champagne discount generic+trademarks heidi+barrett howell+mountain+cabernet lamborn+vineyards napa propaganda tasting tour wine wine+blog
September 13 2007
Would it be clichéd of me to say, “You know I don’t normally forward things via email, but this one’s good …” Who hasn’t seen that, or said it themselves when hitting the send button, or likewise hitting the delete button? While I’m no philosophy major, and I spent more time checking out girls than paying attention in sociology, I’m astute enough to take a decent message, and, well, since this has wine as a walk off line, it makes perfect fodder to share in blog format. But, just so you know, I don’t normally forward things ...
The Mayonnaise Jar
When things in your life seem almost too much to handle, when 24 hours in a day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar and the 2 glasses of wine…
A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was.
The professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.
The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous “yes.”
The professor then produced two glasses of wine from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed.
“Now,” said the professor, as the laughter subsided, “I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things; your family, your children, your health, your friends, and
your favorite passions; things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full.”
The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house, and your car.
The sand is everything else; the small stuff.
“If you put the sand into the jar first,” he continued, “There is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life.
If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important to you.” “Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to dinner. Play another 18. Do one more run down the ski slope. There will always be time to clean the house and fix the disposal. Take care of the golf balls first; the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand.”
One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the wine represented.
The professor smiled. “I’m glad you asked. It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem, there’s always room for a couple of glasses of wine with a friend.”
Posted in, Good Grape Daily: Pomace & Lees. Permalink | Comments (2) | Print |
September 10 2007
I already said my peace on the new Indiana wine shipping law, but since the recent ruling is getting industry-wide notice, I can’t help but channel my inner frictionless-economy fighter by highlighting two opposing op-ed pieces from our local fishwrap, the Indianapolis Star.
The first op-ed is, obviously, the voice of reason and that of consumer choice, it’s also written by somebody that writes for a living, which will become more important as you look at the next op-ed. It says in part:
Headline: Decision to end ban goes down like fine wine
Our position: Allowing out-of-state wine sales is a boon for Hoosier consumers.
State law doesn’t force catalog retailers to sell their goods through mall outlets instead of shipping them straight to their customers. Nor should it impose such a ban on wines.
Yet until last month Indiana maintained a Depression-era policy barring out-of-state vineyards from selling wines directly to customers. Not only did the law restrict the choices of wine-drinking Hoosiers, it allowed wholesalers to use state government to protect their profits.
Amen.
The second op-ed piece is from Lisa Hutcheson, the Director of Indiana Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking, and it’s appended in full, incl. the headline that reads, “Ruling Opens alcohol floodgates”: My annotations are sprinkled throughout.
The recent decision by U.S. District Judge John Tinder to remove the requirement that Indiana customers must complete a “face-to-face” transaction before any wine can be purchased over the Internet, or delivered directly to the consumer, is very discouraging. In effect, this creates open access and availability of alcohol to everyone, including minors.
Good Grape comment: Not so—common carrier shipments include a signature requirement, especially FedEx. Other web sites have an age verification system in place. And, of course, credit worthiness and having a credit card is definitely, at the least, an under age 18 safeguard. Net-net, this is an unqualified, uninformed thought.
“But minors don’t drink wine!” A look at the 2006 North Central High School yearbook or a Google search of the term “wine bong” seems to indicate otherwise.
Good Grape comment: Context always makes a story more interesting. What about the 2006 North Central High School yearbook should I care about? Re: Googling “wine bong.” This is a red herring. Do we know for fact that said wine in said bong was purchased via the Internet? Do we know that “bonging wine” is even done by kids under the age of 21, is there identification in the video? In addition, do we think these kids live at home with their parents at which point the parents might want to take some responsibility if their kid has a bong of any sort? If this is at college, on a college campus, and you think you can stop underage drinking by prohibiting online wine sales, than Godspeed lady because you’re going to need more help than I can offer you.
