can't drink red wine in really hot weather. Eric Asimov recently recommended chilling certain reds, but I just lose my taste for the stuff if the mercury climbs past 90.
What does that leave? Well, a lot.
Start with white wines.
I don't drink Chardonnay in extreme heat for a few reasons. First, while I don't like malolactic fermentation, I do enjoy a dollop of French oak in my Chard. But unoaked wines are crisper and thus better in the heat. Second, I like to drink Chardonnay warmer than other white wines -- maybe 65 degrees, serving temperature for reds -- to release its aromas. Not great on a hot day.
Sauvignon Blanc is probably my favorite summer wine because the acidity sends chills down my spine, just where I want them. You want crisp? That's it.
Italian whites like Falanghina, Greco di Tufo and Vermentino tend to have good acidity and be unoaked; I'll order most Italian whites other than Pinot Grigio without a second thought. (Nothing intrinsically wrong with PG, but it bores me.)
If you've never had a nice chilled glass of bubbly on a hot day, you're missing out. Drink fast, though, bubbly loses its charm pretty quickly when it warms up.
Normally I don't turn my nose up at a little sweetness in Riesling -- German Spatleses are some of my favorite wines. But I just don't want RS in summer. However, the mouthwatering acidity of dry Rieslings from Australia makes them great choices.
I like sake in summer, but not junmais, because like Chardonnay, I drink them warmer than other sakes. Instead, it's a good time to open your remaining bottles of nama ginjos. For one thing, given the nama production cycle, you need to drink those bottles before they lose their charm. Also, they have the right taste profile for hot weather: fruity and generally not overly creamy.
And then there's cocktails. In winter I don't waste my liver-processing units on hard liquor; I'd rather have one more glass of wine. But in July -- a hot day and a drink that involves ice as a key ingredient? It's a no-brainer.
But I mean a real cocktail -- a mojito or something else that involves mixology, not just some untalented bartender simultaneously pouring from two bottles into a glass of ice. Your liver can only process a finite amount of liquor in life. Why waste it?

The A's give away something for next to nothing

2008-07-08T16:12:00.000-07:00

The Oakland A's just traded their best pitcher, Rich Harden, along with useful swingman Chad Gaudin for four mediocre prospects from the Cubs.
Harden has been frustrating in his 4+ years in Oakland because he never stays healthy. But when he is healthy, he's dominating in the way few pitchers can be. That said, I'm not sorry to see him traded and would bet he'll be on the disabled list within a month.
The problem is not that they traded Harden -- it's that they got almost nothing for him. Rookie righthanded starting pitcher Sean Gallagher looks like the best of the 4 players they got, but he appears to be at best an innings-eater, not somebody you really want making a postseason start, even in his career year.
The other prospects are similarly flawed. Outfielder Matt Murton has bounced back and forth between Chicago and AAA and has never established that he can hit major league pitching. He might stick as a fourth outfielder, but doesn't seem likely to become a starter on a good team.
Catcher Josh Donaldson had a nice year at low-A in 2007 but is struggling at high-A this year. He's an offense-first catcher, so if he's not hitting, what value does he have?
Eric Patterson got moved from 2B to OF because he couldn't handle the position. And like Murton, he hasn't hit major league pitching in numerous short trials.
If Gallagher is the main player they wanted, the question is: why? He's not as promising a starting pitcher as Gaudin. And Oakland's farm system is loaded with pitching talent. I can see trading Harden for a guy with the potential to be great. But this guy -- all four, really -- has the potential to be adequate.
In short, the A's gave away something of value -- Harden and Gaudin -- for almost nothing. Boo.

Nama honjozo? Is that even possible?

