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??).

Use of Various Winemaking Terms on Labels

Last week, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) published a solicitation for public comments on proposed rule changes in the Federal Register. The majority of the rule changes focus on the use of the term "Estate" on labels and in advertisements. Currently, only the term "Estate Bottled" is defined. Right now, "Estate Bottled" may be used by a winery only if the wine is labeled with an AVA and the bottling winery is located in the labeled AVA, grew all of the grapes used to make the wine on land owned or controlled by the winery within the boundaries of the labeled AVA and crushed the grapes, fermented the resulting must, and finished, aged, and bottled the wine in a continuous process. Any other use of the word "Estate" on wine labels is not regulated. Wineries with the word "Estate" in their name, or that use it in any other way may be affected by any subsequent rules changes.

Other terms that the TTB requested comment on include: "Vintner Grown," "Proprietor Grown," "Vineyard," "Orchard," "Ranch," "Proprietors Blend," "Old Vine," "Barrel Fermented," "Old Clone," "Reserve," "Select Harvest," "Bottle Aged," and "Barrel Select." Perhaps the most used of these terms is "Reserve." This term is meant to indicate a wine that is special but it has no universally-accepted definition. The state of Washington is the only U.S. wine region to define "Reserve." In 1999, Washington defined "Reserve" wines as being no more than 10% (up to 3000 cases) of a winery's production and indicating that the winemaker believes this wine has a higher quality than most wines from the winery. "Reserve" has been defined in Spanish, Italian and other European wine regions.

While no changes are currently proposed, the idea is certainly out there and should create quite a wave in the wine industry. Wineries that use the terms listed above could have a lot at stake if the TTB decides that further regulation is necessary. How should "Reserve" be defined? What other terms do you think need to be defined and regulated?