The issue in this case isn’t whether or not minors drink wine. The issue is that, by allowing unfettered access to wine via the Internet or direct shipment to the consumer, access to all alcohol will be increased. Good Grape Comment: This is so ridiculous that I have to break-in inline. Say what? Access to all alcohol will increase? Come again? Explain what the heck this means and how you arrived at that matter-of-fact statement. The floodgates officially have been opened. Good Grape Comment: For the love of Pete, this is probably the same woman that thinks her husband is cheating if he watches “Real Sex” on HBO. When beer, wine and liquor are purchased at “brick-and-mortar” outlets, there are, hopefully, safeguards and policies in place to ensure that minors can’t purchase. One of the most effective policies to reduce youth access to alcohol is checking identification. As any responsible clerk will attest, effectively checking an ID can be challenging, especially with the use of borrowed and fake IDs.
Good Grape comment: This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever and wouldn’t pass the red pen from an eight grade English teacher and as such I’m not going to deign to respond any further than I already have.
Technology is great, but no person in California can verify that someone in Indiana is of legal age, even after he puts in the “right” birth date on an ordering screen. It seems, amid the arguments about the constitutionality of wine shipment to the consumer, we are forgetting that our young people have inalienable rights as well—and one of those is to live in environments that do not accept or encourage underage drinking.
Good Grape comment: Again, in addition to this also not making any sense, this isn’t true because there is the ability to embed ID verification safeguards—requiring a signature, as most common carriers do, is a pretty good start. Secondarily, a winery passively having the ability to sell to a legal customer that wants to buy their wine is in no way encouraging underage drinking. Sheesh. Who is this woman?
Will this decision encourage or promote underage drinking? Time will tell. I just hope for our sake and the sake of our young people that we haven’t sacrificed their health and safety for our own convenience.
Good Grape comment: Well, what a toothless and feckless way to end the op-ed. “Time will tell??” I thought she spent the previous four paragraphs leading to a point that might sell her message. Not so. This is like the person at the party that tells a joke to strangers and then completely goofs the punchline leaving five people staring ponderously at their feet as all of the air escapes the room; the listeners simultaneously break for the bathroom or a drink refresh, glad to have escaped the aloof, pregnant pause and accomodating polite guffaws.
Overall, I have to say that cogent thought is apparently not in large supply with some of our public servants. At least the examples that Tom Wark illustrates from wholesalers and others are mildly well-argued if you’re on that side of the aisle. This is just weak and illogical.
My bottom-line is this: The clear fact remains that teenagers, who predominantly don’t have credit cards, are not buying $50 bottles of Cabernet from wineries online, paying additional shipping, waiting three days for it to be delivered, signing for it from FedEx and getting drunk on Friday night.
If this is the case, and in fact kids are buying expensive wine online from winery web sites and somebody can prove this to me, I will buy you all of the wine you want as recompense. I just simply don’t think it’s happening. Why buy wine online when you can buy a quarter ounce of dope from the kid with the locker next to you and the big brother of your friend will buy you beer.
The argument from other fearmongers that most wineries won’t ship because a consumer might buy one more case then the 24 cases allowed in a year is enough of a laugher (honestly, who thinks somebody in this state, who has never had the ability to have wine shipped before, is going to buy 24 cases of wine? 24 cases—almost half a pallet of wine) and now with this kids buying wine canard I’m just worn out—maybe this is what politics is—wearing one side down with B.S. until the other side gives in.
It’s enough to make a reasonably normal and sane person hit the bottle. I’m pretty sure we have a Director of something that has a program for that. I wonder if they can write?
Posted in, Good Grape Daily: Pomace & Lees. Permalink | Comments (2) | Print |
September 7 2007
I think it was poet laureate and musical rapper Ice-T who named a 1989 album, “Freedom of Speech … Just Watch What You Say.” That seems appropriate given the story that wine writer W.R. Tish related in his email newsletter about his recent experiences on the Wine Spectator message boards.
Tish, in his occasional email newsletter from his web site, www.wineforall.com, noted a startling tale of being booted OFF of the Wine Spectator message boards for challenging the venerable James Laube. Freedom of Speech, apparently, rings through the halls of democracy at the Wine Spectator offices as long as they agree with what you say and they are not challenged.
In the interest of fairness and balanced blogging, I will say that message boards are usually policed with a vigilance that would make an angry lynch mob in a dark alley look tame by comparison. Usually there are plenty of rules, regulations and codes of conduct and while often spirited, most posters are sycophants to the people that run the message board. And, finally, Spectator being a profit-loving entity (They charge for their online content, after all) can pretty much do what they want. In addition, I can’t actually fact check against Tish’s account of the proceedings because, well, Wine Spectator erased ALL posts from Tish.
