champagne discount generic+trademarks heidi+barrett howell+mountain+cabernet lamborn+vineyards napa propaganda tasting tour wine wine+blog
December 10 2008
Do you ever get into one of those patterns where you assume your behavior is like everybody else’s? Therefore, you are shocked, SHOCKED when you find something happens en masse, contrary to how you think or do something.
That is how I feel when I see that George W. Bush’s approval rankings are at 29%. Who is the 29% that think he is doing a good job?
But, I digress …
Seriously, I am talking about wine ratings and retail sales.
Patently, I do not buy wine by the point. I appreciate well-merchandised tasting notes at my wine shop and I look for mineral components in reds while staying away from herbaceousness in whites, but unequivocally I can say that I have never purchased a wine based on a Wine Advocate or Wine Spectator rating.
Never.
Usually, you don’t see any wine with a rating unless it is scored above 85 and with quality what it is today, out and out misses on wine are usually sub-$10. If I gamble on a wine under $10 it is definitely going to be a white where quality quaffing is more readily found than with a red, so, I am mostly in the clear with the “non point influence” factor.
That as background, I was curious when another Indianapolis wine blogger, DHonig, launched his blog “The 89 Project” back in July. Focused on tasting only wines that scored 89 points and not the 90 points that seemingly guarantees sales, I thought it was pretty niche-y. Niche-y like surfing porn looking for exclusively Amazonian redheads that are not, er, enhanced while also being adorned with tattoos.
You know, it is just a small percentage of the total available population.
Then, I read a post over at Wine Rocks, which is a very erudite blog, even if it’s anonymous and gender neutral (likely a guy given references to baseball and Parker), and they noted an anonymous retailer anecdote about 89 point wines versus 90 point wines:
In Wine Rocks words (excerpted):
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.
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.
So, I guess my question is, since I don’t buy wine by the point, who does? Clearly, I do not get it.
Can somebody leave a comment and give me a brief demographic profile on the type of buyer that buys a 90 point wine by the case, while overlooking an 89-point wine?
Posted in, Free Run: Field Notes From a Wine Life. Permalink | Comments (11) | Print |
December 9 2008
I consider myself a writer, yes. Wine blogging and being a “writer” aren’t mutually exclusive. As a writer who can’t call inspiration on command, I keep a running list of post ideas, usually anywhere from 20 - 50 items that can be fleshed out for a post.
Oddly, nowhere on that list, at any given time, is a specific wine to review, though I drink a glass of wine most nights. Sometimes, frankly, I forget or don’t even think about writing about a wine as a review. Perhaps it’s my folly or just my interests—I enjoy tasting wines moreso than I consider myself a hardcore reviewer of wine or an epicurean that pairs food and wine together and, likewise, I get more excited to write about, well, what I normally write about.
That said, I’m going to review some wines. All were received as samples from the respective wineries. I never take it for granted that I receive samples, so thank you to the winery and their PR representatives for engaging in the wine blogosphere.
Cameron Hughes 2006 Lot 81 Spring Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon
I have to say I am an unabashed fan of Cameron Hughes. I like what they are doing and I like how they do it. The whole notion of a $50 wine for $15 just really plays well with me. I tend to fetishize a few things that I love in and around wine and Cameron Hughes falls into that classification.
In acquiring this wine, Tim Elliott and I were loitering after our Wine Blogger Conference panel discussion (where we just got done talking about wineries influencing bloggers) and up comes a couple of guys from Cameron Hughes (Paul Jenson and Ben Jenkins) ready to talk a little shop and ply us with samples. The timing was dubious, but when two bottles are stuck in my hand from a wine company that I’m really fond of, who am I to argue? Thanks, guys.
Given that background, the Lot 81, frankly, isn’t up to normal Cameron Hughes quality. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a solid wine, but it doesn’t hold up the value proposition as well as other wines I’ve had from Cameron Hughes. This quality of wine can definitely be had in the $20 price range, and down into the $12 - 15 category.
Not a clunker, an enjoyable quaff, just not in line with the CH value prop.
