Posts Tagged ‘Steve Heimoff’

« Older Entries

Structure, Muscularity, Precision, & Wine. (And The Jazz!)

June 7, 2012

I must say, I quite enjoyed today a playful e-mail rally (as in the tennis sort; back and forth and back and forth and back and forth) with my friend Richard Jennings, who just happens to be not only one of the best wine bloggers going, but one of the best wine writers out there, period.

(You can find his blog here: http://www.rjonwine.com/)

And as an aside, are we perhaps finally to the point where, at least in some cases, we need not draw the distinction any longer? Is James Laube a wine magaziner? Is Steve Heimoff a wine print mediaer?

Which is not at all what I meant to be writing about, so back to my e-mail serve-and-volley with Richard. We were discussing, or might I even say sparring, over the question of structure in wine; how to define it, quantify it, measure it, describe it, parse it.

To say a wine has structure is to say what?

And if it’s structured, what is it?

Is it strong? Is it powerful? It is muscular?

Or are we talking components, the building blocks? Is it tannic, acidic, alcoholic?

Or are we with the blues and abstract truth? Is it destined for a lifetime of development, due to factors both intangible and tangible; factors which are threaded to the fabric of its essence?

Is it big?

At play in the fields of my thesaurus, I set upon a stump and thought on POWER.

Is to be structured to be powerful?

Oh, but all the myriad elusive hues of power!

From my correspondence with Richard today:

“…intensity via complexity, subtlety, and precision; more of a Rinzai Zan quietude than a bombastically Western pontificatoriness …”

“…I think of power, certainly, but only as it relates to precision, focus, clarity, and sophistication. It’s the power of the guru more than the soldier …”

And revisiting this now, I am struck by myself that I should be thinking on quietude, precision, and power on the very same day we mark the birth of one of the true under-the-radar greats of the jazz guitar, Mr. Tal Farlow.

‘Twas July 7th, 1921 that The Octopus (his nickname) was born into this world, and it was 21 years from then that first he took up a guitar; a moment pregnant with import for our ears and our souls.

Tal Farlow did not assault you with technique; he had it in spades, but he deployed it with diplomacy. He did not bury you with volume; he could dig, but he did so with discretion. He was clean, he was precise, he was powerful.

For a lovely audio sampler of his playing (with a few pics on top), please check out the following:

When I think of structure, this is what I think about; I think about clarity, focus, control, precision, intensity, compression, concentration.

I think about a fierce elegance, a restrained mammalian fervor, a dynamic tension in beatific repose; coiled, taut, poised, possessed.

To say a wine has structure is to say what?

–

Richard and I were debating descriptors as applied to Monte Bello, and so perhaps I can rephrase the question above in honor of our debate:

To say the Monte Bello is structured is to say what?

And I close with two wine koans:

What moves, the wine, or the mind?

How can I show you Wine unless you first empty your cup?

Sit. Close your eyes. Listen to Tal Farlow play “You And The Night And The Music.” Drink wine. Just you, the night, and the music.

And the wine.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Press Reviews, Social Media, Video, Wine & Music, Wine and Jazz, Wine Blogs, Wine Quotes | Leave a Comment »

What IS High Alcohol In Wine?

August 8, 2011

If you’re a part of the wine industry, or if you follow it, it’s hard to get away from the debate; the alcohol level debate. Everywhere you turn, it’s a dominating topic of conversation.

A recent example is a column (Decanter Magazine, September 2011) by the famed English wine writer Oz Clarke, which was summed up by Decanter’s own Adam Lechmere as follows:

There is no style revolution in California: low acid, velvet tannins and high alcohol is what Americans want from their wine and Californian winemakers will continue to feed that need.

There was, predictably, a whole host of responses to the article (and to Mr. Lechmere’s summary!), including a notable offering from Steve Heimoff (Wine Enthusiast), who wrote the following:

I’ve been saying it for years: this supposed “trend” toward lower alcohol wine is largely a fiction invented and perpetuated by writers who (a) wish it were true and (b) need something sexy to write about in their columns and on their blogs.

All of which got me thinking of an admittedly tangential, but certainly related question: what IS high alcohol?

Is it the 14% cut-off, with “high” being above and “low” being below? This certainly seems to be the most commonly deployed barometer, but is it appropriate?

Honestly, I don’t think so, because I think “high” and “low” are relative terms, and what is high for one varietal, for example, may not be so high for another varietal. To simply say that if it’s over 14% ABV it’s a high-alcohol wine is, to my mind, a fairly meaningless assessment, and one doomed to inaccuracy, because it’s devoid of context.

As far as I’m concerned, the question should be, is the wine balanced? If you’re noticing too much of the alcohol, and not enough of the other components, then it’s a high-alcohol wine. This can happen at 13.2%, and it can happen at 15.2%. Conversely, if the wines wears its alcohol well, and is integrated and harmonious, then the wine is accordingly a balanced wine, and not high-alcohol at all. This can happen at 13.2%, and it can happen at 15.2%.

