When Lawyers Attack!!!

On a wine forum owned, operated, and inhabited by those litigious folks known as lawyers, I posted the following comment on an article about Gallo importing fraudulently labeled Pinot Noir for their Red Bicyclette brand:

At any rate, this is quite funny. It's common to blend Syrah or even Petite Sirah into mass produced CA Pinot Noir. I'm talking about stuff like Castle Rock, Red Tree and Chalone California appellation stuff, not high end Pinot. But it's not supposed to exceed 25% of non-Pinot blenders. In France you can blend 90% non-Pinot yet still label it as such! Well, you could before . . . .

I received the following response:

You do realize this board is crawling with lawyers, [CabFrancophile]?

Do Chalone, Red Tree, and Castle Rock admit to this practice?

A joke? Perhaps. But who jokes about getting your pants sued off over a statement in a web forum? And if it's not a joke, is forum litigating is the new ambulance chasing? One had better watch out in wine forums since expensive wine attracts lawyers like shit attracts flies. Maybe I should keep my own lawyer on retainer the next time I dare to write something that is 100% true!

Parkerdammerung

Parkerdammerung--the fall of Parker--is upon us. How, you might ask? Well it started innocently enough with a condescending, arrogant tasting note (I've highlighted in bold a few key statements):

1997 HARLAN ESTATE 100 Points

I have never had a doubt about the 1997. Yet, I have read controversial comments about it, saying it tastes like Amarone, is overripe, volatile, with low acidity, etc., etc. These are simply false. The 1997 is one of those wines that transcends most wine-making parameters. In that sense, it is a California version of a 1959 Lafite-Rothschild, 1961 Petrus, 1947 Lafleur, 1947 Cheval Blanc, 1961 Latour à Pomerol, or 1990 Beauséjour-Duffau. Unable to think “outside the box” precludes comprehending any of these wines or the 1997 Harlan. It is one of those wines that just had so much of everything in its youth that it was nearly impossible to see past its thickness and massiveness. Not anymore. The wine is now settling down beautifully, and even Bill Harlan and Bob Levy seem to admit that the 1997 did go through a stage where it was awkward and clumsy. However, this is unquestionably an historical effort. An inky/purple color is accompanied by an extraordinary perfume of black truffles, graphite, blackberries, and an Haut-Brion-like scorched earth note (such as one sees in Haut Brion’s 1989, 1961, and 1959), an extraordinary density and unctuosity to the fruit and texture, and a remarkable finish of well over a minute. This monumental wine represents history in the making. It is richer, fuller, and more massive than anything Harlan made before or since. Still in its adolescence, it is becoming more civilized and refined with each passing year. The 1997 was the most unanimous perfect wine in the entire tasting, although 2002, 1995, and 1994 had their proponents. Anticipated maturity: 2017-2050

Big deal, right? Parker just telling you his palate is right and yours is wrong and you just need to shut up and buy whatever he rates 90 points or higher. And if you don't agree, then you are closed minded and can't comprehend wine. Just another day in the life of The Bob. Harlan wines are so expensive, they are irrelevant to the majority of consumers anyway.

But then there's this little issue: some bottles of the 1997 Harlan Estate are riddled with volatile acidity (VA). In fact, some tasters have consistently found VA in this wine. Not all bottles seem to show this character, though perhaps some tasters have chosen to "think outside the box" and agree with The Bob despite a glaring flaw. When this erupted into a full-blown tempest in a teapot, Parker suggested simply that this was bad storage on the part of the consumer.

There's just one little problem with his explanation. It is simply false. There is no true or false in subjective experiences, and one cannot tell another his experience is false. It's especially important to realize that when it comes to wine flaws, individual tolerances vary. VA can provide aromatic "lift" to wine below threshold. But above threshold it is distracting and can burn your nostrils like vinegar or nail polish remover. Not everyone has the same sensitivity, though. Whether it's the wine that varies or the tasters, it doesn't matter. Parker refuses to acknowledge that these phenomena exist. To insult the consumer by claiming authority over every single bottle produced is absurd. Also Sprach Parker simply does not fly.

The reality is that while Parker claims he is a consumer advocate in the image of Ralph Nader, he has become a producer advocate. In the case of this cult wine he blames the consumer for mishandling the allegedly flawed bottles instead of allowing for (gasp!) the possibility that some bottles were flawed when they left the winery or were micro-biologically unstable. He also seems indifferent to the fact that his reviews (well, points) move the wine market. Thus, he often rates wines based on barrel samples, allowing producers to price wines after he reviews them. This leaves open the possibility of manipulation before bottling, and doesn't account for the many issue that may arise once the wine is bottled. A true advocate would taste the same finished wines consumers will find on the shelves, after they've been priced.

Parker needs to get his act together because the critical world is changing. CellarTracker's pro-am model is the future of wine criticism. While there is no substitute for the breadth of experience and knowledge that experts provide, there are limitations to what experts can do. They cannot taste every bottle of a wine, for example. Nor do their tastes match those of every single person. This is where CellarTracker, in this age of freely disseminated information, comes in. If a wine has a high degree of bottle variation due to instability (low SO2, high pH, residual sugar, incomplete ML fermentation, etc.), it will become evident as users post their notes. If a wine is stylistically incompatible with a subset of tasters, it will become evident. The tyranny of a single taste maker is ending, and Parker must realize he can either adapt to this world or incrementally lose relevance.

Stay tuned. There are more variations to follow on this leitmotif of Parkerdammerung.

Australian Shiraz Has a Message for You . . . .

F. U. No joke, there is actually an Australian Shiraz produced by Chris Ringland's R Wines named F.U. Apparently it sold so well at its original $300 price that it had to be liquidated for $124.50. Big surprise as a Jay Miller 99 rating and 16%+ ABV aren't quite the selling points they once were. Apparently there were enough suckers, though, as this sold out (no idea what the quantity was) at the still outrageous liquidation price.

