Wine Advocate to start winery consulting service

A new consulting service, "Wine Benchmarking" by Robert Parker's Wine Advocate, being launched this fall was introduced to the Colorado wine industry. I've reached out to Editor-in-Chief Lisa Perrotti-Brown and will update this post with more information when/if I get it.

Described in the announcement, the Wine Advocate is providing detailed advice to wineries for $800 per winery. For this fee, wineries will get two of their wines assessed by Wine Advocate reviewers and receive two tickets to a "Wine Benchmarking Seminar" in February 2018. Additional wines for evaluation may be submitted subject to availability and volume pricing is available on request. It appears that the main difference between this evaluation and the normal published evaluation is that wineries will receive personalized notification of where their wines sit qualitatively to their peers. The Wine Advocate reviewers will also provide specific actionable advice that may be taken in the vineyard and winery to address detected shortcomings - as well as possible opportunities for future wine quality enhancement. This information will be provided to wineries in confidential, sealed envelopes after February's seminar.

It would appear to me that this new service may result in a new direction from the fiercely independent critical approach Mr. Parker has espoused for years. However, this publication is Mr. Parker's now in name only. I am all for wineries hiring consultants to help with their businesses, but I don't see how an independent critic can start taking money from those he/she is reviewing and still claim complete separation from the trade. I can't imagine how this statement: "it is imperative that I keep a distance from the trade. While this may be misinterpreted as aloofness, such independence guarantees hard‑hitting, candid, and uninfluenced commentary" remains on the Writers Ethics page on RobertParker.com form much longer.

Don't get me wrong, as a proponent of small regional wineries, I think this could be a great opportunity for wineries to improve their wine quality, improve their scores and increase sales. Yet, shouldn't this kind of feedback be what wine reviews are all about in the first place? I've been advocating that all regional wineries submit wines for critical review to Wine Advocate, Wine Enthusiast, and Wine Spectator. Critical feedback is very important to the wine industry. So is for-hire consulting services. My personal hunch is Mr. Parker had nothing to do with this. 

Dr. Harry Oldman on replacing Jeb Dunnuck in the Wine Advocate

Dr. Harry Oldman has been quiet for quite sometime here on the blog, but he hasn't quit quite yet. His last appearance was his rant on Andy Warhol wines a little over two years ago. He recently asked if he could respond to the paparazzi rumor mill about his supposed impending employment at a renowned wine publication (other than this one). I don't normally dabble in speculation, but I figure I should give the old man a chance to set the record straight.

It may seem as if I have been laying low for awhile now, but I actually been working real hard in the wine industry. I was quite surprised that I was able to gain employment in the wine industry with my background as a blogger. We all know wine bloggers never amount to anything in the wine industry.

Ever since January 21, I've been working as communications director and press secretary for a major East Coast winery. I know what you're thinking - East Coast wine is an oxymoron, kind of like affordable Napa Cab or affordable health care. But after working at the highest levels of the greatest winery on Earth, I've had change of heart - granted it was a medically necessary heart transplant - about non-California wines.

I was having dinner with my friends Jared and Sergei one evening last December when they told me that their boss' hand-picked personal assistant wanted me to be the public face of his I mean his son's winery. I've been busy ever since giving daily briefings to the Atlantic Coast wine media. I've of course banned all cameras and bloggers (No Fake Media Allowed) from attending, but Jim Acosta and Jay McInerney, who is usually drunk or high, show up everyday. I suppose dealing with these two losers is a part of making wine great again.

I've been amazed with how I've gone from being a retired computational physicist to being stalked by the wine paparazzi on the Interwebs. This rise of epic porportions almost didn't happen. I remember the day so clearly. August 22, 2016. That was the day I lost one of my best friends. He was there one day and gone the next. At my age it is bound to happen, but when a moderately notorious wine writer decides to stop writing about wine to write about Crooked Hillary it is a dark, dark day. I almost gave up wine myself. I was in a funk - thank god it wasn't a 12% Contra Costa Carignan-type funk - but an emotional funk that cracking open my 15-yr vertical of Harlan Estate was able to break. That's what friends like Jared and Sergei are for. Without them opening this backchannel for me I wouldn't be in the position I am in today.