Consider the Ridge Vineyards Geyserville, long hailed as one of the most consistently balanced, elegant zinfandels California has ever produced. (“Year after year, Ridge makes some of the most polished, refined, and beautifully balanced zinfandels in California.”  – Karen MacNeil, The Wine Bible)

I took a look at the past thirty years or so of Geyserville, and came up with some interesting tidbits. For example:

1996 Ridge Vineyards Geyserville, 14.9% ABV

“A powerful wine that manages to wear its alcohol gracefully” – excerpted from a Stephen Tanzer review

And from Wine & Spirits Magazine: “This is the Ridge zinfandel of the vintage and certainly one of the very best overall. Well-farmed old-vine fruit, combined with Paul Draper’s informed winemaking, provide a supple and elegant zin. Because the fruit isn’t as dense as in some vintages, the wine has a lightness and grace to it that is ideal with food. It’s dark red in color with vivid aromas of oak spice, pepper, venison, bacon, plum and wild berries, the palate supple with firm acidity. Not overly complex, just beautifully balanced and complete.”

And from Wine Spectator: “… Supple and harmonious …”

Graceful? Supple? Lightness and Grace? Harmonious? At 14.9% ABV? Go figure …

Now, take the 1998 Ridge Vineyards Geyserville. It clocked in at 14.1% ABV. And yet here is Robert Parker, the purported Godfather of Support for the “ripe” style:

“One of Ridge’s classic efforts, the 1998 Geyserville (74% Zinfandel, 15% Petite Sirah, 10% Carignan, and 1% Mataro) possesses Bordeaux-like complexity and elegance…This classy, elegant, restrained, yet authoritatively rich Zinfandel should be consumed over the next 5-6 years.”

Hmmm …

Now, let’s jump all the way back to 1982! What did the critics say then? Well, Wine Enthusiast called the nose “overripe.” It was 12.6% ABV! But, lest you go thinking, “Aha! See! That’s the way it used to be done, lower alcohol!”, jump back even further to 1978, and you’ll find the Geyserville coming in at 14.9% ABV, and being described by the very same Wine Enthusiast reviewer as: “Deep, complex … almost Burgundian style.”

The point being that, while the alcohol levels vary notably (something the reviewer notes, insomuch as he calls the 82 “low alcohol” and the 78 “high alcohol”), the quality remains consistent, and balance is paramount.

In its many-decade history, the Geyserville has been as low as the low 13s, and as high as the high 14s, and it has accrued praise and appreciation throughout, and given great joy and pleasure to those who have tasted it.

So is Geyserville a “high-alcohol” wine?

Don’t bother answering, says me, because it’s the wrong question.

—

And on another note, Steve Heimoff made an interesting comment to his own blog post (in response to an earlier comment in the feed); when he wrote:

All I’m saying is that, from my vantage point of tasting nearly 5,000 California wines a year, I don’t see them moving away from high alcohol, especially the Cabernets.

Which of course got me thinking of the Ridge Vineyards Monte Bello.

So I did the same sort of thing as I did with the Geyserville; I went looking back through the long history of Monte Bello, to see what I could discover about alcohol levels. Dig this:

The 1970 Ridge Vineyards Monte Bello was 13.5% ABV.  The 1962 (the first Monte Bello ever produced) was 12.4% ABV. The median there is about 13% ABV. The 2007 Monte Bello (current vintage) is 13.1%ABV.

Interesting.

Now, are we the exception to the rule? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I’m pretty sure it’s not the Monte Bello that Steve (or Oz) are talking about. And I’m certainly not presenting the above as any sort of challenge to their points.

Rather, it’s just another way of approaching my primary thesis, which is that,  at the end of the day, I truly believe we should be debating balance first and foremost, not alcohol levels. ABV is certainly a legitimate sub-category in any debate about any given wine (as are fruit, minerality, structure, spice, acidity, etc.), but it’s just that, a sub-category, and nothing more or less.

Now, I should disclaim all the above by saying I recognize that Oz Clarke and Steve Heimoff are talking about something a little different; what they’re essentially talking about is the continuing dominance of a style despite a sea of rhetoric seemingly indicating a sea change in another direction; their point seems to be that it is everything from wishful thinking to out and out hypocrisy to believe that the style in question is in fact changing.

This is not what I’m on about. They may in fact be right. But my concern is the focus of the debate itself, which I believe may need some re-framing; getting away from primarily obsessing over alcohol levels, and the question of high vs. low alcohol wines, and focusing instead on the question of balance.

—

And on yet another note, I think we also need to be careful about getting too cynical about our wine buyers out there.

As wine producers, I think we can actually happily show great respect for, and faith in, our consumers and their palates. They may not all understand secondary malolactic fermentaion, or know what the word “veraison” means, or be able to discuss the difference between pad and membrane filtration methods, or define “brix levels,” but they can tell balanced from unbalanced, on a visceral if not always analytical level. And that’s a great thing. And sure, they might buy the “fruit bombs” sometimes, but they buy lots of other styles too, and that’s also a great thing. Their ability to discern and to experiment, to learn and to change, to vary and to sample; this is what keeps us all in business. And believe you me, they can spot a good wine, and they can spot a not-so-good wine, and the difference is balance. Balance is what give a wine its magic; that unnameable certain something that makes one wine an “excitement wine,” and another one not. And I truly believe that, in the end, that’s what wine consumers are responding to.

Balance. It’s what makes a wine sing.

I see it every day in our tasting rooms. I see it in their faces, that slight and subtle, inward-looking smile that twinkingly emerges when a magic wine hits their palate. They may not always know the what, where, how, and why of why the wine tastes the way it does, but they can sense it when it’s good.

