Napa Valley Wine Radio

RSS Feed-Posts RSS Feed-Comments

Yountville, CA

Temperature: 68°F
Humidity: 49.1%
Wind: S at 15 mph
Clouds: Clear Skies
Sunrise: 6:02 am GMT-8
Sunset: 8:10 pm GMT-8
Updated: 1:54 pm GMT-8

April 2007
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Mar		May »
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

Archive for April, 2007

Q: Why do California Wines Have French Names?

April 27, 2007 in Answers. 2 Comments

Question from Marcia: Why do California wines have French names?

Answer: Hi, Marcia! Thanks for writing! We’re not trying to be pretentious - honest! In some cases California wineries have adopted French names out of respect for our European mentors, for instance the word “chateau” is a French word for a winemaking house and there are local wineries named Chateau Potelle or Chateau Montelena.

More likely, you’re referring to the wines themselves. In most of the new world the wines are named for the grape variety that makes them, for instance Chardonnay is a grape variety that’s different from Pinot Noir, just like Fuji apples are different from Granny Smith.

All over the world the vast majority of wine is made of grapes of European, or actually Eurasian, origin, called vitis vinifera, so you end up speaking French, Italian, Spanish or German when you’re ordering it. Vitis vinifera is thought to be native to the area south of the Black Sea, in what is now Georgia and Armenia, and eventually traveled west. Of course Europe takes the credit for making these varieties famous. Wine residues found in 7th century BC containers tell us that wine has been around for a very long time. You can figure that wine is as old as man and wild grapes since all you need to make it besides grape juice is yeast, which is everywhere, like bacteria. Imagine early man thinking he had saved some grape juice in a pot and then several days later found something much more interesting!

Wine grapes are good for eating, except for the fact that we’ve been spoiled by modern hybrids that are designed to be big and juicy, and not to annoy us with seeds. When you buy grapes at the grocery store in America, they’re usually seedless hybrids like Thompson seedless or a Native American varieties, such as Concord.

Conversely, you can make wine from Native American varieties and hybrids, but we, as consumers, have rejected most of them over and over again. We seem to prefer the old-fashioned varieties that have made wine for centuries. American and European varieties are of the same genus, but not the same species, so they’re different in appearance, growing habits and most importantly, flavor.

There’s no uniformity in the way wines are named around the globe, so it can be confusing. It pretty much boils down to this: if the wine is made in Europe it’s most often named for the region it comes from and the local laws regulate which varieties may be used in the region. For instance Pinot Noir is the red grape of Burgundy, but you’ll rarely see a French wine called Pinot Noir. It will simply be called red Burgundy, or Bourgogne rouge, or it may be named for the village it comes from within Burgundy, like Nuits St. George or even the specific vineyard. Most of the new world names the wine for the grape variety itself and the minimum percentage is set by the government, for instance in the US to call it Chardonnay, we must use at least 75% Chardonnay grapes. The lines have begun to blur, making it even more confusing. In order to compete in the new world some of the old world producers have begun using varietal names, especially in the Languedoc region in southern France.

So, that’s long answer to a short question! I hope it helps! Cheers! Nancy

Q: Are Plastic Corks for Cheap Wine?

April 23, 2007 in Answers. 2 Comments

Question from Andrew: Hi! I bought a $30.00 bottle of wine and it had a plastic cork. I’ve always thought that using anything other than a real cork is a sign of poor quality. What’s going on? What do you use and why?

3 Synthetic Corks

Answer: Hi, Andrew! Thanks for writing! As you’ve noticed, the world of wine closures is changing very quickly. It’s hard to keep up!

It all started in the last decade or so and was driven mainly by problems with “cork taint,” which refers to a sound wine being ruined by a bad cork. The cork could fail to perform, for instance it could leak and lead to oxidation, but cork taint usually refers to a cork that has made the wine smell musty and moldy. I’d like to tell you that it doesn’t happen very often, and the statistics are inexact and hotly debated, but let’s just say that it’s been often enough to become an issue.