Now that fair and balanced is out of the way, I’ll say that this reminds me of the Presidential “Advance Manual” that has been designed to squelch any type of negativity or protest at any presidential speech. In fact, it took the ACLU to get involved to even have the manual released publicly and even at that point it was heavily edited. Unbelievable. Excerpted from this Washington Post article:
The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be ” extremely supportive of the Administration,”
To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create “rally squads” of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with “favorable messages.” Squads should be placed in strategic locations and “at least one squad should be ‘roaming’ throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems,” the manual says.
“These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators,” it says. “The rally squad’s task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.”
Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: “If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator’s effect.”
Ahem. Real democracy in action … for the people, by the people. My point is that people in power positions—real or perceived most frequently do not like to be questioned, second-guessed, or challenged when they’re on the throne. That’s too bad, too. I’m not sure if WS and Bush keep company, but their sovereign rule, insulated from detractors, seems similar.
Below is the entire story from Tish on his experience on the Spectator boards:
I got kicked off the Wine Spectator blog comments board this summer too! Yes, I am officially persona non grata, after responding strongly in response to Jim Laube’s inane two-part post about Napa Cabernet-maker Randy Dunn’s “open letter” to the industry regarding rising alcohol levels in wines (read more), particularly in his own ’hood.
I may never really know exactly what the tipping point was (perhaps it involved the word “cop-out”?), but basically I challenged JL and WS in general to take Dunn’s suggestion that alcohol levels be included in reviews. Laube’s second post, which referred to “one reader” (apparently moi) making that point, rejected the notion simply because alcohol-by-volume measurements by definition are imprecise. My point was: SO WHAT? The percentages printed on labels are accepted as legal data, and moreover represent the only concrete alcohol information we have at our disposal. I added that I thought the real reason WS wouldn’t want to do this might be that people would see a clear correlation between high scores and high alc wines. Duh!
In sum, Wine Spectator doesn’t like non-fawners bothering their thin-skinned critics. I had been an earnest contributor to the Spectator blog boards for months, and in fact at several points had had certain posts rejected—with explanation. I did not always agree (for instance, they nixed my comment asking James Laube to explain why he called Kendall-Jackson’s $100+ Cardinale a “Bordeaux knockoff” when it seems no more of a cheap copy than any other Napa Cab-Merlot), but whatever. On the other hand, when I caught James Suckling throwing around ratings like confetti, seemingly in conflict with “official” ratings of the same wines in the WS Buying Guide, the blog editors actually went back and inserted “(non-blind)” after each of his flaming numbers, to make the distinction obvious. Most important of all, I participated in the boards under my own name (albeit misspelled as Willim Tisherman) and never even once referred to my pen name, my web site, my past position or my current status in the industry; I was a subscriber, period.
I can live without being part of the WS blog boards, but the surreally hilarious part of my getting the ol’ cyberspace heave-ho is the fact that I have now been erased completely from WS blog history. ALL of my past posts (20+, I estimate) evaporated, not unlike the way Communist regimes used to erase all mention of historical figures they didn’t want people to read/hear/think about. I was told this total removal was a technical issue, not a political statement. Maybe so, but it certainly fits with the Spectator’s well-earned reputation as an 800-lb. gorilla.
Kudos to Tish for publicizing this little Godfather-like shakedown. This is just a simple reminder to me that Wine Spectator, the 600-lb Gorilla to Parker’s Silverback 800-lb Gorilla, still isn’t in touch with the fact that the way to operate in an online environment is to give control over to the people. They want to continue with their subscription model and rule from an ivory tower—it’s obviously working to a certain extent, but I wonder what would happen if they opened the gates to more freedom and less restriction earning some friends along the way and engendering some goodwill and, of course, some freedom … of speech.
Posted in, Good Grape Daily: Pomace & Lees. Permalink | Comments (4) | Print |
August 10 2007
Earlier this spring I had a moment of exceedingly rare clarity and I wondered to myself if there was a Slow Wine USA organization, the vinous equivalent to the Slow Food movement. Food and wine go together, right? And, there’s a similar companion movement in the wine industry for small, hand-crafted artisan brands, many that are organic or sustainable in nature.