And I say it’s good, when it’s balanced.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Bordeaux varietals, Cabernet Sauvignon, Geyserville, History, Monte Bello, Press Reviews, Tasting Notes, Tasting Rooms, Varietals & Blends, Viticultural Salmagundi, Wine Blogs, Wine Quotes, Wine Tales, Winemaking, Zinfandel | 4 Comments »

I Have Two Words For You: “Zinfandel,” and “Barbecue” … THE EVENT OF THE SUMMER!

June 6, 2011

I have two words for you: Zinfandel and Barbecue.

We go together like rama-lama-lama-lama-ding-de-ding-de-dong …

Zinfandel …

and Barbecue …

And now I have five more words for you: THE EVENT OF THE SUMMER!

Zins, Blends, and BBQ!

 My personal invitation to you:

It sounds so simple, and in many ways it is; Zinfandel & BBQ: a perfect pair. But think about Kansas City, think about Memphis, think about Texas! Research is clearly required … and Ridge is here to help. I happily invite you to join me for an exploration of regional barbecue styles, and how to pair them with different zinfandels. Our specially-selected chefs will be offering a quartet of regional styles (yes, there will even be a Northern California spin!) perfectly paired with our singular array of single-vineyard zinfandels, and all you have to do is sip, taste, and enjoy! So please join me this 4th of July weekend for an engaging afternoon of delicious wine, food and friends.

The “Official” Specs:

Zins, Blends & BBQ
Saturday July 2nd ~ Monte Bello
11-5pm, complimentary to Members, $30/person otherwise

The “Unofficial” Specs:

This is going to be so good!

Don’t believe me? Then let Steve Heimoff – legendary wine author, Wine Enthusiast West Coast Editor, and host of the award-winning blog SteveHeimoff.com –tell you all about it. Steve just very recently penned a piece for Wine Enthusiast Magazine all about pairing zinfandel with barbecue, and alongside a delightful panoply of delicious possibilities, he highlights our 2009 Ridge Vineyards East Bench with a 92 point rating!

92 Ridge 2009 East Bench Zinfandel (Dry Creek Valley); $26. A rich and satisfying Zinfandel, showing classic varietal flavors of ripe, wild red berries, tobacco, soy sauce, bacon and white pepper. Alcohol is notable in the slight heat and glyceriney sweetness, but those elements are welcome parts of the wine’s personality.

You can read Steve’s full article here.

Now, back to our Zins, Blends, and BBQ Event. To RSVP and/or purchase tickets, please click here.

Zinfandel & Barbecue.

Remembered forever like
shoo bop shoo wadda wadda yipitty boom de boom …

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Events & Photographs, Food & Wine Pairing, Special Offerings, Tasting Notes, Tasting Rooms, Varietals & Blends, Viticultural Salmagundi, Zinfandel | Leave a Comment »

The Seriousness of Zinfandel?

February 4, 2011

You may have read Jon Bonne’s recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled “Is Zinfandel a serious wine?” If you did (or even if you didn’t!), you may have noticed that this article sparked a rather fierce debate in the aftermath of its publication; it seems the topic touched quite a collective nerve! If you didn’t see the original article, you can click here to read it.

I watched most of the arguments from the sidelines, content to enjoy all the kind words about Ridge Zinfandel that cropped up in the various conversations. And thanks to all for that!

But I did wade into one thread, and with great pleasure, as it meant I was among the comments following an article by Steve Heimoff. If you’ve read anything by Steve, particularly on his blog, you’ll know he has a fantastic knack for not only provoking great responses, but attracting an astonishing caliber of respondents. No disrespect intended to Steve, but there are times when reading the comment feed is almost more instructive than reading the original article!

Anyhow, Steve took on the topic of Zinfandel’s seriousness, and I eventually threw my rhetorical hat into the ring. I reprint my initial response below, but I encourage you to visit Steve’s site and read both his posting, and the 40+ comments that followed. You can find it all here:

http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2011/01/31/is-zinfandel-a-serious-wine/comment-page-1/#comment-166960

As to my original comment, here ’tis:

I wonder if I might address the question of serious vs. fun (for lack of a better way to frame the debate as it seems to be shaping up) by positing that one can be quite serious about one’s fun. I find that both Ridge, and Zinfandel, have fascinating histories specifically because of the way they have historically lived at some unique juncture point of high and low brow tendencies; when they succeed, they perform a marvelous integration of funk and sophistication, head and heart, technique and instinct.

Many if not all of our greatest artists throughout history were deadly serious about producing that which would ideally be entertaining to us; comedians who rehearsed jokes for 10 hours a day, composers who brought themselves to the brink of exhaustion at the piano, painters who drove themselves to the edge of madness at the canvas, writers who labored over every punctuation mark in every poem. As recipients of their artistry and dedication, we revel in the sensual enjoyment of their creations, be they light or heavy, fun or serious, playful or ponderous.

The point being, one can be serious about making a zinfandel that is flat out fun to drink. I am a proud employee of Ridge Vineyards because I think that’s exactly what Ridge does, and it’s something I wanted to be a part of. And we are certainly not alone in doing this. All the accolades, devotions, and praises evident in this comment feed alone attest to it. Cheers to zinfandel, and cheers, as always, to Steve for producing such effectively provocative writing. It’s serious work he does, but it’s alot of fun to read!

