The patience of Job

It was on this night, seven whole years ago, that a woman known around these parts as the Financial Advisor (F.A. for short) came into my life. There is simply no way to put into words the impact that she has had on my life. And I can say with absoulte certainty that very little of what I enjoy today would be possible without her.

As per the title of this post, she deserves a friggin' medal.

But alas, a medal she will not get.

Nope. Instead, I am taking here to my favorite 'greasy spoon' around the corner from my house. We will feast on Fried Chicken and Mac & Cheese and wash it down with a bottle of NV Champagne Heidseck Monopole 'Blue Top'. Next up will be either a 98 Barbaresco from Grasso or a 95 Barolo from Giacomo Conterno - haven't yet decided. And finally, if she's up to it (and I suspect she is) Selbach-Oster Zeltinger Schlossberg Riesling Auslese* in 375ml.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Happy Anniversary to Miss Katrina and me.

Do what?!?

God bless the Italy, and while he/she's at it, bless the Italians as well. It looks like they're going to need it. Here's the entire article:

WINE MAKING: NEW LABEL PROPOSED FOR THE 'SUPERTUSCANS'
(AGI) - Florence, Italy 13 Dec - A new label for the 'supertuscan' wines has been proposed during the course of the presentation of a book by Andrea Zanfi entitled "I Supertuscans" (The Supertuscans') - over four hundred pages that praise wines such as Tignanello and Sassicaia, made strictly in accordance with the Doc and Docg prototcols. Products that, according to Zanfi, "risk ending up off the market because of an economic crisis that demands low prices". The proposal is "to get - says Zanfi - recognition of the quality of these wines, via a label created in the style of the great French 'cru'" ; a proposal that that risks sparking controversy. "A new label - claims Flavio Tattarini, president of the Italian Wine Making Society, isn't appropriate for wines that come on the market freely. It is instead necessary to work on the discipline of denominations, relaunching, at the same time, the characteristics of the area of origin".

So here's a little crash course in (Italian) brain surgery: For countless years, certain grapes were grown in certain areas. Many times then (and still to this day) the same grape had a different name, depending on the region you were in. At some point, the peoples got together and decided that there should be regulations regarding the grapes grown and the manner in which the wine was made. Enter the DOC (Denominazione di Origin Controllata). After a while, certain people started monkey-ing around and it was decided that there should be another tier, supposedly of higher stature. Hence, the DOCG. Same as above, only tack on the 'G' meaning 'Garantita'. Except the DOC was the guarantee to begin with. Got it?

Well, in the mid-late 70's, some folks thought it would be a great idea to start blending 'non-traditional' grape (i.e. French grapes like Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Syrah, etc...) in with the Sangiovese that had been traditionally grown there. Obviously, the resulting wines would not conform to DOC or DOCG status, now would they? That was until a couple of clowns from the U.S. tasted them, went ape-shit over them, gave them 300 points and the stuff sold like hot cakes. One of said clowns takes credit for coining the phrase 'Super-Tuscans'. I have my doubts but whatever. Generally speaking, the wines are hardly ever 'Tuscan' and rarely 'Super' except in price.

Along with the onset of the 'Super-Tuscan', so too the need for some sort of regulatory concept to qualify the wines. Cue the I.G.T. (Indicazione Geografica Tipica). But that only lasted for a bit. After the wines got a bunch of attention, they too were granted DOC and DOCG status. I'm sure this is all making sense.

And so we find ourselves in present day. The I.G.T., D.O.C., and the D.O.C.G. apparently aren't enough and so the idea is the further qualify the wines in some sort of 'Cru' method as the French use. Why not? Just as people are learning Italian wines, let's change it all up.

Here's the problem. In Burgundy, the cru-s have been decided upon by the vineyards that produce the best wine. Of course, these wines tend to command the highest prices, but the last 2000 or so years have afforded the time to figure out the qualitative difference between the vineyards. In Bordeaux, the cru-s were decided back in 1855 on the receipts of the Chateaux for the previous 100 years. Those who commanded the highest prices, got first billing, and so on.

