Same Ol'...Same Ol'

Interesting. Two writers decry the lack of Calif wines on US wine lists, especially for restaurants who "buy local". JonBonne's article is much better written and lacks the polemics of Asimov's, who uses it to, once again, decry the high alcohols in Calif wines. It's a tiresome rant. Bonne makes a valid point that good-drinking wines from Europe are generally more affordable. But if the restaurants mantra is "buy local", I think it would not be too difficult to put together an all-Calif list that was also affordable...those wines are out there....often made by "intuition and blind luck" for "thirsty pagans".
Tom

Asimov

Bonne

..often made by "intuition and blind luck" for "thirsty pagans".

You might note that Asimov actually cited ESJ as an example of CA producers that don't make uberripe/high aloohol wines. It's really hard to read either the column or the blog as being rants against high alcohol.

I'm with Dale here, Tom.

I don't see Asimov's article as being polemic. Certainly not any more so than Bonne's.

I think they were both thoughtful, balanced, and well written summations of a situation. With signs for some change, but equal reasons for lack of change. And with dual warnings to the producers of California wines. Warnings that they would pay well to heed.

I could only add---to either article--- that the wine stewards shouldn't be whining and whingeing about how hard it is to find wines to fit their needs and profiles. It is their job to do so. And if they're good at it, it wouldn't be so difficult for them to notice, or "discover" that lots of them are out there...and people already know of them and pour them.

Steve and ESJ always get mentions in articles of this sort---so why is it that Steve's wines don't sell out---especially to restaurants---every single vintage???

There are people out there knocking on doors, making telephone calls, pleading to be seen and for their wines to be tasted---yet the buyers/stewards make it extremely difficult for these people to get any attention much of the time. And one of the sad truths of the wine steward game is they rely at times on very narrow channels, aren't willing to open those channels up, don't do their own homework, and---sad to say---often make it as much about snob and name appeal as about wine (if not, in many cases, making it more about money and grease and playing the subsidy game than about wine).

Maybe I was reading too much into Asimov's blog, but his comments on over-ripeness and alcohol just seemed like more of the same rant he's made before about
Calif wines. I thought Bonne's article had much more intellectual content than did Asimov's.
I just thought it was interesting that two articles/blogs on lack of Calif wines on BayArea restaurant's lists was quite a coincidence.

As for why EdmundsStJohn wines don't sell out year after year....I'd probably attribute it to his Director of Marketing and Public Relations.
If he'd hire somebody like JuliaRoberts or ParisHilton or PamelaAnderson for that job...they just might.
Tom

As for why EdmundsStJohn wines don't sell out year after year....I'd probably attribute it to his Director of Marketing and Public Relations.
If he'd hire somebody like JuliaRoberts or ParisHilton or PamelaAnderson for that job...they just might.
Tom

Tom, if Steve were to do what you suggest, (and I do think the idea has a modicum of good sense), but if he did, could I still afford to drink them? Speaking of ESJ, I wonder how far along he is in his fall work. I am looking to maybe get a few bottles of his 2008 B-J pink and his 2008 HoG white.

Maybe I was reading too much into Asimov's blog, but his comments on over-ripeness and alcohol just seemed like more of the same rant he's made before about

In his blog entry, he doesn't actually mention alcohol, and refers to overripeness twice (in 9 paragraphs). The actual (2 page) article does mention alcohol, in a quote from Mark E. But reading either as rants seems bewildering.

Hmmm ... I didn't see the rants, either.

Over the past several years, I've been the person designated to select wines for our symphony's fundraising events, which draw 250-350 people per event. I got the job because I said I would not attend another one where they served insultingly mediocre wines (most typically an inexpensive domestic Chardonnay along with a Merlot/Cab). In looking over my notes, I see that during this time, I only selected one domestic wine, a nice red blend from Washington that was in our price range due to a significant closeout discount.

Now befoe anyone thinks I am just naturally biased toward imported wine, I have to say that my personal wine collection has more domestic wine in it than imported ... so there. It all boils down to finding the best quality, relatively inexpensive wine. I think this statement from one of the articles sums it up quite nicely.

Where are the state's equivalents of Cotes du Rhone — enjoyable, place-based red wines that go for under $20 on the shelf or $40 on a wine list?

The lack of distinction of our domestic affordable wines is quite appalling. That's why they end up on the wine lists only at the small local restaurants that themselves have no distinction.

-- Clark

Regarding the larger issue of locating domestic wines that pair well with the food served, I wonder if the pendulum hasn't begun to swing back a tad as a result of two distinct factors: the weakness of the dollar and the decision of several CA winemakers to consciously return to a more restrained style of winemaking. I know that my own buying habits reflect these changes. Those of you (all 3) who've read my tasting notes in the past have perhaps seen that I mostly post on European wines, but over the past 3-4 years I've begun to return to certain domestic producers, with the help of advice from people like Hoke and FL Jim. Add to that some of the very interesting wines coming out of MI and NY's Finger Lakes (and maybe Long Island?) and you have the makings of an "alternative" domestic wine list.