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Wine Blogs, Zinfandel | 2 Comments »

San Francisco Syrah Tasting: 11/9/10!

November 4, 2010

If you read my previous post (found here) then you’re already aware of our participation in the “Pneumonia’s Last Syrah” campaign. But did  you know we’ll also be pouring at a wonderful event in San Francisco on the 9th of November to support the campaign?

To purchase tickets for this fantastic event, just click here. You’ll be supporting a very worthy cause, you’ll be enjoying Syrahs from 20 different outstanding producers, and as far as our participation goes, you’ll have a chance to taste with our very own Vice-President of Vineyard Operations David Gates.

David is one of the warmest, most friendly and approachable members of the vineyard community I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting, let alone working with, and I encourage you to take this fantastic opportunity to talk over a glass of Syrah with him. But don’t let his folksy down-to-earthedness fool you; David is a veritable fount of knowledge, and his erudition, wisdom, and technical prowess are dazzling in the most unexpected of ways.

There are a multitude of reasons to support this campaign, and a multitude of ways to do so, and while this tasting is just one such opportunity, it’s a tasty one!

By the way, if you’d like to read more about this effort from writers outside of the organizational circle, you might want to have a look at the following rather esteemed bloggers and their posts:

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Events & Photographs, Rhone varietals, Syrah, Varietals & Blends, Vineyards and Oenology, Wine Blogs | Leave a Comment »

Heimoff, The Bums, The Snobs, and #WBC10

June 25, 2010

“… a slightly suspect beverage consumed by skid row bums and snobs …”

Per Steve Heimoff, this was the world of wine that he came to as a novice back in the day … and I’m thinking, fantastic! What happened to that world?

(pic below is Mr. Heimoff in the middle of giving his keynote speech at the 2010 Wine Blogger’s Conference, otherwise known as #wbc10)

At heart, other than my father, I learned to drink wine from The Beats. Wine went with wild poetry readings, and mountain meditation sessions. Wine went with trains, and camping. Wine sometimes went with nothing other than, well, wine. Just wine. And mainly, wine went with people. It was living with people, in a memorable way. Being where you were, and demanding nothing less that an exhilarating devotion to the moment …

From my father (the true architect of my personal house of wine), a professor of literary criticism rooted in an Italian Marxist tradition, I also learned that wine goes with lividly vibrant political arguments between hairy professors wearing plaid sportcoats with leather elbows, or strangely somber yet passionate poetry readings headed up my bespectacled and shambolic graduate students. And I especially learned that wine goes with family. “At table.” One of my favorite phrases of all time.

This past Father’s Day, my father and I shared a moment over the phone, a moment in which we each gave love to one other as fathers, and we capped it with each of us opening, double-decanting, and drinking a 375ml bottle of 2006 Monte Bello. Just fantastic.

So as far as I’m concerned, Snobs? Skid row bums? You’re all welcome at my table!

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Events & Photographs, Wine Blogs | 1 Comment »

More From #TRP2010!

April 8, 2010

Some very interesting seminars I’ve just attended, I must say. Elizabeth Slater on the most vital Dos and Donts for Tasting Rooms and Tasting Room staff, with a break in between for a Talk-To-The-Bloggers panel discussion that featured the announced bloggers Ray Johnson, director of the SF Chronicle Wine Competition and host of TasteWine: Ray Johnson’s Wine Blog, Christian Oggenfuss, founder of Oggenfuss Wine Marketing and host of VinTuba.com, and Thea Dwelle, she of the site Luscious Lushes (and a recent attendee to our Wine Blogger’s Tasting!); I say “announced” because there was also a special unannounced guest, Hardy Wallace, host of the Dirty South wine blog (“wine is meant to be crunk!”), and recent winner of the Murphy-Goode “A Really Goode Job” competition …

But back to Elizabeth Slater, who earns every inch of her bio’s claim that she is a “savant”; though one might also say she’s “a hoot” or “a pistol” and not be far off either!

On wine, and when to drink it? “If you wake up on the right side of the grass, that’s cause for celebration!”

On talking to customer for too long in the tasting room? “As soon as they get their credit card out, shut up!”

On the comparative  greater importance of the experience, vs. the contextually lesser importance of the wine itself? “Having a good time makes wine taste better!”

(speaking of quotes, by the way, DEFINITELY stay tuned for a compendium of quotes from Steve Heimoff speaking at the conference!)

Anyhow, I don’t want to spill the beans on Elizabeth Slater’s numerical manifesto of Dos and Donts, but I just have to share one from each to give you the flavor:

DO recognize that “Objections are buying signs” … very interesting …

and DON’T “Touch your hair or your face” … again, very interesting …

(And remind me to tell you what the inside dirt is on how effective the Really Goode Job endeavor was as regards actually selling cases of wine! At least, according to one person “in the know” …)

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Tasting Rooms, Viticultural Salmagundi, Wine Blogs, Wine Quotes | Leave a Comment »

End Of Year Matters -or- What Mattered Most Online In Wine At The End Of The Oughts!

December 22, 2009

So, what with the end of the Oughts nearly upon us, I’ve been of course thinking of a way to wrap 2009 things up on the blog, and I have to thank Steve Heimoff of Wine Enthusiast for providing a rather excellent mechanism by which to do so; in the December 31 issue of Wine Enthusiast, Steve writes a column entitled “Wine Online in 2009,” in which he lays out his candidates for the Top 10 Issues that most captivated the wine blogosphere this year.

