Manipulating critics?

A long ago acquaintance of mine, Craig Goldwyn, started up but no longer operates the magazine International Wine Review.

One of the things that Craig did, and that was to be respected, was to institute a policy that for regular review in the magazine, wines were bought off the shelf.

The magazine hosted a wine competition, too. Wines submitted for evaluation in the competition had to already be on the market, so that the reviewers would evaluate what consumers can buy. Plus, Craig’s team randomly bought wines at retail to compare with the competition submissions.

As simple and smart a policy as the above was, it is not the general rule for some of the major wine critics today.

The general system is to evaluate wines supplied by producers and/or importers. The Robert Parker franchise likely does not go out and buy the wines at retail before, during or after they have evaluated them. Often enough, wines are evaluated before the wines are released to the market.

In other words, major wine critics don’t practice quality control of their product—they don’t test what they are evaluating either for consistency or for accuracy.

It’s been suspected by some for many years that a few producers would take advantage of the ability to manipulate the critics by sending to them a wine under one label for evaluation, but sending to the marketplace a different wine under the same label. Since the critics don’t check up on them, the chances are that a great numerical rating has helped move inferior product in the marketplace more than once.

The evidence clearly shows that tasters can be fooled by ratings, but that subject is for another blog entry. The issue here is either fooling or manipulating critics.

2005 Sierra Carche is from Spain’s Jumillia region. Jay Stuart Miller, one of the critics working under the Parker franchise, gave the wine 96 points.

Later, after consumer reports that the wine they bought was pretty awful for a 96-point score, the importer, Well Oiled Wine Company, said that they uncovered a mistake and that one of three lots of that wine had been mislabeled and sent to market. In other words, a different wine was labeled as 2005 Sierra Carche.

Was that the wine Miller had evaluated?

According to the importer, the two other lots were lab tested and found to be sound. The only explanation they could give to address the bad bottles on the market is bottle variation. But with so many consumer complaints, that sounds like a truly lame explanation.

The rest of the story is involved and it includes the requisite and justified sniping by wine geeks at wine producers, importers, and critics—see below links.

Sniping aside, the point of this situation is that first, wine critics should compare what the producer provides for evaluation with what the importer brings into the U.S.--mostly, they don’t.

Second, wine critics should taste blind, make their assessment and then have the labels and pricing revealed to them--mostly, they don’t do this either. They know the (ostensible) identity of what they are evaluating, which seems rather easy for bias to seep in, knowingly or not.

Third, wine critics should never, ever evaluate at the producer’s place of business (except when doing a barrel evaluation for futures).

This episode is the second in the past few months that involves one particular critic under the Parker franchise. The franchise on the ebob wine forum site mishandled the first episode so poorly that it was painful to watch. So, what do they do this time around?

Read it for yourself.

eBob

And here’s another link

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
August 2009. All rights reserved.

Dormant Commerce Clause--indeed!

The Specialty Wine Retailers Association (SWRA) is engaged in a battle with the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) and rightly so. SWRA is unhappy that WSWA enjoys such protections in states to preclude retailers from shipping wine to consumers who live in other states.

The problem with the battle is that WSWA, sadly, has the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on its side, at least that’s how the courts see it--all the way to the Supreme Court.

In 2005, when the Supremes issued a ruling that supposedly opened wine shipping across state lines, the ruling was so narrow that whether or not it benefits consumers remains an open debate. But then, neither the 21st Amendment nor individual state’s alcohol control boards are trying to benefit consumers.

The 21st Amendment is protecting state’s rights: in this case, the right to regulate what our still Calvinist culture believes is an evil. In turn, the state alcohol control boards are protecting their excise tax revenue—even though they may claim otherwise: the NY State alcohol control laws are supposedly in place to protect against organized crime.

Irony of irony: the money organized crime made during Prohibition is now being made by many state legislatures, and perhaps a few WSWA members just to keep everything in the family.

The proof that SWRA is engaged in a futile effort came with the Supreme Court 2005 decision. The decisions simply stated that States cannot block out of state commerce to protect in state commerce. That’s all it said.

