Recent events at another wine periodical have raised the question of the public’s attitude toward wine critics. The wave of reprisal and even revulsion against their award to a non-existent restaurant has highlighted a little-known and even less understood phenomenon: That many wine consumers harbor an uneasiness about wine criticism and hence toward wine critics, a suspicion that, unlike Caesar’s wife, not all of us are above suspicion.

In my other blog, I speculated that some of the outpouring of anger toward the wine magazine in question might be due to the feeling on the part of some that the magazine, in its vast influence, has grown arrogant. While I’m not making a judgment on that either way myself, I wish to clarify and expand that statement here by explaining my own view of the role the wine critic ought to take toward his or her job. The key word is modesty. The wine critic must be ever mindful not to take for granted whatever seeming power he possesses, for the simplest and most self-defensive of reasons: Pride goeth before a fall. The wine critic who believes his own hype will surely be brought low.

There are many reasons for a critic to be modest and humble. Surely one of the strongest is the realization — which every one of us has, or should have, deep, down inside — that we could be wrong in our assessment of any given wine. A wine critic, even the most famous in the world, could make a blunder so disastrous that it could ruin his career. I have often referred to the late Harry Waugh’s self-deprecating remark that he had not mistaken a Burgundy for a Bordeaux “since lunch.” Can you imagine if, in a public venue, Parker mistook Burgundy for Bordeaux? It would be a scandal of the greatest magnitude. And yet I would venture to say it has happened, maybe in the privacy of his tasting chamber in Monkton. I will confess here and now that it has happened to me. And since I deal more with California than Europe, I will confess I have mistaken Merlot for Zinfandel, Pinot Noir for Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon for Petite Sirah — and the other way around.

Knowing that you could blow something as fundamental as varietal identity is one reason to be modest and humble, but there is at least one other. A critic might over a period of time assign two different scores to the same wine. Granted, there could be good objective reasons for this: The 2 wines may have been stored and shipped under varying conditions. They might not have been “equalized” at the winery. And if the time period between tasting them is greater than a few months, the second wine may have undergone changes in the bottle due to aging. But there is no critic who doesn’t worry that he may simply react differently to the same wine, and therefore expose the subjective, interpretive and somewhat volatile nature of wine tasting. Knowing you might give an “85” to a wine you previously scored “94” is certainly enough to keep one humble, as is the realization that a low score can impact a small family winery’s income.

In my travels in California I keep humility constantly in mind. I try not to pretend to know more than I do, or to over-estimate my importance. To the extent anyone fusses over me, it’s embarrassing. I’m in awe of how much smarter so many people in this industry are than I am, and I never forget to remind myself how fortunate I am to have this job. Many people have told me they’re surprised to find out, when they get to know me, that I’m “real,” instead of some cardboard cutout of a serious, snobby wine critic. I like that; it’s something I consciously try to do.

Martha Stewart has her own line of California varietals. Lorraine Bracco sells a Bracco Rosato, from Italy. Wayne Gretzky has a winery, and Paul Newman now sells Cabernet and Chardonnay under the Newman’s Own label. Brett Favre recently launched his eponymous brand, while Paris Hilton’s Prosecco comes in three flavors, original, passionfruit and strawberry. Dan Ackroyd has his Signature Reserve Series wines, and porn star Savanna Samson (“Rocco Meats an American Angel in Paris”) has a Tuscan wine, “Dream One,” that Parker gave 90 points. Mick Fleetwood (Fleetwood Mac) has a “Private Cellars” line, and don’t even get me started on Mike Ditka and Greg Norman. Now comes The Nielsen Company telling us what what we already suspected: “Celebrity wines are on the rise.”

Seems consumers have a hankering for “lifestyle brands” and, as this graph shows

dollar sales of celebrity wines are soaring. “Consumers are paying an average of $8.50 per 750ml bottle of celebrity wine, versus $5.75 per bottle of table wine,” Nielsen reports. Which I guess makes celebrities approximately 47% more valuable than regular people.

