The Art of Self Defense

****This is going to be a long one, but please read it in its entirety****

My head is about to explode. On October 25, the Wall Street Journal ran an article in the column 'In Vino Veritas' which was the latest of myriad calls for the French to change the manner in which they label their wines. The argument is that labeling by place is archaic and confusing, and as a result the 'global market' is spending its money on wines from regions that label by grape. While the latter may be true, I take serious exception to the former.

My brother the economist, is the one who brought this article to my attention. Being an economist, his take is that yes, indeed the French must change or suffer the circumstances i.e. loss of market share. On its face, this statement is 100% correct. As The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse stated so eloquently 'Not what you say, but what the market will bear.' My take is a little different.

Let us establish a few things from the get-go.

1. Whenever you see terms like 'global market' or 'international taste' or 'international/global taste market' this means 'America'. Why this has to be veiled under some phrase or another, I don't know but I wish it would stop.

2. Grapes have been grown and wine made in what is now known as France for about 2000 years. During this period, the people who make wine have had time to figure out which grapes grow best in different regions. This is now a matter of law in many parts of France as well as Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal. Here in the U.S., wine production has been going on in earnest for about 40 years. Without question, there are older houses and vineyards but for the most part, we are in a winemaking infancy. To put it bluntly, we are the child at the dinner table. This is not to say we are not or cannot produce wines to rival the Old World, it is obvious that we can and do. But I think in the context of this argument for 'change' among the French, a little perspective is appropriate.

3. I find it slightly arrogant to think that the rest of the world and the wines it produces should cater to what I feel is essentially fashion. I find it somewhat disturbing that one country could wield so much power and even more disturbing that other countries would so willingly conform solely for monetary reasons.

Before you call a 'commie-pinko bastard', let's walk it through. If you feel the same afterwards, fine.

Keep breathing and imagine that we are two or three hundred years in the future. As stated earlier, the French have had a head start of about 1900 years on this whole wine thing and they have learned things about their weather, microclimates, soil types and the like. Granted the advent of science has helped speed part of this process here in the U.S but there is no substitute for time. And it is time that I believe will lead us to the same conclusion that Europe reached centuries ago.

Wine Spectator has an article every other month singing the praises of Syrah,the Santa Ynez Valley and how well the two complement each other. This is not news and it pisses me off every time I read something like it. This is the passing of time and people paying attention to how grapes respond to that ubiquitous 'terroir' that the French are always on about. That's right, the same 'terroir' that the winery will wax ad naseum over in brochures, on the website and in the tasting yet always seems to get second billing to the fact that it is from the 'Central Valley' or even better 'California'.

And speaking of which, throw anything up in the air in California, it will sprout wings and grow. Sometimes it will grow like a bastard. My contention is that just because it will grow, doesn't make it good. And just because you made wine from it doesn't mean I should buy it. If I tried hard enough I could probably figure out how to raise salmon in my bath tub. This, of course, would be no substitute for Yukon or Copper river Kings and should not command the attention that these other fish do.

Let us move on to our collective psyche as a country. Just about all of us identify with the idea of being 'American'. Within this context there is a secondary qualification. I'm from Georgia. I am proud of this. I suppose that were I from New Jersey, I might be proud of that. And if you've ever been to Texas, you know what they think of their little piece of paradise. Yet, within the context of my friends across the pond, they're all French. Curious isn't it? France is a pretty big country yet they get lumped in together. For the sake of this argument, let us put aside the designation of 'states' and look at them more as 'regions'. The French version of this is known as a 'département'. We could very easily establish a similar system here in this country. For that matter, it is more or less already established. It is simply a matter of tweaking it a bit so that it makes sense.

Of course, all of this is predicated on some level of education, at least geographically if not palate-wise as well.

As I go through this keep in mind that while I may agree with some of the 'generalizations', I am deferring to 'popular opinion' on others. Washington becomes the sister of Alsace. Riesling is what they do truest to form and the Merlots bear little resemblance to their French counterparts. Oregon is in effect Burgundy. The press can't seem to burn enough ink writing about how amazing every Pinot Noir ever thought about here has been. Need proof? Monsieur Parker himself owns a vineyard in Oregon. I suspect that with equal emphasis afforded to Chardonnay some impressive wines could emerge. They could further develop sparkling wines like in Champagne by virtue of varietals grown and climate. On into California. The Central Valley is akin to Bordeaux. Napa being the left bank (more Cabernet Sauvignon dominant) with Sonoma a la Pomerol/St. Emilion i.e. Merlot dominant. Central Coast, as stated before is the long lost brother of the Rhône Valley. I trust you are starting to see the pattern.

