Dr. Harry Oldman on the Wine Bloggers Conference

With the 2014 Wine Bloggers Conference wrapping up over the weekend, I heard from Dr. Harry Oldman, my extern. I was actually looking forward to attending this year, but my wife was in Panama for a conference and I had to stay home with Ben. Having never attended a WBC, I don't have a whole lot to say about the event, but Dr. Oldman was insistent on chiming in. I know I shouldn't give the crotchety old guy the attention he wants, but I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinions.

So, apparently the Wine Bloggers Conference was held this past weekend in Santa Barbara County. I don't consider myself a blogger (more of a human chameleon that can become a master at whatever I choose), so the big event wasn't on my calendar. You know how I found out about the conference? I saw it all over the news. ABC, CNN, FOX and NBC all picked up on the story. It was all Bill O'Reilly and Brian Williams were talking about over the weekend. Even Wine Spectator published a special issue on the conference that arrived this morning.

Dr. Harry Oldman has a Surprise Holiday Interview...

Dr. Harry Oldman generously unwraps a spectacular interview for us on this Boxing Day.

Kyle, as an old white man with a beard, I felt that it was only appropriate that I give you and your readers a present this year, but I couldn't quite figure out what would be a good gift. Then it dawned on me! I'm friends with a moderately notorious wine critic and we talk fairly often about wine and life in general. He was kind enough to answer the kind of tough questions no one has ever had the balls to ask him. I felt like Katie Couric! He didn't know that I was going to publish the interview, and I don’t want to name names because I don’t have his permission, so I'll just refer to him as SHhh (as in I'll never tell!). You can guess, but I'll never reveal my source!

HARRY: Hey, buddy! Thanks for agreeing to answer some questions. I know how much you hate answering questions, so this really means a lot to me!

SHhh: No problem, anything for you Harry. I actually love to answer questions, almost as much as asking questions! I write for the consumer, first, foremost and always. So when my readers engage with me, I make it a point to always respond. I learn so much from my readers! Blogs and bulletin boards are supposed to be back-and-forths, right? I mean, we live in this new age of participatory journalism. It is not uncommon for me to comment on other blogs, too!

Maybe Steve Heimoff was right (I might have lost my mind...)

After giving it a week of thought, I'm going to argue something with which, on the surface, I adamantly disagree. Last week, my digital buddy, Steve Heimoff, wrote a blog post titled, "Saying Goodbye to the Golden Age of Wine Writing." His thesis was that with the rise of the "Age of Digital Information" (i.e., wine blogs) wine writers are finding it more and more difficult to earn a living writing about wine. He claims that the world of wine writing is no longer the utopia it was when he got into this profession and made a name for himself (I'd argue he actually has made his name via his blog and not as the California Editor for Wine Enthusiast Magazine). David White penned a great response to Steve's assertions and claimed that things are actually getting better in the world of wine writing. I wholeheartedly agree with David, but I want to take a deeper look into Steve's post.

John Madden the wine critic...

Football season is finally upon us. For many of you (including me), yesterday was spent parked in front of the TV with a beer in hand. The entire state of Colorado is bursting with anticipation for a Super Bowl run after Peyton Manning and the Broncos thrashed the defending champions on Thursday. However, I grew up in Wisconsin so naturally I'm a Green Bay Packers fan. In fact, ever since 1998 I have actively rooted against the Broncos. If the Broncos aren't going to finish 0-16 this year, I'd like nothing more than to see the Packers beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl in New York. I'd be in a better mood today had the Packers beaten the 49ers, but thinking about a Green Bay Super Bowl victory over the Broncos keeps me smiling.

You may be wondering what football has to do with wine. Bear with me as I get there. Along with the beginning of the NFL season, perhaps the most popular sports video game, Madden 25, was released recently. In the game, every single player is given a numerical rating - from 1 to 100. Sound familiar to wine yet? Thinking about how and why human beings are given such subjective ratings got me thinking about how the video game is like the wine review game. Is Calvin Johnson equivalent to a bottle of 2009 Château Latour (WS 99)? Is Anquan Boldin like a bottle of 2007 Canyon Wind Cellars IV (WS 88)? Which bottle of red blend or which receiver would you rather have had yesterday?