So, we started looking at alternatives. Plastic corks started to come on the scene about 8 or 9 years ago, according to our cork broker. They reduce the potential for cork taint to zero but have problems of their own. For one thing, they can be hard to get out of the bottle and for another they can’t be trusted to protect the wine beyond about 3 years. However, they’ve been embraced by the industry because they’re very inexpensive and most people drink their wine within a few weeks of the purchase anyway. As long as you’re not aging your wine long term they’re fine, if you can live with the environmental downside.

And then screw caps migrated from “jug wine” to fine wine. In the southern hemisphere, people love them. In Europe and the U.S. we’re a little less enthusiastic, but you can no longer assume that a screw cap means it’s a lesser wine. There’s no risk of cork taint and statistically, the screw cap is superior to cork when it comes to protecting the wine from air. It may be the closure of the future, believe it or not. There are those with some reservations for technical reasons. We think it’s best to allow more data to be accumulated.

There are other new closures out there too. As I said, it’s hard to keep current.

It’s ironic that these new alternatives have become so well accepted just in time for most of the cork-taint problems to be solved. Cork quality control has improved by quantum leaps and the industry has developed ways to purge the substance that makes the wine smell musty. It’s my sincere hope that cork taint is one the run.

We use natural cork here at Goosecross because we believe it’s the best closure for the long haul and it is bio-degradable. Our supplier has an excellent track record regarding the cork-taint issue so we’re able to bottle the wine and be confident that it will be well protected.

I hope that answers your questions. We have more detailed information on our website and there’s a 4-part interview that provides some great information from our cork supplier right here in Napa Valley Wine Radio podcast episodes 18 through 21.

Cheers! Nancy

I’ll Drink to That!

April 22, 2007 in Blogging, Rants and Wine Blogs. 0 Comments

What percentage of the blogosphere, do you suppose, is composed of garbage, vanity press and egos run amok? I don’t know either, but it’s got to be a pretty big number. It seems that too many bloggers are more interested in drawing attention to themselves than in providing insights or information that’s actually useful. Take, for instance, this jewel of a restaurant review posted in Yelp: the restaurant concerned is described as being “like a botched face lift covered with layers of poorly applied cheap make-up on a hot humid day in Biloxi, Miss.”

Who has time to write blogs?

Now, first of all, why anyone wants to read a restaurant review from an anonymous, presumably amateur reviewer is a mystery to me when there are professionals available at no cost. Only they can answer that question. And the writing says more about the writer than the restaurant. It just invites more destructive, mean-spirited participants to jump in and join the fray. If some of these contributors keep going down this bombastic road, they may well attract enough foaming-at-the-mouth readers to start getting advertising revenues out of it. Bad behavior rewarded.

And then there was this whole business with Kathy Sierra, which is very unsettling to female bloggers like me. Rude is one thing. Grotesque threats upon one’s life are quite another. I’m looking forward to the day when they track down where those “comments” originated and prosecute.

Not to worry - I don’t want to talk about that. All of that was a very strange and meandering lead-in to an affectionate “congratulations!” to my wine-blogging brethren. In the context of reading those surly restaurant reviews, a subject dangerously close to wine blogging, I was perhaps unreasonably pleased to read about this discussion on ethics and objectivity between two of my favorite wine bloggers, Tim at Winecast and Alder at Vinography. Not only do they consistently make an effort to educate and entertain us, they do so in a thoughtful way and are genuinely concerned about being straight with their readers. “Full disclosure” is a phrase you hear from them from time to time so you know where they’re coming from.

Right on!

P.S. - In the spirit of full disclosure, Tim Elliott consults for Goosecross, but I was a fan of his blog long before I worked with him.

I don’t mean to imply that they’re unique. Quite the opposite. Do I have blinders on to be so proud of our multitude of wine bloggers for being generally all-around good guys (and I do mean guys, since wine bloggers, as is the case in the rest of the blogosphere, are overwhelmingly male)? I suppose there must be some skanky examples out there but I have, thus far, managed to have missed them. Please - don’t bother to enlighten me.

The suggestion that bloggers abide by certain guidelines has been met with mixed commentary, some of it not very civil. The guidelines “called on bloggers to not post material that harasses others, is libelous or is knowingly false.” Not setting the bar terribly high, yet still meeting resistance. Hmmm… You have to wonder about the intentions of folks who resent such minimal standards. I suppose some might interpret any limitation as censorship. So much for living in the age of information… as our CEO, David Topper, states “more likely the age of misinformation and we need to read responsibly”.

