This just in....

Most people still don't know shit when it comes to wine.

Yet another article confirming this fact, however sad but true it is. And while I am more often than not referred to as an elitest or snob, I can't help but glean more than a hint of the same from some of the things written in the article. For example, the sub title of the article:

Survey finds majority believes most white wines get better over time

I wonder why? Could it be that of all the useless information that is plastered on the P.O.S. (and I don't mean 'point of sale') that is the back label, the lifespan of the wine, arguably the single most important fact, is nearly non-existent - save for Ridge Vineyards and maybe a few more. Granted this article is in PressDemocrat and they have a rather captive audience already, but the CA wine industry is not alone in this.

Of course, there are very obvious reasons why this information is missing. Would you shell out anywhere from $35-$150 for wine that realisticly has 1-3 years for the whites and 1-8 for the reds. I think not. And obviously, there are few winemakers who are 1. Honest enough, and 2. Willing to put their money where their mouth is. I find this is extremely unfortunate and it serves only to propagate people's insecurities.

"The idea that wines get better with age is ingrained in our consciousness, whether we like it or not," said John Gillespie

With all due respect, I must call B.S. The saying that caused said ingrain-ment is this: "...like a fine wine, it only gets better with age." I'm sure you would think it a matter of semantics, but the word 'fine' means something, and even moreso in the context of wine. Granted most people aren't aware of the difference and this is something I am trying to overcome every day.

"The confusion is particularly understandable given that certain white wines, like some chardonnay, often do improve with age, Fredrikson said."

Bring on the emails, I don't care. I'll give you two guesses which region in the world Msr. Fredrikson is referring to with the 'some Chardonnay' comment. I guaran-damn-tee you it ain't the Russian River Valley.

"The Wine Opinions survey asked which moderately priced white wine consumers would bring to a casual dinner party. Assuming the same brand, price and varietal, they were asked whether they would bring a wine with a vintage of 2004, 2002 or 2000.

Only 16 percent said they would purchase the 2004 vintage, arguably the "freshest" of the group. Twenty-eight percent chose the 2002 vintage, while fully 44 percent said they would choose the 5-year-old vintage."

And why might the findings be what they are? Could it be that every jackass with a word processor and somebody willing to print could not/would not keep running on at the mouth extolling the virtues and masterpiece that was the 2000 vintage, or the .97 or the .94 and so on. Seriously, I know people that re-financed their homes to get the money for these wines. At the end of the day, it seems a bit excessive, regardless of how much I love wine, and how much money I spend on it.

Here's the really interesting part:

The remaining 11 percent said they would probably choose a wine with no vintage date.

I am seeing more and more NV table wines (i.e. non-sparkling) particularly from France but Marietta Cellars 'Old Vine Red Lot #???' comes to mind. Reckon if any winemakers out there will take note of this train of thought (apathetic/indifferent). I mean that in light of this information will the various wineries recognize a niche instead of using the info to monkey around with the laws and regulations in an obviouos attempt to screw the growers and further the practice of pawning off sub-par shit on unsuspecting consumers...

Currently, 95 percent of the grapes used to make vintage-dated wines must have been harvested in that year. The federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is considering a proposal to reduce that percentage to 85 percent for certain wines, but not others.

Guess not.