Given that Ridge and myself are proud participants in said blogosphere, I wanted to make sure I offered at least two cents worth of perspective on each of these ten items. So here goes!

The Recession

The Big R. Of course it’s been a topic of conversation, and we’ve all been analyzing the effects and repercussions from all angles.  Conventional wisdom in the world of wine seems to be that, while people are certainly having to tighten their belts, the recession isn’t keeping them from drinking wine per se, but rather, it’s forcing them to purchase wines at a lower price point, and do so “directly,” as opposed to in restaurants.

While Ridge wines aren’t what myself or anyone else would probably consider to be entry-level priced, I do think that judged on a price-break-to-quality ratio, we consistently offer a tremendous caliber of wine for the money. But that doesn’t change the reality that our prices may be above the level below which wine purchasers are currently looking for offerings. And while we accordingly have certainly seen some challenges on the wholesale and export side of the equation, our direct-to-consumer sales have actually been notably solid.

Which brings me to the issue of buying “directly.” I think that, while the recession has certainly been a factor, there is something else at work here as well, the ever-increasing confidence, sophistication, and knowledge of the American Wine Drinker. Combining personal experience with unprecedented technological access (are you too seeing more and more diners in restaurants using IPhones and the like to look up wine ratings as they peruse the wine lists?), the American Wine Drinker seems to be feeling progressively more and more able to make informed wine choices themselves, without relying on wine lists, sommeliers, or shelf talkers in retail shops. So why not come directly to the source?

And this returns us to the recession. What better way to engage in a “staycation” then to spend a day picnicking and wine tasting? I think what he have on our hands is potentially a new model for wine consumption in our country. It’s less expensive, yet more involved; more engaged, yet less confusing; and it’s more educational, yet more fun. It begins with some time spent perusing some favorite wine blogs (no subscription costs!), then heading off to a favorite tasting room or two (an excellent opportunity to taste before you purchase, and learn before you taste!), stopping only to pick up supplies for a picnic (cheaper than a restaurant!), and ending on the grounds of a favorite producer’s vineyards, with a lovely bottle of wine (no restaurant mark-up!), great food, and great company.

If that’s somewhat transparent, so be it! Of course I’m describing an afternoon spent at our Lytton Springs and/or Monte Bello Tasting Rooms, but in all honesty, I think the experiences we can offer are a perfect antidote to the recession, and I hope we’ll be able to welcome every single one of you at some point in the not-too-distant future!

The 100-Point System

I have to say, this hasn’t been of much concern to us here at RIDGE. While we’ve of course been fortunate to receive some lovely scores from many reputable wine critics and commentators over the years, RIDGE is a producer that has always favored philosophy over facts, and in the end, while the point system may function as a handy sort of shorthand, my feeling is that the best reviews are potentially the longest, and certainly the most insightful, and most expressive. Writing about wine is potentially just as much an art as is creating it, in that, like all art forms, one is essentially trying to express the internally inexpressible in some external fashion, and while it’s by definition never wholly possible, the wine writer who is able to inspire us by their words to experience anew the artisanal gift of a fine bottle of wine has done an artist’s job, point system or no.

Blind Tasting vs. Open

While it would certainly be easy to agree with the vast majority of people who favor blind tasting, I think I’m going to take the rather more controversial road here, and offer a vote in favor of open tasting. Why? Because blind tasting removes something from the tasting experience that I believe to be vital in assessing the character and quality of a wine; the INTENTIONS of the winemaker!

For example, let’s say you taste a wine blind, and you note it to be reasonably light-bodied, not overtly complex, pleasantly fruit-forward without being notably opulent, and not overtly structure-forward, featuring fairly soft acidity and only mildly chalky tannins. Your summary? Maybe you’d classify it as a spring-summer sipper, to be enjoyed in its youth. You judge it to be very pleasant, and give it a good, if not great, rating. Ok, fine. But what if the winemaker’s intention was to craft a wine with substantive cellarability virtually written into the wine’s DNA? With all the attendant complexity and sophistication such a wine must exhibit? Wouldn’t you have to consider the wine a bit of a disappointment, if not an out and out failure, if this was the case? But you wouldn’t be able to do this, because you wouldn’t know anything about the winemaker!

Speaking from the Ridge side of things, and as noted above, we’ve always been about philosophy as much as facts; art as much as science; agrarian traditions as much as technological ones, etc., and accordingly, intention is a big part of what we do. I’m not sure one can truly and properly assess a Ridge wine without some degree of understanding about WHY it tastes the way it does; WHY it was made the way it was made. The problem with blind tasting is that it assumes tasting is only that, tasting. But taste isn’t all that makes a wine unique.

Making Wine More Accessible To A New Generation

I’m actually going to run with a thread Mr. Heimoff himself touches upon in his article, and ask the following: does anyone else out there find it somewhat condescending the extent to which people seem to think that reaching a younger generation of potential wine consumers has to mean simplifying things? While I of course can recognize that some of the review and discourse models out there are crafted in the spirit of puncturing the oft preponderant pomposities that have historically surrounded the wine industry, many of the new wine blogs, wine shows, wine articles, etc. out there that have touched on this issue seems to be obsessed with the idea of, as Mr. Heimoff writes, “making wine simple,” of “taking the mystery out of wine.” Why? Are younger wine consumers incapable of grasping complexities? Are younger wine consumers incapable of appreciating, pursuing, and unraveling mystery? I am going to essentially agree with Mr. Heimoff on this one, and argue that a new generation deserves the same respect as any preceding generation, and accordingly, all of us who work with, and write about, fine wines should give younger people interested in wine the benefit of doubt, and assume sophistication on their parts. The words may be different, the slang different, the colloquialisms different, the methods of information transference different, but that’s no reason to assume the content is any less complex.