Well, blogging is still in its wild-wild-west stage, so maybe we have to go through some growing pains. I can understand that some people think their lives are so enthralling that they must be shared with all of us lucky folks - what I can’t quite get my arms around is the fact that these people have actual readers/viewers!?

But, at least it’s harmless. Hardly an original thought, but it’s the kooks and cranks with their hit-and-run vulgarities that discredit the blogosphere. Where will we be in five years?

Wine Blog Cartoon

Anyway, my real point is to send kudos to my excellent fellow wine bloggers, who are better at keeping me current with what’s going on in the wine world than any other form of media, and for their informed and judicious - but still fun! - approach. I’ve always thought that referring to wine as a civilizing beverage sounds a little snooty, but maybe there’s something to it. I guess I’ll have a glass of wine and think it over.

Regarding “Dr. Frankenwine…”

April 18, 2007 in Observations, Wine Business and Winemaking. 0 Comments

This highly-entertaining interview reinforces two of the biggest reasons that I have stayed in the wine industry all of these years.

1. The best winemakers in the world are exceptionally intelligent, opinionated, singular and perhaps a little off their nut (in a very good way). Therefore, never boring.

2. Wine is an endlessly complicated, subjective, idiosyncratic subject and beverage. Consensus is impossible, no matter the topic, so the delightful debate rages on. What a blast! Why talk about who’s being voted off the island on American Idol when you can go point and counterpoint on how to define terroir? Or the role of wine writers in the whole scheme of things? Or where “manipulation” begins and ends?

Regarding point 1, just read the interview to remove any doubt that Clark Smith, this extremely intelligent and accomplished winemaker, is full of contradictions. In one breath he abhors 50-year-old technological advances and embraces his own more recent ones as the road to salvation. I’ve had the pleasure of listening to Randall Graham’s impassioned explanation for why he does what he does. And sat and wondered at Jim Clendenen’s eccentric pontifications. These guys are brilliant, articulate (well, maybe Smith isn’t so articulate, but who cares?) and would probably be the first to suggest that the personal drummer to which they march has gone down the road a piece. They not only educate and offer diverting commentary - they make us think.

Surely, most of us have misgivings when it comes to big-time manipulation similar to the ones I expressed in the post about my visit to ConeTech, a competitor to Smith’s Vinovation. I’d like to hear what Smith has to say about the piece by John Williams of Frog’s Leap referenced in that entry. Smith says “It all went out the window 50 years ago. It’s way too late and my company is doing everything it can to get us back to where we were…” - contradicting himself yet again. Williams says it’s not too late: “Pick nearly any problem in winemaking today and you will find with a minimum of research a deep connection to farming practice…” My heart wants to believe Williams.

When it comes to how we should feel about all this, realistically, doesn’t it boil down to which sort of consumer you are? If you view wine as simply a yummy beverage to wash down your bruschetta, innovation and “manipulation”, however you define it, has been a very positive force in the industry. Isn’t it great that cheap wine tastes a whole lot better now than it ever has? I’m that consumer a lot of the time and feel very grateful that the every-day wine I drink usually tastes pretty darned good. That consumer says “I like sausage, but I don’t want to know how it got to my table.”

Then there are those who think of wine as that “soulful product of the earth…” who crave something authentic. I’m that consumer, too, when I stock my cellar with the good stuff and in that case I tend to care about how it all came together. If the producer makes references to terroir and the wine having a “sense of place” then my hope is that they define “manipulation” as something as minor as deciding to add yeast or to age the wine in an oak barrel.

So, I guess I’m a little schizo too. I suppose most of us are.

Anyway, since wine is still a business, last time I checked, we have to figure that most winemakers manipulate a little or a lot to survive. The market only becomes more competitive. You can blame the current state of affairs on the CEOs, as Smith does, or on the wine writers, as I and many others often do. Or the “flying winemakers”. It doesn’t matter. Pandora has escaped from her technology box and is perhaps enjoying a nice glass of very trendy, heavily-manipulated Tempranillo right now. Crazy.

