This weekend, a colleague of mine introduced me to a friend of his at the third annual Colorado Urban Winefest. Part of his introduction include a reference to my wine writing. He referred to me as an "antagonistic blogger." Both of those terms are used pejoratively in the world of wine writing. Now I have no problem being called a blogger. I write about wine on this blog. I have also contributed to Palate Press, Sommelier Journal, Wine Spectator and Decanter. So I am a wine blogger, and I also consider myself a wine writer.
A website devoted to Colorado Wine and beyond.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Wine as a food or a lifestyle?
In the New York Times last week, Eric Asimov wrote an article about how little consumers pay attention to what ingredients are actually in wine. This article sparked a 6-page long (and still going) thread on the Wineberskers online forum about ingredient listings on labels and was the catalyst for a multi-day Twitter discussion between Bruce Schoenfeld, Keith Levenberg and myself (there were a few others in there, but those were the principals) about marketing wine as a food. Asimov pointed in his article out that Americans "weigh the nutritional, environmental, humanitarian, aesthetic and even political consequences of what they cook and consume," but do not do the same for wine. He concluded that perhaps if we were to start considering wine as a food that "standards for quality and authenticity" may start playing a part in wine consumers' purchasing decisions. I figured that this post would be much more conducive to laying out my argument than the restrictive nature of Twitter.
I actually disagree with Asimov on two points. First, many, many Americans don't give two seconds worth of thought about any consequences of what they eat. More than one in three Americans is obese; and that number is rising every year. Cheap and easy is easily more important to more people than any nutritional, environmental, humanitarian, aesthetic and even political consequence of food (or food-like product). Why would people care what is in their wine when products like sodas, hot dogs and chips are considered a traditional American meal. How many people look at the ingredient lists of those foods? Those three "foods" aren't even food. Now don't get me wrong, I've consumed all three in the last week, so I definitely live in a glass house. But wine is already confusing enough to the average consumer that they don't want to think about what's in their bottle of chardonnay.
On top of that, and as Asimov started his article, wine is still considered to be "natural" product. I don't have the numbers to back me up, but I'd be willing to bet that most people think only grapes are used to make wine. Just as when you buy an apple or orange juice, you probably assume that's all you're getting. I think people actually consider wine a food. People might like chardonnay more than merlot just like they like Golden Delicious more than MacIntosh. Perhaps wine is not thought as a natural accompaniment to the nightly dinner table (well, Europeans might, but not most Americans), but neither are apples. Consumers also think of wine as a glamorous lifestyle choice. But can wine be both?
When I saw Bruce Schoenfeld (who I often agree with, but love to argue with) tweet, "promoting wine as a lifestyle adjunct comes at the expense of promoting it as a staple food ... Not saying one or the other is better, but they're kind of mutually exclusive," I had to jump into the discussion. Bruce (for some reason I just can refer to him as Schoenfeld) was hitting on the point in Asimov's article that treating wine as a food would cause more consumers to care about the ingredients that go into making a bottle of wine (not all remain in the finished wine). Asimov and Bruce both are correct in there assessment that in America wine is most often marketed as an aspirational product and not generic food. "Drink my wine because it'll make you fun or make you more alluring," is the premise of most wine ads. There is the occasional, "drinking my wine will make you feel like you're at this beautiful, pastoral place when you're just on your couch." But by and large there is no "Got Wine?" campaign in the United States. There is no push to make a place for wine on your dinner table.
That's not to say there couldn't be. And that happens to be my main point in my argument with Bruce. He can think what he wants, and I'd love to shake the hand of a person that has actually changed Bruce's mind. Commodity and luxury are not mutually or intrinsically exclusive of each other. Why do people buy those asinine 2002 Chevrolet Earnhardt Signature Monte Carlos? The car itself serves the same purpose of a regular Monte Carlo, but offers the aspiration to be like a NASCAR driver (yay, I know how to make left turns...). Same could be said about designer jeans or lots of other products. Even foods like bison, heirloom tomatoes and farm-fresh eggs could be considered luxury staple foods. Marketing wine as a generic foodstuff and a glamorous aspirational good can and does happen.
Does it happen often in the U.S.? Nope. But travel to Europe. In Spain, ask for a glass of tinto at a bar and you'll be brought a glass of red wine and a tapa. The bartender most likely will not tell you anything about the wine. The wine's brand is a mystery, yet the brand exists. And I'm sure the winery that made that wine has several other wines that they market as a premium wine. Wine is both a staple food and an aspirational good in Europe. I've only spent an evening in France (and I ate pizza...) and never been to Italy, but I've heard anecdotes about house wine there too being just a generic wine.
