Welcome to the Wine Lovers Forum. We have several categories for discussion topics and you should select the most appropriate one if you choose to create a new discussion topic. This forum is hosted by Big Al; if you need assistance, please message him or send an e-mail to 'bigal01@gmail.com'. Enjoy yourself, and of course we recommend you have a glass of wine nearby.
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
That would be fine Steve.
So in two weeks we consider a Cabernet Sauvignon, perhaps again compare two bottles from two regions? How about one cab from Napa / Somona (Moon Mountain, Spring Mountain, Caneros, etc.), and another from Washington State (Walla Walla, Columbia Valley, Red Mountain, etc.)?
I apologize for bailing, last night. We had a little incident that required my attention.
The Besson Chablis was excellent. A lean wine that shows a lot of citrusy fruit and steeliness. Definitely more my kind of white than Peggy's. No big deal, we had plenty of oaky California Chardonnay for her to move on to, which, of course, left the French version to me.
Life is good.
I should be prepared to participate in a CS evening. I am inclined to open only one bottle, though.
Sandra and I really enjoy the comparison version of Wine Night. I mean, you might open two bottles but they could last you a few days. Anyway, it's all about learning more with regard to wine.
Cabernet Sauvignon it is. Let's go with CA vs. WA if folks would like to compare two bottles.
An interesting pair to compare. I suggest, however, that anyone who wishes to restrict consumption to one bottle on the evening in question (probably that would include me as well) could taste one a day or two early, retaining some for a second tasting on the day the second bottle is opened. I'd also like to try some white wine at some point in the near future - speaking for myself, of course.
Having said this, I will try to procure a decent CA and WA CS for the upcoming event.
There is a lot to choose from, and many of you out there have a good supply of each on hand. Some of us (yours truly) look forward to a discussion concerning possible candidates for tasting on the wine night.
Sorry I missed the Pinot throw down, although I did do mine last weekend (see previous post) sounds like everyone had some great wines to enjoy. I could do the CA vs WA cab tasting, I think I have a couple samples from Columbia Valley, just have to decide which Cali cab to put up against it.
Sounds good. I think I have a few to select from too.
I also suggest comparing a particular region in CA versus one in WA (say the Columbia Valley where 90% of the wine originates, as a rough guess). BC or Ontario versus WA might also be a goo comparison, but finding the wines might be a challenge, so that's probably out for now.
Also, the wines should be comparable in quality if not price. Washington wines in the low to moderate quality range will be more expensive than counterparts in California, most likely.
Negative on that Steve - Washington's pricing is less or at best equal to Cali's. Cabby's and Merlot's especially. Land prices being the big difference.
Yes, it would be the opposite, SZ.
So, you're saying that the "best of the best" in WA would be cheaper than the "best of the best" from Cali - assuming you take into account the obvious style differences and possibilities in each location?
The land price situation is as you say (makes excellent sense), but I was focussing more on quantity; that is, if you want a modest wine from WA it would be more expensive given the law of scarcity. But I can see that you've opened up an interesting research topic. It is estimated that all of OR and WA production from the Columbia and Willamette Valleys is about the same as Sonoma-Napa (wine and vines analytics, passim). The land prices near San Fransisco would be higher due to the proximity of large population centres and incredible riches from the technology sector of the local economy. There is a lot of outside money in OR and WA as well, but Walla Walla and wine-making communities south of the Columbia in OR are pretty "wild west" by comparison, and can have fairly rigorous winter weather between December 1st and March 1st. For example, we in Victoria had 42 F overnight, while Walla Walla had 22. Thus, the isolation, rusticity and winter weather (though mild by Canadian and Northern US standards) would never likely push prices of vineyard acreage to the 150,000 dollar levels of Napa - unless Trump is wrong about the climate (but how could that be? - the man's an oracle!
). And, of course, costs of production are generally higher - other than base land prices and its effect on labour cost in California, of course - transportation is higher, and climate is dodgy (that is, vintage is far more important to quality than in California).