Credibility

The issue here, in terms of it being a hot-button topic, seems to be the question of who has the right to speak on wine, and who should be listened to. Conventional wisdom would seem to suggest that it’s a battle between the old guard (print media, Robert Parker, etc.) vs. the new guard (wine blogs, Gary Veynerchuk, etc.), with the old guard maintaining that their experience, skill, knowledge, and seriousness of purpose equates to a solid rationale for their continued dominance in the oenologist’s marketplace of ideas,  and with the new guard maintaining that it’s a new world out there, a digital democracy, and the dinosaurs are dead and need to realize it.

In the end, I think the whole debate is pretty silly. Credibility, to my way of thinking, comes with accountability, which comes with scales of exposure. For example, if you write a wine blog, and no one reads it, then there is no one to check your facts. You could write alot of really inane things, and pass it off as gospel. Accordingly, it’s not likely your blog should be recommended to those looking to expand their wine knowledge. Alternatively, if you write a wine blog, and hundreds of thousands of people read it, chances are you’re going to get caught out if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Accordingly, it’s probably a pretty safe recommendation to send a viticultural mendicant looking for salvation your blog’s way. Credibility comes from accountability. The greater your scale of exposure, the harder you have to work to make sure you’ve got your s$%t together. Remember, Robert Parker started out with a direct-mail newsletter that no one had ever heard of …

Deconstruction

Not entirely sure why Mr. Heimoff made this a separate category, as the issues are essentially the same as the “younger generation” topic, that is, what’s essentially at issue is the question of whether wine needs to be “simplified” in order to generate interest. So I’ll skip repeating what I’ve written above, and instead offer a tangential defense of complexity over simplification; take classical music. To the uninitiated or uninterested, it can all just sound like a bunch of stringed instruments screeching along to no apparent purpose. But as you start to learn about it, you start to be able to, for example, identify different instruments (oboe, flute, viola), or different sections (allegro, scherzo, rondo), different composers (Beethoven, Dvorak, Ives), even different performances (Mahler’s 5th, with the San Francisco Symphony, conducted my Michael Tilson Thomas); in short, your understanding deepens, and your appreciation grows. Put another way, with knowledge comes pleasure. Wine is no different. Deconstruction in the service of understanding? Certainly. Deconstruction is the service of simplification? Why?

Oak, Extraction, and the International Style

Well, I’m very proud to say that I think Ridge is an American producer that falls on the right side of this equation. While there are certainly those out there who may not be fans of our wines, I think it’s pretty rare that we’re accused of over-oaking or over-extracting, and our wines have consistently remained at alcohol levels far below the current averages. Accordingly, I think my personal stance is pretty clear; I’m here at Ridge because I believe in Ridge; what Ridge does, and how Ridge does it.

I will add one more thought though, somewhat in keeping with my perspectives above as regards a sea change in the character of the American Wine Drinker. If for no other reason than perhaps the incessant proliferation of food shows on television, I think we as a country are starting to finally get our heads around food and wine pairing, and accordingly, fruit and alcohol are slowly retreating to the back seat, while things like acidity, spice, and herbality are edging closer and closer to the driver’s seat. Traditionally, and probably as recently as 10 years ago, wine in this country was unqualifiedly an alcoholic beverage; nothing more and nothing less. I look forward to the coming day, growing ever closer all the time, when we, like much of the “international” world, come to understand wine as but one component of the meal. A vital component, certainly, but a food item all the same. As the perfectly made sauce makes the entree, so the perfect wine completes the meal.

Video

Mr. Heimoff notes in his article that more and more wine bloggers are experimenting with video. Well, all I can say is that my video on this blog of how to use an Ah So Cork Puller is one of the most regularly visited posts yet offered on 4488: A Ridge Blog. So there. Whatever that means.

And that’s it for ’09, and that’s it for The Oughts!

All the best of the holiday season to  you and yours, and may the new year bring happiness and safety to us all! Cheers!

p.s. a special thank you to Steve Heimoff and Wine Enthusiast, for providing the architecture upon which to hang this little house of words …

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Viticultural Salmagundi | 3 Comments »

The Chardonnay Chronicles!

November 13, 2009

If you’re a reader of this blog, you may have noticed my penchant for utilizing chardonnay as a primary example of the “blaming the varietal for the method” syndrome. Basically, this is a situation in which a perfectly fine varietal gets unduly denigrated because of a preponderance of poorly crafted offerings.

Chardonnay was certainly getting the bum’s rush in Laurie Daniel’s article in the San Jose Mercury News yesterday; specifically, Californian chardonnay. Here is her opening stanza:

“SOMETHING NEEDS to be done about the sad state of California chardonnay. I sample several dozen of them every month, and I hardly ever find one that’s truly interesting or distinctive. A lot of the wines are downright undrinkable, with noticeable alcoholic “heat,” too much residual sugar and/or oak that’s way too aggressive.”