2005 Wolffer Estate “Caya” Cabernet Franc
My experience with New York wine is growing, though not yet quite expansive. I’ve been to Vintage New York in NYC, I’ve hauled a half dozen bottles home with me and I’ve tasted a bunch of bottles that Lenn from Lenndevours brought out to the Wine Blogger Conference. And, generally speaking, I’m a booster for the New York (and Michigan) wine industry to grow, grow, grow.
Save for a couple of thin Pinots, all of the whites and the multiple Merlots and Cab Francs I’ve tasted have all been good, showing NY as having a real, legitimate place on the national stage, just a pace behind Washington. And, I think I now understand Lenn’s exhortations for quality because the potential is present in New York even if the execution doesn’t always fire on all cylinders, allowing some clunkers to slip through every now and again.
One thing I really like about Lenn is he calls them like he sees them and he is a quality champion for New York wines. And, while I can’t specifically attribute Wolffer sending samples out to wine bloggers to Lenn’s influence, I know Lenn has spoken well of Wolffer in the past and surely a sample showing up at my door step is a sign of the impact he has in that region.
Perhaps the greatest compliment I can give to this Wolffer Estate Cab Franc is this isn’t a wine with potential, it doesn’t need to round into form in a couple of vintages. It’s a good wine now. It’s a 20th anniversary wine for the winery, as well, even if I don’t know if the 20th anniversary is tied to ‘05 - the vintage year, or ‘08 the year of release. Take a look at their wine line-up here.
2006 Bouchaine Carneros Pinot Noir
I first pulled the cork on this wine at the same time that friends and I were drinking a slew of other California Pinot’s—Patz & Hall, William Selyem, Road 31, a micro-Pinot from Crushpad and some inexpensive bottles. It didn’t show well.
With the graciousness of the winery, who sent me two bottles, I tried again, to give it a fair shake. The reason, in hindsight, it didn’t show well is very obvious now. Stylistically, it is definitely not a California-style Pinot. This is classic Burgundy via Carneros—which is probably a reason for many Pinot lovers to rejoice with many CA Pinot’s pushing the limits on fruit (and alcohol). Given that I think Kosta Browne invented the color black, I might not be the best person to ask, however.
Setting aside my own personal bias and looking at it objectively, this wine has an incredibly complex nose and a mid-palate that invited introspection. With more flavor components then I can recall from a wine in recent memory, it is well-crafted, balanced, with restrained fruit and a lot of earth components. And, it is a sure delight with dinner.
You can buy online here
My tasting notes are here.
Posted in, Good Grape Wine Reviews. Permalink | Comments (2) | Print |
December 7 2008
The line between wisdom and mere knowledge is daubed with not only experience, but also wherewithal.
I would hasten to say that Robert Parker, James Laube, Jancis Robinson and a number of other wine writers who have been perfecting their craft (and their palate) over years and even decades have a tremendous amount of wine wisdom.
That is, they have a historical perspective on wineries, regions, and specific wines wrought by years of experience AND the wherewithal to know where they may need to enhance their knowledge be it around a winery, a varietal, or a region.
The rest of us are simply working on enhancing a body of knowledge, however small, accumulating enough years and enough diversity in palate awareness to drop some pearls of wisdom at some point in the future.
So, let us draw a clear line of distinction in between wisdom – vast and varied knowledge put into historical and geographical perspective with context versus simple knowledge, which is learned or trained betterment.
This important line of distinction wisdom and knowledge, and the confidence to know the difference between the two, came to mind recently when I had friends over for my birthday, a perfectly good reason to drink a lot of wine with some likeminded folks.
We debauched with a theme of California Pinot Noir and enjoyed a 2006 Road 31 Pinot Noir, 2005 William Selyem “West Side Neighbors,” 2005 Patz and Hall Pinot Noir, 2006 Cellar Rat (Crushpad) Pinot Noir, 2006 Bouchaine Carneros Pinot Noir, 2006 Concannon Central Coast Pinot Noir, and a 2004 Echelon Pinot Noir.
The Patz & Hall “won” the popular vote amongst the attendee’s with the Williams Selyem a close second, by the way.
Most of the folks that were over are budding wine enthusiasts – not possessing a great deal of wisdom about wine, nor an intense knowledge either, but they are aware, curious and interested in building on their passion for all matters of the grape.
We went through something of an organized tasting of the five more expensive Pinot’s and I passed out aroma guides to help with the tasting notes.