Who’s next? Will Brad and Angelina launch a new line of international varieties? Is Michael Phelps already planning his “Eight Golds” brand of bubblies? Now that Hillary’s out of the race, will we see a Cult Clinton Cabernet? Miley Cyrus isn’t old enough to drink, but a Hannah Montana Syrah sounds pretty good. Could Robert Downey, Jr. be working on a Rehab Red? How about an Amy Winehouse Wine? A line of low-calorie varietals from Oprah? Beyoncé Barbera? How about a Jay-Z J-Ries? J-Lo Johano? Maybe Curtis James Jackson III can come out with a “50 Cent Curt” line at Trader Joe’s. Jon Stewart’s Irony White could be a best sellar. Buy me a case of Sarah Jessica Parker’s Manolo Merlot. Heidi Klum Auftraminer? Stop me before I spiel again.

Readers, what celebrities do you think should start a wine brand? What would be its name?

Funny story in today’s paper. Up in Washington State, vineyard acreage is exploding, but it seems like not every plant growing there is destined to end up in a bottle of wine. The destination of some of them is more likely to be in a pipe or a doobie. “[V]ineyards are producing tens of thousands of illegal marijuana plants - a crop that could easily surpass grapes in value this year,” the Associated Press reports. Pot plants love the same weather as grapes: hot and dry during the summer and fall. We’ve seen the same phenomenon here in Calfornia for decades. In my first book, A Wine Journey along the Russian River, I told the story of how Rodney Strong’s winemaker found pot plants growing in their Alexander Valley vineyard, put there clandestinely by someone stupid enough to think he’d get away with it (he didn’t). Another winemaker friend of mine was shot at as he was hiking through Mendocino wine country and accidentally stumbled into somebody’s marijuana ranch.

Winegrapes are big business in both Washington State and California, but here in the Golden State, pot is reputed to be the state’s biggest agricultural crop. Although no one keeps figures (for obvious reasons), a few years ago it was widely estimated at $13.8 billion.

Seems to me that, given California’s dire financial predicament (Gov. Schwarzenegger recently proposed dropping the salaries of all the State’s workers to the federal minimum wage), we could use every additional dollar we can find. Raising taxes is objectionable (although the Governor has also proposed a temporary one-cent rise in the sales tax), and we certainly don’t want the State to raise the tax on alcoholic beverages the way the neo-prohibitionists were threatening to do back in the 1990s. If “sin taxes” are required, how about legalizing pot for adults (the way we do with alcohol) and heavily taxing it? I don’t believe legalizing it would result in more people smoking it (so many do anyway), and California could easily earn hundreds of millions, if not billions in this way. If pot followed the wine model, we’d have inexpensive everyday stuff and maybe even “cult” pot. Screaming Reefer, anyone?

We don’t think so at Wine Enthusiast, although in the bad old days, back in the 1990s when the magazine was still getting up and running, we used an outside firm (Beverage Testing Institute), to review our wines, and BTI charged the wineries a reviewing fee. I forget how much, but nowadays, according to their website, they charge $95 per wine for their “World Wine Championships.”

What got me thinking about this topic was an email that came in yesterday. It announced, in breathless terms amidst lots of exclamation marks !! a new Wine Buyer’s Competition, in which wineries can “get your wines tasted by top U.S. Professional Wine Buyers” from some quite respectable outlets: Dean and Deluca, Andronico’s Market, the PlumpJack Group (brainchild of Mayor Gavin Newson), the Playboy Mansion West, and even Whole Foods Markets. The press release touts the event as an opportunity for wineries to “get your wines in front of the right people” instead of “spend[ing] thousands of dollars travelling and hours beating your head against the wall trying to get face time” with wholesale buyers.

I have mixed feelings. It’s a good thing for buyers from esteemed restaurants and stores to come together and give winery submitters an opportunity to have their wines tasted. But here’s the catch: The Wine Buyer’s Competion also will be publishing a “Wine Buying Guide,” will be awarding gold, silver and bronze medals — and is charging $75 per entry ($85 after Aug. 15).