Why Colorado (might) have its sh*t together...(a response to 1WineDude)

In between the time that he is prepping his young daughter for a singing career launched by posting videos on his website (oh wait, isn't that someone else?) and cleaning up after his rhinoceran-sized dog (did you know rhinoceros have no knees?), Joe Roberts is traveling the globe spitingt some of the best (and worst) wines the world has to offer. Last week, he made a quick stop in Colorado (two weeks in Australia and only four days in Colorado, really Joe??) for the Drink Local Wine Conference. I think that the conference was a smashing success, but then again I helped organize it so why wouldn't it be great?

This morning, Joe posted a late dispatch about the conference. The theme of his piece was the topic of one of three seminars at the conference, "Why Do Local Wine and Local Food Hate Each Other?" Unfortunately, I did not get to witness this panel discussion as I was washing glasses for the subsequent Nomacorc Twitter Taste-off. According to Joe (and probably most other people in the room), the panel's discussion revolved around the question, "Why don’t more local restaurants stock local wines, when they almost always stock local produce without much hesitation?" He concludes that local restaurants could (and should) celebrate local juice when three conditions are met. The Dude abides and claims that Colorado seems to have its sh*t together when it comes to these conditions, but he offers no further explanation. Well, I'm going to offer an explanation for Joe...

Wine writers are lazy

Wine writers are lazy. Not in the sense that they don't work hard at what they do (well, my posting has been rather pathetic of late), but they don't necessarily do what they should be doing. Wine writers' main goal should be evaluating and describing wines so that consumers get the best wine for their money. Many do this and do it well, but as a group the major wine pundits have been stuck in a rut. James Suckling claimed that he was going to find the next big thing before any one else and where has he been tasting? Bordeaux, Napa and Tuscany... Those are the current and past big things for sure, but not the next big thing. Most wine drinkers know that the wines from those regions which Suckling is reviewing are of high quality. Suckling is tasting the same wines year after year trying to distinguish which $100+ wines are worthy of his 100-point decrees. Rating swings from 92 points to 95 points drive business for many of these wines. Nevertheless, most of these wines sell well and are priced accordingly (or unfortunately overpriced). While many glossies and celebrity critics only publish wine reviews of wines rated 85 points or higher, Suckling has taken the threshold up to 90 points. Suckling knows that he can find more than a handful of these types of wines in his favorite regions. Yet, he is afraid to venture into uncharted territory for the fear of only finding one or two great wines in a non-traditional wine region. Life is too short to drink poorly made wine, but life is also too short to drink the same wines year after year. Good wine is worth the risk and effort to find it.

Other wine reviewers are so lazy that not even know that certain wine regions produce wine. Stephen Elliot of the Connoisseur's Guide to California Wine recently visited Palisade, CO without knowing it was in the Grand Valley AVA and home to 25 wineries. Now, of course Palisade is most definitely not a mecca of wine production, but I think that a wine "expert" would at least check to see if his vacation spot has any wineries. I don't claim to know of every wine region in the world, let alone the U.S., but when I drove to Wisconsin this past summer, I made sure to research any wineries along our route. Lo and behold, we stopped at a winery in Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin. I will forgive Mr. Elliot's mistake as he and his co-writers are so focused on California wine that it takes accidental encounters for wineries in other regions to come across their radar. But to his surprise, Stephen actually enjoyed the wines made by Canyon Wind Cellars in this little part of the wine world. Who'd have thunk that?!?

However, I was pleasantly surprised a few days ago when James Molesworth tweeted, "Looks like a flight of wines from the Finger Lakes, Virginia and Colorado lined up in the tasting room today..." Granted, James is the tasting coordinator for Wine Spectator and is stuck reviewing wines from non-mainstream regions such as Chile, Loire Valley, South Africa and New York's Finger Lakes. At least he has Kim Marcus' and Harvey Steiman's beats beat! Now, this tasting isn't going to change much, but at least Wine Spectator has Colorado wine on its radar! While there haven't been any "next big thing" proclamations about these regions, Molesworth was happy to report that, "Good, competent winemaking [is] now the norm more than not, thankfully."

Steve Heimoff, west coast editor for Wine Enthusiast, said he doesn't review Colorado wine because no one pays him to do so. I can understand that it is his job to review the top wines from California, but I bet he tastes wines from Bordeaux, Burgundy and other regions to keep his palate calibrated and not Calicentric. He should also be seeking out wines from Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, and New Mexico to see what California's neighbors are producing. You can bet that reviewers of American automobiles are keeping tabs on what German and Japanese manufacturers are making.