Certainly no mincing of words afoot here. “The sad state of California chardonnay.” Strong words, to say the least. My interest here, however, is not to lobby either for or against her opinion per se, rather, I’d like to (surprise, surprise) talk Ridge chardonnay for a moment, hopefully with the goal of showcasing how attention to site, and the methodologies that should accordingly and logically follow, are capable of producing everything Daniel says most Californian chardonnays do not exhibit; Daniel writes “that too many California Chardonnays are simply boring. In some cases, one bottle is virtually indistinguishable from the next.” What I hope to show here is that, if growers and producers adopt different methodologies both in the vineyard and in the winery, with primary emphasis being put on issues of site-specificity and micro-climatic sensitivity, the resulting wines can potentially show tremendous complexity and individuality. I believe this is what Ridge does, and I think the results speak for themselves.

As a quick aside, I would like to reference a post by Steve Heimoff, who was writing in response to the Daniels article, and who very astutely pointed out matters related to issues of location and methodology. He wrote,

“Someone or something has to take the blame, but who or what? Well, first of all, there are places Chardonnay simply shouldn’t be grown because it’s too hot. I’ve seldom encountered a great Chardonnay from Paso Robles or Lodi, although there are other factors in those places that limit the wine’s potential. Large tracts of central and northern Napa Valley also are unsuitable, as is Sonoma Valley as you move north from the Carneros.”

As with Daniels, I am not interested in arguing for or against his stand here, but I did appreciate Heimoff’s comments for two reasons; 1. He very quickly focuses in on the issue of location, and 2. Steve is actually a self-avowed chardonnay fan, and as such, I think his commentary is all the more poignant. (“I’ve said many times that I’m a Chardonnay lover. Never have been an ABC guy, never will be. And when I say Chardonnay, I mean Burgundian Chardonnay: barrel fermentation, new oak, sur lies and battonage, the whole works.” –Steve Heimoff)

And one last thing to note; Ridge was not mentioned in either the Daniels article or the Heimoff post. I am simply hoping to spin off their writings as a mechanism for discussing the singular hows and why of Ridge chardonnay, and why I think these methodologies, properly deployed, can potentially serve to avert in some fashion the downward reputational spiral that Californian chardonnay seems to be on.

Before putting my own two cents in, I’d like to begin with a little outside affirmation that what Ridge is doing with the Chardonnay program seems to be of some value in the wine world at large. Not that reviews from the wine media are necessarily any sort of be-all/end-all proof of quality, but again, I do think they constitute a certain degree of external confirmation, and are accordingly of a reasonable degree of merit. So, that said, I am very happy to note the following as regards recent vintages of our chardonnays:

–2007 Ridge Santa Cruz Mountains Estate Chardonnay:
93 points, Wine Spectator
Year’s Best, Wine & Spirits

–2006 Santa Cruz Mountains Estate Chardonnay:
90 points, Wine Spectator
90 points, Wine & Spirits

–2005 Santa Cruz Mountains Estate Chardonnay
#2 on Wine Spectator’s Top 100 of the year, 2007

–2006 Monte Bello Chardonnay
“Best of the West” Sunset Magazine

–2000 Monte Bello Chardonnay
90 points, Robert Parker

More than ratings and awards, however, I’d like to highlight the sorts of descriptors that are used in the tasting notes for all the above:

“…elegant, delicate mouthfeel, showing deep layers of ripe fig and green pear…”
“…balanced, focused, pure and lingering…”
“…a sleek, high-altitude white…”
“…layers of spice, fig, honeysuckle and honeydew melon. Clean and refreshing, with light oak shadings…”
“…plenty of rich, vibrant, smooth and concentrated pear, fig and melon flavors…”
“…pineapple notes intermixed with hazelnuts … with enough underlying acidity to provide delineation…”

And so on. Mainly, no sign of buttery popcorn and the like …

Anyhow, on to my two cents:

First, site-specificity. Our chardonnays are mountain fruit, grown in an ostensibly cool climate milieu, below a fog line. This singular combination of high heat in the days, but cool weather at night, makes for both substantive ripening AND natural retention of acidity. The result? A full-bodied, viscous mouthfeel that nonetheless manages to be vibrant, crisp, and expresses both lively citricity and weightily playful tropicality.

Next, as a sub-factor to site-specificity, soil type. Per winemaker Eric Baugher’s notes, what we have here is “Decomposing Franciscan green stone mixed with clay/loam over fractured limestone sub-soils.” Meaning, our chardonnays express a complex array of mineral components not normally seen in flatland/warm climate chardonnays.

Next again, yeast. Our chardonnays are wild-yeast fermented, relying entirely on natural yeasts present in the vineyards for both primary and secondary fermentation. The result, rather than the predictable mono-dimensionality that can often afflict inoculated chardonnay, is a veritably potpourri of yeast influences that add again to the overall complexity on offer.

And next again, yields. With a fully hand-harvested/primarily dry-farmed model in place, our vineyard yields are down around the 2.5 ton/acre realm; a model that consistently favors quality over quantity; concentration and character over dissipation and dilution.

And on to harvesting; in order to tap the full spectrum of singularities on offer in the peculiar topography of our vineyards, we sub-divide the property into much smaller parcels, each of which is harvested and fermented separately, allowing for the final assemblage of the wines to be a parcel-assemblage. Again, more complexity is the result.