Having said this, I would (generally) have to bow to your convictions on this; both of you buy large quantities from the regions and from different quality and price levels. But I probably got you focussed on the wrong thing. By low, I don't exactly mean bulk wine, but if you buy from a small producer anywhere in the state, you'll pay high prices relative to quality until you reach a certain level where return on wine-making effort begins to increase. But this only happens quite rarely given the razor-thin margins these producers face (with a few notable exceptions, such as Charles Smith CS). The same problem exists in all cool climate regions where wine makers reach for so-called world-class quality (I am not speaking of the numerous "farm-gate" operations in BC, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Ontario, New York State, etc. whose aspirations are modest and whose customers consist largely of the hoi polloi who do not distinguish winery visits from being out on the tiles (pub crawls)). Not that there is anything whatsoever wrong with this kind of experience; it is just not wine connoisseurship.
For example, the long-standing reputation of Quilceda Creek Cabs (which is named for a Creek along I5 north of Seattle, and originally, at least, not made where the grapes were sourced - a common situation in Washington) has led to stratospheric prices for that product, and I can vouch for the fact that the best examples are as good as anything from California, although of a somewhat different style. Also, the availability of the best of the best from either state is problematic here due to duty charges and certain import monopolies and production is often tiny (Quiceda Creek produces maybe 6,000 cases).
I think more research here would be fascinating.
SZ
Since there has been as yet no response to my modest and quite imperfect commentary (for example, filling the gaps in my understanding of the high-end market in Pacific NW wines), I thought I'd add a few points this morning to give my day a bit of a kick-start.
There have, for example, been a number of discussions of boutique Washington State wines such as Force Majeur (but strangely, not Quiceda Creek, Leonetti, or Col Solare - unless I missed something, which is a distinct possibility, I grant you). These wines are known by their reputations, and I have been fortunate enough to taste some of them at mass tastings and at point of production. However, to take one example beloved of at least one of the members of this site - Force Majeur - one has to accept that, in the case of their Cabernet Sauvignon (about 135 $C for the 2016), the production is so limited at about 400 cases that obtaining even one bottle is almost impossible without "signing up" for the mailing list of exclusive, monied buyers. This situation mirrors that of the better growing regions (or AVA's) in California and, to some extent, elsewhere. Yes, I have sufficient resources to be on several of these lists, but balk at the idea for a number of reasons.
First, mail-out retailing can exclude the casual buyer. Not everyone wants to buy a minimum of a case or half-case. I know I don't - in most situations, at any event. Of course, it is possible (say in the case of Force Majeur) that production cannot be increased much beyond the current output without a corresponding drop in quality, and it may be that the owners ensure that some wine at least leaves the farm-gate in the hands of visitors.
Second, Force Majeur insists that all visitors sign up for tastings well in advance of the date offered. For people outside Washington State - or even the Walla Walla Valley - this means having to ensure their itinerary suits the winery rather than the visitor. Who wants to have their day ruled in this way - and for about 75 dollars (C) a couple? The money is not an issue for me personally, but this weird college fraternity-sorority approach to wine (You need to belong to a club to have any hope of purchasing a case of wine which, in addition, will set you back about 1,200 dollars US. Minimum.) does not suit everyone - certainly not me.
Finally, while the monied set from Seattle WA and Portland OR (and, perhaps to a much lesser extent, Vancouver BC) bring certain refinements to the tasting room, I prefer a more open situation. Now, this openness is perhaps impossible if the wine-maker is intent on producing the next New World Chateau Lafite-Rothschild. In my experience, however, one should be highly suspicious of improvements in wine beyond a certain Epicurean level, and that level is reached very early on in the hedonic lives of most people - including the nouveau-riche. Money does not a connoisseur make, but it does make for many purchases which, aesthetically speaking, might be better appreciated by a more modestly monied member of the hot polloi.
None of the above should be taken as an attack on anyone's personal preferences; no-one should ever feel a need to defend what they cherish most in life - especially among friends and those who understand the wonder and beauty of wine and gastronomy. And as it turns out, I will almost certainly have to bend to the requirements of such enterprises as Col Solare if I seriously intend to purchase their best efforts. And I shall. But I don't have to like it. And I don't.
As for the situation in California, just multiply the cost and the number of instances many-fold and you have a grip of what's happening down there. Wonderful wine that is made artificially scarce by selective marketing can be substituted, and I do.
SZ
Coda. One thing I did not emphasize in the foregoing is my firm belief that the wines I mentioned (and I could have mentioned some Californian examples) are indeed, wonderful and delicious. My comments refer to the collaterals only of such wine-making.
I was hoping Paul would chime in.