By way of background and context, the Slow Food Movement was started by Carolo Petrini in 1986 and recognition that:
The industrialization of food was standardizing taste and leading to the annihilation of thousands of food varieties and flavors. He wanted to reach out to consumers and demonstrate to them that they have choices over fast food and supermarket homogenization. Soon after, Petrini realized that in order to keep those alternative food choices alive, it was imperative to be an eco-gastronomic movement—one that is ecologically minded and concerned with sustainability and sees the connection between the plate and planet. Today, the organization that Petrini and his colleagues founded is active in over 100 countries and has a worldwide membership of over 80,000.
When I had this thought, my first notion wasn’t to do a bunch of searches on Google; my first thought was to head to godaddy.com to see if a URL has been taken. Lo and behold, the Slow Food movement in the states called Slow Food USA did not have a slowwineusa.org or slowwine.org equivalent. Somebody registered slowwine.com in 2000, but hasn’t done anything with the web address. So, I registered several addresses with a couple of variations, not knowing why or what value the $50 odd bucks would yield—and I still don’t know that value, by the way.
At the same time, I’m on the mailing list for the Wine Aficionado’s Group for Indianapolis organized through meetup.com (similar, large grassroots wine groups exist across the country on meetup.com) and it has doubled in size in the last seven months and now numbers 150 + people. My impression is, however, that it’s light on knowledge in its membership base. Perhaps light to the extent that ‘Drink the Pink’ means that White Zin and Rośe might be one and the same in the eyes of the members. And, I look at another local Wine Enthusiast group in Indianapolis that seems to be seemingly shut off from new members and very clique-ish. Likewise, The Taster’s Guild International has chapters all across the country, but is positioned towards the high-end of the wine lover spectrum, and even if that point is argued, it’s hard to argue with the notion that they are not positioned to capture the new breed of wine lovers i.e. people under 30.
As I reflect on the divisive issue of boutique wineries versus national brands, medals, notoriety, production volume, etc and the overall base of consumers that drink wine and I examine that against the food and wine experience and further juxtapose that against on and offline groups of wine enthusiasts, I’m wondering if a Slow Wine USA organization isn’t an idea whose time has come.
It makes perfect sense—create a national social group that focuses on smaller wines with chapters in cities across the country and move the entry-level focus away from swilling and education and the high-end focus away from cult wines, futures and other seemingly impenetrable topics and focus it on something everybody can enjoy and appreciate—food and wine as a match.
By developing a social entry point that engenders the same values as the Slow Food movement (back to the earth instead of haute cuisine), and translates it to wine, and creates a complementary focus on food and wine with the same intrinsic, crafted ethos, wouldn’t we be doing a favor for the industry by bringing wine lovers from all ends of the spectrum while focusing the conversation on wines that have a “small” sensibility and at the same time focusing on food and wine as a combination that enhances overall social intercourse?
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Robertson Wine Valley in South Africa has created the Robertson Slow Wine Festival going on now. This appears to be only glancingly related to the Slow Food movement, but with similar principles:
From 9th -12th August 2007 time will go by exceptionally slowly in the beautiful Robertson Wine Valley when the inaugural Robertson Slow will take place. 19 wineries from Ashton, Bonnievalue, McGregor and Robertson will welcome visitors into their homes, to their dining tables and onto their farms to spend some time … slowly.
I still don’t know what I’ll do with the URL’s, if you have any ideas, let me know. But, I do think that the wine industry and wine lovers would be well-served by having a social organization and a common bond engaged around food and wine with a strong undercurrent of philosophy like the Slow Food Movement espouses. Snobs and wet behind the ear newbies could then co-mingle in relative peace around a shared understanding.
Have a thought? Leave a comment, please.
Posted in, Good Grape Daily: Pomace & Lees. Permalink | Comments (3) | Print |
July 30 2007
I’ve yet to put my finger on the zeitgeist that creates consumption trends in the wine industry. Wine isn’t like popular, consumer culture where trends happen at the street-level and work their way up, or, alternatively, they start with media stars and work their way down.
With regulation and distribution being what it is, I think trends happen more conscientiously in the wine industry; it’s based on research and data—whereby the slightest uptick in a varietal can mean a piling on of growing, importing, stocking and subsequent promotion to grow sales. If the media goes along for the ride—ala Rośe—, than that is all the better.