Even Robert Parker, Jr.'s heir apparent, Antonio Galloni, declared on Wineberserkers.com that he publishes content based on "what our readers have become accustomed to." Most wine consumers are not familiar with Turkish, Greek, Slovenian or Coloradan wine but how else will the broader public obtain information on what these other wine regions are producing? Sure, Galloni is charged to taste Californian wine, but is he tasting wine from Cucamonga Valley, Potter Valley, or San Antonio Valley?  We have almost gone back in time to the early 1970s when the French wine elite dismissed California wine as inferior to French wine. While the wine world has expanded incredibly in the past 40 years, we are at a new crossroads of wine evaluation and education. As David White said in his keynote address to the Nederbrurg Rare Wine Auction in South Africa recently, "As consumers grow more comfortable dismissing gatekeepers like Parker, the influence of local voices ... is becoming more important." If the gatekeepers wish to remain keepers of the wine gates, they had better start doing their jobs and expand their palates (and pens) beyond the traditional wine regions.

No Such Thing as Wine Perfection (and ESPN Gets in on the 100-pt Rating System)

With every other wine writer wanting to make a splash about the 100-point wine rating system over the last few days I was planning on staying out of the crowded pool. But after reading a blog by Mike Sando on ESPN.com about passer perfection and the Total Quarterback Rating (QBR), I couldn't help but reread the article and replace NFL names with wine names. I think that the idea that perfection is impossible in both fields is spot on (just forget for a second that ESPN is promoting their brand spanking new 100-point system as a way to show that perfection is unattainable). I've paraphrased the article below with my wine-centric substitutions.

Before you begin, I want to state that in no way do I mean to disrespect Schrader Cellars by referencing their wine. I have not had the pleasure of tasting it and I am sure it is a very good bottle of wine. In fact, I will be passing through the Napa Valley next week and if I were to get an invite from the Schraders to come and taste it, I would love to do so...

The Wine Advocate, Issue #186 proclaimed that the 2007 Schrader Cabernet Sauvignon CCS was a perfect wine for Robert Parker, Jr. in December 2009.


Your palate knows better.


While the CCS was brilliant that day, receiving 100 points along with copious hedonistic descriptors, its performance could have been statistically superior. The CCS only scored a 98 on the 100-pt scale from the one Cellartracker user to rate it.


About half of the over-the-top prose used Parker’s favorite terms that Tom Wark identified in his 100-point profile. Yet, Parker favorites like intense and mineral were nowhere to be found in the note.


Just as Total Quarterback Rating, showfully debuted by ESPN, keeps moving the carrot as quarterbacks chase perfection, using words and not numbers also keeps moving the carrot for consumers, winemakers and critics alike.


No matter how well a wine scores from a Wine Advocate, Wine Spectator or Wine Enthusiast critic, it could fare better (or worse) when an actual consumer drinks it.


Completing the 100-pt double (James Laube of Wine Spectator also bestowed perfection upon the 2007 CCS) shattered records. But the performance wouldn't rate as high as one featuring 100-pt scores from Steve Heimoff, James Suckling and W. Blake Gray, too. And so on.


That's why it's misleading to say a wine is "perfect" when its score maxes out at 100 points under the formula widely used since 1982 by the most exalted of wine pundits.


The CCS’s 100-pt score only translated into being #15 on the Wine Spectator top 100 wines of 2010. Other wines made huge gains displaying better value or intrigue to the editors, to a degree much greater than they would have done typically.


In theory, a perfect wine cannot be improved on. Yet, Robert Parker has added asterisks to some 2009 Bordeaux scores that were at or even below his 2005 decrees to signify the sample was perhaps the estate’s finest release ever.


Even with a “perfect” wine, the consumer still must have the palate, experience and desire to create the perfect wine experience. And once you drink perfection, why continue drinking? Isn’t everything else by definition inferior?


Prose takes into account many more variables. It explains each wine in relation to how it affects a taster’s emotions, putting more weight on a context than a meaningless number cherry-picked by retailers worldwide.


Nevertheless, this the discussion will continue ad infinitum.

Let's get vertical, vertical...

Cheers to Olivia Newton John and my apologies to any who is now picturing their favorite wine pundit dancing around in a leotard and matching sweatbands.