The ruling said nothing about setting limits to how expensive or how cumbersome states can make the commerce. And, the ruling said nothing about licensing restrictions. Ever since the ruling, expensive and licensing restrictions have been the main weapons in those states that choose to circumvent unfettered commerce.

A few weeks ago, NY State’s 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal held that it is not unconstitutional for the state to block wine shipments from out-of-state retailers direct to consumers—and what was the reasoning of the court?

Judge Wesley referenced the Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution that bars states from blocking interstate commerce through protective measures.

According to Law.com, here’s what the judge said:

“The commerce clause normally prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against out-of-state economic interests unless those laws ‘advance a legitimate local purpose that can not be adequately served by reasonable nondiscrimanatory alternatives.’

“However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the 21st Amendment alters Dormant Commerce Clause analysis of state laws governing the importation of alcoholic beverages.”

The judge refers to precedent and he also refers to Justice Kennedy’s notes in the 2005 case where he explicitly stated that the narrow ruling would not have an effect on the states' right to restrict alcohol sales—Kennedy went on to reason his statement by making the Calvinist view concerning the special evil that alcohol represents.

In order for SWRA and for consumers to win this battle, it would take an amendment to the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. That would take an act of Congress, something I’m afraid is about as likely to happen in my lifetime as the possibility of real and valuable health care reform.

In fact, the alcohol and health care reform issues are related. In each case, lawmakers are beholden to an industry and in each case, lawmakers have told the citizenry to go fuck itself.

Law.com

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
July 2009. All rights reserved.

Don't touch that rule

A few days ago, wine writer Panos Kakaviatos wrote from Strasbourg, France a brief story for Meinninger’s Wine Business International that covered a problem in Alsace concerning two hundred or so Alsatian wine producers who attacked the region’s Alsace Viticultural Association (AVA) because they say the association wants to change the rules.

Remember that I wrote twice in the past few months concerning how I feel about the so-called appellation system in the United States that essentially tells consumers where grapes are grown and wine is made, and nothing much else?

This Alsatian story is about appellation rules, and it puts me in a quandary. I don’t know whether to be for or against the Alsatian authorities.

My dislike for the appellation system here at home is rooted in the fact that the system does not even try to understand and recognize whether or not certain grape varieties should be grown in certain places. Plus, the system is mute concerning how wine can be treated in order to preserve its expression of the appellation or American Viticultural Area (AVA)—the “terroir.”

Our system boils down to just another marketing scheme but with government providing cover. Not that the Europeans don't use their system in their marketing, but there is something behind the rules.

The other AVA, the one in Alsace, has put on the table a discussion of reforms that would change the way Alsatian grand cru wines are labeled. Right now, the majority of producers market their products as varietal wines. The changes may include a requirement to drop varietal labeling.

The grand cru system was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Certain geological and climate conditions were considered and about 4% of Alsace’s vineyards were classified “Grand Cru” status. The grand cru system allows only four grape varieties: Riesling, Gewurztraminer, Pinot Gris, and Muscat.

Note: other grape varieties are used to make wine in Alsace, but they are not allowed in the grand cru wines.

Since the Alsatian system came so late in history, many Alsatians are unconvinced that it tells the world much about the appellation. A number of producers with vineyards located within grand cru boundaries choose not to apply the grand cru status to their label at all—not a bad reason for them to be concerned about a change that drops varietal labeling.

This is where my problem comes in: I like the way Alsatian wines are labeled. But if I am so set in the European style appellation system, why would I not like the Alsatians to go to a strictly “vineyard location name” system?

Because I’m used to the varietal labeling, and I do not know all of the 51 grand cru vineyards that would be involved in the reform. Plus, Alsatian grand cru wines are not known for their multi-blending the way in which most European appellation wines are handled. It's just that in Alsace, the wines are known by their grape varieties.

As for the possibility that the grand cru system may not really tell the consuming world much, the president of an AVA grand cru section is also a grand cru producer, Jean Michel Deiss. He does not use varietal labeling for his wines and of course, he is pushing for the change. Plus ça change, etc., Monsiour Deiss!