There is also the issue food. Throughout Europe, there are as many varied types of food as there are wine. This stands to reason because more often than not, the wines are made to compliment the local fare. This may be a problem for us in this country because we don't have a particularly unique food culture. This, of course is because we are a country made up of people from everywhere else. And with the people, come their cultures. And thus the melting pot. I'm not sure what the answer is for this one.

In closing, I suggest that while indeed France is/may be losing market share of the 'global' wine market currently, that all things are cyclical. It is no surprise that there are other countries stepping up to challenge the 'Old Man'. And in the short term, many of these will be perceived as 'better' wines. However, attention is often a fleeting thing. And I hope that instead of giving into the fashion of the moment, the French will stay the course, maybe even dig in harder. It is intellectual laziness that is driving the 'global' trends. This too is cyclical.

The French may be silly, but they're not stupid.

Look out Wine, somebody's knocking.

As reported almost daily, wine is one of the most healthy things that one can consume. Well, there is a challenger on the block. The mighty cranberry. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the fine folks of New Hampshire or New Jersey or where ever cranberries come from start making wine from cranberries and proclaiming it liquid perfection.

Check this video clip. Weighing in at 1m42s, there are four separate 'product placements' totaling 12-15 of screen time. I'll let you figure out who produced this 'news' piece.

Wine Spectator Economics 101

From the looks of it, Marvin Shanken is having a little trouble paying for his cigars. Or maybe, the baby needs a new pair of shoes. With more fanfare than it deserved, Wine Spectator had their site down for a bit in anticipation of its new website. It's new alright. Improved? Not so much.

After trying to explore all the 'amazing' new things on the site, one thing is obvious. From here on out, it's 'pay to play'. In an incredibly stupid move, WineSpectator.com is entirely subscription only. What the hell are they thinking?

In the letter from Mr. Shanken himself(?),

"Every single story on our home page is original to the Web site. None of the content we post daily has been previously published in Wine Spectator magazine or any other source. However, for handy reference, you can find the contents of back issues of Wine Spectator magazine in our online archives."

So WS is now the acme of all wine news? Since when?

"You’ll find more wine information than ever before. Many wine reviews will be posted here before they appear in Wine Spectator magazine. Every day, we’ll review exciting new wines, one in each of three different price categories."

What a novel concept! Publish current events as they happen not a month later. And how about just 'exciting new wines' regardless of price category? This, in my opinion does little to combat the price = quality mentality in this country.

"In order to support this new approach, we have decided to charge a subscription fee to use the site. We think it is a fair price for so much information."

Here's the kicker. 'We are doing all this great stuff and all you have to do is pay for it.' There isn't even a 'trial period' or an 'entry' level - free subscription as there was before.

I suspect that a decline in 'news stand' sales is the impetus for such and idiotic move. It's curious that the advertising pays for salaries, layout, printing, and profit yet it is still not enough. Maybe they can't command the advertising premiums they once did. So much for actually teaching anybody anything about wine although I think they abandoned this some time ago. I trust that this will only encourage people to avoid WS in print and online. It is (and has been for some time) obvious that they are in the business of making money not educating the masses. Not that I have a problem with making money, just don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

And don't get me started on the 'Restaurant Awards' program. Three words: Pay to play.

Wine Economics 101

I'm not sure what the hell is going on in Modesto, California but is has to be one of two things: 1. A slow 'news' day. 2. The public school system is circling the drain. Need proof? Here you go.

"Most people buy wine at the grocery store. Some go to high-end wine shops, and many look for bargains at places like Trader Joe's, Beverages & More and Cost Plus."

Well, this pretty much covers the bases, doesn't it? Most people, who buy wine buy it somewhere. Brilliant! I do take exception to the 'high-end wine shops' thing. Not only with this article, but with the average joe schmoe on the street. Why is the assumption made that if you're not Piggly Wiggly or Sam's Club, you are obviously 'high-end'? I understand that a small shop dealing exclusively in Old World wines, seeking out the finest examples of price/quality ratio with a completely obsessed monkey at the helm is a novel concept but 'high-end' this does not make! Furthermore, I am growing increasingly tired of hearing the old 'He's a 'French cheese and wine' kind of guy. What the hell is wrong with French cheese and wine? If more people ate French cheese and drank French wine (or any wine for that matter) the world would be a far better place. I digress.