Most wine blogs and glossies focus their efforts on tasting and reviewing current releases of wine. Furthermore, said publications tend to focus on mainstream wines. When prognostications of the ageability and drinking window of young wines are made, they tend to be based (I hope) on prior experience with how previous vintages fared. But very rarely do you see published vertical tastings of wine. Sure, Robert Parker, Jr. famously has stepped aside from the current California beat to do retrospective tastings of California. Almost always vertical tastings are solely in the realm of top producers. James Suckling recently posted a series of videos documenting his experience tasting three centuries of Chateau Latour. Richard Jennings recently tasted through aged Kistler pinot noirs and found that he did not agree with the top critics' early prognostications. Occasionally the wine gods smile on off the beaten path producers. Super-blogger Joe Roberts got in on the action and posted about his experience of tasting a vertical of Peconic Bay merlot from Long Island, New York. To my knowledge, there have been no published vertical tastings of Colorado wine. Until now.

I received a few samples of Canyon Wind Cellars cabernet and had a few bottles in my meager cellar, so I decided that I must open all five vintages at one time in order to compare them and put Colorado in the same light as first-growth Bordeaux and cult Cali pinot. I invited a few friends over to help me taste through the lineup that nearly spanned the history of the winery. I opened and double decanted all the wines an hour before being consumed. The wines were all in good shape, though the corks in the two oldest bottles broke. The five bottles were bagged, numbered and poured blind. No one knew which wine was which and the only thing that our guests knew was that the bottles were all the same variety. As we were tasting, I suspected that somehow the wines got put back in order and we were drinking them from oldest to youngest. In fact we were, with the two youngest bottles being transposed. The secondary and tertiary flavors and aromas brought out by bottle aging was quite apparent, though the youngest of the bunch was a bit of an aberration to even me. Overall, everyone was quite impressed with the quality of all the wines. Though one common theme amongst my casual wine drinking friends was the unanimous surprise that all the wine was the same grape and from the same producer but tasted vastly different. My notes (I was the only one to take notes) along with the group rankings are below:


1997 Canyon Wind Cellars, Cabernet Sauvignon, Grand Valley AVA, Colorado

The first wine in the lineup is dark red in color with a little bit of bricking at the rim. Aromas of cherry and black currants are balanced by lovely tobacco and cedar. Smooth on the palate, smooth red and black fruits are complemented with lovely secondary flavors of tobacco and tea leaf. This wine is well balanced and complex and could easily pass as a fourth or fifth growth Bordeaux. It is ready to go and should probably be consumed in the next few years before the fruit starts to fade. My favorite wine of the flight, but the group's #2. 13.8% abv Sample $50. Very Good/Excellent (tasted 7/8/11)



2000 Canyon Wind Cellars, Cabernet Sauvignon, Grand Valley AVA, Colorado

The second wine is clearly younger than the previous wine. Dark red with no bricking, this wine is much fruitier. Sweet cherries and raspberries and dark chocolate dominate the nose. It shows a spiciness that wine #1 did not have. Jammy blackberries, black cherries, bittersweet chocolate, pencil lead and some glycerol make this wine much more Californian in style than the previous one. The alcohol is noticeable, but not off-putting. Young but still enjoyable, I think this one has enough fruit to age a few more years. My and the group's #3 wine of the night.14.2% abv Purchased $24. Good/Very Good (tasted 7/8/11)



2003 Canyon Wind Cellars, Cabernet Sauvignon, Grand Valley AVA, Colorado

Wine #3 was very similar to wine #2, but with one exception. Blackberries, cassis and cigar box on the nose screamed cabernet. The dark raspberries, currants, and smokey tobacco were enjoyable on the palate, but the mouth-puckering tannins and short finish kept this one from being as enjoyable as the others. This one is built to age and should be given time or a generous amount of time in a decanter. Did not impress too many of us, especially compared to the top 2 wines. This one was my and the group's #4 of the night.13.5% abv Purchased $24. Good (tasted 7/8/11)


 
2005 Canyon Wind Cellars, Cabernet Sauvignon, Grand Valley AVA, Colorado

Jumping ahead to the last wine of the night, this one was a stark contrast to the first wine. This wine is extremely dark purple. Aromas of black fruits, mocha, graphite and cedar fill the glass. Good fruit flavors of currants, raspberries and plums are met with hints of cedar and tobacco along with a good dollop of vanilla. Smooth, yet with assertive tannins, I think that this wine could be a good ringer in a flight of more expensive Napa cabs. My #2 of the night (by a hair), but the group's wine of the night.13.3% abv Sample $26. Very Good (tasted 7/8/11)