This issue leaves me a little queasy. Here I am hoisted on my own petard because I am either too lazy to study the 51 grand cru locations or too uninterested in change. At the least, I have a better feel for how hard it will be to do anything about the U.S. appellation system, despite that our varietal labeling is only a 75% solution, literally.

Still, it would be nice to have a U.S. system that makes, say, a vineyard-designated label, or the word “reserve” on the label an official guarantee of something instead of just marketing. But I'm open-minded now.

It's possible that we should do nothing and let marketing rule the world.

Panos' article

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
July 2009. All rights reserved.

Newspeak

What do the following two statements have in common?

“I don't consider MOx (micro-oxygenation) and RO (reverse osmosis) to be technologies, because I've worked with them long enough to understand their power and limitations for what I'm trying to do.”

“But I'm leery of anything with a power cord. Electricity gives us the power to do very foolish things.”

They were issued by the same person in the same interview. Whew!

Those answers were contained in a Wines and Vines Magazine interview with Clark Smith—see link below.

The answers are astonishing, especially since Mr. Smith used to own a company that sold technology services to winemakers. I’m sure the MOx and RO equipment he recommended came with an umbilical chord that dangled from each machine and that ended with three prongs.

Mr. Smith owns a winery and makes wine—I wonder if he closes his eyes and stands back when he plugs his equipment in.

Here's more:

“I de-alc (reduce the alcohol) my own wines if they need it.”

Two paragraphs later:

“My Faux Chablis has needed de-alc five years out of six, because we seldom have the rain they get in France to dilute sugar to a good balance.”

Surely, that Faux Chablis needs the de-alc, but I wonder if, perhaps, the grapes for that wine should be grown somewhere else, maybe in Chablis, where they get the rain that dilutes the wine to what we all like to drink—good balance.

It seems to me that what Smith is saying is that in the vineyard his grapes become so overripe that their astronomical sugars take them to astronomical—and out of balance—alcohol levels and so, he electronically and technologically reduces the alcohol so that the wine is balanced and drinkable. I mean, really.

The interview opened with Smith’s explanation why winemakers don’t tell the public that they de-alcoholize their wines (and still manage to produce 15 and 16 percenters in the end) and use other technologies with electric chords.

He admits that,

“…More than ever, consumers have become inspired to love wine as the "one pure thing" unaltered by 20th century fiddling. The lack of straight talk from winemakers has spawned a whole generation of Internet piranhas who make a living devouring ill-prepared winemakers, the poor saps.”

It sounds to me like Smith wants winemakers to shout about the technology even though consumers are wary of it.

Why would he want them to do that?

Because he’s probably the guy who sold the poor saps on the technology.

A deeper reading of the interview shows clearly that Smith wants things both ways. On second thought, his answers are often spectacularly disingenuous. But maybe I’m just too picky. I like hucksters at least to make some sense.

On the subject of hucksters, it seems appellationamerica.com is going to change its model once again—this time, it’s implementing a subscription fee to readers.

The site is dedicated to what its name implies—American appellations. The problem is that the operation has essentially been a kind of marketing arm for wineries within appellations, charging them to take part in the site. I don’t know how you can trust reviews and evaluations when the information is heavily marketing and promotion oriented. We’ll just have to see what shakes out from this subscription thing.

More important, the idea behind appellationamerica.com is to celebrate regional appellations as unique. I understand fully that different growing regions offer different growing conditions. Unfortunately, that’s about all the American appellation system tells consumers.

Under the system, you can grow any grapes that you want within any appellation, like the ones that Clark Smith uses to make his “Faux Chablis.” Plus, you can do to the wine anything that you want—technologically—like reduce the alcohol or perform ‘faux aging” through micro-oxygenation.

So where’s the regional uniqueness in an appellation?

Maybe I’ll subscribe to appellationamerica.com so that I can ask that question directly to one of its major contributors: Clark Smith.

Now ain’t that interesting?

The interview

appellationamerica

If you are reading this entry anywhere other than on the vinofictions blog, be aware that it has been lifted without my permission (and without recompense), and that’s a copyright infringement, no matter that the copyright information appears with it.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
July 2009. All rights reserved.

Social media is a-flutter

Who would have thought that Michael Jackson’s sudden death would have been the catalyst for me to finally broach the subject of social media and the wine world?