Some restaurants in the U.S. also have brand-less house wines, but wine is definitely on fewer tables. My in-laws drink lots of house wine. They don't care what brand it is, they just order a glass of white wine at a restaurant. The fact that many fewer tables are graced by wine is not from wine being inherently incompatible as a lifestyle good and a staple food, but more from America's puritanical history. European history is steeped in wine. American history is not. In fact, it was outlawed for more than 13 years less than a century ago. Nudity and sex are also taboo in the U.S. (though slowly becoming less so) whereas in Europe or Asia the naked body or a sexual act is not something mutually exclusive from decency. Our culture is the reason wine is not usually considered a nightly dinner accompaniment. Marketers in the U.S. know this and have used the wine as a lifestyle campaign to their advantage. But that's not to say wine couldn't be marketed as a food. Wineries would just be barking up a tall tree if they were to attempt that approach.
Though someday the wine as a food campaign may not be so difficult in America. Take the Drink Local Wine movement. All 50 states now have wineries. Today, America wine isn't as much as a special product from the mystical land of California, but something that is much more approachable. Much of the argument for local wine supporters is that wine can be every bit as local as local cheese or local vegetables. Local wine should be considered (considered, not mandatory) when thinking about eating locally. The locapour crowd is much more wine as a food oriented than people that only want to drink top Napa or Bordeaux wineries. Yet, the locavore movement is also about aspiring to a certain lifestyle. And so the circle continues...
I actually disagree with Asimov on two points. First, many, many Americans don't give two seconds worth of thought about any consequences of what they eat. More than one in three Americans is obese; and that number is rising every year. Cheap and easy is easily more important to more people than any nutritional, environmental, humanitarian, aesthetic and even political consequence of food (or food-like product). Why would people care what is in their wine when products like sodas, hot dogs and chips are considered a traditional American meal. How many people look at the ingredient lists of those foods? Those three "foods" aren't even food. Now don't get me wrong, I've consumed all three in the last week, so I definitely live in a glass house. But wine is already confusing enough to the average consumer that they don't want to think about what's in their bottle of chardonnay.
On top of that, and as Asimov started his article, wine is still considered to be "natural" product. I don't have the numbers to back me up, but I'd be willing to bet that most people think only grapes are used to make wine. Just as when you buy an apple or orange juice, you probably assume that's all you're getting. I think people actually consider wine a food. People might like chardonnay more than merlot just like they like Golden Delicious more than MacIntosh. Perhaps wine is not thought as a natural accompaniment to the nightly dinner table (well, Europeans might, but not most Americans), but neither are apples. Consumers also think of wine as a glamorous lifestyle choice. But can wine be both?
When I saw Bruce Schoenfeld (who I often agree with, but love to argue with) tweet, "promoting wine as a lifestyle adjunct comes at the expense of promoting it as a staple food ... Not saying one or the other is better, but they're kind of mutually exclusive," I had to jump into the discussion. Bruce (for some reason I just can refer to him as Schoenfeld) was hitting on the point in Asimov's article that treating wine as a food would cause more consumers to care about the ingredients that go into making a bottle of wine (not all remain in the finished wine). Asimov and Bruce both are correct in there assessment that in America wine is most often marketed as an aspirational product and not generic food. "Drink my wine because it'll make you fun or make you more alluring," is the premise of most wine ads. There is the occasional, "drinking my wine will make you feel like you're at this beautiful, pastoral place when you're just on your couch." But by and large there is no "Got Wine?" campaign in the United States. There is no push to make a place for wine on your dinner table.
That's not to say there couldn't be. And that happens to be my main point in my argument with Bruce. He can think what he wants, and I'd love to shake the hand of a person that has actually changed Bruce's mind. Commodity and luxury are not mutually or intrinsically exclusive of each other. Why do people buy those asinine 2002 Chevrolet Earnhardt Signature Monte Carlos? The car itself serves the same purpose of a regular Monte Carlo, but offers the aspiration to be like a NASCAR driver (yay, I know how to make left turns...). Same could be said about designer jeans or lots of other products. Even foods like bison, heirloom tomatoes and farm-fresh eggs could be considered luxury staple foods. Marketing wine as a generic foodstuff and a glamorous aspirational good can and does happen.
Does it happen often in the U.S.? Nope. But travel to Europe. In Spain, ask for a glass of tinto at a bar and you'll be brought a glass of red wine and a tapa. The bartender most likely will not tell you anything about the wine. The wine's brand is a mystery, yet the brand exists. And I'm sure the winery that made that wine has several other wines that they market as a premium wine. Wine is both a staple food and an aspirational good in Europe. I've only spent an evening in France (and I ate pizza...) and never been to Italy, but I've heard anecdotes about house wine there too being just a generic wine.