"But the most profitable and fastest growing source of revenue for wineries is direct sales — consumers buying directly from the winery."

Somebody call the president, this guy's a genius. But wait, it's not just him alone. He's got proof.

"That's according to an MKF Direct Sales Survey. MKF is a wine industry consulting firm based in St. Helena."

Maybe I'm in the wrong business. How sweet it is to get paid for stating the obvious. There was a similar 'study' done here in Savannah to determine whether or not a 'water taxi' would work on the river. The result? If you buy a boat, put people on it, point the thing towards the other side and hit the gas you've got yourself a water taxi. Cost = $25,000. I would have told the City that for $25 and twelve pack of beer.

"Direct sales shipments by California wineries grew by an average of 6.5 percent from 2002 to 2003, according to the MKF survey. By comparison, winery shipments through traditional distributors and retailers grew 4 percent in the same period.

The revenue difference was even more dramatic, MKF reported. Average revenue from direct sales grew 9 percent, while revenue from traditional sales grew just 2 percent."

No shit! Why do you think this is?

"That's because the direct sales cut out the infamous middlemen — the distributors, wholesalers and retailers that all take a cut of profits."

That's right, it's those bastards at the distributors, wholesalers, and especially the retailers that are sticking it to you. Does anyone honestly believe this?? I'll let you in on a little secret. The wineries are charging 'retail' prices or damn close to it. And why shouldn't they? If you're willing to spend the money at the shop, why not get it from you at the winery? Oh yeah, don't forget about the shipping costs to get that case of wine to your door. A case of Turley runs $60 - $70 in shipping alone.

"The MKF survey found that while direct sales averaged 7 percent of sales volume across all winery sizes, it reached 31 percent in wineries that produced 50,000 cases or less, and nearly 40 percent for wineries producing less than 5,000 cases.

I'm going to try and show some restraint here and put it very simply. The reason the numbers grow higher with the smaller wineries is because when you don't make any wine, it is very difficult to sell it. This would seem to common sense but maybe not. The distributors aren't going to try and 'build' a brand knowing that as soon as Parker gives it 97 points, the price is going to double and there will be even less for them to sell than before.

"In the traditional sales system, it's the retailer who has a relationship with the customer — and the retailer may be trying to sell the customer someone else's wine, Motto said."

This is a riveting statement. What's the definition of 'retailer' again? And why is this a bad thing? In a perfect world, everybody would have a tight, working relationship with a local retailer. And by that, I mean someone who actually tastes, critiques, buys and sells wine, themselves. Regardless of ratings or reviews.

How many wineries are going to readily admit that whatever single vineyard crap they're peddling is from a terrible year? I don't necessarily blame them for this, but that is precisely my job. Weeding out the inferior wines so as to prevent you from wasting your time and money.

Micheal Moore's twin?

From reading this article, it would appear that Flint, Michigan's finest has a brother separated at birth. It should be known that I am not a fan of films promoted under whatever 'genre' that have a foregone conclusion. This may be a utopian concept, but what ever happened to the documentary?

The argument is that the soul of wine, 'the guardian of western civilisation' (as he describes it in the film notes) is being torn out by globalisation.

Sounds like we're off to a good start.

Michel Rolland (laughing throughout - all the way to the bank, one imagines) is cast as a globe-trotting Machiavel, his Pomerol base a devil's laboratory of white-coated technicians and processed bottles. He gleefully lists the 12 countries in which he makes wine, while his nemesis, Aime Guibert of Daumas Gassac in the town of Aniane in the Languedoc, can't find words to describe him.

Tasting the wines of both, I would probably agree.

Guibert seems to have right on his side. He endlessly justifies his stand against the Mondavi Corporation, which two years ago wanted to develop forest land in Aniane.

Sound familiar? See 'Roger & Me'.

Then there's Michael Broadbent, in one of the most illuminating moments, telling us how Chateau Kirwan in Margaux found success as soon as Rolland took over in 1993. Its taste became global, he says. It's no more Margaux than Opus One, 'but it's selling, so what the hell can you say?'

Right on, Broadbent! Which is more important, allegiance to place or cash? And finally:

But the editing's too clever. 'Michel Rolland, he's always laughing,' Guibert says – as we cut to a shot of the great global chancer chuckling in the back of his Mercedes. Shari Staglin (of cult Napa producer Staglin Family Vineyards) seems to patronise her Mexican pickers, while Etienne de Montille sits picnicking with his vineyard workers.

It's a little too convenient. Nossiter wants to make the case that big equals bad, small and local equals good. He lines up his targets, smilingly gives them lengths of rope and allows them to hang themselves.