I find, when distracted, or in a social environment (despite the peculiar stares), when pure concentration is not a possibility, that an aroma guide is quite helpful.
However, a funny thing happened when I was passing out the printouts for the tasting notes and the aroma guides – most of my guests looked at me as if we would be cheating, as if having an aroma guide while tasting was akin to having a crib sheet inked into the palm of my hand for the Western Civ. Test (ahem, not that I know anything about this sort of thing), or, worse, that is was somehow gauche or tacky, kind of embarrassing to acknowledge that a little help is okay, an aroma card is surely lacking in refinement and thus not cool.
Not so.
The difference between wisdom and knowledge, especially in wine, is the ability to know what you know, and to also know what you do not know, and, frankly, to not care about deficiencies in your knowledge and how you may look – that is true wisdom in action. So, pull out the aroma card when taking wine notes. No shame—that’s wherewithal and helping your knowledge turn into wisdom.
A couple of my favorite (free) resources:
Posted in, Good Grape Daily: Pomace & Lees. Permalink | Comments (4) | Print |
December 4 2008
Let’s be honest with ourselves—99.9% of all wine advertising in glossy magazines is horrible. It says very little of anything to anybody and is largely anonymous with zero level of creativity.
Kendall-Jackson isn’t even an exception, they just run so much advertising (at least in the magazines I read) that they are familiar and almost ubiquitous, but not necessarily good. Their tagline of, “A Taste of Truth” is far from compelling.
I couldn’t even tell you the other wines that regularly advertise in Spectator, Wine Enthusiast, Wine & Spirits, Quarterly Review of Wines, Wine Press or any other magazine—I have virtually no recall, which isn’t a good thing.
For once, I would like to see a wine ad that is contemporary and tries to build a brand by targeting a specific demo. with compelling creative. Instead, we get the same warmed over wine lifestyle aspirational ads. Snooze. Yawn. Boring.
Here’s an idea—it’s not even mine; but I wish somebody in the wine business would steal it - tap into the human condition and the maturing of Gen. Y (I’ll even forsake asking for relevant advertising for my demo - Gen. X)—and the passage of time that happens for everybody when they cross the chasm of seeing their parents as authority figures to when they become friends with their parents on equal (or near equal) footing. It happens around age 25 or 26, I think.
In fact, that’s what Canadian Club whiskey is doing in brilliant ads that have been running this year ... not only are they playing into the notion of your Dad probably being pretty cool back in the day, they are turning it into something that makes you want to pour a CC on the rocks and look through old photo albums.
My favorite ad? “Your Dad Was Not a Metrosexual.” Classic. And, true. My Dad doesn’t drink Canadian Club, but he does drink Stroh’s—fired brewed goodness, according to the can. Wine? Not so much.
Bonus points if an old wine brand re-emerges with something hip—Blue Nun, Mateus, Carlo Rossi in a jug, or Cold Duck.
For inspiration, here are three current Canadian Club ads that hit exactly the right balance of kitschy cool, nostalgia, authenticity and voice.
Posted in, Wine: A Business Doing Pleasure. Permalink | Comments (7) | Print |
December 3 2008
You have probably all heard or seen the “Marilyn” wine. The surprisingly good wine line-up adorned with various Marilyn Monroe pictures on the label. What you may not know is that her image and likeness is licensed from CMG Worldwide, a company based in my backyard in Indianapolis, IN.
CMG operates in a little known niche that represents the families and the estates of, mostly, dead personalities, sports stars and entertainers.
It’s a veritable who’s who – besides Marilyn Monroe, CMG represents the images and likenesses of Babe Ruth, Malcolm X, Vince Lombardi, James Dean, Jack Kerouac and dozens and dozens of other household name celebrities, all long deceased.
While I am not in tune with the day-to-day workings of their business, I am sure that their time is divided between sending out cease and desist letters for illegal use of client images while at the same time doing business with appropriate licensing of images and likenesses.
Therefore, they probably squash the Marilyn Monroe calendar maker that did not get permission to use the photos and is not paying a royalty while at the same time legally licensing the photos to others and earning a subsequent royalty stream.