Personally, I would suspect any reviewing business that charges money. Although I understand that a revenue stream is needed, there’s something unseemly about the process. Will the judges trash any of the wines, even if they’re horrible, and thus kill the goose that laid the golden egg? I don’t think so.

It being Friday morning and me just back from a grueling trip to NY for our annual Wine Enthusiast editorial conference (grueling because I suffered through one flight cancellation and 2 multi-hour staycations on the tarmac), I sat down at the puter going through about 170 emails and wondering how to find something in my befogged state of mind to blog about when, mirabile dictu, in came 1 Wine Dude’s rant against the 100-point system.

Thank you, Lord, who doth provide sustenance when we need it! Even though it was deja vu all over again (there have been more of these 100 point diatribes than Rambo movies), I was grateful to defend the system Everybody Loves to Bash (or, at least, every blogger who’s short on material loves to bash).

Read the rest of this entry »

I came across a truly ugly word, but a necessary one, while surfing the Web. “Glocal” it is, a neologism that’s a combination of “global” and “local” and used by economists to describe the intersection of global forces and local impacts.

In a fascinating essay he wrote for his blog, The Wine Economist, Michael Veseth, an economics professor at the University of Puget Sound, describes examples of glocalics, or glocalism, in the wine world. The phenomenon of “flying winemakers,” as exemplified by Michael Rolland (among others), is a classic glocalism. Rolland has been associated with the International style of wine, which many critics world-wide have decried as undermining terroir, and Veseth poses this thought-provoking question: “Which feature will dominate - the global or the local, or will some synthesis emerge?”

Read the rest of this entry »

For some years now the effects of global warming on grapegrowing and wine have been, ahem, hotly debated. The conventional wisdom has been that warmer temperatures worldwide are changing ripening patterns, and perhaps rapidly. There’s been talk of Bordeaux and Germany (for example) having better, more consistent vintages, because a warmer climate means less rain and cold there to plague the grapes. By contrast, people have worried that Napa Valley might get too hot, with prime viticulture moving northward into Canada and even Alaska.

Read the rest of this entry »

I heard the other day that a local winery, Preston, is pouring new wine straight from the barrel into jugs that customers can bring, have filled and then take home with them. And then there are numerous events in California where customers can pay to taste wine straight from the barrel. The Russian River Wine Road’s Barrel Tasting Weekends is one such.

There’s a mystique about barrel tasting. The image is one where you (the taster) are in some beautiful, old cellar, with candles and bins filled with dusty old vintages and row upon row of spotlighted, golden barrels. The winemaker (preferably French, and with a beret and a twinkle in his eye) scoops up a sip of wine through his thief, then squirts it into a crystal glass of the highest quality. Together, you swirl and sip. Perhaps there are savory little canapés to munch. And, of course, you are seated at a pretty little table with a white tablecloth.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have a point-counterpoint article due in Wine Enthusiast for the Dec. 1 ish. (In the world of paper-based publishing, you have to start thinking this far ahead, so unlike the immediacy of blogging.) It’s going to be on single-vineyard versus blended Cabernets, and which makes the better wine — or, to be more specific, which better illustrates terroir. I’m taking the counterpoint side — my friend and colleague, our Seattle-based editor Paul Gregutt, is going to advance the thesis that a single-vineyard Cab better expresses its terroir than a blended one.

Read the rest of this entry »

Eric Asimov’s blog over at The Pour, on beer, reminded me of how the U.S. has this split between wine drinkers and beer drinkers. Just to remind you of the scope of this split, think about how conservatives refer to “white wine [or Chablis] sipping liberals” who often also drink lattes, live in San Francisco and have a tendency to hug trees. This is as opposed to “real men,” the kind of guys who hang out in bars, play darts and thump their mugs on the tables.

How did this come about? Well, consider the Germans. German immigrants made up the biggest slice of the U.S. population earlier in our history, outnumbering immigrants from other countries between 1820 and 1940, so it’s not surprising that America’s cultural orientation tended to veer toward German values.

Read the rest of this entry »