Rumblings on wine part 4987243: California

[David M. Bueker]

Ruby Cabernet? Who is making a varietal Ruby Cabernet these days?

Here's an interesting statistic from Statista. Number of wineries in the United States, by production
4,033 Limited production <1000 cases
3,690 Very small production 1000 - 4,999 cases
1.604 Small production 5,000 -49,999 cases
262 Medium production 50,000-499,000 cases
65 Large production > 500,000 cases

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

I think Walt and I are focused on opposite ends of that scale!

[Jenise]

Looking towards Washington and Oregon, there are large producers (e.g. Chateau Ste. Michelle), but the focus is not the same as say the Central Valley box wine production in California.

Do you suppose it will help that Washington's distinct differences are being identified early and quickly? The first winery to go commercial was only '83 or '84, and we now have 15 official AVA's with five more essentially approved. Or will it hurt--we could have so many that, at least to outsiders, they fail to matter except for memorable names like Candy Mountain, The Burn, and Royal Slope which are among the five new ones.

Back to California, I think Tim's point makes particular sense and it's the first thing I'd blame. That in France they name wines by region, not grape. But besides terroir differences, I'd throw in climate. Probably shouldn't admit that I'm old enough to remember this, but take 1993. It was a poor year in the north and in Napa Valley, Caymus for instance declassified their SS stuff and only put out a regular cabernet. But it was a fabulous year in the central California coastal regions of Santa Barbara/Santa Maria etc. At the time, though, the reference tools produced by the Spectator et al only produced one number, so poor central Cal died by the same sword that Napa-Sonoma lived by. Grossly unfair to both producers and consumers.

So interesting, Jenise; I wasn't aware that '93 had been thought of in such a bad light. I felt, at the time, that it was a miraculously good vintage. All my grapes that year were from North Coast (Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino) counties, and Sierra foothills. But then again, I was weird. Still am, I guess

So interesting, Jenise; I wasn't aware that '93 had been thought of in such a bad light. I felt, at the time, that it was a miraculously good vintage. All my grapes that year were from North Coast (Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino) counties, and Sierra foothills. But then again, I was weird. Still am, I guess

Steve I have one bottle of '93 Durrell left, will not ask for a refund/
Don't have much '93 California, but all north, but happy to have Mayacamas and Togni (as well as ESJ)

[David M. Bueker]

The poorly delineated assessment of 1993 in California is not the state’s fault. It’s faulty reviewing.

I have had any number of delicious 1993s, even from Napa. It was a vintage that got tarred for a very few wineries making decisions that had little bearing on other wineries.

As for Washington (and Oregon May be headed the same way), I don’t know if there is enough history and AVA recognition at the consumer level to support detailed subdivisions (in the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out) beyond the well known AVAs. Even for obsessed people like me it’s hard. I have heard of the Ribbon Ridge AVA in Oregon, but I can’t explain a damned thing about it. Even somewhat more established AVAs (e.g. Red Mountain in Washington) are still a bit unfamiliar to me. I know some high level things, but that’s it.

And I still cannot buy into the varietal labeling bogeyman. The regional and AVA info is also on the label. It’s almost always right there on the front. People are not obligated to stop reading after they see a grape name.

Steve Wrote:
So interesting, Jenise; I wasn't aware that '93 had been thought of in such a bad light.

Eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991?

Salute

[Jenise]

So interesting, Jenise; I wasn't aware that '93 had been thought of in such a bad light. I felt, at the time, that it was a miraculously good vintage. All my grapes that year were from North Coast (Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino) counties, and Sierra foothills. But then again, I was weird. Still am, I guess

What I remember is participating at dinner in a conversation back then with Chris Whitcraft who was making pinot noirs from central California's Bien Nacido vineyard. He was livid over consumers and wine retail in general accepting the Spec's low rating of the vintage when the vintage in his area had been exceptional. I stopped subscribing in '03, have no idea how they work today.

[David M. Bueker]

Wine Spectator did not start giving California Pinot Noir vintage ratings until 1996.

[Jenise]

Did they even break it down by grape? Weren't all vintage ratings unspecific but based on cabernet and Napa, essentially, presuming everything else followed suit?

I swear even in 2000 when I got a free subscription to the Wine Enthusiast they basically had one rating for California. It is true, that's about like having one rating for "Europe". I think it was quite small, maybe Bordeaux, Burgundy, Port, Italy, California, (Oregon?) and a few others. The whole thing fit on a business card, so you could keep it in your wallet and whip it out while perusing the wine list. That way you could show off your knowledge of the vintages, and keep from being taken for a ride by the sommelier via the time-old technique of POOR VINTAGE SELECTION. Pre-smartphone, that's the most you could do, I suppose, given the impossibility of listing even a fraction of the highly rated wines on a small card. Obviously, it's far better to know the producers or at least regions that are to your taste, but if you don't know anything, the vintage ratings were all you had. I definitely remember looking for 1997 California cabs and avoiding 1998, ditto for whatever the favored and disfavored current release Bordeaux were at the time. But then I tasted a 1997 St. Innocent Seven Springs from a "bad" vintage that was electrifying, and a 1998 Livermore cabernet that was perfectly balanced, and realized that I had a whole lot to learn if two of my wines of the year were from "bad" vintages.