This sounds straight out of Moore's play book. I refer you to the scene in 'Bowling for Columbine' with Charleton Heston.

Either way, I want to see this film.

Be-bop-a-ree-bop-a-Rhubarb Wine

Earlier I gave my .02 on the 'emerging' wine industry in South Florida. They are not alone. Enter the great state of North Dakota. From the article:

"Companies with domestic winery licenses must use a majority of North Dakota ingredients in their wine. Tony Osowski, who owns Vintner's Cellar franchises in Fargo and Grand Forks, does not currently meet that requirement because he makes his wine from grapes that are grown out of state.

He's asking the state Tax Department to grant him an exemption.

"I think it would be great to be able to buy grapes here," Osowski said. "But right now it's just not possible."

Umm.

"Osowski cites part of a domestic winery law that allows producers to substitute ingredients from out of state if bad weather hampers crops in North Dakota."

...'if bad weather'?

"They have a lot of fun giving it away with their names on the label," Osowski said.

Isn't that why Bob Mondavi got started in the first place?

A growing number of people have shown interest in selling wine in North Dakota, after legislators voted two years ago to allow more commercial production. The state has a handful of licensed wineries, most of which use native products like rhubarb, apple, wild plumb, choke cherry and honey.

Could we get a ruling on this? Somebody get Alex Trebek on the line.

"We're not in the business of putting anyone out of business," Rouse said. "But I think the intent of the law is quite clear. Tony needs something we can't offer him."

Maybe Tony should get the hell out of North Dakota.

To summarize, it's great that you want to have a business in North Dakota. It's even better that you want to make wine. But you have to use indigenous grapes. And since we don't grow grapes here (it may have something to do with all the damn snow), you're S.O.L. Awesome!

Say it with me: Pro-hay-bee-see-own.

So it seems that we are not alone. The French have their version of MADD in the form of The National Association for the Prevention of Alcoholism and Addiction (NAPAA).

I'm sure the legal work is already in action from California demanding a name change so as to eliminate confusion.

"We're calling on the president, whose main policy priorities are undermined by this vote, to make it clear that public health comes first," association director Patrick Elineau said."

What about the articles that are released ad naseum proclaiming the health benefits of wine?

Once again, I defer to may good man, Th. J.

"No nation is drunken where wine is cheap; and none sober where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits as the common beverage. It is in truth the only antidote to the bane of whiskey."

While I agree with the first part, I do take exception to the latter. There are precious things finer than a proper Bourbon. Two words: Basil Hayden's.

A note to Mondavi, OmniWine

One chooses the low road and one chooses to raise the bar. Lion Nathan announced that they're putting the kibosh on their 'entry' level wines in an effort to re-position themselves in the marketplace.

"Investor relations director Warwick Bryan said the wine writeoff was the result of the continued deterioration of sales of wine worth under A$15 a bottle."

What could be the cause of this? The advent of Yellowtail, or the education of the masses? I'm betting on the latter. Also, maybe something got lost in translation, but this is a curious use of the word 'worth'. My limited knowledge of economics combined with my extensive knowledge of allthing Coen Brothers/Raising Arizona tells me: "Price? A fair price. Not what you say, but what the market will bear."

"Though much of Lion's business was already in the A$15-plus a bottle market, some brands such as Tatachilla and St Hallets had cheaper offerings. They were being affected by weaker sales of cheaper wines in Australia and Britain."

I reckon this is why Tatachilla was being dumped at ridiculous prices by a distributor here in Georgia. Somebody saw the handwriting on the wall. By the way, A$1.00 = about US$0.73. Doing the math that brings the average bottle to around $11.00 American. Isn't this the price range where Australia and New Zealand are handing California its ass? Maybe the many minds at Mondavi have a secret weapon. Or maybe they're complete idiots.

While it should be no secret that I am not a fan of most wine being made in California, there is without question wines of significance being made there. Why not raise the bar across the board (as Lion Nathan appears to be) instead of resorting to the least common denominator i.e. Woodbridge?

Maybe the board would entertain a name change. Something like 'McMondavi'.

How do I get this job?

It's official, wine is better than anything. Here's the entire article:

"Dutch scientists have confirmed that red wine is healthier than an alcopop. A binge drinking experiment showed those who hit the bottle might do better to choose Cotes du Rhone over cocktails.

Twenty healthy volunteers drank six glasses of red wine or six glasses of Bacardi Breezer in three hours. Blood samples were taken after 90 minutes and at the end. Researchers measured what happened to the blood platelets involved in clotting.