I’ve been brought into the social media conversation by two incidents: a posting on a Web site for writers on which I am a member (link below), and a posting by my compatriot in philosophical thought, Arthur, of wine sooth (link below).

As I commented on Arthur’s blog, as a salesman I learned that the weakest argument to sell a product is to knock the competition, so my intent is not to knock so-called social media or so-called mainstream media; I merely want to make a few points.

I refer to each type of media as ‘so-called’ because I’m not sure what either moniker really means.

On the writer’s forum, someone posted with glee how Twitter became the first media outlet to flutter around the report on Michael Jackson’s death, and how seemingly important that makes social media. Another poster reminded people that the original 'tweet' probably was written after its writer learned of the death through the mainstream media. Still another pointed out that Twitter was the source of other flutterings concerning the deaths of Harrison Ford and Jeff Goldblum, neither of whom had in fact died.

Arthur’s blog entry took a swipe at the mainstream media but from a different perspective. He wondered if CNN knew sooner than it let on about Jackson’s death, preferring instead to keep up the tension with stories about a coma so that the mainstream media could hold the attention of viewers. He ended his blog entry with a reference to something if not nefarious at least stinky.

What exactly is what we call social media, and does it have its own stink?

When a company wants to practice with an idea or get feedback on a product it may hire a PR firm to organize a focus group. The focus group is made up of sample consumers or potential consumers of the idea or product, and they are often paid a small fee for participating.

The group gets together for a face-to-face with either the PR firm reps or the product company reps, or both, who put forth a series of situations and questions and get feedback from the participants.

A focus group is like a survey but in the flesh rather than on paper. The key is that those involved know that they are engaged in a focus group and that they may be helping the company with its image, message, product direction, whatever.

Social media is often used commercially to create a focus group. In itself, that isn’t a problem. But it is a problem with me if the social networking people aren’t aware that they are being used as an unpaid focus group for commercial purposes. I fear that more of this activity may be going on under the guise of social media than meets the screen.

As a wine writer, not a week goes by these days when I either haven’t been directed to read at least one article about the benefit to wineries inherent in the social media revolution or received a few press releases or solicitations from social media consultants selling their wine consumer tracking capabilities online. If I were a cynic, I might be suspicious concerning who starts a social networking conversation about particular wines, and that would make me equally circumspect on a social network site.

Is this where the new information age is taking us?

When television came on the scene some sixty years ago vaudevillians like Milton Berle shared space with newspeople like Edward R. Murrow. Berle’s intent was always to entertain through non-intellectual comedy; Murrow’s was to inform through intelligent investigation. In the latter’s case, he believed that television represented the future information age (sound familiar?).

Today, it’s hard to see how Murrow’s vision holds up, but not so hard to see Berle’s. In fact, myriad television channels do justice to Berle’s non-intellectualism and, aside from a few history-lite channels, information is mainly passed along as snark on late night television. So much for the promise of television and the first information age!

I am afraid that social networking may be just another huckster’s phrase for commercializing our every thought. I’m afraid that, while there may be real benefits lurking inside my computer, they will be dwarfed by the commercial opportunities that lurk in cyber space—do we still use that phrase?

Like everything else in life, from waking in the morning, to crossing the street, to selecting a wine based on someone else’s rating, there’s always pluses and minuses connected to the activity.

The pluses of social media are evident: quick turn around time for gathering information, bringing the world closer, ease of access to potential customers, and more. It’s also a step up from the single-issue forum wine sites that instead of social networking often seem like sociopath networking.

The minuses of social media may not be so evident.

Mainly, I want to know for what purpose I am asked to socialize, and I also want to find out who is behind the curtain. The biggest minus I can imagine is that instead of merely social networking, those of us who engage in social media may be actively but unknowingly helping to develop a commercial form of computer-generated social engineering.

My feeling about the matter can change, but for that to happen social media will have to prove itself to be something much more than a commercial tool. The word ‘friend’ has a much more powerful meaning to me than merely someone with whom to network. Besides, even the seeming non-commercial social networking sites may be used by commercial interests to gather information.

winesooth
freelancewriters

If you are reading this entry anywhere other than on the vinofictions blog, be aware that it has been lifted without my permission (and without recompense), and that’s a copyright infringement, no matter that the copyright information appears with it.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
June 2009. All rights reserved.