Some restaurants in the U.S. also have brand-less house wines, but wine is definitely on fewer tables. My in-laws drink lots of house wine. They don't care what brand it is, they just order a glass of white wine at a restaurant. The fact that many fewer tables are graced by wine is not from wine being inherently incompatible as a lifestyle good and a staple food, but more from America's puritanical history. European history is steeped in wine. American history is not. In fact, it was outlawed for more than 13 years less than a century ago. Nudity and sex are also taboo in the U.S. (though slowly becoming less so) whereas in Europe or Asia the naked body or a sexual act is not something mutually exclusive from decency. Our culture is the reason wine is not usually considered a nightly dinner accompaniment. Marketers in the U.S. know this and have used the wine as a lifestyle campaign to their advantage. But that's not to say wine couldn't be marketed as a food. Wineries would just be barking up a tall tree if they were to attempt that approach.
Though someday the wine as a food campaign may not be so difficult in America. Take the Drink Local Wine movement. All 50 states now have wineries. Today, America wine isn't as much as a special product from the mystical land of California, but something that is much more approachable. Much of the argument for local wine supporters is that wine can be every bit as local as local cheese or local vegetables. Local wine should be considered (considered, not mandatory) when thinking about eating locally. The locapour crowd is much more wine as a food oriented than people that only want to drink top Napa or Bordeaux wineries. Yet, the locavore movement is also about aspiring to a certain lifestyle. And so the circle continues...
Monday, June 3, 2013
A (sort of) defense of the proposed new BAL standard
Blake Gray should lay off the hyperbole pills. Of course his blog views might decline a bit, but his posts might be a bit more believable if he did (I happen to agree with lots of what Blake says, but I don't mind throwing stones at CA writers' hornets nests). Last week, he wrote a few posts about what he called a "Draconian DUI proposal." If you haven't already read about the NTSB's recommendation to create a nationwide 0.05% blood-alcohol level limit that would change the legal drunk driving standard. Gray claims that such a change could "put an end to dining out as we currently know it."
Now, I'm not a proponent of the proposal, but I do know that lowering the BAL from 0.08% to 0.05% would definitely not put an end to dining out. In fact, I am going to make a factless claim that very little would change. The calculation of blood alcohol content is only possible on a case by case basis, so it is hard to say exactly what this lowering of the limit would mean in terms of actual consumption, but as a general estimate only one drink per hour will make a average sized person legally intoxicated whereas currently it takes about two drinks per hour. Perhaps a few law-abiding citizens would order fewer drinks and a restaurant might lose a couple of bucks. Probably not.
A few more people might get pulled over and issued DUI citations, but are the impairment differences between 0.08 and 0.05 really that dramatic that law enforcement officials will notice that many more people driving under the influence? Probably not.
I doubt that the recommendation will see the light of day. After all, the NTSB has no jurisdiction to lower the BAL. That power rests with each state. And since when do all the states get in line and voluntarily do the same thing? Now, if changes in highway funding were tied to lowering the legal limit, then we might see some action.
I am confident that nothing will come of this draconian proposal because it is unpatriotic. I am sure that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann will rise to the occasion and keep us from turning into Europe. After all, every European country, except for the United Kingdom, have BAL standards at or below 0.05%! And Russia, of all places, has a zero tolerance. Perhaps Palin will be patriotic enough to call for increasing the legal limit back to 0.1% just so we're less like her neighbors across the strait. If you ever watched any of those Russian dash-cam videos on Youtube can make your own assumptions on how the zero-tolerance thing is working out...
So sleep well tonight, Blake, dining out as we currently know it can be taken of the endangered activity list.
Now, I'm not a proponent of the proposal, but I do know that lowering the BAL from 0.08% to 0.05% would definitely not put an end to dining out. In fact, I am going to make a factless claim that very little would change. The calculation of blood alcohol content is only possible on a case by case basis, so it is hard to say exactly what this lowering of the limit would mean in terms of actual consumption, but as a general estimate only one drink per hour will make a average sized person legally intoxicated whereas currently it takes about two drinks per hour. Perhaps a few law-abiding citizens would order fewer drinks and a restaurant might lose a couple of bucks. Probably not.
A few more people might get pulled over and issued DUI citations, but are the impairment differences between 0.08 and 0.05 really that dramatic that law enforcement officials will notice that many more people driving under the influence? Probably not.
I doubt that the recommendation will see the light of day. After all, the NTSB has no jurisdiction to lower the BAL. That power rests with each state. And since when do all the states get in line and voluntarily do the same thing? Now, if changes in highway funding were tied to lowering the legal limit, then we might see some action.