 
2006 Canyon Wind Cellars, Cabernet Sauvignon, Grand Valley AVA, Colorado

A bit of an aberration from the others, this wine was poured just before the 2005. Beautiful bright red/purple colors in the glass, this wine is all fruit. Cherries and strawberries and a bit of heat on the nose, this smells quite similar to a red Jolly rancher. Just as fruity on the palate, if I had no idea what this wine was I would peg it as an Australian grenache. This wine may not have the structure to age, but the bright fruits make this good to drink right now.13.9% abv Sample $26. Good (tasted 7/8/11)

The Fallacy of Wine Journalism

Last week, Mike Steinberger led a debate about whether wine critics are journalists on his blog, WINE DIARIST.com. This debate was partially triggered by the words and actions of Wine Advocate reviewer Antonio Galloni and former Wine Spectator founder James Suckling. Each has started for-profit ventures that involve tastings with high-profile winemakers. Suckling in particular has caught flack for charging both customers and producers to attend his event and for advertising the event under the guise of a Decanter report on the state of Brunello di Montalcino.

Many of the commenters on Steinberger's post suggested that critics and wine writers are journalists and should be held to the same ethical standards as magazine and newspaper reporters. One of the common points was that wine critics should remain objective in their jobs and adhere to a set ethical standards that ensure consumer confidence and trust. Journalists disseminate information. Wine critics disseminate opinion. Wine is subjective and consumers want "expert" opinion on which they can align their palates and pocketbooks. While some wine writers may be journalists, the vast majority are nothing more than pundits. Just as with the well-known political pundits, the bigger the name (and Suckling and Galloni are pretty big names) the more rocks that are thrown at them. I am not trying denigrate these wine pundits. In fact, while I do not claim to be in the same class of pundits that I read most (Joe Roberts, Steve Heimoff, W. Blake Gray, Jeff Siegel, et al.), this blog does offer punditry like the others. I will make no claim for the opinions and agendas that other "writers" advance, but I do not hide the fact that I advocate for Colorado wines and not being afraid of what's on wine a label. While I focus on Colorado, I do not limit myself to only Colorado because I believe that it is important to reasonably place Colorado wines in the larger context of the wine industry.

Furthermore, the one agenda common to each critic, professional or amateur, is self-promotion. Whether he wants to make money by selling subscriptions to his website or she just wants to share her thoughts on wine with family and friends, we all want to be read and/or heard. Some writers focus on regions or wines dear to them (or their audience) while others mock those who attempt to be heard. Regardless, we all are promoting wine and all voices are welcome in the world of wine punditry. The greater the diversity of opinion, the stronger the debate about wine. If we debate enough, we might just break down the barriers intimidate the potential wine drinker.

Just as with modern "journalism" (see most major 24-hr "news" organizations), the reporting of simple fact is a minor component in the world of wine writing. Nevertheless, we can and should have ethical standards to which we are held. These standards will vary from pundit to pundit, but as Joe Roberts and others have so wisely advised is the need for transparency. Let the readers decide if they value your opinion. The explosion of wine punditry has allowed wine to be more popular and of a higher quality than any time in history. Keep up the good work, pundits!

Hype of 2009

With most of the big name wine critics such as Robert Parker, James Suckling and James Molesworth (well not all the big names as Joe Roberts was in South America) heading to Bordeaux recently to taste the much hyped 2010 vintage barrel samples, I thought that it was time to try the previous "vintage of the century" from one year prior. Both 2009 Bordeaux and Beaujolais were even more critically acclaimed than initial prognostications of Bordeaux 2010. Driven by demand in China, the top chateaus of Bordeaux have reached record prices to go with the record scores. Robert Parker gave 2009 Beaujolais its best vintage rating ever, at 97 pts. Parker even had to add asterisks to his scores indicate that the 2009 Bordeaux wines were some of the best Bordeaux he had ever tried. It seems obvious that almost any of these wines should be exceptional!