Improvement or Manipulation?

April 15, 2007 in Observations and Winemaking. 0 Comments

I was fascinated that someone would think to undertake a survey like this one (PDF) on wine manipulations, such as adding color or oak chips to wine.

For one thing, I think the vast majority of consumers and probably a big percentage of the trade are completely unaware that this stuff is going on at some wineries. For another, a lot of wine professionals, including winemakers, tend to think that the industry would be better off if consumers and the trade remain ignorant of these goings-on. I approached an enologist/friend about explaining some of these techniques in a podcast, and the reply wasn’t exactly “why expose dirty laundry” but that was the message. No interview.

Reality is, with the rapid rate of communication these days you’re going to hear about this stuff, whether we want you to or not, and it’s better to discuss the facts up front rather than let “truthiness” rule the day. I plan to outline simple explanations for these techniques in the near future but, in the meantime, it’s so interesting to consider how we determine exactly what constitutes manipulation.

For instance, I was surprised to see barrel aging referred to as a manipulation. Huh? We’ve been keeping wine in wood containers since at least Roman times, presumably originally as a method of storage and transport. According to our barrel broker at Artisan Barrels, the flavor addition wasn’t really a factor until the middle of the 20th century. So, is the reason that I don’t think of barrel aging as manipulation because it’s so long standing? That kind of shoots a hole in any objections we may have to some of these other manipulations because if we just wait long enough they’ll become “traditional”.

Wine Barrels in Cave

How about “chaptalization” or adding sugar before the fermentation? That’s been going on for centuries too, in a casual way, and was finally recognized as a technique that “improves” wine and given a name in the 19th century. Well, it’s illegal in California. I guess it’s too much of a manipulation here (aside from the fact that it’s rarely necessary).

And then there are extremely modern techniques such as de-alcoholization and micro-oxygenation that are viewed as more controversial. Is it just because they’re new?

Lab Testing Wine

I start to play devil’s advocate with myself: “Maybe these new techniques bother us because they’re more intrusive.” Well, what’s more meddlesome than a 60-gallon oak barrel? A large wood container doesn’t have as much impact, but that small cooperage? That’s a pretty big happening in a wine’s life. I honestly don’t know if more high-tech equals more intrusive. Should we be complaining about stainless steel tanks replacing old clay, stone, leather, concrete or wood containers? You’re going to have a tough time getting a winemaker to part with his stainless steel tanks, valve fittings and equipment for reasons of hygiene, and we all like that, don’t we? How do we define improvement vs. manipulation?

Checking Wine

I loved this remark from a decidedly non-interventionist winemaker in Friuli, courtesy of Vinography: “…all winemaking is intervention in a natural process that leads to vinegar.” All he’s trying to say is that grape juice wants to be wine, and wine wants to be vinegar, so the winemaker always has to step in and exert some control rather than adopting the romantic notion of letting nature take its course.

What do y’all think? Where do we draw the line? How would you respond to this survey?

Rating the Ratings

April 10, 2007 in Observations, Rants and Wine. 0 Comments

Here we have a wine critic who’s puzzled about how to approach a wine that got a 90 from Parker (this critic was also put off by the fact that the wine was rated by one of Parker’s employees rather than Parker himself) and an 84 from the Wine Spectator.

Wine Tasting and Evaluating

Every critic has his methods, but this one strikes me as odd, and adds to my long list of concerns about the 100-point ratings scale.

#1: Why did he seek out the opinions of others before tasting the wine himself? Sometimes you can’t avoid hearing things about high-profile brands, but it seems to me the critic should approach the evaluation without pre-conceived notions whenever possible. His write-ups include scores from other publications, which is a good, democratic idea, but he himself should start out by tasting the wine blind.

#2: His conclusion that “Someone is right and someone is wrong” regarding the 90 vs. the 84. And this, on a 6-point spread. Is anyone ever right or wrong when it comes to evaluating something that we eat or drink? Or read? Or take in at the theater? Life would be a lot simpler is this wasn’t subjective, but it is. And I don’t see a big discrepancy in that spread. Just a different take.