I am confident that nothing will come of this draconian proposal because it is unpatriotic. I am sure that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann will rise to the occasion and keep us from turning into Europe. After all, every European country, except for the United Kingdom, have BAL standards at or below 0.05%! And Russia, of all places, has a zero tolerance. Perhaps Palin will be patriotic enough to call for increasing the legal limit back to 0.1% just so we're less like her neighbors across the strait. If you ever watched any of those Russian dash-cam videos on Youtube can make your own assumptions on how the zero-tolerance thing is working out...
So sleep well tonight, Blake, dining out as we currently know it can be taken of the endangered activity list.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Deep, honest thoughts are always soulful (the importance of words)
Earlier this week, I was part of a twitter discussion about the use of figurative language in wine writing sparked by Alder Yarrow's description of wines as being "honest, soulful." What is an honest wine, you ask? Well, of course it is a wine that doesn't try to be something it isn't. Is describing wine in that way really useful? The honesty of a wine is purely subjective, but then again any description of a wine is subjective. Even the most objective part of a review, the numerical score, is subjective bullshit. Do you know what 93 points tastes like? I don't.
Now, I'm not saying that tasting notes are bullshit, but some of the words you may find in them are. Take honest, for example. David White took Alder's description as meaning "a bit flawed." Others might take "honest, soulful" to mean a pure expression of terroir. Me, it means nothing, but it makes me think about it. Is a mass-produced wine honest? Sure. Lots of mass-produced wines don't pretend to me artisanal. Is a 16.5% 2007 Châteauneuf-du-Pape dishonest because it is pretending to be wine when it is actually a liqueur? Or does it honestly taste like 100 points?
I get the reason why writers try to write colorfully about wine. There are only so many things that wine tastes like. You can only read about mocha, currants and tobacco in cabernet sauvignon so many times before you tune out. And consumers don't really want to read about methoxypyrazine, monoterpenes or ketones. pH and titratable acidity only matter to a small group of nerds like me (and probably you). Numbers just taste bland. Do abstract terms have real meaning. No. But, bullshit terms like honest and soulful actually make people discuss wine. And that is a good thing.
Now, I'm not saying that tasting notes are bullshit, but some of the words you may find in them are. Take honest, for example. David White took Alder's description as meaning "a bit flawed." Others might take "honest, soulful" to mean a pure expression of terroir. Me, it means nothing, but it makes me think about it. Is a mass-produced wine honest? Sure. Lots of mass-produced wines don't pretend to me artisanal. Is a 16.5% 2007 Châteauneuf-du-Pape dishonest because it is pretending to be wine when it is actually a liqueur? Or does it honestly taste like 100 points?
I get the reason why writers try to write colorfully about wine. There are only so many things that wine tastes like. You can only read about mocha, currants and tobacco in cabernet sauvignon so many times before you tune out. And consumers don't really want to read about methoxypyrazine, monoterpenes or ketones. pH and titratable acidity only matter to a small group of nerds like me (and probably you). Numbers just taste bland. Do abstract terms have real meaning. No. But, bullshit terms like honest and soulful actually make people discuss wine. And that is a good thing.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Colorado Wine Week, 2013
Next week (June 2-8) marks the third annual Colorado Wine Week. In 2011, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper proclaimed the first week of June to be Colorado Wine Week to coincide with the first ever Colorado Urban Winefest. Both the Urban and Mountain Winefest (in September in Palisade) are put on by the Colorado Association for Viticulture and Enology (the wineries' and vineyards' trade association). The Urban event has changed venues three times the past three years, but has also grown in scope beyond just the Saturday afternoon festival and may soon surpass the original festival in importance for the local industry.
The kickoff event for the week's festivities is billed as a "Farm-to-Turntable" Party on Sunday, June 2. The idea behind this event is to combine a farm-to-table passed appetizer gathering with music from a DJ. It is nice to see a fresh approach for Colorado wineries to reach a different audience. Almost all of the wineries are run by retired Baby Boomers and the younger generation is often overlooked as an important consumer base. Not surprisingly, perhaps Colorado's most successful winery, Infinite Monkey Theorem, has focused on the "farm-to-turntable" type of crowd. I am looking forward to seeing how successful this event is.
Sticking with the hipper crowd and bringing back a theme from last year's Wine Week, local alcoholic beverages other than wine will be celebrated as well. There will be a Colorado Cocktail Celebration (June 4) at Green Russell where Denver's top mixologists will use local wines in creating unique mixed drinks. Also, on June 6, organizers have developed a wine, beer and spirits food pairing competition they've dubbed "Craft Colorado" at Root 25 Taphouse & Kitchen. I think it is an important step for the industry be considered on the same level as the highly successful craft breweries and distillers in Colorado. Too often wineries complain that they're not as successful as the breweries instead of trying to place nicely with them and support everyone.