As far as varietals, I see a lot of people who go into tasting rooms and ask to try the cab. If there is no cab, they get pouty. I rarely see anyone go in and ask "What's the wines are distinctive in this place?". And that's a tasting room, where the guests at least in theory have the interest and openness to taste new wines. In your typical big box store, or even a dedicated wine store that's laden with shelf talkers, the stuff shoved in a corner under the "other whites" banner doesn't stand a chance without some serious effort on the part of the merchat. The other aspect, of AVA explosion, is a tough one to solve. I don't think most people could name a single sub-region of the Central Coast, yet I routinely see wines labeled with smaller appellations like "Santa Rita Hills" or even a single vineyard thereof. And we're the experts, the ones with the big map of the California appellations in our houses (thanks for the hat tip, Robin!). There's not enough of an effort to recognize the similarities of regions, let alone appellations, in my opinion. Yet new AVAs nobody has ever heard of continue to be cranked out every year.

[David M. Bueker]

Did they even break it down by grape? Weren't all vintage ratings unspecific but based on cabernet and Napa, essentially, presuming everything else followed suit?

Current charts are much more detailed.

They started rating Zinfandel in 1994.
Pinot followed in 1996 - broken into 5 sub-regions.
Rhone reds started in 1997, broken into 4 sub-regions.
Merlot and Chardonnay also go back to 1996.
Cabernet goes back much further, split by Napa and Sonoma.

FWIW, the 88 points they gave the 1993 Cabernet in Napa was only one point lower than they gave 1990 in Napa, and only 3 points lower than 1991, which was a really fine vintage for Napa Cabernet. 1994-1997 were the years that got huge scores, and also saw the emergence of the monster wines.

[David M. Bueker]

There's not enough of an effort to recognize the similarities of regions, let alone appellations, in my opinion.

Hmm, going to take me a bit to unpack my feelings on this one, but would you advocate eliminating Gevrey-Chambertin, Morey-St-Denis, Chambolle-Musigny, etc. because they all make Red Burgundy? I mean they aren't that different.

There's not enough of an effort to recognize the similarities of regions, let alone appellations, in my opinion.

Hmm, going to take me a bit to unpack my feelings on this one, but would you advocate eliminating Gevrey-Chambertin, Morey-St-Denis, Chambolle-Musigny, etc. because they all make Red Burgundy? I mean they aren't that different.

Well, if you ask me, that's because Burgundy has had half a millenium to make those names. Even then you could argue that the villages weren't well enough known on their own, or otherwise they wouldn't have had to graft Gevrey onto Chambertain, Aloxe onto Corton, etc. And of course they have an official hierarchy to fit into, where at least in theory there's no village wine if the village isn't distinctive enough to warrant it. It doesn't always work, for instance with the Beaujolais crus where I'm not aware that there's a huge price premium or awareness of the "better" crus. I'd be hard pressed to pick between a St. Amour and a Fleurie if I didn't know anything about the producer or style. California makes no attempt at that, so you pretty much just have AVAs. Again in theory, they have distinctiveness, but there's not really any difference in quality implied by a large AVA versus the ones it contains.

[David M. Bueker]

I bet if they had monks you would feel differently.

[David M. Bueker]

OK, so here's my serious, honest question: to whom do the differences need to be obvious. Is a region/sub-region only legitimate if casual consumers can spot the differences, or are enthusiasts enough?

If it's the former, I would argue that there is no reason to separate Washington and Oregon from California. Heck, I have been known to mistake Washington Cabernet for Sonoma Cabernet, and I like to believe I am a pretty skilled taster.

And bear in mind that I am thinking of the more serious wines. Plonk from anywhere tends to taste like plonk from anywhere.

[Jenise]

Enthusiasts (and the industry itself) have to be enough because the public won't be paying attention. The general public might notice names like one of our newest AVA's, Candy Mountain, but for all the wrong reasons. As it is I don't hear them caring about the difference between common sites like Horse Heaven Hills and Red Mountain--they don't even know where they are, let alone why they're different.

OK, so here's my serious, honest question: to whom do the differences need to be obvious. Is a region/sub-region only legitimate if casual consumers can spot the differences, or are enthusiasts enough?