Unlike cocktail drinkers, red wine drinkers showed no sign of platelet aggregation.

Dylan de Lange, of the University Medical Centre in Utrecht, reports in Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research today that modest drinking - particularly of red wine - may actually be beneficial to cardiovascular diseases."

What's the lesson?

1. Don't drink anything called alcopop.
2. Don't drink anything made by Bacardi.
3. It's aces to run around with scissors and a glass of red wine.

As if I needed another reason to crack a bottle.

Cuvée Kimchi

More and more, the good word is being spread. The Korean Times reports that sales are continuing to grow at a decent clip. It seems that promoting it in a healthier light is working wonders. There were a couple of statements that piqued my interest:

"Instead of the drinking binges involving boilermakers that Koreans are infamously known for, they are opting for the classier habit of sipping away at the grape delights."

First off I was unaware of any particular affinity Koreans had for boilermakers. I thought it was just the amateurs here in Savannah with the 'Car Bomb' - For the record, that's a shot of Bailey's dropped into a pint of Guinness. Secondly, I know this was written by a Korean, but if I made a generalization like this, would I be a racist?

"Alas, there is a problem with all this: a dinner at a relatively upscale establishment could mean that you have to pay more for the wine than the meal itself."

Awesome. I'm glad to see that restauranteurs in Korea are following suit with their American counterparts. In my former life I was the wine director/bar manager for a restaurant named Café Metropole. During my interview, I explained that in hiring me, they accepted certain things as law, not negotiable. Most importantly was pricing. Anything over $13 was times two. $14 = $28, $15 = $30 and so on. This was six years ago. I am no genius, and the New York Times didn't write an article about this practice (although they have since because NYC has finally figured this out), but it allowed me to sell better wines more often. And I would tell people straight-away what I paid for it. This would generally squash the old "umm I don't know...a hundred dollars for a Grand Cru Latriciéres-Chambertin sounds a bit steep." Of course, they would forget this as soon as the hit the door after drinking two or three bottles and the following week would pay $300 for Caymus Special Selection in some other joint.

"Among its pride is the Carmen Cabernet Sauvignon from the Vina Carmen vineyard of Chile, which has been in business since 1850 and produces just 500,000 cases a year.

``The ruby color with the blackberry aroma makes this a classic Cabernet Sauvignon and we are proud to be able to bring these unique bottles to Korean wine lovers,’’ Song said."

'Just 500,000 cases'? For the mathematically challenged that comes out to six million bottles. I would think that this takes a little bit away from the 'unique' status.

'The ruby color with the blackberry aroma makes this a classic Cabernet Sauvignon'

Really? Give me ten minutes at IHOP with the syrup wheel and a glass of water and maybe I can be a millionaire.

Don't believe the hype!

For the most part the fervor has died down but every once in a while someone comes in the shop and asks the question: "Do you have any of the 2000's from Bordeaux?" This is generally a tip off that amateur hour has begun and I try my best to explain the pros and cons associated with such a vintage, usually to no avail. In fact, this happened earlier this week yet I believe I may have converted at least one person. To the rest, I say this: There are other vintages. Of course, this depends on who you talk to and who you believe.

While I don't generally talk to myself, I do trust my own palate. And I am constantly amazed by how many people don't seem to do the same. This is not a rant against Parker and Spectator and the like, although in a way it is. Why is it that their word is law? Why is it that people blindly take opinion for fact? And why is it that France, particularly Bordeaux, is held to a different standard? The following is a summary of Parker's 'Vintage Chart' at erobertparker.com.

From 1989 to 2002:

First off, Bordeaux

Pauillac - Average 87.6 with 3 vintages rated 'Extraordinary' (.90,.96,.98), 2 vintages 'Outstanding' (.89,.95), and 3 'average' (.91,.92,.93)

Margaux - Average 85.1 with only 2 'Outstanding' (.90,.00) and 3 'Average' (.91,.92,.93)

Graves - Average 86.9 with 1 'Extraordinary'(.00), 2 'Outstanding' (.90,.98) and 2 'Average' (.91,.92)

Pomerol and St. Emilion are rated practically the same with similar numbers although the .91 vintage is rated 58 and 59 respectively. According to the legend, anything less than 59 points is 'Appalling'.

Let's see what's going on in California.

Cabernet Sauvignon - Average 90.7 with 1 'Extraordinary' (.01), 9 'Outstanding' (.90,.91,.92,.93,.94,.95,.96,.97,.02), and only 1 'Average' (.00).