One of the highlights of the week for me (because I helped organize the Governor's Cup) is the Governor's Cup Awards Presentation Reception and Tasting at the Hospitality Learning Center at Metro State University on June 7. Only medal-winning wines from the competition will be allowed to be poured; so attendees won't have to worry about getting a mouthful of vinegar or horse manure. I was able to taste many of the winners during the competition and can say that there will be some really nice wines poured. And for the second year in a row a cabernet franc won best of show. This year, Creekside Cellar's 2010 Cabernet Franc succeeded the Winery at Holy Cross Abbey as earning the Governor's Cup. As I've said before, I think Colorado could really make cabernet franc its signature variety.
The week concludes with the Urban Winefest breaking in its new digs at Infinity Park in Glendale. More than three dozen wineries will be sampling and selling bottles. The rugby stadium and park are near the high-rent Cherry Creek North so the walk-up crowd should be sizeable and affluent. The venue is not as centrally located as last year's, but the space is bigger and parking is more ample. If the festival stays at Infinity Park in 2014 I'd say this year's event was successful.
Perhaps the most important part of Wine Week isn't the proclamation or the events, but the buy-in from area restaurants and retailers. Along the Front Range, from Boulder to Colorado Springs, restaurants and wine shops are now involved in the local industry like never before. Dozens of restaurants will be offering Colorado wine and appetizer pairings all week. The restaurant tier has been a tough cookie for most Colorado wineries to crack, but Wine Week has been a boon for getting on wine lists and in consumers' mouths. And getting Colorado consumers to see that Colorado has a growing, quality local wine industry is the goal of the whole week.
Tickets for all events can be purchased here. Use the promo code "WINEWEEK" for $10 off (25%) your ticket to the Urban Winefest.
The kickoff event for the week's festivities is billed as a "Farm-to-Turntable" Party on Sunday, June 2. The idea behind this event is to combine a farm-to-table passed appetizer gathering with music from a DJ. It is nice to see a fresh approach for Colorado wineries to reach a different audience. Almost all of the wineries are run by retired Baby Boomers and the younger generation is often overlooked as an important consumer base. Not surprisingly, perhaps Colorado's most successful winery, Infinite Monkey Theorem, has focused on the "farm-to-turntable" type of crowd. I am looking forward to seeing how successful this event is.
Sticking with the hipper crowd and bringing back a theme from last year's Wine Week, local alcoholic beverages other than wine will be celebrated as well. There will be a Colorado Cocktail Celebration (June 4) at Green Russell where Denver's top mixologists will use local wines in creating unique mixed drinks. Also, on June 6, organizers have developed a wine, beer and spirits food pairing competition they've dubbed "Craft Colorado" at Root 25 Taphouse & Kitchen. I think it is an important step for the industry be considered on the same level as the highly successful craft breweries and distillers in Colorado. Too often wineries complain that they're not as successful as the breweries instead of trying to place nicely with them and support everyone.
One of the highlights of the week for me (because I helped organize the Governor's Cup) is the Governor's Cup Awards Presentation Reception and Tasting at the Hospitality Learning Center at Metro State University on June 7. Only medal-winning wines from the competition will be allowed to be poured; so attendees won't have to worry about getting a mouthful of vinegar or horse manure. I was able to taste many of the winners during the competition and can say that there will be some really nice wines poured. And for the second year in a row a cabernet franc won best of show. This year, Creekside Cellar's 2010 Cabernet Franc succeeded the Winery at Holy Cross Abbey as earning the Governor's Cup. As I've said before, I think Colorado could really make cabernet franc its signature variety.
The week concludes with the Urban Winefest breaking in its new digs at Infinity Park in Glendale. More than three dozen wineries will be sampling and selling bottles. The rugby stadium and park are near the high-rent Cherry Creek North so the walk-up crowd should be sizeable and affluent. The venue is not as centrally located as last year's, but the space is bigger and parking is more ample. If the festival stays at Infinity Park in 2014 I'd say this year's event was successful.
Perhaps the most important part of Wine Week isn't the proclamation or the events, but the buy-in from area restaurants and retailers. Along the Front Range, from Boulder to Colorado Springs, restaurants and wine shops are now involved in the local industry like never before. Dozens of restaurants will be offering Colorado wine and appetizer pairings all week. The restaurant tier has been a tough cookie for most Colorado wineries to crack, but Wine Week has been a boon for getting on wine lists and in consumers' mouths. And getting Colorado consumers to see that Colorado has a growing, quality local wine industry is the goal of the whole week.