We can all certainly wish that somebody, perhaps Master Sommeliers, will wield ever growing influence in the swings that mark our consuming public. In fact, we need this to occur to create a healthy balance, as the wine industry continues to bifurcate on multiple levels between mass production and boutique, points wines and unreviewed artisan production, alongside imports, etc.
With that in mind, I’m curious to see what the next “hot” varietals will be and how they are addressed in the market. Does the wine industry have an influential star system whereby a winemaker, a Sommelier, or a critic not named Parker, can raise tides and steer ships to new chartered courses?
Last week winemaker Randy Dunn denounced high alcohol wines, so we’ll see how that moves or doesn’t move activity over the course of the next year or two. We’re already starting to see a groundswell around more organic and “food-friendly” wines so lower alcohol wines may already be well on their way, Rośe being a fine lower-alcohol choice for many and a food-friendly complement to a wide variety of dishes.
A recent feature in Ronn Wiegand’s “Restaurant Wine” caught my attention for similar reasons. Restaurant Wine is a trade-oriented wine newsletter with a mixture of news, insight and review available by subscription only. In the current issue (#118) he takes time to profile each of the eight Americans who passed the Master Sommelier exam in March, bringing the total number of domestic M.S.’s to 87.
It may be that their influence will grow as enough voices in the wilderness come together to create a public chorus.
An interesting thing occurred in each of these profiles that asked a number of standard questions, including their “favorite wine types” and “most underrated/underappreciated wines.” Four of the eight profiles cited Piemontese wines—Nebbiolo-based, Barolo or Barabaresco as one of their favorites or noted as underappreciated. Secondarily, four of the eight also cited German Riesling as either one of their faves, or underappreciated.
Both of these wines, by their naming and/or origin are a confusing, tangled mess for American wine consumers to figure out.
But, again, this is where the influence of the Sommelier in our increasingly wine-centric society can be a positive indicator of trends to come.
For example, Nebbiolo, Barbaresco and Barolo are all made from the Nebbiolo grape and are produced in that same order of intensity-Nebbiolo being the “lightest,” and Barolo being the heaviest. Not that you would know unless you really tried to figure it out, or had somebody teach you—a Sommelier, for example.
Barbaresco, in particular, is something I would definitely like to see grow in the U.S., driving prices down while they are at it. Finding good Barbaresco’s below $40 a bottle is a challenge. Trader Joe’s $13 junk bottles notwithstanding.
I had a bottle of a Barbaresco at dinner in New York City last May that opened my eyes to the beauty of this region. The 2000 Cascina Morassino Barbaresco paired with a striped bass with white, green and wild asparagus did two things—it paired red wine with fish and it was a complete revelation in seductiveness. One of the less than five bottles I’ve had that acted as an epiphany while driving introspection—the experience that so many wine lovers orgasmically chase.
A couple of quotes from the Master Sommeliers:
Fred Dexheimer, Domestic Portfolio Director, T. Edwards Wines, New York on Barolo/Barbaresco:
They are soulful by nature and reward those with patience. One is forced almost to meditate while enjoying a great bottle of one of these wines.
Thomas Burke, Sommelier, Red Rock Casino & Resort, Las Vegas on Barolo/Barbaresco:
For me, gaining an appreciation of these wines was like getting my Ph.D. in Understanding Wine Complexity.
Brian Koziol, District Manager – Sales, Southern Wine & Spirits of Florida, Miami, FLA:
Great with food. Wines with soul (cherries, truffles, roses, licorice).
Brett Zimmerman, General Manager, American Division, Southern Wine & Spirits of Colorado, Denver, CO
Piemontese Wines, especially those that are Nebbiolo-based. Wines from these regions have high levels of intensity and acidity; are mostly single variety wines (that reach their apogees here); and have considerable history and food culture associated with them.
German Rieslings, for their part, were cited by the Sommeliers, especially the Kabinett-level food-friendly styles.
Generally speaking, I think as the ranks of Master Sommeliers grow in the U.S., so too will their mainstream influence. While I’m not sure what the next “hot” varietal will be, I’m hoping that the Master Sommeliers can act as “star” influencers in bringing both Riesling and Barbaresco to a greater level of prominence in the U.S., educating us along the way.
Posted in, Good Grape Daily: Pomace & Lees. Permalink | Comments (2) | 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