For the record, vintages named 'Average' have scores from 70-79. If you saw a shelf talker at Costco that said "77 points - Wine Advocate", you would run like hell in the opposite direction.

It's somewhat curious that Parker goes through the trouble to break out each appellation in Bordeaux yet lumps all Cabernet Sauvignon produced across the state of California together. Obviously, this seriously flaws the ratings. Or call it 'hedging the bet' a little bit. And is it reasonable that from 1990 through 1997 the wasn't a single 'off' year? That is, a year when the wine produced was not the vintage of the decade, century, milleneum, all time? I suspect that there probably was and this is a good thing. In fact, it is absolutely necessary.

If the wine critics said that every vintage was a 'sell the farm' vintage, they would very quickly lose any credibility they had. This is why coming off the 2001's and 2002's, the .03's from Germany aren't (and won't) get the press they deserve. And more importantly, what are people expected to drink while they're waiting 20-30 years for these wines mature? The answer is the 'off' vintage. And in Bordeaux, this often means a little less damage to the wallet, although not as much as I might like to see. On the contrary, prices in California don't ever seem to reflect the quality of vintage. Case in point: 1998.

More so than anything else, this chart shows a preference which is absolutely fine as long as it is treated as such. It turns out I prefer not eat Brussels sprouts. For that matter, there hasn't been a vintage of these damned things yet that I would award 70 points. However, there are many people that would disagree.

And so I ask those of you reading this, what did you think of the .97's from the Margaux (Parker-82)? What about .96 from Tuscany (Parker-78)? Did you buy any of them, and if so, which houses?

Not every wine I consume has to be 95 points or better. I would like those wines to be few and far between so as to truly appreciate how good they really are. And not every vintage is all or nothing. An attitude like this would lead one to countless disappointments. I'll let you in on a secret, the fine folks in Piedmont aren't throwing back Barolo every night. No, they drink normal wines just like the rest of us, regardless of what they were rated.

For the love of God, somebody stop this!

People drinking wine is good. It's good for them and it's good for me. And with the constant proliferation of wineries around the world, it is understandable that others might want to get in on the game. In true American fashion, these folks are following suit.

"South Florida is only a zoning approval away from its first commercial winery."

I understand that with 25 hurricanes in the last 3 months, some folks in the Sunshine state might be shaken up, mentally. On the other hand, some may have lost their minds all together. My money is on the latter.

"Federal and state permits came easily, but the county has no zoning district that allows winemaking, so Schnebly approached Miami-Dade Commissioner Dennis Moss. Moss, already impressed by the tourism possibilities of wineries after a visit to Napa and Sonoma, is seeking approval of the county's environment and government operations committee Tuesday and the County Commission Oct. 19."

''Wineries in the Redland; I see real potential,'' Moss says."

Further proof that all people in public office are insane. And what 'potential' does he see? Clos du South Beach Sauvignon Blanc or Château Epcot 'Cuvée du Monde'? I doubt it. Potential dollar signs for Dade County is more like it and I can see the county commission meeting now: 'We need to do this, for the children.'

"Winemaking has never been a major part of Florida agriculture."

This guy's a genius. Somebody get the Pulitzer on the horn. And a major part? According to www.florida-agriculture.com, the are 13 'Certified Florida Farm Wineries and Vineyards' and another 4 listed as 'Other Florida Wineries and Vineyards'. I'm not sure what they're doing wrong not to qualify as 'certified'. And I find hard to believe that even collectively, they represent something that could be considered a 'minor' part of the state's economy. Unless of course, anything that isn't 'major' is 'minor'.

But what about the 'wines'?

"Tropical fruits are less sweet than grapes, so Knapp has to add cane sugar; they have less acid, so he has to add tartaric crystals to give the wines that pleasing crispness. And putting mangoes through a German bladder press meant for grapes creates something more like baby food than mango juice, necessitating some muscular filtering."

This is exactly why this should be stopped. I used to try drinking coffee. About 20 seconds after ordering the last cup I had, I came to the conclusion that it is too bitter for me. But if I added about 5 lbs. of sugar and a half gallon of milk, it began to approach something that I could drink. Of course, at this point it really isn't coffee anymore, so why bother?

"Schnebly is negotiating to sell his fruit wines to supermarkets (at $10 to $17 a bottle retail)."

Maybe he should talk to the folks at Mondavi. I think he's shooting abit high.

But remember the children?