And what position is that exactly? Well, approximately 12 people in the entire country have seen my name mentioned over on WineBerserkers.com as  the likely replacement for Jeb Dunnuck's beat in Robert Parker's Wine Advocate. Apparently Jeb decided that he actually wanted to review wine for consumers instead of traveling the world in the Singapore Dog, Pony and Wine Show. And what a pony he was. But now the speculation has turned to who will fill the heir apparent's shoes. Funny how my name got thrown into the mix. We must find the leakers! This is a big deal! Word even spread to the Robert Parker Bulletin Board. Now 14 people suspect that the one and only Dr. Harry Oldman will fill the bung-sized void to review the wines of Central California and the Rhône Valley.

Can you imagine a world in which that would actually happen? Oh boy, watch out when old Dr. Oldman strikes pen to paper in the fully made-over print editions with full-color photos, with over 25% more tasting notes and articles. I will personally guarantee that my writing will be more than 25% more colorful! If you thought the feud between the Hosemaster and Levi Dalton was epic, just you wait. I once saved Wine Spectator, why not add one more American literary icon to my resume?

Despite how much sense this move would make, I must deny this speculation. Seeing as I was instrumental in helping drive the creative direction of this site, it is possible I could have done the same for another even more prestigious wine publication. I can confidently say that I've been a wine journalist, editor and taster for over a decade and am a regular wine panelist, speaker and educator for events and organizations worldwide. Those qualifications alone would make me qualified to replace Jeb. Writing alongside Bob would give me a bigger podium from which to mock those who mock he who shall not be mocked.

No, Dr. Harry Oldman will not be replacing Jeb Dunnuck. Joe Czerwinski, former managing editor of Wine Enthusiast will be the new reviewer in Monkton. He will fit the corporate environment and bow down to the Master herself. For all those claiming end of days at the Wine Advocate better eat their shorts now. The ship has been righted and Joe will help Bob regain the glory of the early 1990s. This morning there is joy in Mudville! This all being said, I will not deny that I will not be joining the Wine Advocate in some capacity in the future. I better get back to my podium, I see McInerney waking up from his nap.

I will let the tweets speak for themselves.

Matt Kramer got it wrong about bullies who put down wine

Without wine lore, and wine tasting, and wine talk, and wine labels, and, yes, wine writing and rating—the whole elaborate idea of wine—we would still get drunk, but we would be merely drunk. The language of wine appreciation is there not because wine is such a special subtle challenge to our discernment but because without the elaborate language—without the idea of wine, held up and regularly polished—it would all be about the same, or taste that way. —Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker

Two days ago, in Wine Spectator, Matt Kramer penned a polemic against nameless skeptics of the sensory value of wine. In Kramer's defense, he attempted to use an article by Adam Gopnik (yes, I misspelled his name (twice) in a comment over on the Jackson Family Wines blog, and for that I apologize) in the The New Yorker as evidence this anti-intellectualism bullying. The problems with him basing his condemnation on Gopnik's article are twofold. First, the article is more than ten years old. If you haven't read it, I strongly suggest that you do so. Yes, it reads as if it were written yesterday (or maybe tomorrow) and that is the sign of a good writer. But nevertheless it was written at a different point along the wine industry continuum and was actually an editorial on the 2004 state of wine prompted by William Echikson's book, Noble Rot. Second, and more important, Kramer completely missed the point of Gopnik's article. Kramer chose to quote Gopnik out of context. He should have started his article with the full quote that I've provided above. Gopnik actually accomplished what Kramer was attempting to do by making the case that wine talk and wine description are an integral "part of what lets the experience happen."

Dr. Oldman channels Oprah to expose a doping scandal that will rock the wine world...

After his surprising Boxing Day interview, Dr. Harry Oldman thought that today would be the perfect day to share his next interview with us.

I had so much fun with my interview with my anonymous wine critic friend (though I hope the interview wasn't the real reason he is no longer a critic...), that I thought I'd try my hand again at asking another famous wine personality some tough questions. Bobby P and I go all the way back to his early days as the world's first blogger, a camp which I too have fallen into. Together, Bob and I would take on the heathens of the wine world on Prodigy's Wine Forum. It had been some time since we last talked, but I've long defended him from the many sheep of the Interwebs. When Bob agreed to sit down with me I decided that I had better improve my interview skills, so I watched countless hours of the best interviewer I could think of: Oprah. I've followed Oprah from her very start on AM Chicago, but spending a week straight of watching reruns gave me all the insight I'd need to make this a newsworthy interview sure to cause a ripple in the space-time-wine-blogger continuum. One day, I am sure that this interview will be as talked about as any interview Oprah did with Tom Cruise, Lance Armstrong or Lindsay Lohan. Make sure that you are sitting, because what I'm about to share with you will knock your tastevins off!

Do wine sales matter for writing wine blogs?

Yesterday, Joe Roberts wrote about one of the most commonly cited criticisms of wine blogs. An argument that many critics use to support their claim of wine blogs' insignificance is that blogs do not move consumers to buy wine and are thus useless to wineries trying to sell wine. I have no idea how many people use my blog to make purchase decisions, and frankly I do not care. I do know that I have purchased wines based on recommendations from other blogs, as well as recommendations from traditional wine publications (Wine Spectator, Wine Advocate, et al.). I buy wine for many different reasons.

Dr. Harry Oldman: Damn right all these teetotalers should get out of my vineyard!

I really didn't want to weigh in on the recent Robert Parker rant, and I won't, but my extern, Harry Oldman, insisted that I publish what he has to say. Please, I'm just the messenger, so don't shoot me!

I can't sit idle any more and watch an idol be dragged through the mud. When I read Robert M. Parker, Jr.'s "Article of Merit," I stood up an applauded. I said, "Well, Parker's the best critic in the game! When you try him with a sorry wine like crappy trebbiano, that's the result you gonna get! Don't you ever talk about him! Crappy trebbiano! Don't anyone open their mouth about the best, or Bob's gonna shut it for you real quick! Legion of Boom!" Granted, I was alone in my living room drinking a delicious 2007 Châteauneuf-du-Pape, but it's the thought that counts. My balls are big enough, and sag low enough, that I am not afraid to stand by my man!

Prognostications old, prognostications new... (A look back at 2013 and a peak at 2014)

A little over a year ago, I wrote an article outlining my five predictions for 2013. Today, I want to briefly examine those statements and make a few new guesses for 2014.

My first prediction came on the heels of Robert Parker, Jr. taking on foreign investors and yielding editorial control of the Wine Advocate to Lisa Perrotti-Brown, MW. Going against popular belief at the time, I said that the Wine Advocate would expand and increase its popularity. Well, I didn't quite nail this, but the publication did not shrivel up and die like many other people thought it would. Many wine aficionados still wait with anticipation for the release of each issue. Wine prices still jump when Parker (or his other reviewers) throw high numbers at already expensive wines. I still think Robert Parker and his henchmen will remain pertinent (but not dominant) in the American wine industry, but will look to expand to Asian markets as they rapidly grow.

My first prediction may have been a push, my second prediction was both spot on and a bust. I thought that regional wine, and especially Colorado, would see more coverage in the major publications (Wine Advocate and Wine Spectator). Wine Advocate maintained the status quo on ignoring wine from the other 47 states despite having a reviewer living in Colorado (Jeb Dunnuck) who is eager and willing to taste and review Colorado wine. Dunnuck had personally told me that he wanted to get CO reviews into the Wine Advocate, but "the powers that be" have squashed that idea.

The Wine Spectator actually took a step forward before jumping three steps back. In 2013 alone (prior to a policy change), Wine Spectator reviewed more than 115 Colorado wines, doubling the number of Colorado wines reviewed by the magazine the previous 20 years combined! Moreover, both James Moleworth and Harvey Steiman had written relatively positive blog posts about Colorado wine (read more on my take here). But unfortunately, the gains regional wine saw in 2013 looks to have all but evaporated going into 2014. An assistant tasting coordinator at Wine Spectator informed several Colorado wineries that Wine Spectator will "not [be] tasting any wines from Colorado at the moment. Furthermore, we have a new policy which requires all importers and wineries to send the info sheet with samples listed that they would like to submit and then they wait for our approval." For this, they were bestowed a Curmudgie by local and cheap wine proponent, Jeff Siegel. Unfortunately, I don't think regional wine will gain much traction with the large wine publications in 2014.

Sommelier Journal suspends publication

The world of writing has lost one of the best outlets for current, interesting and useful information pertaining to wine. Minutes ago, Sommelier Journal announced that it has "suspended publication." Perhaps the magazine is not completely dead as David Vogels, former editor and publisher of Sommelier Journal, said in the letter sent to its contributors (which includes yours truly), that his team is "currently negotiating with a group that hopes to purchase the title and resume publishing the magazine at some point within the next year." Subscribers will have the remainder of their subscriptions fulfilled by Wine & Spirits Magazine.

I contributed four articles (see other articles) and had several more scheduled for 2014, so this news comes as a shock and a disappointment to me personally. Though the magazine's intended audience was industry professionals, I thought many of the stories and profiles were great for general consumers and knowledgeable enthusiasts. Sommelier Journal wasn't beholden to advertisers (perhaps why it struggled economically) and that showed with its diverse stories on all things wine, spirits and beer. No region or wine was too small, unknown or unheralded to warrant attention. I think that openness is what made Sommelier Journal one of the better wine publications for learning something new rather than hearing the same thing repeated annually.

I can only hope that it is sold and rebooted, and I think the industry will be a better place if that were to happen. I can only speculate that Wine & Spirits is involved (based on the fact that they are honoring remaining SJ subscriptions and that Vogels recommends contacting Josh Greene at Wine & Spirits or Neil Beckett at The World of Fine Wine for pitching stories that were promised to SJ), but do not know for sure. If they are, it would be interesting to see how Sommelier Journal would fit into a roster of wine publications a la M. Shanken Publications. Again, that is only speculation.

The main matter of concern with the loss of Sommelier Journal is that it decreases the number of voices. One of the best parts of the wine writing world today is the shear number of diverse opinions, voices and opportunities for spreading information. Fewer paying, print publications is a bad thing for writers and readers. Sommelier Journal recently tried to take the leap digitally and expand services online, but apparently the the lack of advertisers and the small subscription base was not large enough to support the operation. Perhaps this was the reason that Wine Advocate (which did not accept paid advertisements) took on investors. Wine Enthusiast and Wine Spectator both must obviously make a fair profit from their advertisements. I'm not claiming that Sommelier Journal was as large or as influential as those major publications, but it was no less important and that is something to be sad about.

Regional Wine Week, version 2013...

Yesterday marked the beginning of the 2013 edition of Regional Wine Week. This sixth annual event was started by DrinkLocalWine.com, a non-profit organization dedicated to "wines from lesser known areas — not because we don’t like California, Oregon or Washington wines, but they get plenty of coverage in the major wine magazines." Regional Wine Week is a chance for writers, bloggers or just regular consumers to share their thoughts and experiences on regional wine with the world. Accompanying Regional Wine Week this year is a photo contest. You can participate in the contest by sharing a picture, or three, on DLW's Facebook page. It can be a photo from a visit to one of your favorite local wineries or a bottle of regional wine you recently enjoyed with a good meal. Just take a picture, describe it in less than 100 words, and post it to their Facebook wall for all of their friends to see, like, share, and comment on. Include the hash-tag #DrinkLocalWine with each entry so everyone can easily find your post.

I'd also ask you to do two things for Regional Wine Week. First, share a bottle of wine from one of your favorite local wineries with someone that might not be familiar with it, or even familiar with that region. Recommendations from friends can be very powerful. It doesn't take a positive critical review from Wine Advocate or Wine Spectator to make a wine worth drinking. In fact, those reviews might be harder to come by for regional wineries as Wine Spectator recently changed its policy on sample submissions and will no longer accept wines without prior approval from the tasting department. This means wines that aren't widely available across the country (i.e., small, family-owned regional wineries) won't as easily get in front of James Molesworth to be reviewed. This may not seem like a big deal, but it is another impediment for regional wineries to join the mainstream wine industry. If you have a local wine that you think your friends might enjoy, they'd probably take your recommendation over Molesworth's anyway.

My second request is to try a new wine from a local winery or from a region which you may have not yet tasted. There are always new wineries starting up, so finding a new winery might not be as difficult as you think. However, finding the wine might be. Today's no-name winery could be tomorrow's Screaming Eagle. Go to your local wine shop and ask for something local. If they don't carry any, suggest that should and tell them you'll be back to buy some when they do. Or better yet, look up wineries near you. You might be surprised to see a winery just down the street. Go in and visit them in person. Small wineries love to meet their local customers. Also, don't be afraid to try a unusual variety or blend. Many wineries not bordering the Pacific Ocean make different wines than you'd find in traditional wine country. If the wine is good, let them know by buying a few bottles. If the wine isn't so good, let them know as well. Be nice about it, but constructive criticism is the only way some wineries will be pushed to improve their product. Too often people do not let winemakers know when their wine isn't up to par. Also, never feel obligated to buy a bottle of wine that you don't like.

If enough people do these two little things (share a bottle with a friend and try a new wine or winery) it can make a real difference to regional wine as a whole. All 50 states have wineries and half of the country's wineries are located in a place other than California. These wineries just need a little encourage and support to make a name for themselves. And that is what Regional Wine Week is all about.

The most interesting, imaginative and intelligent wine publication...

There are lots of wine publications floating around, both in paper and digital formats. Decanter, Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Advocate are probably considered the most influential and most dominant wine glossies aimed at consumers. Though they all contain articles about people, places and various lifestyle topics, their raison d'être is reviewing wine and distilling the wine down to a numerical shorthand (all now use the 100-point system) that supposedly corresponds to quality. The editors may claim that the score is secondary to the actual review, but those periodicals are most cited by consumers and retailers in connection with just the ratings, often times with the actual arbiter of the score detached from his or her decree.

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?

A Good Wine Seldom Mentioned Is Soon Forgotten

As I begin to read Doug Shafer's A Vineyard in Napa, a motto he attributes to his father, John, and founder of the renowned Shafer Vineyards made me think of the current debate about the state of wine criticism. "A good wine seldom mentioned is soon forgotten." To me, this maxim speaks volumes to me about how both we as writers/critics and consumers talk about wine.

The Wine World is Changing and Some Wine Writers ARE Losing It (Influence, that is...)

One of the favorite discussion items in the wine industry of late revolves around changes in wine criticism. Some recognize changes and others hold on to the belief that wine writing is a static enterprise. In the past few years, the rise of wine bloggers has caused traditional writers to get a bit defensive. This rise in the democratization of information is upsetting the critical dictators. Those in the ivory towers continue to say that wine criticism and the traditional media in which it has been conveyed is stronger than ever. Those that say otherwise are attacked as losing their minds. Regardless of the ridiculous amount of navel gazing going on, the short and skinny of it is simple: yes, the wine industry is changing and the role of wine criticism is a big part of that change. To say otherwise is to proclaim your stubbornness (or ignorance).

Steve Heimoff doesn't like me...

Last week, Steve Heimoff wrote a book review of two new books. In the review, he accused Jancis Robinson and Linda Murphy of receiving money for placing labels in their soon-to-be-released American Wine. He also gets in a bit of name-calling as he says Robinson's name is "over-exposed," but that is not my fight to fight. Though I do not agree with is opinion of the content of the book, he is more than welcome to it. However, Heimoff seems content to only make mention the California regions he surrounds himself with, and I have to wonder (I’m just raising the question, not making any allegations) if Heimoff actually read the whole book. It is pretty sleezy to review a book without actually reading it.

A different 100-pt system compromise...

Image from http://www.arvi.ch/

Amongst the few of us who write about wine, the 100-pt system is a contentious topic. There are many reasons that people like me don't like it; it projects a false sense of precision, it implies a false notion of objectivity, it removes context from a highly contextual product, and of course there is the issue of score inflation. Oh, sure there are many other problems, but those were the ones I could easily think of off the top of my head.

With the release of the Wine Advocate issue #204 a few weeks ago, the problem of score inflation has come to a head. Mike Steinberger wrote a great piece about it on his WineDiarist blog and Antonio Galloni even chimed in on a heated discussion over on the WineBerserkers forum. To summarize the latest “scandal,” Galloni handed out 95-100 point scores to almost a quarter of the 2010 Napa Valley wines he reviewed. Robert Parker added 17 100-point scores from the Rhône Valley from the 2009-2011 vintages. Just in the past year, Parker has given 100-pt scores to more than 50 wines from Bordeaux, Napa and the Rhône! Perfection (and near perfection) aren’t that hard to come by anymore. Apparently it isn’t obvious to Galloni and Parker that giving too many high scores is going to make high scores meaningless. Like the boy who cried wolf, this duo is quickly turning into the critics who cried classic!