I think that a fairly interesting list could be created from the wines of ESJ, Swan, Navarro, Rhys, Dashe, Laurel Glen, Corison, Tablas Creek, Chehalem, St. Innocent, Wiemer, Dr. Frank, Left Foot Charley and Chateau Grand Traverse, for a start. And maybe when Cowan Cellars comes on line...

Mark Lipton

The lack of distinction of our domestic affordable wines is quite appalling.

I recently spoke with a wine steward at a fine dining establishment in Chicago about the lack of reasonably priced domestic wines at that establishment. He claimed to have blind tasted mixed groups of foreign and domestic wines, at various price points, when making buying decisions last year. The foreign wines were his favorite in nearly pricing group for exactly the reason mentioned above - the domestic selections were simply too nondescript. He said that he would love to offer more domestic product if it offered the same QPR as "them furiners".

He said that he would love to offer more domestic product if it offered the same QPR as "them furiners".

Sam, this touches on one of my pet peeves. This wine guy wants QPR on his side of the table, but what does he mark the wine up to when he serves it? It seems to me that most restaurants hope? want? to get their investment back with the first glass they pour. I know that the more expensive the wine, the less markup % can be made so we are actually talking of reasonable priced wines to begin. If one takes a mythical wine that sells retail for $20, will cost the establishment about $12. Then the by the glass cost is probably $10, and that nearly covers the cost making the other 4 pours almost pure profit. Where is my QPR?

Bob, you've pinpointed one of the big problems in the system vis a vis glass pours.

Your interests and the restaurant's interest are in conflict here.

When the buyer says QPR, he means he wants his costs as low as possible and his profit as high as possible, coming in with a wine that is just under your threshold to to pay.

Your idea of a QPR, of course, is closer to the idea of a really tasty wine that goes well with your food and enhances the meal, and is priced at a point where you think you're being treated fairly and not being gouged to subsidize some other aspect of the operation (an all too common excuse offered by restaurants to justify said gouging).

Also there's the belief---don't know how the restaurants arrived at it, but there it is---that they should make more off the btg than they should in the btb. In some cases remarkably more.

Another reason, it has been said, probably by cynical and distrustful people, I'm sure, is that there are more imported wines on wine lists because fewer people are familiar with the plethora of imports and all their foreign languages, and have no idea of what the acquisition price is, and thus have no idea they are being gouged. Whereas most popular or inexpensive American brands are known and costs are recognized, therefore more difficult to get away with a bigger markup.

Case in point: most Americans in a restaurant would have no idea what a Vidal-Fleury CdR is, but if given a look at the lable would automatically assume it is an exceptionally high-quality wine with a great pedigree and likely must be expensive. So they don't mid paying a little more to get a little more...when they are likely paying a little more to get not much---if any---more.

And last mention on this topic (for now) is that the critics who maintain that there is a distressing homogeneity in American wines are absolutely correct. Most American producers consistently pump out exactly the same narrow range of flavors, and give the impression that there's very little diversity---regardless of where they are located. So, sadly, it becomes an exercise in Just Another Chardonnay, Just Another Cabernet, and every now and then maybe an Albarino or a Malbec or a Gamay to break the monotony.

If one takes a mythical wine that sells retail for $20, will cost the establishment about $12. Then the by the glass cost is probably $10, and that nearly covers the cost making the other 4 pours almost pure profit. Where is my QPR?

Bob,

There was nothing on this restaurant's wine list for under $45 per bottle, including a couple of Bojo's. The cheapest "by the glass" offering was a house Chardonnay for $8. What spawned our conversation was that they didn't have a California red, of any kind, for under $75. If memory serves they did offer an Oregon Pinot, or blend for $65, but that was it for "cheap" domestic reds. They offered a large selection of Araujo, Dunn, Harlan Estates, Dominus, Screaming Eagle, etc. all at second mortgage prices. We did low end, "by the glass" for our dinner, and were perfectly happy.

Regarding the larger issue of locating domestic wines that pair well with the food served, I wonder if the pendulum hasn't begun to swing back a tad as a result of two distinct factors: the weakness of the dollar and the decision of several CA winemakers to consciously return to a more restrained style of winemaking.

A very slow swing but not an unnoticeable one, IMO.
I see the guys who are selling out where I work and the guys who are making a decision to make wines better suited to meals and they ain't the same guys. Any number of reasons for this, of course, but as Steve and others can probably tell us, you gotta sell to keep making.

I think there is a niche waiting in the wings for a reviewer to take up the "domestic wines best with food" mantra. If he or she could only get buyers (both commercial and individual) interested in the topic. Or maybe Asimov and Boone could work it into their writings on a regular basis.
Although, this isn't exactly the very best time to start a new business, is it?
Best, Jim