However, most regular consumers, including myself, will never drink those top Bordeaux wines lauded by these elite critics. Beaujolais is another story. While many people probably think of the colorful bottles of Noveau that hit the shelves every November, top Beaujolais are more economically accessible than even moderately priced Bordeaux. To see what all the hype was about with the 2009 vintage in these two regions, I headed to my local liquor store to buy one bottle of each type.

2009 Grand Bateau, Bordeaux

This blend of 75% Merlot and 25% Cabernet Sauvignon is as entry level of a Bordeaux as one can get. At under $10 retail, this type of Bordeaux is what most consumers will have experience with. Not to be confused with Chateau Beychevelle, the classified chateau in St. Julien, as this bottle is adorned with an image of the same boat that adorns the grand vin. Unfortunately, this wine does not approach the quality of such a wine and isn't even listed on the Beychevelle website. It is a dark, almost beet-like purple color and smells very grapey, no doubt because it is so young, but I also smell notes of blackberries and cocoa powder. It is even less complex once you taste it. I struggled, but associated flavors of dark chocolate and tobacco with this wine, but can only describe it as little more than tannic purple water. I will definitely have to move up the ladder with my next 2009 Bordeaux purchase.12.5% abv Purchased $10. Fair/Average (tasted 2/24/11)

2009 Domaine du Vissoux, Cuvée Traditionnelle vielles-vignes, Beaujolais

This Gamay is more than a step up from your quaffable Beaujolais Noveau. While it is a dark crimson in color, it has very light cranberry and strawberry aromas behind the powerful floral bouquet. There is also a hint of earthiness on the nose that is almost Pinot Noir-like. In the mouth it is tart. Cranberries, tart strawberries and even lemons dominate. The earthiness is still present will a bit of mushrooms showing through. While a bit tart (which should fade with some bottle age) this wine is tasty. I look forward to trying more 2009 Beaujolais.11.5% abv Purchased $16. Good/Very Good (tasted 2/26/11)

Grade inflation

In addition to my wildly successful wine writing career (ha!), I am an adjunct environmental science/geography instructor at area universities. One thing that my students often complain to me about is that I am tough grader.  I am a firm believer that most people are average (myself included). A smaller percentage are above average and a select few are exceptional. Much to the chagrin of my students, this philosophy is reflected in my grading. In a way, I am glad that our American society has taught us to think that we are the best of the best, but only when we strive to achieve excellence instead of simply expecting it. So many students expect to receive "A" grades. It is sad when a "B" is now considered a subpar grade. When did above average become a bad thing? A "C" is the kiss of death to one's GPA.

I am seeing the same grade inflation when it comes to wine scores. Maybe I'm just a grade inflation curmudgeon but I can't stand how many 90+ scores are out there! Now, I am not a believer in points, though I will admit I am intrigued and perhaps easily departed with my money when I see a high (94+) score. For this reason, amongst others, I prefer the terms flawed, average, good, very good, exceptional (and perhaps if ever review a transcendental wine I will have to add a new term) instead of numerical ratings. Saying that a wine is good sounds so much better than giving a wine 83 points. I know most people only publish the highest scores so as to not bruise the delicate winery ego by saying, "I'm 74 points on that" (there is nothing wrong with being average, unless you think that you are making amazing wines or you're a salesperson!). I think more lower scores need to be published because you can find a 90+ score for almost any wine (ahem, J. Newman). Perhaps if the public sees lots of low 80s scores for XYZ Winery and only one 93 by Joe Schmoe they might actually be better informed consumers. You don't see school teachers only count and return A-worthy assignments to students! Unfortunately, giving A grades is easier than dealing with the consequences (such as only 77% of students pass the military's enlistment exam).

I think that a big part of the score/James Suckling debate that has picked up in recent weeks (e.g., here, here and here) goes hand in hand with the grade inflation epidemic that has swept through the industry. Such is the power that democratic sites like CellarTracker/GrapeStories offer against the reigning wine dictators. So many people are peeved when Jay Bob Pucklingchuk gives a wine 96 points, but it doesn't match their palate. Perhaps if people read the prose that accompanied the score they might have determined that they in fact don't like blackberry liqueur and vanilla cherry cola in their Riedel. Also, comments on why a grade was earned is much better feedback than just a simple numerical grade. In school, you can figure out which teachers are easy graders and which are the tough ones. While it is nice to get a good grade without working hard, do you actually improve yourself (or I have I been misinformed that is the purpose of education)? I argue that we should seek out those tough graders so that we can actually improve our wine education.