This management and prudence ensures that Frank Sinatra’s name, music, and image is not used to sell frozen meatballs in 2008, essentially – or whatever is deemed to not fit within “brand” standards: incongruent items that somebody thinks is a good idea, but really doesn’t fit within our collective consciousness.
Monies from correct licensing, I presume, after management fees, are then paid to the estate.
I have heard estimates that icons like Elvis and Marilyn Monroe earn their estates $10 – 15 million a year in licensing fees.
This is all a preamble to my point – as I have seen Woodbridge by Mondavi advertisements in the second half of this year along with Robert Mondavi Solaire wine, at lower price points, and Robert Mondavi Riedel glasses. I hope beyond hope that in the sale of the winery to Constellation that language did not slip through that gave Constellation ownership of the name and likeness “Robert Mondavi” for perpetuity.
It is relatively easy to think that in the legalese of a sale document, undoubtedly an inch thick, with wines and a winery branded by name and an already iconic image/logo in place, that Constellation now owns the rights to Robert Mondavi lock, stock and barrel.
Without question, in the coming years, the mythology of Mondavi will continue to grow; living legends that pass do not seem to recess into our collective subconscious, their imprint, instead, grows ever larger.
Frankly, it is not a stretch to say Mondavi is the wine industry’s equivalent of a Marilyn Monroe, either. We already give significant credit to Mondavi for building the California wine industry into what it is today and that burnished image is likely to grow in Paul Bunyon-esque fashion in our minds eye in the years ahead, as well.
In the book chronicling the sale of Mondavi to Constellation, The House of Mondavi, a re-occurring theme was Michael Mondavi’s desire to grow the brand, primarily at the lower end of the price spectrum, while Tim Mondavi wanted to maintain quality at the higher end of the spectrum. The greatest tragedy in a chapter yet to be written is if neither son has an opportunity to control the licensing and selling of their father’s image or likeness in the coming years, particularly as his legend grows.
At the least, if Constellation does own his likeness and all permutations thereof, let us hope that Constellation acts as a humane and responsible steward of a man who will only continue to grow in mythological status. In my mind, that means high quality and integrity – assets associated with a legend, not $5 wine and certainly not frozen meatballs.
*Update*
After doing some sleuthing of my own and a comment from a reader, I learned that Marilyn Monroe’s image and likeness are owned by or managed by both CMG and Legends, for what it is worth. I also learned that these license management firms do a little ambulance chasing as well.
*Update #2*
I was factually incorrect when referencing Mondavi and Riedel—Waterford is actually the manufacturer.
Also, I messaged with Mia Malm from Icon (div. of Constellation) and she sent a very thoughtful email about the responsibility they feel to the Mondavi brand (see the below in response to my post):
Hi Jeff, it was good to meet you at the Wine Bloggers Conf. Hope all is well with you and you had a good Thanksgiving. Just wanted to touch base with you re: your post about Robert Mondavi.
While it is true that Constellation acquired the brand equity of Robert Mondavi, it is equally true that upholding the integrity of our founder’s vision and wines is our number one focus. In fact quite a lot of work has gone into the brand teams working together across all four tiers of the brand to be sure that we are all supporting Robert Mondavi’s vision of creating wines that stand in the company of the world’s finest, developing a wine culture in the US that puts a bottle of wine at the family table as part of everyday life, and generally enriching life through wine.
Woodbridge by Robert Mondavi was founded by Mr. Mondavi back in 1979 in his boyhood home town of Lodi, so that has a long history with the family. Likewise he also personally launched Robert Mondavi Private Selection. Solaire by Robert Mondavi is a new tier, but takes its source from Mr. Mondavi’s exploration of CA’s central coast and two vineyards that he bought in the area back in the 1990s. The glassware (which is actually Waterford) was a partnership that I believe was initiated by a Mondavi family member and subsequently supported by Constellation.
Believe me, nobody is going to be launching Robert Mondavi meatballs…! It’s an incredible honor to work on this brand and we all feel reverential toward its stewardship.
Cheers,
Mia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mia Malm, DWS
Director of Public Relations
Icon Estates
Posted in, Wine: A Business Doing Pleasure. Permalink | Comments (1) | Print |
Enter your email address for a monthly summary of posts, additional news and information available only to email subscribers. Your email is never rented, nor sold to anybody else!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Design by The Blog Studio
