Old World wine in the New World

It's not too hard for my customers to deduce that I am a bigger fan of "Old World" or "Traditional" wine styles than "New World", "Modern" or "International Style" wines. In the end, what do these terms mean? The cliched differences between the styles go like this:

New World wine is fruity, highly extracted, high in alcohol and the winemakers use more new oak.

Old World wine is drier, more elegant, lower in alcohol and places more emphasis on "terroir" (the unique flavor qualities imparted by the soil, exposure and other environmental factors where the grapes are grown.)

European wine lovers tend to look down their noses at New World styles, thinking that they are overblown and not particularly food friendly. Lovers of modern styles tend to think Old World styles taste thin and dirty. It is a rare wine geek who loves both styles. Five years of buying the French wine for the sadly defunct Sam's Wines in Chicago left me with the misconception that I could not find wines in traditional styles from America, and especially not California. Certainly, the vast majority of the California wine I taste is of the fruity, oaky, high alcohol style that I would expect. There have been some pleasant, unexpected discoveries, however. In recent months, I have been knocked out by the wines of Joseph Swan in the Russian River Valley, Caparone in Paso Robles and, most recently, the incredible wines of Renaissance Cellars in the Sierra Foothills.

Perhaps we should backtrack and I should define what I think constitutes the "traditional" or "Old World" style. To me, there are two defining characteristics of the traditional flavor profile. First, the wines are perceived as truly dry. I'm not going to nitpick about residual sugar levels- they need to taste dry. The taste of alcohol is sweet, so sometimes high alcohol is enough to make a wine taste a touch sweet. Most often, though, a little RS is intentionally left in modern wines because it makes the wines seem richer. Obviously, the dry rule does not apply to certain wines that are intentionally made in sweet styles. The second characteristic has to do with the non-fruit, non-oak flavors in wine. Most wine strikes a balance between the straightforward fruit flavors of the grape and the "other" flavors that give wine it's complexity- earth or stone flavors, plant flavors, etc. Traditional wine places a much higher emphasis on the "other".

In this debate, many seem to get bogged down in making absolutes about wine making techniques- use of only indigenous yeasts, low alcohol, no new oak, etc. While it is interesting to know how a wine maker goes about his craft, in the end, it's the juice in the bottle that tells the tale. I could give many examples of very traditional tasting wines that do not adhere to strictly old-time wine making methods. Others get too bogged down in issues of place, insisting, for example, that Californian and Australian wine growing regions are too warm and therefore will always produce wine with extremely fruity character. Nonsense. Very fruity, modern wines are now being produced in most wine regions of the world. If it were simply the region, then explain why Swan's Russian River Pinot Noirs taste drier, more restrained and earthy than most of his neighbors.

In the end, it must be the individual vision of the wine grower and maker who wants to produce wines in a traditional style. How and why some get there and some don't is still a mystery to me, I must confess. In some cases, I'm sure the style is determined by what that harvest gives you. The other night I had a Zinfandel from Peterson, a Dry Creek producer utilizing very natural, traditional growing and wine making techniques. This bottle was loaded with rich, ripe fruit (even for Zin), did not strike me as completely dry and wasn't particularly earthy. The wine was delicious but I don't think anyone would tag it as traditional in style, despite the fact that it was made that way.

One of my missions in the new year will be to find and sell many more examples of American wines that please Old World palettes like mine. I'm convinced that California is a treasure trove of hidden gems, both from wineries that never followed the trends towards fruitier, bigger styles and from young mavericks who don't give a toss about what the wine magazines prefer. Any suggestions to help me achieve my California wine enlightenment are welcome!

7-11 Wine!

7-11 recently announced that they'll be selling their own private label wine, "Yosemite Road". The retail price will be $4 per bottle. Some numbers to consider...

Years ago, a winemaker visiting a shop where I worked saw a stack of Hungarian wine that we were selling for $1.99. He commented that the absolute cheapest he could purchase a bottle, cork, label and capsule totaled about $1.40. Assuming those costs are higher now, I'm guessing there's about $1.80 cost involved in the 7-11 wine just in packaging and transportation.

By law in the US, 7-11 has to purchase the wine from distributors in each state. They probably have a clearing arrangement with someone so that there's no mark up between the "winery" and the store. Still, this service costs money...a great deal would be $8 per case. So, we're up to $2.26 per bottle in cost before we include the actual wine!

Now, the only inspiration to have a private label is to make good margins...otherwise, why not just buy and resell someone else's product? A good margin on wine is 40%. Working backwards from the $4 selling price, that puts cost at $2.40 per bottle to the stores. Subtract the packaging, transportation and clearing costs...you've got 14 cents left to purchase the wine that goes in the bottle. You can imagine the quality of the juice that you can buy for 14 cents. What a value!