Tickets for all events can be purchased here. Use the promo code "WINEWEEK" for $10 off (25%) your ticket to the Urban Winefest.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Identity in Specialization
On Monday, I wrote about wine regions' need for signature varieties in creating an identity. The post my have been a bit odd because while I proclaimed the need for a region to be known for a specific grape variety I also praised two wines made from non-mainstream varieties. If the Russian River Valley weren't known for its pinot noir nor the Napa Valley for cabernet sauvignon, then these two wines would have been just another bottle in a sea of many. But because they both came from regions with strong ties to specific varieties (and styles), their uniqueness was part of their stories.
But above their respective regions' identities, both Gary Farrell and Massican have their own identities. Not surprising, Gary Farrell is known for producing chardonnay and pinot noir. Massican, on the other hand, is known for white wine blends inspired by the wines of North East Italy. Not too many Napa wineries can make that claim. Even in the sea that is Napa Valley cabernet, there are wineries that stand out because of their identities. Corison Winery is known for its age-worthiness, elegance and balance. Dunn Vineyards is known for its formidable tannins, bright acidity and low alcohol. Silver Oak is known for its prodigious use of American oak and the resultant characteristics. When buying wine from Napa, winery style/identity clearly is important. The same could be said about wine from every region.
In neighboring Sonoma County, there is a much more diverse set of wineries that also have to set themselves apart from their competitors. Just as in Napa, many strive to make the best example of the signature variety that they can. Yet, many also try to be known for something more specific or different. For example, take the group of 17 wineries (including Massican) that are a part of what they're calling the 7 percent solution. They are all rallying around lesser-known varieties like ribolla gialla, grenache blanc, trousseau, verdelho and others. While some of the wineries make less exotic varieties like cabernet sauvignon and syrah, together they are embracing diversity and experimenting with interesting (to me) varieties. I have been lucky enough to have tasted wines from nine of the wineries and in fact am proud to have purchased (yes, bloggers are also consumers...) and presently own wine from five of the wineries.
Now to bring this back to Colorado. I have told many of the wineries here that they make too many wines. It seems that every winery makes a merlot, a cabernet sauvignon, a cabernet franc, a syrah, a chardonnay, a riesling, a viognier, a sweet rosé and a few other odds and ends. Many even have the token port-style dessert wine. They claim they need the cabernet sauvignon for the serious drinker and the sweet rosé or a sweet riesling for the RV crowd just passing through. Of course they have to have chardonnay and merlot (they are the two of the most planted varieties in the state...). Making ten different varieties in three or four different styles is ok, if you're a big winery with the resources to spread yourself out. But the average winery in Colorado makes about 1,000 cases per year, total. So many wineries are making two or three barrels (50-75 cases) of ten or twelve wildly different wines. It seems that many of the Colorado wineries are trying to make a wine for every consumer without any thought given to the wineries' identity. I doubt any winery in Colorado is going to be the next Robert Mondavi Winery that can make a high-quality wine for every single type of consumer. I think many wineries make good wines, but I also think almost all of them have wines they should stop making in order to focus on their better wines.
Why not make a concerted effort to create an identity? What if a few wineries were known for only producing Rhône-style wines? What if a few wineries were known for their big, bold Bordeaux varieties? Rather than making many different, often mediocre, wines, wineries could focus on what they do best and do it better. I am more apt to buy a specific type of wine from a winery that specializes in that style than from a jack-of-all-trades winery.
Say a winery "needs" to have a white wine to sell in its tasting room. Perhaps buying finished bulk wine (or even shiners) from a winery known for its whites and selling it under their own could work for a winery making only Bordeaux varieties. Or, Colorado law allows Colorado wineries to sell any other Colorado wine in their own tasting room. Not spending the time and energy to make a mediocre wine just because you think you need to have it in your tasting room would allow you to spend more time and energy on the cabernet franc you do well. Plus, you might be able to sell a better white than if you had made it. That would be a great way to help promote the region as a whole. Wineries could focus on what they do best and also support their neighbors.
I don't want to knock all the wineries, because there are more than a handful that do already have an identity because of specialization. A brand is more than a winery name and logo. It is a promise to customers about the quality and type of product being offered to them. If they don't know what they're getting when they see a winery's name on a label, they're probably not going to buy that wine. Knowing the identity of a winery is perhaps more important than the identity of the collective region. And when individual wineries start being recognized for high-quality wines of a certain style, then the region will benefit as well.
But above their respective regions' identities, both Gary Farrell and Massican have their own identities. Not surprising, Gary Farrell is known for producing chardonnay and pinot noir. Massican, on the other hand, is known for white wine blends inspired by the wines of North East Italy. Not too many Napa wineries can make that claim. Even in the sea that is Napa Valley cabernet, there are wineries that stand out because of their identities. Corison Winery is known for its age-worthiness, elegance and balance. Dunn Vineyards is known for its formidable tannins, bright acidity and low alcohol. Silver Oak is known for its prodigious use of American oak and the resultant characteristics. When buying wine from Napa, winery style/identity clearly is important. The same could be said about wine from every region.
