October 10 2007
Normally in this spot, on the second Wednesday of the month or thereabouts, I would participate in Wine Blogging Wednesday, a communal exercise in online wine drinking around a theme. This month the featured theme from our gracious hosts, Catavino, is Portuguese wine.
However, unfortunately, sitting in the land of milk and honey, Napa, California, traveling for business, I’m coming up dry on Portuguese wine. Two stops in these parts yielded nada, so, alas, I’m sending good vibes in lieu of an actual wine review.
But, the good news about the trip out to CA this week is I got caught up on a bunch of reading on the flight out, including a couple of October issues of Wine Spectator. This marks the third time in the last three weeks that I have referenced Wine Spectator, easily a record here, the magazine receiving only grudging acknowledgement in the past.
As an inveterate consumer of wine information, it has been easy for me to take shots at Wine Spectator in the past—the content frequently seemed aimed at a fictitious, stereotypical demographic—the fifty-something male with more money than actual knowledge and a proclivity for buying wines by the point. Some of the articles bordered on the insipid explaining things that would seem to be a base level of knowledge for any wine enthusiast; the sole redeeming value being Matt Kramer’s always smart columns.
But, something positive has happened in the last year or so—the Wine Spectator’s editorial coverage seems to have changed. Maybe it’s me, but I don’t think so. The writing is sharper, more insightful and SMARTER. And, it’s smarter at a greater level of accessibility, if that makes sense. It’s not smarter by virtue of casting a wider net to appeal to more people; it’s smarter by virtue of better insight and analysis for people that already “get it.”
More or less, Wine Spectator is more appealing to me, and since I’m my own baseline, I’m assuming it’s the magazine that has changed and I haven’t gotten dumber (or smarter) in the intervening 12 months.
So, to Wine Spectator, I offer up thanks for creating a more relevant magazine and competing against the intelligence and verve that Wine & Spirits magazine serves up.
A couple of notes and things that provoked thought from the October 15th and October 31st issues:
1) In an October 15th article on Napa wineries selling, including Stag’s Leap, there was a quote from Gladys Horiuchi, manager of communications for the Wine Institute. The following quote, in context, is related to the number of wineries that have sold since 2000 (50). She says, “These California wineries are finding they’re not competing against single companies abroad, but whole countries.”
Keep that quote in mind over the course of the next several years as California wine prices and consumption increases create demand fulfillment challenges that will be filled by high QPR Int’l wines at much lower price points. It’s a very prescient quote from Horiuchi, in my opinion.
2) Somewhat obscurely noted in the opening editorial by Marvin Shaken and Thomas Matthews, WS Executive Editor, is the mention that they have added new team members to the tasting team, noting, amongst other team members, that James Laube is getting some company in California tasting with the addition of two new reviewers who are now allowed to sign their initials to their notes. What does this mean? One could speculate about hegemony and house style in tasting, but it probably simply means that Laube needs some help tasting through the ever increasing pile of wine that shows up everyday. From the editorial:
In order to bring you comprehensive coverage, we train new tasters. It’s a lengthy process. They taste with our senior editors for three to five years, learning to write tasting notes and give accurate, consistent scores. They undergo blind tasting evaluations in our New York office. When they meet our rigorous standards for expertise and reliability, they are authorized to sign their initials to their reviews.
… joining Laube is Napa-based tasting coordinator MaryAnn Worobiec and associate editor Tim Fish.
3) One of the things that Wine Spectator HAS NOT done is back down from the point’s adornment to cult cabs. It’s another year and notch on the belt for many of these untouchable brands. From the October 15th issue comes ratings for the following: Harlan Estate – 97 points; Bryant Family – 96 points; Colgin – 95 points; Dalla Valle – 94 points; Paul Hobbs – 94 points; Joseph Phelps Insignia – 94 points; Araujo – 95 points; … let the games begin for those inclined to buy wines at $225 a bottle and up …
4) Another reason why Wine Spectator is becoming a better magazine has to do with more of a contemporary and culturally relevant take on things for people other then upper-middle class white guys that drive Mercedes. Case in point is a blurb in the “Grapevine” sidebar written by Eric Arnold and Heather Morgan Shott where they mention backstage riders for celebrities. Riders are the contracted demands for food and drink that needs to be furnished backstage in order to satisfy a performing celebrity. The rock band Van Halen notoriously requested a bowl of only green M&M’s backstage after every concert leading to an urban myth that green M&M’s are an aphrodisiac, as an example. Either Arnold or Shott went through thesmokinggun.com web site to find out that several stars have fun wine related requests. If you have some time to kill check out this link and search for Diana Krall, Amy Winehouse and others …
What do you think? Wine Spectator is the pillar of wine editorial and that hasn’t changed? Wine Spectator is improving their content and staying current, their blogs and online content is demonstration of that, in addition to the magazine? Wine Spectator is dying the death of a thousand cuts by the rise of community journalism and wine blogging?
digg this | toast this! | add to del.icio.us | add to newsvine | add to furl | add to reddit |
Posted in, Good Grape Daily: Pomace & Lees. Permalink | Comments (6) | Print | Email This
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