If it's the former, I would argue that there is no reason to separate Washington and Oregon from California. Heck, I have been known to mistake Washington Cabernet for Sonoma Cabernet, and I like to believe I am a pretty skilled taster.

And bear in mind that I am thinking of the more serious wines. Plonk from anywhere tends to taste like plonk from anywhere.

It's a good question, and your point about plonk is well taken.

It's a balance between theoretically discernable distinctiveness, as assessed by experts, with the degree of that difference, to a certain extent expressed by the marketplace. In my mind, you subdivide when the degree of difference between two appellations exceeds the cognitive burden caused by the split

On one extreme, take the Lodi sub-appellations (please!). I live an hour, hour and a half from there, and I didn't know that there even were sub-appellations. Turns out there are 7 of them! For all I know there are detectable differences between them (though Lodi is pretty darn flat, so it's not topography) but nobody cares. Bad appellations (not bad wines). One hallmark of over-appellations is when they cover the entirety of the area. If you look at the Lodi map, there's precious little area that's only entitled to the Lodi AVA. Compare that to Burgundy, where there are big swaths of Bourgogne and little islands of villages, and little crus within the villages.

[David M. Bueker]

Those Lodi sub-appellations exist, but I have never seen one on a bottle. If an AVA gets a name, but nobody uses it, does it really exist?

As for Burgundy, while your point is well taken, Bourgogne covers about 50% of production, with Villages accounting for 35%, and the Premier/Grand Crus covering the other 15%.

In the new world, I don’t think it’s an exact comparison from a sub-appellation to Burgundy villages equivalent. But it’s not far off. Let’s take the Russian River Valley as an example. It’s part of Sonoma. But it really does not depend on Sonoma. It’s also part of the much broader North Coast AVA. There are lots of Russian River Valley wines, but a much smaller percentage have single vineyard names. Some notable producers makes wines in and from the Russian River Valley, giving it more cachet than the sub-appellations of Lodi. Maybe someday there will be that special producer that raises the profile of Lodi’s Alta Mesa AVA.

In the new world, I don’t think it’s an exact comparison from a sub-appellation to Burgundy villages equivalent. But it’s not far off. Let’s take the Russian River Valley as an example. It’s part of Sonoma. But it really does not depend on Sonoma. It’s also part of the much broader North Coast AVA. There are lots of Russian River Valley wines, but a much smaller percentage have single vineyard names. Some notable producers makes wines in and from the Russian River Valley, giving it more cachet than the sub-appellations of Lodi. Maybe someday there will be that special producer that raises the profile of Lodi’s Alta Mesa AVA.

Speak of the devil, Lettie Teague has a fair amount to say on that issue this week, including a few quotes from producers.

Williams Selyem winemaker Jeff Mangahas acknowledged the potential for confusion around the current AVAs. The Williams Selyem winery helped put the Russian River Valley on the map and is one of its most venerable producers along with Merry Edwards Winery, Rochioli Vineyard & Winery and Dehlinger Winery. (Most Williams Selyem Pinots are available only to the winery’s mailing list, though some can be found in restaurants and in a few retail stores.)

Mr. Mangahas recalled a time when the Sonoma Coast name had become popular. “People were relabeling their previously labeled Russian River Valley [wines] as Sonoma Coast, more as a marketing tool,” he said. One of the Pinot Noirs we tasted, the terrific 2016 Williams Selyem Terra de Promissio Vineyard Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast was produced from a vineyard located in Petaluma Gap, though Mr. Manga- has noted that the vineyard’s owners preferred to label it Sonoma Coast. With that in mind, I wasn’t surprised to find that he, like most Sonoma Pinot producers I met, believes that vineyard site matters much more than AVA name.

The Wall Street Journal paywall doesn't allow for free articles, so I've been using a neat new service called Blendle that lets you pay by the article. In this case, $.50 to read How to Read a Bottle Of Sonoma Pinot.
Those of you with WSJ subscriptions can read the original article.

[David M. Bueker]

I wasn’t surprised to find that he, like most Sonoma Pinot producers I met, believes that vineyard site matters much more than AVA name.

That’s a good point if we are discussing wine style and quality. It does nothing to address the confusion (such as it exists) regarding AVA. Almost nobody, except hard core geeks, knows where specific vineyards are located, especially within new (e.g. Petaluma Gap) or overlarge (e.g. Sonoma Coast) AVAs.

Speaking more broadly, the progress that has been made in assessing suitability of land in the U.S. has been at a pace far outstripping what was possible in Europe as its wine culture developed. We’re no longer forced to wait hundreds of years for the monks to figure it out. Wine development is aided by science, as well as by the sheer number of interested, passionate people who grow grapes, make wine and also drink the stuff with a critical eye to the ultimate quality of the beverage.