In neighboring Sonoma County, there is a much more diverse set of wineries that also have to set themselves apart from their competitors. Just as in Napa, many strive to make the best example of the signature variety that they can. Yet, many also try to be known for something more specific or different. For example, take the group of 17 wineries (including Massican) that are a part of what they're calling the 7 percent solution. They are all rallying around lesser-known varieties like ribolla gialla, grenache blanc, trousseau, verdelho and others. While some of the wineries make less exotic varieties like cabernet sauvignon and syrah, together they are embracing diversity and experimenting with interesting (to me) varieties. I have been lucky enough to have tasted wines from nine of the wineries and in fact am proud to have purchased (yes, bloggers are also consumers...) and presently own wine from five of the wineries.
Now to bring this back to Colorado. I have told many of the wineries here that they make too many wines. It seems that every winery makes a merlot, a cabernet sauvignon, a cabernet franc, a syrah, a chardonnay, a riesling, a viognier, a sweet rosé and a few other odds and ends. Many even have the token port-style dessert wine. They claim they need the cabernet sauvignon for the serious drinker and the sweet rosé or a sweet riesling for the RV crowd just passing through. Of course they have to have chardonnay and merlot (they are the two of the most planted varieties in the state...). Making ten different varieties in three or four different styles is ok, if you're a big winery with the resources to spread yourself out. But the average winery in Colorado makes about 1,000 cases per year, total. So many wineries are making two or three barrels (50-75 cases) of ten or twelve wildly different wines. It seems that many of the Colorado wineries are trying to make a wine for every consumer without any thought given to the wineries' identity. I doubt any winery in Colorado is going to be the next Robert Mondavi Winery that can make a high-quality wine for every single type of consumer. I think many wineries make good wines, but I also think almost all of them have wines they should stop making in order to focus on their better wines.
Why not make a concerted effort to create an identity? What if a few wineries were known for only producing Rhône-style wines? What if a few wineries were known for their big, bold Bordeaux varieties? Rather than making many different, often mediocre, wines, wineries could focus on what they do best and do it better. I am more apt to buy a specific type of wine from a winery that specializes in that style than from a jack-of-all-trades winery.
Say a winery "needs" to have a white wine to sell in its tasting room. Perhaps buying finished bulk wine (or even shiners) from a winery known for its whites and selling it under their own could work for a winery making only Bordeaux varieties. Or, Colorado law allows Colorado wineries to sell any other Colorado wine in their own tasting room. Not spending the time and energy to make a mediocre wine just because you think you need to have it in your tasting room would allow you to spend more time and energy on the cabernet franc you do well. Plus, you might be able to sell a better white than if you had made it. That would be a great way to help promote the region as a whole. Wineries could focus on what they do best and also support their neighbors.
I don't want to knock all the wineries, because there are more than a handful that do already have an identity because of specialization. A brand is more than a winery name and logo. It is a promise to customers about the quality and type of product being offered to them. If they don't know what they're getting when they see a winery's name on a label, they're probably not going to buy that wine. Knowing the identity of a winery is perhaps more important than the identity of the collective region. And when individual wineries start being recognized for high-quality wines of a certain style, then the region will benefit as well.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Variety as Regional Identity
At the Drink Local Wine conference in Baltimore last month one of the panels discussed the idea that Maryland should have a signature grape variety. One person said chambourcin, another said cabernet franc and yet another suggested red blends. In Europe, wine regions are known for specific varieties. Burgundy is pinot noir. Barolo is nebbiolo. Brunello is sangiovese. Of course, these identities were curated over hundreds of years, but they are also dictated by law. Outside of Europe, many other regions are also known for certain varieties. Napa is cabernet sauvignon. The Willamette Valley is pinot noir. Barossa is shiraz. Argentina is malbec. This of course is an over simplification, but these generalizations make some sense.
The reason for regional varietal identity is two-fold. First, those grape varieties reach their pinnacle in those regions. It is no coincidence that through trial and error certain varieties' environmental tolerances were found to perfectly match the environmental characteristics of specific regions. Second, having a keystone variety also gives a region something to rally around. It is easy for consumers to associate high-quality pinot noir with Burgundy, Oregon or the Russian River Valley (and vice versa). These associations help wine regions in marketing terms, and yes, marketing is an important aspect in producing the "best" wines. Not having a signature variety might mean a region has no identity.
I've long said that Colorado could make cabernet franc its signature variety for wineries to rally around. The 2013 Colorado Governor's Cup Wine Competition was held last week and not surprisingly twos cabernet francs were among only four wines to earn Double Gold medals and one of those cabernet franc was named Best in Show. In fact, last year The Winery at Holy Cross Abbey's 2009 Cabernet Franc won the Governor's Cup (no, it did not defend its title). But does having a keystone variety make sense? Do the wineries in southern Oregon appreciate the Oregon wine "brand" being pinot noir?
Outside of Europe, most regions are planted to many different varieties. Sure, the Russian River Valley is known for pinot noir, but other varieties like syrah and sauvignon blanc are grown there with great success, too. A while back I had the 2011 Gary Farrell Sauvignon Blanc.Sauvignon Blanc doesn't often come to mind when one thinks of the Russian River Valley. Yet, this was a lovely example of the variety. It was filled with citrus (more lime than grapefruit), green apples, vanilla and floral aromas and flavors. There was just a bit of the cut grass characteristic many associate with this variety, but it was barely noticeable. It is a bit pricey, at $25, but still a very nice wine.
.JPG)
Just last night, I drank a Napa Valley wine, but it was not a cabernet sauvignon. In fact, it was an exceptionally interesting and tasty blend of tocai friulano, ribolla gialla and chardonnay. The 2011 Massican Annia is a low-alcohol, savory alternative to Napa's full-throttle, fruity cabernet sauvignon. Sure, I often enjoy those big Napa reds, but I don't usually find them as mentally stimulating. Just thinking about why on Earth someone would grow ribolla gialla in Napa (I implore you to read the entire 7-part Ribolla Gialla University series by Lily-Elaine Hawk Wakawaka) and then blend it with tocai friulano and chardonnay when they could make more money by simply planting cabernet sauvignon makes me enjoy a wine more than just its pure hedonistic qualities. And despite what some people claim, wine is more than just hedonism.
So, in summary, I do think having a signature variety can be extremely beneficial for wine regions. But just copying another region's identity isn't going to work in today's market. At this year's Governor's Cup there were more cabernet sauvignon entries than any other variety. Yet, I don't think Colorado can be known for cabernet sauvignon when Napa and Bordeaux already have staked that claim. Cabernet franc or petit verdot (another Double Gold winner, by the way) might make sense, however. I think Colorado is ready to have a varietal identity other than fruit wines. But more importantly, I think individual wineries need to have an identity. Having brand recognition might be just as important as a regional identity. More on that idea later this week...
The reason for regional varietal identity is two-fold. First, those grape varieties reach their pinnacle in those regions. It is no coincidence that through trial and error certain varieties' environmental tolerances were found to perfectly match the environmental characteristics of specific regions. Second, having a keystone variety also gives a region something to rally around. It is easy for consumers to associate high-quality pinot noir with Burgundy, Oregon or the Russian River Valley (and vice versa). These associations help wine regions in marketing terms, and yes, marketing is an important aspect in producing the "best" wines. Not having a signature variety might mean a region has no identity.
I've long said that Colorado could make cabernet franc its signature variety for wineries to rally around. The 2013 Colorado Governor's Cup Wine Competition was held last week and not surprisingly twos cabernet francs were among only four wines to earn Double Gold medals and one of those cabernet franc was named Best in Show. In fact, last year The Winery at Holy Cross Abbey's 2009 Cabernet Franc won the Governor's Cup (no, it did not defend its title). But does having a keystone variety make sense? Do the wineries in southern Oregon appreciate the Oregon wine "brand" being pinot noir?
Outside of Europe, most regions are planted to many different varieties. Sure, the Russian River Valley is known for pinot noir, but other varieties like syrah and sauvignon blanc are grown there with great success, too. A while back I had the 2011 Gary Farrell Sauvignon Blanc.Sauvignon Blanc doesn't often come to mind when one thinks of the Russian River Valley. Yet, this was a lovely example of the variety. It was filled with citrus (more lime than grapefruit), green apples, vanilla and floral aromas and flavors. There was just a bit of the cut grass characteristic many associate with this variety, but it was barely noticeable. It is a bit pricey, at $25, but still a very nice wine.
.JPG)
So, in summary, I do think having a signature variety can be extremely beneficial for wine regions. But just copying another region's identity isn't going to work in today's market. At this year's Governor's Cup there were more cabernet sauvignon entries than any other variety. Yet, I don't think Colorado can be known for cabernet sauvignon when Napa and Bordeaux already have staked that claim. Cabernet franc or petit verdot (another Double Gold winner, by the way) might make sense, however. I think Colorado is ready to have a varietal identity other than fruit wines. But more importantly, I think individual wineries need to have an identity. Having brand recognition might be just as important as a regional identity. More on that idea later this week...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