"Meanwhile, he's planning a tropical fruit theme park at his 24,000-square-foot packing plant and adding a 3,000-square-foot, Key West-style retail shop there next year to sell fruit, juice, wine, jelly, jam, fruit-flavored tea and other items."

I can't resist. There will be the 'Lychee Limbo', 'Guava Gondola', 'Mango Mixer' and the flagship roller coaster, the 'Fruit Loop'. This place needs another theme park like a hole in the head.

God help the folks of Florida

Would the last one out please hit the lights?

In an earlier post, I, somewhat rhetorically, asked how long it would be before there were no Mondavis at Mondavi. As it turns out, not long.

"The corporation announced last night that Tim, who had held the title of vice chairman and had overseen the Napa Valley-based company's winemaking operations since the late 1970s, is no longer an employee."

Brother Tim has taken a cue from just about everyone else in his family and hit the bricks. Not all that surprising, but I'm curious how long sister Marcia is going to cling to the side of boat.

"The statement did not indicate if Tim chose to resign or if he will continue to serve on the board of directors"

I'll give you two guesses and the first one doesn't count.

There is a term used in the article that always bugs the hell out of me:

Although a company statement said Tim will continue as "consulting winegrower" with Robert Mondavi Winery and will continue to represent the estate at public events, it is difficult to know how substantive that role will be.

For those of you not bothered by this, please allow me to explain. The idea of a 'winegrower' is just one of myriad catch phrases that my friends out west have created to romanticize their craft. Or just maybe for the express purpose of selling you something you may not normally buy, i.e. a line of crap like Meritage or Fumé Blanc or Winegrower. The word is obviously an amalgamation of the words winemaker and vinegrower. But of course an institution with the standards of Mondavi would never make a wine because this is art not science. And in light of recent 're-structuring', the vinegrower is probably some Mexican getting $8.00 an hour. So let's take all the prestige of being a master alchemist and throw in a healthy dose of 'the man of the earth' schtick and voila, winegrower.

I don't know about you, but I've got all the crazy I need, I ain't buying anymore.

Put down the Palm Pilot and back away slowly

Is there no where left to run?This article reads half sales pitch for Parker and half Palm. I am all about technical advances in the world and have gotten some satisfaction from my Palm, but this is a bad idea that should be stopped.

It should be understood that while, by necessity I read The Wine Advocate, it is by no means the say-all and be-all of wine. I know that I am in the severe minority here but Parker is just one guy, with one tongue, and a preference for certain styles of wine. Does that make him God's gift to the consumer? No. It makes him human. And by design, susceptible to error. I know there are heads exploding at just the thought of it, but he can be wrong just like the rest of us.

In my former life, I was called 'the sommelier'. I didn't use the term myself, I would simply respond, 'People call me all sorts of things'. I can think of precious few things that would piss me off more than to walk up to a four top and have some clown in a restaurant in Savannah, Georgia whip out his palm pilot/cell phone/blackberry/chick magnet and start planning his meal via some dude's opinions in Maryland. Furthermore, Parker offers absolutely no thoughts on food pairings or suggestions. Although I'm doing my best to change the world, your average jackass can't (or won't) remember, that Pouilly-Fuissé is Chardonnay. And forget about pronunciation. This is why the restaurant hired me or someone like me. But how could he possibly glean from a Parker review what wine to pair with 'Coq au vin' or 'Moules Marinier'? What about just Steak and potatoes? Oh yeah, there's no way in hell that he's going to hear about anything off the list.

Yet another venue where the thoughts of one man dictate the actions of the masses.

Maybe Orwell had somebody else in mind.

Another one jumping ship

Michael Mondavi has seen the writing on the wall. At this rate, how long will it be before there is no Mondavi left at Mondavi. I guess it doesn't really matter either way since most people still think the old man is out pruning the vines. I have to say that I totally agree with Micheal's observation:

In his resignation letter, submitted by e-mail to company chairman Ted Hall, Mondavi wrote: "I fundamentally disagree with the current strategy adopted by the board of directors concerning the future direction of the company. … Because I strongly believe that the [plan to focus on inexpensive wines] is contrary to the best interests of the company and all of its shareholders, I do not feel comfortable serving on the company's board of directors at this time."

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens when you have your eye on the prize and become a publicly traded corporation. I find this move quite surprising and in a way, an admission on the part of the shareholders. The implication is that either they know something that I don't - there's no future in wine over $20, or they simply don't care about the relationship between product and public perception.