Sandra and I have tasted wines at several wineries in Washington (check this from 2017) and I agree that being able to just stop in makes life easier, rather than having to make an appointment. However, I do like the more personal tasting an appointment provides, but I do believe you feel more pressure to buy a few bottles then and there. We usually do.
Finally got our internet back - phone service yesterday - the transformer caused quite a bit more damage that they thought. So - Steve, about your posts.....
True about Quilceda Creek - however, there are many, many more wines from Ca. that are $400 to $500 per bottle more than they. However, that said, it's more about prestige than what's in the bottle when you get to that level.
"As for the situation in California, just multiply the cost and the number of instances many-fold and you have a grip of what's happening down there. Wonderful wine that is made artificially scarce by selective marketing can be substituted, and I do."
Don't know that I agree with artificially scarce part at all. Each wine makers has a vision of he/she wants the wine to be. If they only have grapes to make 70 cases of a particular wine - then that's it it. Nothing artificial about it. It is what it is and when that's gone there's no more.
There are many products by many wine makers all over the world that "sell out" by mailing list alone. Does it upset me - yes. Do I blame them no. It insures that other good wine made by them is available to the rest of us.
PB, yeah, I fully understand the economic incentives. If you like, one can at least admit that the select mail-out crowd protects, in a manner of speaking, the viability of small producers by ponying up that extra amount. And of course, California has wines that are marketed for $2,000-5,000 per bottle in US funds - amounts that rival or even exceed some vintages of Chateau Petrus! The only justification for this is that some people can afford the cache associated with certain brands... a very tiny and diminished minority, I am afraid, in this twilight of capital accumulation by the fewer and fewer (by this I mean a limit will be reached at some stage and it will not be pretty, but in the meantime me and thee can enjoy the wines). Marketing definitely affects price, and cost structure is not properly reflected - at least not to any rational standard - in such products as we've been discussing - including many European wines we know well.
Sometimes, as well, and as you say quite correctly, this cornucopia of cash for trophy wines can lead to a second or third wine very nearly as good and available in sufficient quantities for the rest of us. For while I may or may not be able to buy some of these ridiculously priced wines (unless you are hard-line "market" enthusiast... only exactly what market are we talking about?), I won't. There is a layer of absurdity I won't cross.
Al, as for the appointments, yes, there are advantages, and if you must visit, well... you must! And you will get more personal treatment. That's the tit for tat of monetary exchange and the club membership that goes along with it, I suppose. I am not opposed to any position, really, I just find all this working to make things easier for the producer and paying through the nose at the same time a bit tedious.
SZ.
Well, as usual, SZ, it took me a while to wade through your epistle.
Let me see if I heard you correctly on some of your points.
I love the economic reality of "needs" vs "wants." Not one of us needs wine. We all want wine. We all get to make our own decisions regarding how we value our "wants."
Wineries such as Force Majeur consider themselves to be providers of prestige consumer products. A good part of their pricing strategy is to appeal to the Thorstein Veblen in most people. They did not invent that strategy. It has existed since the rise of man. Of course, if you are going to charge a premium price, you have to provide a better than average product. I agree that the quality does not have to be directly proportional to the price, but if you provide a product that is clearly inferior, you will not stay in business very long.
I, personally, buy a lot of wine off mailing lists. Yes, the reason I do so is so that I can have access to some low production wines. I also buy a fair amount of wines from retail stores, and, here, I am talking about high-volume establishments. I really think that it is easy for the wine consumer to manage his spend to allow access to consistently good wine and, if he desires, wines that are not, necessarily, easily accessible.
I agree that buying through the mail is more expensive. While I have placed many mail orders for as little as a single bottle, the real penalty is that, when you do that, you are paying the same for shipping that you might have paid for a 1/2 case.
To me, it is, again, a matter of assigning a value to one of my wants.
The other day I mentioned my dislike of appointments. On the other hand, I do understand why they exist.
Immediately, I would point to the wineries who do not want to have to deal with traveling bachelorette or frat parties. The want to present their wine in an civilized, elegant environment. I get that. They know that they are limiting their appeal, and their rationale is that their products are meant for the "discriminating customer."
I might add, also, that I have had appointment visits with owner/winemakers. I have to say that is a lot of fun and darned cool. If you check the CellarTracker user reviews on Myriad Cabernet Sauvignons--particularly, those from three or four years ago--it is hilarious how many start with something like "I tasted this with Mike Smith." People love to think that they regularly rub shoulders with celebrities, and in the wine world the winemakers are the celebrities.
Setting up tastings with Robin Akhurst and Darek Trowbridge cost me $0. That is because their wineries are low-volume producers and are not on the radar for most. The more attention that a winery gets, the more they have to control access.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "selective marketing." I assume that you mean Direct-to-Consumer vs. the three-tiered system we have, here in the United States, for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. I can see how you might argue that such a strategy limits a winery's prospective customer base, but I don't see how that makes the product artificially scarce. If I produce 20 barrels of wine, I have only 20 barrels of wine to sell. If I can't attract a distributor, to deliver my wines to retail store shelves, then, what other approach can I have other than Direct to Consumer?
Now, if by "selective marketing" you are referring to pricing your product to appeal to a reduced set of buyers, that is not unique to wines. How many Thorstein Veblen products are out there? Again, though, such a strategy is really limiting demand, not supply.
Some intriguing points, EM. I will respond shortly. Might need a glass of wine first, but no PUI, just in case you were wondering.
Doggonit, I can't find the ROFLMAO emoji.
This one sounds like fun!
I guess what it all boils down for me is this. I've been doing this research thing on wines for 3 decades at least. In many, many cases, if you don't mind digging a little, you can find wine of excellent quality. Equal to or better than those "high quality" wines selling for hundreds more.
If you're going to go by the rating system alone, it happens all the time. Over the years I've developed a network of friends - at wineries, in the business (sales) sides and those that consult or evangalize wines. I find a lot of very good wines that are totally over looked due to classification (Bordeaux), AVA (USA) and other minute reasoning, the least of those being money.
I have now problem letting a person pending $250 for a bottle of 94 pt wine when I can do the same for $75.
@EMark, let me address your last comment. You say, in deceptively deductive vein, that: "If I produce 20 barrels of wine, I have only 20 barrels of wine to sell. If I can't attract a distributor, to deliver my wines to retail store shelves, then, what other approach can I have other than Direct to Consumer?" Well, I think he has a lot of choice. He can sit at the side of the street or laneway upon which his farm is in situ, and sell directly in that venue, or even sell his product to a local wine merchant lock, stock and barrel, or to a number of such vendors along the same lines. If he is a socialist (the horror, the horror), he might want to equalize access to her product. So choice abounds. The fact that a producer chooses to sell directly can (and often is) predicated on the ease of clearing the market (at least, that market which the producer "allows" to exist by virtue of her control of supply). Ever heard of hoarding? Well, if you want to encourage a price rise, just hold back a good supply of something you've "created", and, lo and behold, a demand for that product is artificially enhanced.
(By the way, there is no logical reason to suggest that more supply could not be forthcoming as a result of proper effort and vineyard expansion - assuming that land is available and the economic incentives are in place).
Nope. I've tasted many of these wines, and religious experiences aside (for obvious reasons, I hope) all of these arguments for what is actually happening "out there" are not altogether convincing.
SZ.
One sip and already I'm drunk
There you go!
Agree. That would be the simplest Direct to Consumer scenario that I can imagine. If he wants to expand his reach, he creates a web site and builds an list of e-mails of prospective customers.
I'm not sure that's true in the U.S. 3-tiered environment. The winery cannot sell to the retailer. He has to sell to a distributor. The distributor is looking for high-volume or high-visibility wineries. They are, generally, not interested in little wineries makers with 3,000 bottles to sell
A good strategy if you have the cash flow to pay off your bank loans. In the wine world, though, while I do know that wineries do hold back inventory to allow themselves to sell library wines in the future, these are, generally, high-volume producers.
You seem to be mixing wine production with grape production. Relatively few winemakers own vineyards. Now, I'll agree that many, if not most, of the high-volume wineries also own vineyards, but I would argue that most vineyards, in California, at least. are not wine makers.
You don't give up easily, Mark, but I would never want that; I seek only intelligent conversation. That means effort. I will get back to you. Believe it. One Scandinavian-American to another.
Love it!
The legal elements of your arguments I will bow to for the moment. However, the issues you focus on seem more intended to score a point. I would say, once we have our communication lines set, I would encourage you to directly speak with me. That will be possible soon, and I will advise via email.