Is wine judging a pleasure?

I’m sure that after years of wondering, you will be pleased to know that wine critics and wine judges are human.

How do I know, and why do I bring it up?

I’ve spent far too much time tracking the meltdown on the Squires/eBob wine forum (lurking, really as I have not a word to add to what has been said there over, and over).

That situation proves beyond a doubt that wine critics face all the pitfalls of being human, and they succumb to a few of them, too: power, self absorption, tone deafness, and of course, arrogance. In addition, they make mistakes just like the rest of us…

Wine judges probably aren’t much different, but since most who serve in that far from lofty position do it gratis (that’s without pay), the major flaw where we are concerned may be self-absorption.

Now I ask you, who isn’t self absorbed when seeking pleasure?

There’s the rub.

When judging wine, should we be seeking pleasure?

Before I attempt to answer that question, let me digress.

I just finished judging three separate competitions over the past three months. In each of the competitions, the panel I was on faced wines that never should have been sent to compete—some never should have been bottled.

It makes me wonder what those wineries think they are doing. Or do they think most wine judges don’t know what we are doing?

Hmm. Never thought of it that way.

In most competitions, judges are instructed to evaluate the wine in front of us—not what it can be someday but what it is on that day. This becomes a problem with wines that were bottled recently and then sent to the competition. Many of these wines simply don’t show well, but they may be perfectly wonderful products.

This situation also makes me wonder what wineries are thinking. Why do they enter wines that were bottled only a few days before the competition?

To my question about pleasure: I don’t think that as a wine judge my job is to seek pleasure. But that might have to do with my background.

It’s pretty well known in the wine business that many of us who made or still make wine have a habit of first seeking what’s at fault when we evaluate wine before seeking what is not.

Other wine judges who have no technical training but have undergone sensory training often seek what is not at fault before seeking what is.

A third group of judges, those on the retail or restaurant level probably have a habit of seeking in a wine what about it will sell or pair with a meal.

Finally, wine writers might be the ones who rabidly seek what it is about the wine that gives them pleasure; after all, this is part of their job.

Put all these judges together to evaluate wine and you get a balanced consensus—at least that’s the theory behind most wine competitions these days.

The panels at competitions comprise people from the various types of judges that I describe above. It’s not as often as one might think, but it is often enough that the individual panels of judges have a wide swing in scores to warrant an intense discussion and horse-trading before arriving at a consensus score for some wines.

(In my experience, the majority of scores among the judges are not so far off that a consensus can’t be reached without lengthy discussion.)

The astute wine judge will learn a few things during consensus-building debates. But there’s always a judge or two who simply resists—cannot allow that his or her impression may be too personal, too bent on subjective pleasure, to let the wine have its just reward.

Some judges don’t like certain styles or types of wine and have a hard time accepting that because a wine is not the type that they like, that doesn’t mean it is to be summarily dismissed—it can still be a well-produced wine that is worthy of accolade. Admittedly, this is the most difficult of all wine judging decisions, but it is a decision that can be made fairly, provided the judge stops looking for pleasure.

All of this verbal perambulation about judging wine leads me to offer one piece of not-so-new advice:

Don’t believe everything you read about awards and ratings. The concept of wine evaluation has its own built-in flaws.

Of course, you can take my advice with a grain of salt, as I am in the group that seeks the flaws first. But living by that rule has allowed me to enjoy a lot more wine than I would have been able to enjoy had I been chasing what others consider the cream of the crop.

Did I just make a blog entry that shoots myself in the foot? Will I ever be invited back as a wine judge?

Stay tuned.

NYStateFair results

If you are reading this entry anywhere other than on the vinofictions blog, be aware that it has been lifted without my permission (and without recompense), and that’s a copyright infringement, no matter that the copyright information appears with it.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
June 2009. All rights reserved.

Aging Riesling

The aging potential of Riesling is a discussion that seems to come up over and over on the Internet, even though German Riesling producers proved a long, long time ago that Riesling is not only a noble grape variety, the wine has as much staying power and elegance as many of the best red wine grapes.