And how about barrel program? All of our barrels are air-dried, with two goals in mind: elimination of the more aggressive tannins, and the absorption of site-specific microbial content. Add to this the deployment of a diverse selection of barrel ages (for example, the 2007 Santa Cruz Mountains Estate Chardonnay aged in the following: 29% new, 43% one and two years, 28% three, four and five years old barrels), and yet again, more opportunities to tap and exploit available complexities.

Lastly, filtration. Or, in the case of our chardonnays, the lack of it. The premise being, if I may be so blunt, is that if you take something OUT of the chardonnay, you’re taking something OUT of the chardonnay!

So there you have it, at least in brief. A short chronicle of site-specific and site-sensitive methodologies designed to naturally tap what is naturally on offer in a property that is a natural for producing complex and singular chardonnay.

Or so I think. One man’s semi-humble opinion, as it were.

And to close, a hearty cheers to chardonnay! I don’t know as I’d go so far as Heimoff does when he writes, “Chardonnay is the world’s greatest white grape …”, but it’s certainly one of the finest!

Oh, and just one last thing to note: as part of our Monte Bello flight, we regularly pour the Santa Cruz Mountains Estate Chardonnay in the Monte Bello Tasting Room, and currently, in honor of its astonishingly culinary companionability with the archetypal autumn table (think Thanksgiving Dinner; root vegetables, starches, poultry, gravy-based dishes, sage, rosemary, etc.) we are pouring the very new and very wonderful 2006 Monte Bello Chardonnay! So come up, come in, and let’s talk chardonnay!

07HSE1-L06HMBfr

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Chardonnay, Press Reviews, Tasting Notes, Varietals & Blends, Vineyards and Oenology, Wine Blogs, Winemaking | 3 Comments »

1999 Monte Bello: The Rematch!

September 11, 2009

Back in May of this year, we’d only just been April Fool’d by Conficker, the temperatures were still cool and I could still occasionally wear a scarf, the 2007 Pagani was but a twinkle in a winemaker’s eye, Hélio Castroneves had not yet won the 93rd Indy 500, the Community of the People had yet to enact their coup on the Parliament of Greenland, and perhaps most important of all, it was time for the Monte Bello Final Assemblage tasting.

Although of course much of note took place that wild and wooly day (Did I say blisteringly hot? That’s what I meant to say. Not “wild and wooly.” My bad.), one particularly singular opportunity was present in the form of the Vintage Pack. Yes, ’twas true. Guests were able to taste the 1995, 1997, and 1999 Monte Bellos. I remember it as if it were yesterday … (initiate dream sequence)

13304w_dali_lights_dream

If the picture of the floating eye doesn’t make the dream real for you all over again, you can also click here to read my original recapment.  A particularly relevant excerpt follows, the relevance of which I hope to make clear shortly:

Summary: Appropriately showing the “youngest” of the three, but highly notable for the depth, concentration, and singularity of the earth and spice components. For my final compare-and-contrast with notable wine writers, we’ll this time turn to Steve Heimoff, who wrote in Wine Enthusiast back in 2005, “Will be very good, but don’t touch it until 2014,” which seems to confirm the youthful character of this fine vintage. And by the way, he then went on to give the wine a 95 point rating!

The excerpt above comes from my notes on the 1999 Monte Bello; notes, it turns out, that would cause certain wine writers to take a certain degree of umbrage, given their feeling that my notes were, or so they seemed to think at the time, apparently wildly inaccurate. An excerpt:

Seriously, you thought the 1999 was showing the *youngest* of the wines?

Well, yes, actually, I did. So much so, in fact, that I “challenged” said wine writers to another tasting. Put another way, I invited the writers up to Monte Bello, to revisit the 1999. I am happy to say that my invitation was accepted.

Sorry, just had to sneak that eye in there again.

So anyway, there we were, August 7th, 2009, in the Monte Bello Tasting Room. So deeply engrossed were we in our endeavor that we were barely aware that Florida Senator Mel Martinez was announcing his resignation, or that Ronnie Biggs, one of the masterminds of The Great Train Robbery, was being freed. No, all we could think about, talk about, LIVE FOR, was the 1999 Monte Bello.

Fast forward to the end of the story. Which is here. Which is where I say, “Suffice it to say …”, which then rather smoothly segues into the moment where I smugly quote from one of the writers, who writes, most writerly:

Still got plenty of life.

About the 1999.

I win.

I jest of course. Or do I?

I do. In truth, I was honored to have these wise gentlemen present, and I was happy that their verdict, in the end, was a positive one as regards the 1999. If you’d like to read what one of the participant’s had to say about our tasting, please click here, and you’ll be directed to a fine blog that goes by the handle Santa Cruz Mountains and Santa Clara Valley Wines. And if you’d like to read what one of the other participants posted at Cellar Tracker, please click here.

Elegant and with years ahead of it.

That’s an excerpt from his notes.

I win.

I mean, I jest. Or do I?

(Thank you to Dave Tong, Richard Jennings, and Wes Barton for your participation!)

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Viticultural Salmagundi, Wine Tales, Cabernet Sauvignon, Tasting Rooms, Monte Bello, Tasting Notes, Events & Photographs, Wine Blogs | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: