Spoofulated or Artisanal?

Just a comment for folks re: the chicken or the egg phenomenon/discussion about Parker - my main wine source has made it abundantly clear to me on several occasions that Parker drives only a very small portion of hteir sales. It's the Spectator that brings in the masses. The annual Top 100 (especially the top 10) swamps any Parker influence. Yes there are many Parker buyers, but they are vastly outnumbered.

Want to rail against something - rail against the Spectator.

Haven't a clue why you posted this in this thread, David, unless someone railed and it was removed before I saw it.

...The idea that there is a right way and a wrong way to produce wine is offensive. But I do believe that there is a problem when some gain inordinate power, influence direction, and all too often lead to reduced choices, which sets the stage for mediocrity.

PS: Max, discussing wine--or possibly anything--with Squires is doomed to wind up in a most displeasing vortex.

In earlier days, before much or any talk of "New World" wine style in California, complaints arose in a different direction, criticizing some modern US "scientific" winemaking for ignoring longtime tradition and experience, with mediocrity, and far worse, as results. I saw various examples of this complaint; below is among the sharpest.

(I have less experience than some folks with the Squires forum. But my ideology detector jingles when factual, demonstrable data are as the Germans say ausgeschlossen or excluded from consideration, as though they couldn't conceivably be true. That suggests that the facts conflict with a world-view that someone prefers to them.)

--
... the University, with some reservations, continued to recommend AxR right up until 1988. It appears clear that over the next ten years or so, the majority of vineyards in Napa and Sonoma will have to be replanted. . . . [Ridge's own plantings remained on a traditional, phylloxera-resistant, Saint George rootstock.] We were not on the "cutting edge" as defined by the University. We deliberately looked to the techniques of pre-Prohibition California, techniques virtually identical to those used for centuries to make the finest European wines. We were not impressed with the simple, clean, fruity wines produced by "modern techniques." Why, we reasoned, would the academics know anything more about fine-grape-growing than they did about fine winemaking? --Paul Draper, "Ridge Report," January 1993.

Max,

One of the people who warned against the AxR rootstock was none other than Konstantin Frank. But no one in academia ever listened to him until after the fact...

[David M. Bueker]

Just a comment for folks re: the chicken or the egg phenomenon/discussion about Parker - my main wine source has made it abundantly clear to me on several occasions that Parker drives only a very small portion of hteir sales. It's the Spectator that brings in the masses. The annual Top 100 (especially the top 10) swamps any Parker influence. Yes there are many Parker buyers, but they are vastly outnumbered.

Want to rail against something - rail against the Spectator.

Haven't a clue why you posted this in this thread, David, unless someone railed and it was removed before I saw it.

Not so much railing - but Bill and Max brought up RP (and not in any atacking way), and I'm really wondering why people ever think it's RP when the Spec moves so much more product.

Just a comment for folks re: the chicken or the egg phenomenon/discussion about Parker - my main wine source has made it abundantly clear to me on several occasions that Parker drives only a very small portion of hteir sales. It's the Spectator that brings in the masses. The annual Top 100 (especially the top 10) swamps any Parker influence. Yes there are many Parker buyers, but they are vastly outnumbered.

Want to rail against something - rail against the Spectator.

Haven't a clue why you posted this in this thread, David, unless someone railed and it was removed before I saw it.

Not so much railing - but Bill and Max brought up RP (and not in any atacking way), and I'm really wondering why people ever think it's RP when the Spec moves so much more product.

Ah, I see!

In any case, my response to your wondering would be that WS appeals more generally and broadly, swiping a wide swath of the whole nation's wine consuming public. RP's audience is smaller, wealthier, narrowly focused and, dare I say it, actually seemingly more easily led

Just a comment for folks re: the chicken or the egg ... my main wine source has made it abundantly clear to me on several occasions that Parker drives only a very small portion of hteir sales. It's the Spectator that brings in the masses.
Want to rail against something - rail against the Spectator.

I wouldn't presume to discourage David or anyone from railing against the Spectator, if they really want to, or from drawing their own conclusions ("the spec moves so much more product") from a personal wine source.

Not speaking for anyone else here but in case of any misunderstanding, I didn't mean to "rail" against anyone. My observations weren't based on anything like a specific current source but on a much larger and longer scope of background information too complicated to summarize while standing on one foot. One sample below (which you'll recognize if you recall Haeger's concrete 1998 magazine article surveying retailers and collecting their comments on P's influence). Also if you've followed this subject for a long time, you'll remember when the Spectator and other critics (even Finigan, who predated Parker as a national critic) adopted the scoring method that he had popularized. I also get specific input from several merchants but that was not my basis. Note also my comments addressed how current taste trends got started historically, not what sells currently.

Robert Parker's ratings have profoundly changed the way wine is made and sold and even tastes -- whether you like it or not. / One day, Daniel Palmer, manager of the Wine House in Los Angeles, decided to perform an experiment. ... / Tales of score-blinded consumers are everywhere in the wine business these days. / It is widely accepted that Parker... is the single most influential wine writer in the world. ... When Parker talks, it is said, wine producers tremble. "What this man thinks of a wine," Financial Times Television commentator Adam Smith told his viewers, "can triple its price or cut it in half." Industry insiders recite lists of winemakers Parker, they say, has made rich: Marcel Guigal in the Rhone Valley, Dennis Groth in Napa, Angelo Gaja in Italy's Piedmont region--to pick three from just the G's. ...

From "Wine magnum force: Wine critic Robert Parker's influence." John Winthrop Haeger, Los Angeles Magazine, November 1998.

[David M. Bueker]

Didn't think you were railing Max. Just using a bit of hyperbole to make my point.

In reality neither the Speculator or Wine Advocate (remember RP only does some of the content - please don't tell me that David Schilknecht (WA reviewer for Burgundy & many white wine regions) promotes spoofulated wines - I know for a fact that he doesn't) is to blame, but our (I mean the broad public) own lack of thoughtfulness or perhaps the hurry to just buy something with no thought.

In reality neither the Speculator or Wine Advocate ... is to blame, but our (I mean the broad public) own lack of thoughtfulness or perhaps the hurry to just buy something with no thought.

That seems to answer my question on whether many people "gravitated to wines with high authoritative-looking ratings" affirmatively (quod erat inveniendum).

[David M. Bueker]

In reality neither the Speculator or Wine Advocate ... is to blame, but our (I mean the broad public) own lack of thoughtfulness or perhaps the hurry to just buy something with no thought.

That seems to answer my question on whether many people "gravitated to wines with high authoritative-looking ratings" affirmatively (quod erat inveniendum).

Sure they do. Even store-written shelf talkers with home-grown scores have some of that effect. The fault lies not within our scores but within ourselves.

But not all high 100 point scale scores mean an "internationally styled" wine.

Spoofulated=I didn't like it;
Artisanal = I liked it.

[David M. Bueker]

Spoofulated=I didn't like it;
Artisanal = I liked it.

Likely more true than not.

Because of “spoofulated” wines there is a lot less “bad” wines, and too some these might be “boring” wines or wines’ with no sense of “connective-ness” or “somewhere-ness” (instead they could be “anywhere-ness”). But from a quality stand point they are not “bad” and someone is going to like it.

Salute

the University, with some reservations, continued to recommend AxR right up until 1988. It appears clear that over the next ten years or so, the majority of vineyards in Napa and Sonoma will have to be replanted. . . . [Ridge's own plantings remained on a traditional, phylloxera-resistant, Saint George rootstock.] We were not on the "cutting edge" as defined by the University. We deliberately looked to the techniques of pre-Prohibition California, techniques virtually identical to those used for centuries to make the finest European wines. We were not impressed with the simple, clean, fruity wines produced by "modern techniques." Why, we reasoned, would the academics know anything more about fine-grape-growing than they did about fine winemaking? --Paul Draper, "Ridge Report," January 1993.

UC Davis will probably never live down their recommendation throughout most of the 1900s of AxR as a vine rootstock.

European vine growers must have been rolling on the floor laughing themselves to death when the great AxR failure of the 1990s in California took place. They'd seen it all before in the late 1800s, when a mutant strain of Phylloxera turned out to be poisonous to AxR rootstock.

So I find myself asking, whatever possessed UC Davis to recommend this rootstock for extensive planting, let alone ANY planting, in California? When France had already banned it because it was known to be susceptible to certain strains of Phylloxera? Yes--the mutant strain of Phylloxera that was lethal to AxR wasn't present in the new world. So the same (or a sufficiently similar) mutation couldn't ever happen again? Well, DUH!!! Guess what? It did. And the misguided recommendations of AxR cost the California fine wine industry multi-millions of dollars in losses.

Thank you, UC Davis. This is arguably THE biggest and most expensive gaffe in the history of academic wine research and its attempt to influence winegrowing practice.

This is an egg that will take you decades to wipe off your faces.

As it will take some of the vineyards who took your advice to recover from.

-Paul W.

Paul, I believe the University got the message. There's more of the story in the first half of Paul D's 1993 summary, written when the case was news (the part quoted above is the second half). Whole summary is at the bottom of This page. I understand that in the height of AxR's popularity, the Bank of America stipulated the rootstock for grape-growing agricultural loans, on the strength of the Univeristy's recommendation. (Hard to believe it's been 15 years since that essay -- it seems yesterday -- time flies when you're having fun! )

I believe the most important thing after-the-fact is to learn. The story must not be forgotten in the wine industry. We'll soon approach the 20+ year cultural amnesia cycle after which new people, presumably confident and clueless and sure, like every such group, of being modern and enlightened unlike any of their predecessors -- just as AxR was modern and enlightened -- will take over from those who remember the case viscerally. (The same cycle, for the same reasons, has paced stock market busts and remakes of Madame X and The Count of Monte Cristo since time immemorial.)

Canadian engineers wear a low-key iron ring on the fifth finger of the working hand. Legend I heard from wearers is that it was once made from remnants of a bridge that collapsed through design error. Whether that's so or not, the ring is a reminder of humility vs hubris.

I think this phylloxera resistance thing is more complex then most of us think. Although phylloxera resistance is the main reason for root stock grafting, there are other factors to consider (virus, disease, predator resistance; local soil conditions; growth and vine vigor; drought resistance; grape vine yield; size of berry; etc). With the passing of time new vine related biotypes could occur, along with changes in the genotype of different grape vine species due to differential tissue sensitivity in the grape vines. So whose to say that today’s phylloxera resistant root stock will be tomorrow’s phylloxera resistant root stock?

Salute

... So whose to say that today’s phylloxera resistant root stock will be tomorrow’s phylloxera resistant root stock?

It's a good point. (When I talk to people who farm quality food for a living, their stories resemble an ongoing military campaign. An incessant juggle of keeping up with new pests, diseases, etc., reading technical literature and deciding what are the best tactics -- with current threats -- or strategies -- variety selection, rotation, location, synergistic crops; university seminars to learn new developments. And here I have trouble enough keeping a few garden herbs, except rosemary which is remarkably hardy, not to mention useful.)

I think the story at hand (AxR #1) has a different point: Who was to say that today's non-phylloxera-resistant root stock would somehow be tomorrow's phylloxera-resistant stock? (In Paul Draper's account in the link, the case concerned "a cross already found by Europeans to be inadequately resistant;" voices raised that point all along.) Prima facie, to promote it nevertheless seems to be trespassing on the domain of popes and Higher authorities. (Hence "hubris.") Added to which the supreme irony that (as taught in all basic wine histories) it was American resistant plants, grafted on to Europeans, that checked the spread of the pest (out of the Americas) and reversed the vine destruction in Europe, late 1800s.

Max, you have to admit that the vine growers of California had quite a “successful run” using A X R root stock (nearly 50 years). France was using A X R root stocks also, but after WW II it was outlawed after a mutant strain of phylloxera (biotype B) was identified. Why for another 30 years or 40 years was A X R root stock still highly recommended in California? I think the best answer comes from a writer and researcher who said “because California has lazy phylloxera”. The demise of A X R root stock came only after phylloxera biotype B showed its ugly face fully in California (1985 to 2000).

Salute

Max, you have to admit that the vine growers of California had quite a “successful run” using A X R root stock

Victor, since I posted based on what I got from Paul Draper and secondarily a few other industry sources with their gloomy references to the "AxR debacle" (do a Google search with those two words, not the exact phrase), your question is best referred directly to my source so I'll try to reach Paul Draper if he's conveniently available (Ridge Vineyards is nearby and he hangs out, though "emeritus") and see if he wants to comment, or anyway get back to you on that interesting point.

freshness, drinkability, expression, and aging potential plus, why they are specific to Bordeaux when it comes to Cab/Merlot, which isn't strictly the blend in Bordeaux, not to mention that Bordeaux has many sub areas within its region.

...and...

I object to Jamie's reference to Bordeaux as the truth for Cab/Merlot as sure as I object to RP's gobs of fruit as a measure for greatness simply because neither can be empirically demonstrated as truth.

I think when the term "Bordeaux" is used in Jamie's context, we are talking about the prize appellations, rather than Entre Deux Mers, or places like that.

And I think that Bordeaux is the truth for Cab/Merlot. Of course this is a prejudice not founded on reason. I wonder if anybody seriously thinks of any other region as the truth for Cab/Merlot. Probably, since you can usually find somebody who will think virtually anything.

freshness, drinkability, expression, and aging potential plus, why they are specific to Bordeaux when it comes to Cab/Merlot, which isn't strictly the blend in Bordeaux, not to mention that Bordeaux has many sub areas within its region.

...and...

I object to Jamie's reference to Bordeaux as the truth for Cab/Merlot as sure as I object to RP's gobs of fruit as a measure for greatness simply because neither can be empirically demonstrated as truth.

I think when the term "Bordeaux" is used in Jamie's context, we are talking about the prize appellations, rather than Entre Deux Mers, or places like that.

And I think that Bordeaux is the truth for Cab/Merlot. Of course this is a prejudice not founded on reason. I wonder if anybody seriously thinks of any other region as the truth for Cab/Merlot. Probably, since you can usually find somebody who will think virtually anything.

Which means you've promoted Bordeaux from a region to a re[li]gion, Covert. And since you're talking only of Cabernet/Merlot, that would be a Cult.

Which means you've promoted Bordeaux from a region to a re[li]gion, Covert. And since you're talking only of Cabernet/Merlot, that would be a Cult.

That gives a whole new meaning to "Cult Cab." BTW, does Jim Jones (Tokyo) post here any more? Just a tangential thought...

Mark Lipton

Spoofulated=I didn't like it;
Artisanal = I liked it.

Likely more true than not.

Of course there is also spoofulated artisanal wine - which might just be a much bigger group than either of the other!

Discussion of New World wine always brings to mind comparison of wine from usually before the 1990's in Australia and anything after. There was a time when Aussie wines carried labels like "Burgundy" (white and red) and "Claret" and commments as to the "Bordeaux-style" of the wine. Fortunately we are past that false comparison and have progressed to wines that do express their country of origin. Unfortunately the international market sees that as "Eastern Australia" rather than Barossa or Clare or Margaret River, etc.

An extension of this problem is the production of wines in Australia for particular markets (such as the USA) which may never be sold in Australia. The Grateful Palate R Wines would fit in this mold. While these wines are well made (by excellent winemakers) and without fault they would be what I would call spoofulated - if I was to ever use the term!

Mike

Fortunately we are past that false comparison and have progressed to wines that do express their country of origin.

Really? We're past all that?

You might get some *ahem* lively debate *ahem* on that topic, Mike.

Which means you've promoted Bordeaux from a region to a re[li]gion, Covert. And since you're talking only of Cabernet/Merlot, that would be a Cult.

That's right. Hoke, you of course know that the Latin root of the word “religion” means a “re-linking.” Through wine ritual, I like to re-link to my heritage, to my salamander ancestors in the swamp, and beyond.

I have posted this stuff before. I choose wine as my God. Wine is synonymous with Dionysus, as you know. I do it for the ritualistic satisfaction of it, rather than following a belief. Most people who believe in God project inherited ideas (archetypes) onto things like Jesus Christ or other religious icons without even knowing that they are projecting. I don't get quite the numinous bang for the buck when I do it, knowing that I am pretending; but like when you watch a movie, and you know that you are watching actors following a script, you still occasionally get lost in the story as though it were real.

The cult aspect is like a Protestant choosing to be a Methodist rather than a Presbyterian, or something, because he thinks the sect provides a better rendition.

Of course there is also spoofulated artisanal wine

A penetrating point, Mike. Some of the most famous newer or "cult" California wines surely qualify as "artisanal" produce. Nor is manipulation limited to flattering recent preferences -- periodically my expert tasting friends, and they know what they're talking about, complain that some German Riesling or Burgundy tastes "manipulated" as if to correct a perceived natural weakness. I think the true opposite of artisanal is industrial (a word famously pejorative in France, for anything traditionally crafted -- the trend to "fromages d'industrie" for instance). Draper's complaint about high-yielding, simple, inoffensive modern mass California winemaking. I guess the real distinction then in this thread is about style.