While it may sound good to try this in Italy, they have neither the track record of a couple thousand years dealing with these grapes and their respective vineyards, nor the luxury of 100 years worth of Sassicaia to establish such a hierarchy.

Just a thought.

Doh!

Yet another problem all wrapped up in solutions. Some of you may recall the hub-bub from this summer past when the Big Nine on the Supreme Court decided that direct sales from wineries to private citizens must be granted equal protection and/or equal discrimination under the law. Well, the bloom has apparently fallen off the rose, so to speak.

The law permitting direct interstate shipping has proven costly to NY wineries, so now they're ... Wine-ing for changes.

Gee, I suppose I'm the only one who saw this coming so I must say this is no surprise. As per usual, government, specifically our government, is really good at making things not happen. For the most part, this is probably a really good thing as the wheels turn mighty slow, preventing most knee-jerk reactions from coming to fruition. In the case of interstate shipping, it seems the 'engine' can't get out of it's own way.

" In a scenario few foresaw when it was passed, the state law has placed a higher burden of cost, paperwork and potential privacy concerns on wineries that had been shipping to consumers within the state with few complications for years."

Believe me, there are more than a few situations where distributors are the 'burden' and not the 'answer', but at the same time they can and do provide a service. And as it turns out, most people like to get paid for the service they provide. Of course, the issue of 'reason' rarely is involved in their re-imbursement equation, but still, you like to get paid, don't you?.

"Under the new law, Paumanok and other wineries now are required to get a verified signature from an adult 21 or older for every wine shipment to homes - even if the adult customer signed up for the service long ago at the winery's tasting room. Shipping services charge $2 to $3 to get the signature, and complications arise for those not home to receive the wine."

And then...

Because New York requires out-of-state wineries to apply for a license to ship here, states such as Connecticut have responded in kind. Massoud said Connecticut's license and label approvals cost $1,500 a year - more than he can expect to make in profits by shipping there.

So, let's run the numbers. A winery is going to sell you the wine you want at or pretty damn close to retail. On top of that, the shipping on a twelve bottle case is going to +/- $60 unless you're buying from Sine Qua Non or some other winery that insists on using bottles that weigh 12 lbs. empty. Then UPS want a few bucks for getting the old John Hitchcock and don't forget about that license and label crap, which one would expect the winery to roll into the price of the bottle. Blah, Blah, Blah.

You start to see why people aren't buying Budweiser over the internet.

"Steve Simpson, a senior attorney for the institute, pointed to Maryland as a state where wineries barred from shipping to New York could raise the issue. Maryland doesn't allow direct shipments from out of state. Because New York law bars shipments from states that don't allow New York shipments, the bill could be interpreted as discriminatory.

"They can't direct-ship to New York," Simpson said. "The New York law [therefore] discriminates against Maryland wineries."

And here we go again with the 'he said, she said' crap that landed this thing in Supreme Court's lap in the first place.

Sounds like somebody should just take their ball and go home. Again, I'm not the poster boy for the Distribtors but is it all that surprising that between the distros, the lobbyists, the politicians, and the money that drives them all, this situation has come to pass?

Not to me.

Mmmmmm

Mark Fisher at the DAyton Daily News had a recent post concerning a buying experience he had at a local Trader Joe's. I don't have the time to post the pictures so go check his blog but it is quite interesting. One bottle looks about like it should while the other one not so much. As far as taste, the difference was remarkable.

When he brought this to the attention of the management the response was this:

“There is no difference in the wine or the quality of the corks. It’s just that the glass in the first lot is 100 percent clear, and the second one is off-white glass. That’s the only difference. It’s the same product, same quality cork, just different glass. That’s why you see a change in color, but it actually isn’t a change in color. I hope this explains everything for you.”

I have to admit, I haven't heard this one before but it's a pretty clever response. Obviously, this is a silly statement and one that unfortunately would have quelled most people's curiousity. But after posting the blog and getting 50 some-odd comments, Trader Joe's came back.

“We kind of goofed,”

and then

All wines that go into TJ’s stores have to go through a tasting panel, Dumper said. “When we approved it, we only approved one” version, she said. “We’re dismayed that we had two different blends on our shelves, but now, everything’s pulled.”

I know the old 'What's in a name?' bit but seriously, couldn't they have found someone, anyone with a surname that didn't imply much less confirm what's really going on?Dumper?!?!

Sounds like a great reason not to buy wine at Trader Joe's.

WTF?!?

In the time that I have been kicking around (all 31 years now) I have never, ever been involved in a 'poll', unless the U.S. Census is considered one. It is something that I am reminded of every once in a while by the ad naseum news channels we enjoy(?) in this country. In fact, I can't think of anyone that I know who has admitted to being 'polled' for anything much less the following:

Alcohol Tax Hikes Prove Popular in Poll

Like most things these days, the idea of objective reporting has been disposed of in the interest of propaganda. And in reading the article, the veil covering the agenda is quite thin.

When asked whether they prefer raising alcohol taxes or cutting social programs as a way of offsetting the budget deficit, a whopping 79 percent of respondents favor the alcohol tax increase. Even 68 percent of Republicans surveyed and 70 percent of drinkers would support raising alcohol taxes over cutting programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and drug benefits for the elderly. (emphasis T.t.S.)

So what about the percentage of Democrats? Green Party? Communists? And I'm about 95% sure how the question was worded. Probably something like this:

Would you rather take the school lunch food out of this starving child's mouth or pay another nickle for your Budweiser?

And then they start dropping the rhetoric:

"In past decades, alcohol interests have too often beaten back any across-the-board increases in booze taxes.

and

Most Americans would be largely unaffected by increases in alcohol taxes. More than one-third don't drink at all, and most others drink only occasionally. Eighty percent of the alcohol consumed in America is downed by twenty percent of the drinkers. According to the Adams Beer Handbook, more than half of beer and liquor drinkers have incomes above $60,000 a year.

Nice. And what about this last paragraph? Where the hell did they get this information?!? I must say that I simply do not believe the last statement. I haven't done the numbers but I suspect this $60K non-sense is kind of like saying that almost half the people in the world are above average. Of course, this is not a CPSI number, now is it? No, the onus is on the Adams Beer Handbook, CPSI simply cited someone else's findings. But then again, how much terrible wine sells because the L.A. County FAir gave it three gold medals?

CSPI's survey was of a nationally representative sample of 512 American adults. The survey was conducted in mid-November via telephone by the Global Strategy Group polling firm. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.3 percent.

So is it fair to assume that one can call 512 people and extrapolate the findings out to 250 million? I should think not. And further more, where was this 'poll' taken? I know of places in northern Alabama were the percentage of those wishing to increase the tax on booze would be 100%.

For the record, I will be holding back my yearly donation to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. I'm not sure whose interest they have at heart but it sure as hell isn't mine.

Spot on.

The Caveman

A blog that I read on a regular basis and have yet to sight here on my little ode to joy. William (Bill) has a couple of joints in my (wish to be?) adopted hometown of Montreal. His writing is quite good and he tends to cover European wines, which of course is right on.

He recently wrote about a tasting of the wines from Domaine Huet. For those of you unfamiliar, this is arguably the single greatest producer of Chenin Blanc in the whole of the Loire, much less Vouvray. The wines are (for me) nearly indescribable. It seems Bill figured out how to do the impossible.

"Pinguet replied that great Vouvray was all about ‘equilibre’ and ‘verticality.’ I would translate ‘equilibre’ as the tension between acidity and sugar, minerality and fruit, each dancing in perfect harmony with one another, supporting but never overshadowing their partner. The verticality lies in the soil and the sky, from the depths of the roots to the tip of the vines, each working towards building this tension. It’s a man waxing poetic about something that he loves. That’s cool. Again, purity is the word here: no chapitalization, no malo, indigenous yeasts, old wood if wood is used at all, and nominal additions of sulfer. Vinification is the afterthought, it all happens in the vineyard (which seems to run contrary to much of modern winemaking)."

Damn right.

I highly recommend you check out the reviews of the wines. You can see them here

I only wish I could have been there.

And by the way, I've got the Le Haut-Lieu Vouvray Sec 2004 available in 375ml. It is unreal.

Genius!

Much has been written about the prostests and violence that winemakers and grapegrowers in France have been shelling out recently. It seems they have changed their tactics a little bit:

In the early hours of Wednesday morning (8 December) members of the FNSEA union (Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles) and its regional arm the FDSEA arrived at the Bordeaux trade body's HQ near the Place de Quinconces and - using breezeblocks and mortar - built a wall across the main doors, blocking them entirely.(emphasis T.t.S.)

Brilliant!

'I don't like what you're doing so I will simply prevent you from getting in'.

I can just see some worn-out custodian paking up his wares and heading home only to find a brick wall at the door.

The Little Kiwi That Couldn't

In a interesting twist of fate, it appears the Kiwi has come home to roost.

French winemaker snaffles 'kiwi' brand

Evidently, a French wine maker has alerady taken a page from the Leviathan that is the Australian/Californian Entry Level Wine Market and registered his own 'Cute Animal' label with the EU. As such, Kahurangi winery from New Zealand is effectively prohibited from selling their 'Kiwi White'.

In all honesty, I think this an overall screwjob as the word Kiwi should not be an exclusive property for trade. But considering the flack that certain bloggers have taken recently (i.e. Tom and Fermentation(s) and Jens at Cinci Wine Ware(garage)House), it's probably not all that surprising.

Even still, that has to sting just a little bit.

Yet again.

In the never-ending search for more ways to turn wine into milk, we have the latest and greatest in wine technology.

Grape 'x-ray' technology unlocks wine analysis

The machine, which looks like some sort of teleporting device, uses a process similar to that used by x-ray machines to probe the content and make-up of grapes.

It then takes seconds to send detailed information on colour, acidity, sugar content and maturity to an adjacent computer screen, where the user can see the results on a range of handy graphs.

At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, is all of this really necessary?

“It will help winemakers to give consumers what they want. For example, consumers want certain aromas and one of the best ways to get this is by following the colour."

Of course, the entire argument brought forth by Mr. Zebic is predicated on the idea that 'consumers' actually know what they want. It is my opinion that the overwhelming majority of 'consumers' have no friggin' clue as to what they want. And as such, putting them in the 'drivers' seat' of creating the aromatic and flavor profiles of a wine seems like an unbelievably bad idea.

“Some countries are more open to innovation than others, such as Chile, Argentina, Australia of course and South Africa. France and Italy need to catch up,” said Zebic.

Ummm. In a word....Bullshit.

Another interesting innovation was a machine from Vaslin Bucher capable of reducing the sugar concentration of grapes, enabling firms to reduce a wine's alcohol content by one-to-three degrees.

The Michael Paetzold group, based near Bordeaux, also unveiled new technology able to reduce wine alcohol content by around two degrees.

Again, on its face, this sounds like a good idea. But getting back to my Luddite roots, this 'technology' already exists. In fact, it has been around since there have been vines. It's called vendage. That there's fancy French talk for harvest. And the idea, at least at one time, was to pick grapes while they were still grapes, not raisins.

Speaking of which, I recently got wind of a Martinelli Zin that came in at 17.4% Alc.

The thought of it makes me nauseous.

Say what?!?!

Been away from the blog for a bit. A little too busy making money and seeing as no one has (yet) offered to pay me for opining, one has to prioritize. Blah, Blah, Blah.

Anyway.

My Brother, the economist, has taken to reading the New York Times archives. Every day, he reads the news from NYT exactly 100 years prior. It's a pretty cool idea and rather interesting how little things really have changed.

In a recent post, he highlights the thoughts of a Senator Sorghum, a politician that one would be hard pressed to find these days, as well as those. One of Sen. Sorghum's observations:

MAJORITY

"You don't mean to tell me you ever doubt the wisdom of the majority?"

"Well," responded Senator Sorghum with deliberation, "what is a majority? In many instances it is only a large number of people who have got tired out trying to think for themselves and have decided to accept somebody else's opinion."

I hope it goes without saying who that 'somebody else' might be as it pertains to the world of wine.

Like I said, it seems that the only real thing that has changed in 100 years (at least in this country) are the names of the people involved.