One has to wonder what kind of person would want to serve a wine that delivers such a crass message. It's one thing to eschew the stuffiness and snobbery associated with fine wine. But it's entirely another to tell your customers to eff off with the name of the wine. Surely this is a joke on the part of the winemaker to see if an insulting name and an insulting price would still attract buyers, right? Because the joke is certainly on whoever buys this.

After reading Jay Miller's tasting note, does this wine seem attractive at any price?

The 2004 F.U. Shiraz (200 cases [12 bottles per case]) is similarly brooding and liqueur-like. It spent 30 months in new French oak hogsheads and offers a compelling bouquet of toasty oak, pencil lead, mineral, blueberry, and blackberry. Lighter on its feet than The Wine with a more forward personality, it has layers of flavor, savory fruit, and enough silky tannin to evolve for a decade. Drink it from 2014 to 2034. 99 points

This note is a masterpiece in the annals of ridiculous critiques. Miller smells minerals, apparently, though there's no mention as to which minerals those could be. Then there's the clear impression this wine is over-oaked and over-ripe based on the toasty oak and liqueur descriptors. Good luck finding any minerality amongst the jammy fruit and oak vanillin. Also note the reference to The Wine, a different cuvée from R Wines. Those are some cojones to name a cuvée simply The Wine. But what else would one expect from a winemaker who names a $300 wine F. U.?

I wonder what Sadat X's F'ed Up Factor (FUF) would be for F. U.? I'd bet on it being off the charts. I think I'd rather have the Suxx Shiraz. Yes, this exists! Thank God for truth in labeling.

Wine Myths via Calluna Vineyards

A few days ago I stumbled across an article on Calluna Vineyards' website debunking a few popular wine myths. While there's no need to extensively quote what David Jeffrey wrote, it's definitely worth linking to his list of modern wine myths:

1. Hot Days and Cool Nights are Good for Wine Grape Growing
2. The Napa Valley is the Best Place in California for Cabernet Sauvignon
3. California Wines are Better than French Wines
4. Fog is Good for Grapes
5. Lower Yields Are Always Better

All of these articles are worth a read, but myths 1 and 5 really resonant with me as a consumer. It's common to hear or read PR from California wineries touting the large Diurnal Flux--the day to night temperature swing--their grapes experience and low yields from their vineyards. The reality, though, is that a great many California wines from premium wine growing regions are simply not balanced or are one-dimensional.

Like Mr. Jeffrey, I think this conventional wisdom needs to be questioned. Mr. Jeffrey points out that the majority of great French wine regions are continental climates and do not experience the large temperature swings that sites in California do. And yet great wines are produced in France! He suggests that in reality the cool nights act to compensate for the hot days. Makes sense to me: without the cool nights to retain acidity and keep sugars down, California wines would be horrific caricatures. But perhaps if it was a bit cooler in the first place, such extremes at night wouldn't be necessary.

Similarly, low yields are constantly trumpeted as a source of quality. While it's true that high yields (say 9 tons per acre) will lead to mediocre wine, I often wonder how it is wines harvested at moderate yields of 3 tons per acre (about 45 hectoliters per hectare) can be so good while those harvested at 1 ton per acre can be so dull. It makes me wonder what the winemakers are doing. Are the vines not healthy? Are they planted in the wrong place? Are they dropping lots of fruit with green harvests and unbalancing the vine with too little, instead of too much, fruit? Clearly this depends on a lot of factors. 2 tons/acre may be right for one location, while 4 tons/acre may be good for another. If a winery is intentionally looking for minuscule yields, though, to me it just looks like they'll be charging a higher price for a wine that is not better than many others with lower fruit costs.

I don't mean to generalize as there are a great many California wines I like. But it does seem to be a consistent problem that ripeness can't be achieved at lower sugar levels and prices are high due to exorbitant fruit costs. This has a lot to do with climate and yields. While there are a lot of wealthy vintners putting everything they have into making great wine, the reality may be that they simply aren't in the right location.

TN: Domaine Laffont 2006 Madiran Erigone

The Domaine Laffont 2006 Madiran Erigone is the first wine I've tried from the appellation of Madiran in Southwest France. Madirans are supposedly rustic wines made largely from the Tannat grape, and are typically tannic as the varietal name Tannat suggests. This wine is 80% Tannat and 20% Cab Franc. I'm happy to report that this is a better, more serious wine than the last Tannat-heavy wine I tasted. It's only mildly rustic, and while black as night, the tannins are well-tamed albeit quite evident.

Here are my notes:

Bouquet is a bit reticent, but shows licorice, herbs, black fruit, cedar and just a little barnyard. Structured on the palate. Lots of tannins--not too hard, not too soft, though. Medium acid. Mid palate has good presence, depth. More licorice and dark fruit on the finish. Really good stuffing, well-integrated oak, somewhere between rustic and elegant, though on the purple/black end of the spectrum.

This is definitely one to decant as it opened up over several hours. I wish I had another bottle or two to age as this has the freshness, structure and balance to suggest I'll still like it in a few years or perhaps even a decade. It really hits that sweet spot as a modern wine from an Old World region--not spoofy, but not overly rustic, either. Excellent wine at a super price, and one I'll look for in future vintages.

Pros: Structured, Balanced, Tannic, Complex, Fresh
Cons: Tight
Decant: Yes, needs air to open up and there is some sediment (tartrate crystals)
Price: $17 from Wine Exchange
QPR: Good (out of Poor, Mediocre, Fair, Good or Excellent with Fair denoting expectations were met for the price point)