An 84 vs. 90 communicates to me, right or wrong, that the wine must be at least a clean, well-crafted representative of the type. Beyond that, it seems that the style suited Mr. Parker’s guy better than it did the Spectator’s. They each have a right to their opinions. We may or may not agree.

Recently, I was researching wines for a staff tasting and discovered that a highly regarded, fairly pricey Merlot we wanted to taste got a 94 from Robert Parker and, hang on for this - 78 from the Wine Spectator - pretty much a slap in its $65.00 face. Once we tasted it, we began to understand why. The “herbal note” that you expect from Merlot wasn’t subtle - it was something akin to vegetal. It was big and luscious, very clean and well made, so we respected it, but most of us weren’t crazy about it. How do you fairly score a wine like that?

My favorite wine truth

Something like that definitely needs descriptors so that those of us who aren’t vege inclined can make another selection. That’s the fatal flaw in the phoenix rising from the Wine X ashes. Justwinepoints.com goes to the ridiculous extreme that “nothing else matters”. Just the points. But numbers don’t tell you what it tastes like. I appreciate their wish to be unpretentious and concise, but it actually seems rather egotistical to suggest that we will like it simply because they say “98″. For instance, in the category of sparkling wine, the 2003 Schramsberg Cremant received 98 points. Period. No comment. So, some unknowing enthusiast might run out and buy the Cremant to go with his oysters on the half shell, completely unaware that this particular wine is sweet. Yuk! I don’t care how “good” it is - no sweet wine with my oysters, please!!! It “matters”.

I’ve already ragged sufficiently on some of the other problems with numerical ratings such as the producers of the world being at the mercy of a small handful of powerful critics and questioning how one differentiates between an 89 and a 90.

So, the debate rages on. I know that some of the flowery, over-the-top descriptors are more laughable than informative. That sort of self-indulgent writing can send you running and screaming to the numerical scores. But, don’t you think most reviewers are genuinely trying to be helpful? From the vast sea of wine publications, there’s no doubt you can find a writer or two whose tastes and sensibilities are somewhat aligned with yours, whether or not they use points. And if it tastes like a 94 to them and a 78 to you, who is right? Not that they’re mutually exclusive, but couldn’t some well-chosen words give you a better idea of what to expect in terms of aroma and flavor and whether there are any characteristics that may be controversial? Or if the critic views the wine as an outstanding or poor example of the type? Numerical ratings? I guess I’d give them a 71.

Happy New Year!

April 7, 2007 in Vineyard Update and Vintage Update. 0 Comments

It’s New Years in the vineyard! They’re growing! Every winter they look deader than dead and when it’s time for bud break, I always have this momentary fear: “What if they don’t wake up this time?”

But they did. First the Petit Verdot - go figure. Then the Merlot and Cabernet Franc. And now the Cabernet Sauvignon. The official kick-off of the 2007 vintage and yet another excuse to open the sparkling wine!

Bud Break Photo 1

Our Winemaker, Geoff Gorsuch, hasn’t had the chance to pop the bubbly since he’s been up in the middle of the night twice so far to protect the tender new shoots from frost. This is when you wish you were a hillside grower! Damage begins at 32 degrees F. so wind machines, with large propellers, are used to mix the warm air above with the colder air that’s settling on the vineyard. For severe frost, we use smudge pots - some wineries call them “vineyard heaters” which burn propane to warm the vines. With any luck, we’ll start getting some much needed rain, to replenish our about 10- inch deficit and to chase away the frost. Every year tells its own story.

Wind Machine

But these delicate, pink and green buds - that’s truly a miracle that happens right in front of our eyes every spring. It’s better than New Years, such visible signs of renewal. Makes me want to stop and think awhile - to count my blessings.

Bud Break Photo 2

Bud Break Photo 3

All of which reminds me - Happy Passover! Crack open a bottle made by our good friends and neighbors, Hagafen Cellars, one of the most delicious ways to keep kosher! Happy Easter! Pull the cork on a bottle of Goosecross and enjoy (we both make sparkling wine, by the way)!

Welcome, vintage 2007! Here’s to a very good year!