So I lied... (or at least a change of heart)

Yesterday, I tweeted that I was abstaining from writing a blog post about Robert Parker, Jr.'s announcement regarding the changes taking place at the Wine Advocate. I had a change of heart. This seemingly game-changing news story has been so blown out of proportion that I figured I had to throw my two cents (and common sense) into the bloggers' ring of buffoonery. Yes, the way this announcement was handled could have been improved, but that seems to be Lettie Teague's fault (which comes back to Parker for personally selecting her to write the story). Aside from that, this news isn't really worthy of the massive attention it has received.

Showing Colorado some wine love

It is not often that you see wine regions other than the big four (California, New York, Oregon or Washington) mentioned in the national media spotlight. Combined, those four states make up over 97% of U.S. wine production. The other 92% of states account only 3% of domestic wine production, so it kind of makes sense that they don't get a lot of press. As a result, it is a big deal when states like Colorado share the spotlight with the big states.

I ain't afraid of no ghosts (or Nine Walks Sauvignon Blanc)

As I read a few old wine-related articles on the Internet this past week, two things struck me. First is the continual discussion about ethics and disclosure by wine writers. I reread Dr. Vino's post examining how much Robert Parker, Jr. supposedly spends on wine each year for review in his Wine Advocate. The common theme in the comments thread and many other blog posts since was that most people don't care if writers receive free samples or even trips. The thing that readers want is transparency and disclosure of a publication's policies (and I include blogs as publications). If you accept wine, money or other "services" to publish, don't pretend that you don't. If a reviewer is honest about his or her relationship with the wines and wineries he or she reviews, consumers will be able to judge the content on its merits and not suspect a hidden nefarious agenda.

However, the other side of coin reveals that some people believe that bloggers are shills that only give positive reviews to keep receiving free samples. The argument is that you never hear critics bashing wines when they drink with the winemakers, or when we lowly bloggers receive samples. Some might even give good reviews to keep the samples coming and are afraid to admit they didn't like a wine. Well, I have no problem with doing so. A few weeks ago, I received a sample of Nine Walks Sauvignon Blanc from the Baddish Group in New York. I don't want to suggest that others won't like the wine, but I did not. In fact, a very similar sauvignon blanc was deemed best white at the NextGeneration Wine Competition. I did not like that New Zealand sauvignon blanc either. Actually, google the wine and you will find more than a handful of other bloggers that also posted (almost unanimously positive) reviews about the same samples. Both my wife and I barely could finish our glasses and we gave the bottle to my mother-in-law who did not find it as offensive. I'm sorry that I did not like the wine, but if a winery or public relations company wants my opinion, I'm going to give it.

2010 Nine Walks Sauvignon Blanc, Marlborough, New Zealand

I love screw caps and this wine does not disappoint in the ease of opening. It pours a normal bright yellow color. Only when I put my nose in the glass do I begin to wonder if I will like the wine. The usual grass and lime aromas are quickly overpowered by lots of green pepper. Not bad in and of itself, but when all I can taste is acidic and unripe green bell pepper and bitter asparagus. I know that New Zealand sauvignon blancs are known for those traits, but I prefer more mineral and grapefruit flavors as opposed to unripe vegetables. I actually left my glass to sit for an hour with the hope that the greenness would blow off. Nope, still undrinkable. We put the remaining 3/4 of a bottle in the fridge knowing that my mother-in-law was coming over the next night. Now, she's not a wine drinker, but does enjoy a glass of vino here and there. I let her try a sip before pawning it off on her and her response was that she might be able to cook with it. I do not recommend this wine and in fact, this was probably one of the worst wines I've tasted in the past few months. But, like I said, others might like this grassy and green style (see NextGen Competition) so take my advice with a grain of salt. 12.7% alc Sample $11. Below Average

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.