Maybe they can rehash a theme from Litte Caesar's. Put the old man in a toga, slap a wreath on his head and start the old 'buy the first bottle, get the second bottle free'.

Ducks 1 - Gastronomy 0

The good fight has been fought and won. Governor Schwarzenegger went and signed off on a law banning the production of foie gras in the State of California. Well, sort of. The law doesn't actually go into effect until 2012. And by that point, everybody will probably have forgotten about this whole thing and just in time to pass a new law making the old law obsolete.

"Don't fret that the delicacy will disappear from the state any time soon. SB 1520, which imposes a fine of $1,000 a day on violators, doesn't go into effect until 2012, buying time for the state's lone foie gras producer and for restaurants and retailers who sell foie gras."

You mean all of this was over one producer? In the entire state? The impression that I had was that they were cranking out livers like a bastard. It's a good thing there aren't any bigger issues to deal with.

"The bill, introduced last February by state Senator John Burton (D-SF), was supported by a coalition of animal protection groups, including the Davis-based Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR), Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals and Viva USA. The groups believe that the practice of force-feeding birds to enlarge their livers is inhumane."

In case one needed further proof the Southern California is totally insane: Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals. Why don't they use the anacronym?

"Does this mean the end of foie gras? Not according to a statement released by the governor's office, which clarifies that the bill bans a production practice, not the product itself. The law "provides seven-and-a-half years for agricultural husbandry practices to evolve and perfect a humane way for a duck to consume grain to increase the size of its liver through natural processes," the statement said.

I'm not exactly sure what 'agricultural husbandry practices' really means but I think it's illegal in most states. By the way, the Tom the Dancing Bug piece may be closer to the truth than previously thought.

"While AVAR was pleased that the governor signed the bill, it's not stopping with foie gras, said spokeswoman Pam Runquist. "We hope to tackle farm and other animal issues soon."

What a novel idea. Again, it helps to be born cute.

And from New York:

"Another piece of foie gras legislation is pending in New York state, home to the country's only other producer, Hudson Valley Foie Gras. Bills S5153 and A01821 would "make it unlawful to force-feed a bird by hand or machine, for the purpose of fatty enlargement of the bird's liver." It does not, however, ban the sale of foie gras that was made elsewhere."

That's right, only two producers in the entire country! And what does the last sentence imply? Out of state, out of mind? Or maybe, you can make sausage, just don't do it in my back yard. Thank God for our elected officials.

Where have I seen this before?

I am no economist, but my brother is and, by proxy, I have picked up a thing or two from him along the way. Quite possibly the most basic principle of economics is that of 'supply and demand'. At the risk of insulting anybody out there, here's how it works:

low supply + high demand = you're a millionaire

high supply + low demand = pets.com

This holds true for just about anything such as cocaine, fine art, and wine. I would have thought that after seeing this same scenario play out in just about every other country and region in the world, my friends in South Africa would have taken a different tact. Apparently not.

"In spite of the fact that a new winery (still) opens on average every week in South Africa - a trend that has been evident for some time now - there is a 'massively wide range of labels' on the local market and worry about where all this new wine is going to find its market. 'Although we are now a champion wine exporter, with many of our producers winning important accolades overseas,' Collard adds, 'there is undoubtedly a glut of wine.'"

One new winery per week? That's just a tick slower than Wal-Mart and Home Depot. Of course, it's probably only a matter of time before Home Depot starts selling wine so look out for Pinotage on aisle 7, just past the power tools.

Be careful what you wish for.

It appears that the machine known as Robert Mondavi Corporation is circling the drain for real. The way this thing has played out has been kind of like watching a train wreck, disturbing yet interesting.

I am not so sure that I follow the logic being used here: Sell off everything but the bottom tier, come up with a new classification for said tier (lifestyle wines), and watch the ticker light up. What is one to take from all of this? I have heard various rumblings here in Georgia about how people aren't buying wines over $20 retail anymore and how hard the distributors have it and blah, blah, blah. If this is the case, what am I doing still in business?

"The cuts are a result of a decision announced Sept. 14 that the company will sell off its Napa Valley vineyards, Oakville winery, and interests in Opus One, as well as wineries in Italy, Chile, Sonoma County and Santa Barbara County."

I will not fault them for backing away from the 'Opus One' thing one bit. This has been consistently one of the most overrated, insanely priced wines made here or anywhere else for that matter. The Mondavi name may be Italian, but the wines, not so much. Chile? Sonoma County? Santa Barbara County? Sell it all!!

Someone said a long time ago, "Once you're on top, there's only one way to go." How true.