The Curious Case of the Private Reserve

As many wine lovers know, Cameron Hughes is both a man and a brand synonymous with deals in wine sold at a discount and cloaked in anonymity. Hughes buys wine from producers that can't (or don't want to) sell all the wine they produce (in high-yielding vintages or to keep supply low). He's also known for getting wine that doesn't quite make the cut for high-end releases which the producer wants to quietly remove from the books and away from their reputation. Non-disclosure agreements ensure producers' reputations aren't harmed by Hughes selling $100 wine for $20. Hughes labels the wines with a generic Lot number with little identifying info as to the wines' origins. He does offer hints (maybe a few embellishments) in his Cam's Confidential.

Cameron Hughes Private Reserve Collection Wooden Case

Well, not too long ago Hughes announced his greatest score ever as a négociant; "a once-in-a-lifetime, never-to-be-seen-again opportunity to own a six-bottle, six-vintage vertical of Cabernet from one of the most iconoclastic cult producers in the history of Napa Valley." That does sound like quite the score. Super bloggers Steve Heimoff and W. Blake Gray both tasted (separately) the wines with Hughes and published their opinions here and here. Speculation also abounds on the Wineberserkers online forum (I have participated in the discussion) as to the true identity of the shrouded wine collection.

Cameron Hughes Lot 2006

Last week, Hughes sent me the six-bottle vertical to try for myself. I'm honored to be considered a peer to Messieurs Heimoff and Gray, though I do wish I could have tasted them with Mr. Hughes himself. I've been a bit busy with the arrival of baby number two last week, but curiosity got the better of me and I popped open the 2006 the other night. I hope to open the rest and conduct a proper vertical in the near future (Christmas dinner??).

Five predictions for 2013

2012 has been an eventful year in the wine industry. There are more licensed American wineries than ever before (almost three times as many wineries as breweries...). California (and Colorado) had a bumper crop of high (not exceptional) quality. The Rudy Kurniawan story made headlines in the non-wine world after he was arrested for producing and selling millions of dollars of fraudulent wine. And in probably the biggest news that wasn't really wasn't that big (see yesterday's post), Robert Parker, Jr. announced that he was stepping down as editor-in-chief of the Wine Advocate, opening a second office in Singapore and sold a share of the ownership to three Asian investors (rumor is they aren't all Asian...). So what will 2013 bring in terms of worthy wine news?

Here are five prognostications:

The fiction of cult wine

The word "cult" gets thrown around a lot in the wine industry. The idea of cult wine started in the 1990s with the rise of critically acclaimed, limited production California cabernet sauvignons such as Bryant Family Vineyard, Grace Family Vineyards, Harlan Estate and Screaming Eagle. The initial prices of these wines were high to start with, but not absurdly so. Bryant released at $36, Grace Family at $25, Harlan at $65 and Screaming Eagle an astonishing $50. These big names aside, the first California wine to actually eclipse the triple digit price tag was Diamond Creek with their 1978 Lake Vineyard release. It wasn't until customers began flipping the wines at auction for many times what they paid to the winery after the wines received numerous 99 and 100-point scores from Robert Parker that their prices began their stratospheric rise. The age of cult wine was born.

Wine critic vs. wine writer (which is more important?)

A few recent posts by W. Blake Gray got me thinking about the difference between wine critics and wine writers. Wine critiquing and wine writing are two different activities that are often confused as the same thing. Dave McIntyre, wine columnist for the Washington Post, eloquently explained that "the writer tells wine's story in a way that hopefully gets the reader thirsty, while the critic can tell the reader which wines are worth buying." This isn't to say that they are mutually exclusive, and in fact most wine critics will claim they do both. But can someone do both at the same time? To paraphrase McIntyre, critical analysis of wine (i.e., blind tasting) takes wine out of its context, but for wine writers context is the story.

To Blend or Not to Blend: Pinot Grigio

A few weeks ago, Steve Heimoff discussed his tasting of the Harlan Estate and BOND Estates 2008 and 2007 lineup. He mentioned that he often prefers the *cheaper* blended Matriarch. Much of his post and subsequent reader commentary explored the "concept of whether a blended wine could not be more complete than a single vineyard wine." Steve's argument was based on the idea that blended wines might be better wines because a winemaker could accentuate the desirable characteristics of individual sites or different varietal characteristics. In fact, many wines use this concept to create "house" styles rather than wines of terroir. Bordeaux and the proprietary red wines of Napa Valley are blends that often vary from year to year. High-end reds aren't the only  wines made utilizing this concept. Champagne is another popular blended wine. While not as prevalent with white wines, several very popular blends, Conundrum, Evolution and Ménage à Trois, are made from different combinations of white grapes. Blending represents the highest form of a winemaker's artistic expression.

Although I have yet to receive my invitation to visit and taste Bill Harlan's grand cru portfolio, I still wanted to explore the differences of single-vineyard and blended wines. If any from Harlan is reading, I will accept said invitation! The simplest way to do so was to taste not a complex blend like those three widely marketed wines I listed above, but to taste a wine blended with only two grapes. I wanted to determine if a single-vineyard or blended wine is better. Obviously, differences would be highly specific to individual wines. For this endeavor, I selected two wines from Canyon Wind Cellars; a single-vineyard pinot grigio from the Cliffside Vineyard and a blend of 60% pinot grigio from the same vineyard and 40% chardonnay from the nearby Riverside Vineyard. I had my wife pour the two wines and I tasted them blind to determine the differences between these two similar yet different wines. I didn't want to be influenced by my preconceived ideas about what the wines *should* taste like, but the varietal characteristics were quite apparent and I was able to easily identify which glass contained chardonnay and which contained only pinot grigio. In this case, I preferred the lovely aromatics and crisp acidity of the pinot grigio to the blend, but my wife tried them both later and preferred the blend. Get them both and see which you prefer!

2010 Canyon Wind Cellars, Pinot Grigio, Grand Valley AVA, Colorado

Exceptionally light in color and almost clear on the rim, this wine is beautifully aromatic with scents of melon, apricot, citrus and hints of salt and minerals. The refreshingly crisp palate is redolent of kaffir lime and honeydew melon. As I tasted, I knew it had to be the pinot grigio and wanted to pair it with prosciutto-wrapped melon. I'm not usually a fan of pinot grigio, but this one I do like.12.9% abv Sample $15. Good (tasted 5/18/11)

2010 Canyon Wind Cellars, 47-Ten, Grand Valley AVA, Colorado

This wine is light yellow in color, but just slightly darker than the pinot grigio. The nose is slightly muted, but cedes notes of apples and apricots. The chardonnay adds body and alcohol to the bright and crisp pinot grigio. In no way out of balance, the alcohol is more noticeable in this wine than the other. This light blend offers flavors similar to white peach grape juice and apples. This is a nice wine that would complement a tasty summer barbeque or relaxing by the pool. 13.6% abv Sample $13. Average/Good (tasted 5/18/11)