2008-07-07T18:41:00.000-07:00

This weekend I enjoyed a unique sake, the Akitabare "Shunsetsu" Nama Honjozo from Akita prefecture.
Honjozo is a class of sake we rarely see in the US because of the way alcohol is taxed. Honjozo sakes are basically the same quality as junmai sakes, because at least 30 percent of the outer part of the rice is polished away.
The difference is that "junmai" means "pure rice": nothing but rice, water and koji mold goes into a junmai sake.
For honjozos, brewer's alcohol may be added during the process. Usually this is done to create a lighter, less intense, more subdued style. Think about the difference between Italian Pinot Grigio and Alsatian Pinot Gris. The honjozo is more like the Pinot Grigio -- crisp, light-bodied, meant for food, at the sacrifice of some aromatic and flavor intensity. Yet there are plenty of mild dishes in Japanese cuisine that a richly flavored sake would overpower.
Honjozo sakes are very popular in Japan, partly because of their food friendliness, and partly because their easy quaffability makes it easy to drink enough to get shitfaced. Japanese don't drink halfway.
However, while honjozo sakes are generally the same price or cheaper as junmais in Japan, in the US they are more expensive. The US government taxes them at a higher rate because alcohol is added, so they drop into the same category as fortified wines like Port.
That, and the fact that junmai has the better connotation in the US of being "pure," has kept honjozo sakes from making any headway in this market.
This honjozo is an oddity because it's also "nama," which means unpasteurized. It doesn't taste like any other sake I've had.
The aroma is complex, with notes of cream, mustard powder, orange rind, oyster shell, melon and shrimp. But it doesn't prepare you for what you're about to taste.
Neither does the mouthfeel, which is a big plus: it's tight and creamy at the same time, with a taut center and a long taut finish.
What I taste from this is melon, and plenty of it -- the characteristic of a nama, but definitely not a characteristic of most honjozos. I also taste notes of cream and oyster shell. It's a little pungent and never fattens up. That's a good thing -- it's very food-friendly. I had it with Chinese delivery food -- sliced fish sauteed with bok choy, spinach with garlic and vegetable chow mein -- and it was excellent.
This sake is only $22 for a 720 ml bottle at True Sake in San Francisco; it's also available elsewhere. Try it; lots of beverages claim to be unique but this one is legit.

The wine for BBQ pork ribs -- Barbera

2008-07-06T19:14:00.000-07:00

Here's what I had on July 4: 2002 L'Uvaggio di Giacomo "Il Gufo" Lodi Barbera.
I made pork ribs on my water smoker, probably for the last time as it melted a circuit in the controller.
I have some sauce from King's Taste barbecue in Eustis, Florida. This used to be my favorite rib shack, though I fear the quality has gone down since it was sold a few years ago. The sauce still seems the same, though -- it's mustard-based, includes margarine as an ingredient and does not need refrigeration. It's thin, a little watery, slightly vinegary, somewhat spicy and highly addictive.
It's also death on red wines: "vinegary" and "spicy" are two food adjectives that will turn your 95-point Cabernet into a harshly hot and sour beverage to endure.
Yet with meaty, succulent pork ribs, I want red wine. I know a good rosé would be the way to go, especially on a hot day. But I just wanted to drink a red.
So I reached into the cellar for this wine, and it turned out to be perfect.
Barbera has great natural acidity and rarely turns out to be huge on the palate. Barbera grows well in hot weather -- as in its native home in central Italy. It's a food-friendly varietal without pretension.
Jim Moore is the owner/winemaker for L'Uvaggio di Giacomo, and I'm a big fan of his wines. He's an industry veteran who specialized in Italian varietals for Robert Mondavi Winery for a while in the early 1990s. Now he's kind of an itinerant winemaker who has a hard time holding onto jobs. I think it's because he doesn't buy into the arms race that is Napa winemaking. Jim Moore's wines aren't bigger and bolder than his neighbor's; they tend to be balanced and food-friendly.
He got 90 percent of the grapes for this wine from the Schatz vineyard in Lodi. Rodney Schatz is a leader in the growers' association out there and knows what he's doing. The remaining 10 percent includes some Syrah and some old-vine Nebbiolo.
This wine was probably at its peak. The aromas are mostly of dried fruit: dried cherries and plums, with some notes of fresh cherry, old leather, citrus fruit skin and steel. On the palate you get a lot of dried cherries and mineral with vibrant acidity that gives it follow through. This wine doesn't linger in the mouth. It's light-medium-bodied and well-balanced, with some sandy tannins for texture. It's simply a great food wine, tasting delicious and clearing the palate for the next bite.
I don't usually finish the bottle, but this wine disappeared relatively quickly, and at a restrained-for-California 13.5 percent alcohol it left no bad memories. So thanks, Jim Moore, for a great holiday wine. And happy birthday, America. Those old vines look very becoming on you.