The wine making truths you never hear....

I meet a lot of wine makers. I taste a lot of wines. Sometimes I get the impression that wine makers are either completely oblivious to where their wines sit in the stylistic spectrum or that they will just say anything they thing a buyer wants to hear. Greg Wolter, who brings a nice portfolio of Pacific northwest wines into Illinois with his company Von Beaumont distributing, brought this up the other day while in my shop. Why doesn't a wine maker ever say, "We LOVE oak! So, we really oak the crap out of our wines!", Greg pondered.

I was reminded of a brief stint I spent selling wine wholesale. My first week, I was asked to read through the publicity files for all the wineries, to familiarize myself with the portfolio. Every piece of propaganda I read from a California Chardonnay producer claimed that they make a "Burgundian" style. Not only does that not have much real meaning, as there is no single style in Burgundy, this was at a time when 95% of California Chardonnay was big, fat, rich, oaky tropical fruit juice. Nothing that would ever be mistaken for Burgundy.

It got me thinking about the truths that winemakers think cannot be spoken. Here are a few refreshingly honest statements I don't expect to hear anytime soon:

"We make a huge, extracted style in order to get high scores. This makes the wine easier to sell and allows us to charge higher prices."

"Our price is very high because the vineyard and winery cost millions and millions of dollars."

"The owner made a fortune as a trial lawyer in L.A."

"We leave some residual sugar in all the wines because that's what consumers like."

"We do not farm sustainably or organically and have no plans to do so."

"Our reds a do not really improve with age."

From a Burgundy producer- "This comes from the flat vineyards below the hill. You know, the ones that are underwater in wet years."

From a Burgundy producer- "Our Bourgogne Rouge is not from declassified village wine. Why would we do that when we can sell the village wine for three times as much?"

From a California Pinot Noir producer- "Our Pinot is more like Australian Shiraz. Nothing like Burgundy in any way."

From a California Pinot Noir producer- "This does not come from a cool climate vineyard, In fact, it gets to 100 degrees on most August days."

From a European producer- "This was not a great vintage."

From a European producer- "We made this cuvee in a sweet, oaky style because that's what Americans like."

"Barrels are too expensive, so we use chips/staves/dust/liquid oak, etc."

"The law allows us to put in 25% of another grape. We get some cheap Petite Sirah and blend that in."

"We get 8 tons per acre from this vineyard."

"These vines are 5 years old."

"We harvest as early as possible, rather than risk late rain or hail."

"We're going for big fruit flavors...our vineyards have no particular terroir to express."

"They say wine is made in the vineyard. We fix it in the winery!"

I won't hold my breath.

Biodynamics...have I been had?

While searching for some information on a wine I'm currently carrying, I went off on an internet tangent as one often does. A comment on Randall Graham's blog on the Bonny Doon winery site sent me there. Graham was wondering why there was so much Biodynamic hating on the Wine Woot site. Of course, I had no idea what Wine Woot is, so I went to check out the site and why people could be so vehemently opposed to the Biodynamic wines I've enjoyed and promoted at Cellar Rat over my first two and a half years in business.

I discovered that Wine Woot is, for the most part, an ecommerce site but one that encourages lively debate through it's blog. The blog posts are relatively informative sales pitches for a particular wine. A post regarding Bonny Doon sparked the debate on Biodynamics among commenters. The debate, which I briefly joined in on, was lively and passionate to say the least.

My first exposure to Biodynamic farming came about 15 years ago. On my first wine buying trip, we made a visit to Guillemot-Michel, producers in the Macon subregion of Burgundy. Through our translator, the natural, Biodynamic treatments were explained. The explanations kept getting more and more far out. "The water has memory" being the example that stuck in my memory. Biodynamics is full of such spacey concepts and pagan rituals. The wines were (and are) wonderful, so it was hard to simply write them off, no matter how hippy/pagan some of the processes sounded.

Since then, I have tasted wines from dozens of producers who farm Biodynamically. For the most part, I really like what I taste in these wines. I think I can taste the difference between BD wines and those simply grown organically. Others, including noted British wine writer Jancis Robinson feel the same.

My eyes were opened by some of the comments at Wine Woot, however. I don't have much of a science background, to put it mildly. The commenters linked to article after article in which it was shown that most of the principles behind Biodynamics simply don't agree with basic, proven science. Furthermore, the few credible studies done have shown little difference in the results of organic farming versus BD farming. So, how is it that great wine makers throughout the world are sold on the benefits of BD? We're talking about Michel Chapoutier, Dominique Lafon, Laurence Faller of Domaine Weinbach, Alvaro Palacios, among many others world wide. These are wine making legends, folks...not just good wine makers.

