Is this s--- for real: great moments in uninteded self-parody

Is this for real? Sadly, the answer is yes. For every genuine enthusiast (who also runs a huge wine shop) like Gary Vaynerchuck or analytical scientist like Jamie Goode, there are about a dozen of the type of people in the wine world who I'll be bashing in the rest of this post.

Probably one of the top bullshit artists in the world of wine right now is James Suckling. Pretension in fine wine is unavoidable on some level. But Suckling oozes pretension. If he was a slug, that sticky trail he leaves behind would be pretension distillate. Watch and learn in these two videos as Suckling gives a master class in egotism, stuffiness and, yes, unbearable pretentiousness:

I'm 99 points on not wanting to hear another damn over-enunciated word out of Suckling's mouth ever again.

Of course, making obnoxious videos is not the only way to ruin wine for the general public. You can always write a note with so many descriptors it ceases to have meaning. Now, I like to both read and write thorough notes. But they have to actually contain, you know, information. Words describing body, acidity, tannin, flavor intensity, style--primarily structural descriptors--are very useful. A few specific flavors can be of help, but at a certain point it is not telling you anything other than the author is full of shit. Take this example from a person who calls himself the Sonoma Sommelier:

Anaba 2007 “Coriol” Red Rhone Blend: "a wine that delivers . . . . flavors of acai berries, black currant liqueur, fig bar, tamarind, raspberry bramble, red plum, balsamic strawberries, clove, rose water, cigar box, barnyard, teriyaki, stone, apricot, coriander, butterscotch, hazelnut chocolates, brown leather and Columbian coffee beans."

The enological diarrhea is even more exaggerated in this example:

VJB 2007 Estate Aglianico: "It has both Sonoma Valley and Italian flavors of wild red currants, red licorice twist, raspberry Pimms Cup, red apple skins, barnyard game, suede leather, rhubarb pie, baked red plum, star anise, sage, rosemary brush, guava candies, roasted portobello mushrooms, hibiscus flower, passion fruit puree, lavender, tomatoes on the vine, paprika, horehound candy, sea salt, nori sheets, cappuccino froth, molasses, nutmeg and Connecticut cigar wrapper."

Stop, just please stop, Sonoma Somm!

To his credit, the first sentence or two in both reviews I linked does tell you much of what you'd want to know structurally about the wines, albeit in an annoyingly literary style. But after that, it's just self indulgent garbage. If you tried these wines, you'd never find that many flavors in a single taste. You know why? Because humans can only differentiate a few aromas at a time, and most of what we perceive as taste is really retronasal olfaction.

How this sort of criticism became the norm, I do not know. No, actually, I do know. This variety of sewer feces appeals to people with lots of money but no common sense or knowledge of wine. Why learn about where the wine comes from and how it's made when you can just hear a point score and a bunch of fancy sounding adjectives? It's the easy way out--instant validation.

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.