Newbie wine critic/bloggers must be forgiven for not knowing the aging potential of Riesling; many of them simply haven’t been around the wine world long enough. But it is heartening to know that bloggers are asking the question. On one New York-centric blog (see link below) the question wasn’t only asked, it was explored over the past few weeks, with bloggers attending Finger Lakes wineries and other venues for a taste of older Rieslings that were cordially drawn from the winery libraries.

My good fortune found me along with a blogger visiting with Fred Frank at Dr. Frank’s Vinifera Wine Cellars (VWC) on Keuka Lake—just a grape’s throw from my home.

Fred lined up ten Rieslings representing a 24-year period. It was quite an experience.

We started with the unreleased 2008 Dry Riesling, as a benchmark new wine that could help us follow wines as they age. Because of its youth, the wine is still austere yet it is beautifully balanced between acidity and fruit, it’s clean and fresh, and its middle structure is held together with a mineral streak common to Keuka Rieslings.

We followed with the 2007 Dry Riesling. Let me stop here and say something both particular and general about Riesling.

Most avid Riesling consumers know of the wine’s capacity to take on a definite petroleum-like aroma as it ages. An Australian, Jonathon Luestner, is working and studying at VWC this year. He finds that Keuka Lake Rieslings don’t seem to take on as powerful a petroleum aroma as their Australian counterparts. When asked why he thinks that is so, Luestner shrugged and replied rhetorically. “Different phenolic structure?”

In any case, the VWC 2007 Dry Riesling gave a hint of petroleum in the aroma. But more pronounced was the smell of lemons. The taste was incredibly full and creamy and underneath it all lay that mineral-like streak connected to Keuka Rieslings. Still, the wine is young.

Things started to get interesting with the 2005 Dry Riesling. It was similar in many ways to the 2007 version, especially its lemony quality and creamy-mineral structure. But I detected no hint of petroleum in the aroma, perhaps giving strength to our Australian friend’s comment.

The bone dry 2001 Reserve Riesling showed a definite change in style, and that was attributed to it having been produced by a different winemaker than the ones producing the more recent VWC wines—in the past few years, the winery has shifted from a one-person winemaking responsibility to a consensus style that assigns one winemaker to oversee an assigned grouping of wines or styles and then a team discusses each wine before it is finished.

With a hint of petroleum aroma, the 2001 Riesling was lean with forward acidity, and a finish with a bite or grip. This wine still needs aging to calm down.

The 1991 Dry Riesling was without doubt the most interesting in the bunch. It wasn’t dominated by petroleum, but it was aromatic, in a butterscotch way. In fact, in the taste its lush, thick body came in layers of butterscotch, minerality, and fruitiness. The winemaker for the 2001 did not produce this wine.

The 1988 Dry Riesling was aromatically subdued, and its structure was more single dimensional, but at 21 years old, the wine was still very much alive. The 1987 Dry showed signs of fading in the slightly oxidized aroma, but its taste was lush and full, with a short finish. Unfortunately, the 1985 Dry was done in by a slightly shriveled cork that allowed leakage, which allowed oxygen to nearly kill the wine; these three vintages were produced by yet another winemaker.

The 2007 Semi-Dry Riesling is a lovely wine, with an herbal lemon balm aroma and a creamy, lush structure. The 1995 Semi-Dry, produced by the same winemaker who gave us the 1991 Dry, had an almost caramel aroma untypical of Riesling, but its creamy structure and trace of mineral in its spine was ever so enjoyable.

It was too bad about the leakage and oxidation of the 1985 Riesling. I’m old enough to remember that vintage—it was my first in the Finger Lakes—and I know it was a good year. Still, tasting these wines proves once more that Riesling can age well when the wine is made well, and that truth holds for the Finger Lakes region just as it holds for Germany.

NYwineBlog

If you are reading this entry anywhere other than on the vinofictions blog, be aware that it has been lifted without my permission (and without recompense), and that’s a copyright infringement, no matter that the copyright information appears with it.

Copyright Thomas Pellechia
June 2009. All rights reserved.