Most of the great wines being made using Biodynamic techniques have a lot common. Great vineyard sites, low yields, hand harvesting...all the same elements that go into great wines made using conventional farming. Most of the wine makers using BD techniques made great wine for many years before converting. In fact, I can think of no example of BD resulting in a dramatic improvement in wine quality. I'd love to hear the wine makers explain how they think their wines are different in taste as a result of using BD techniques.

So...have I switched camps? Will I stop seeking out BD wines and rail against this pseudo-science? No. I still believe the movement has positive effects. My theory on why I taste the difference between BD wines and organic or conventional wines is threefold. First, I think the wines are very distinct expressions of place because of the BD philosophy of treating the estate as one inter-related organism. If everything you use in growing your grapes comes from local sources, it stands to reason that you would end up with a more specifically local tasting wine. Second, I believe that the philosophy encourages growers to be in their vineyards constantly- observing and actively working to promote healthy, more natural grapes and soils. It strikes me that much organic farming works in much the same way as conventional farming, simply substituting organic sprays and fertilizers for the chemical ones. This is a good thing, to be sure, but differs from extremely attentive BD approach. Third, I think that winemakers going to such great lengths to grow fruit in this manner are far less likely to use as much winery technology to change the wine's flavor.

I don't think I will actively promote Biodynamic wines from this point forward. My ears will perk when presented with a BD wine to taste, however. In the end, it's what ends up on the palate that counts. If that requires a little hocus pocus and the burying of a few manure filled cow horns, count me in.

Wine Merchant Exposed: He's Not a Foodie!

Last night, I ate and enjoyed a frozen pizza. There, I said it. I paired a Chianti that had been open for four days. The whole experience was satisfying.

What are the food habits of this wine industry veteran? I crave Mexican food on an almost constant basis. I can't go more than 10 days or so without desperately needing a cheeseburger. A cheap BYOB Thai dinner is never more than a few days away for me. And the desire for pizza must be met, even if the humble frozen pie is all I can fit into my schedule/budget. In the interest of restraining my ever expanding waistline, I try to control these urges. But they eventually become too strong for my will.

Wine and food shows, blogs and magazines portray everyone in this business as if we're constantly dining at the best restaurants. When not dining out, we're preparing elaborate meals at home with the bounty from our own gardens or the local farmer's market.

Not me. I shop at Jewel much of the time. When I can afford it, Whole Foods. I love to cook but work about 60 hours per week, so it ain't gonna happen most nights. Most experiences I've had at upscale restaurants have been on some wine distributor or importer's dime. Now that I'm no longer a wine buyer for big stores, those dinners rarely get offered up! These aren't complaints. I enjoy my work. I feel lucky to eke out a living doing something I love.

And you know what? There's nothing about the foodie world I crave. I can appreciate the skill, knowledge and work that goes into the elaborate presentations, new combinations of exotic ingredients, adventurous culinary techniques...but these things don't speak to my soul. While I can count on one hand the high end culinary experiences that have blown me away, it would take more than that to count just the knee buckling taste memories I have of barbecue joints alone. Not to mention pizzerias, taquerias, Italian delis, etc. To get Chicago specific, I'd be hard pressed to say that any meal gives me greater joy than a sub from Bari Foods or a carne asada taco from La Pasadita (with cheese, onions, cilantro and that amazing blackened salsa, thank you!).

How do I justify selling fancy pants wine, then? I don't. Certainly the wine geek's obsession with describing and ranking wine is as soulless as the foodie's similar quest for culinary heights. And, yes, I do carry $50 bottles from producers or regions that can command the price. But mostly, my shop is mostly about the quest to find the wine equivilent of the La Pasadita taco. Soulful, well-made, distinctive wines that you can experience on a regular basis. Maybe even with a frozen pizza. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.

How organic is organic?

Following are the USDA organic allowed synthetic substances in growing grapes (or other crops).
I'm not a scientist and some of this is way beyond the little technical knowledge a wine retailer aquires about viticulture. However, here are a few of the allowed substances that caught my eye...plastic mulch, arsenic, strychnine, lead salts and nicotine. I checked Canada's permitted substances and none of these are allowed. Same goes for the EU standards. I'm sure there are chemicals listed here that I'm unfamiliar with but are just as frightening. Happy reading and organic drinking/eating!

§ 205.601 Synthetic substances
allowed for use in organic crop
production.
In accordance with restrictions specified
in this section, the following synthetic
substances may be used in organic crop
production: Provided, That, use of such
substances do not contribute to
contamination of crops, soil, or water.
Substances allowed by this section,
except disinfectants and sanitizers in
paragraph (a) and those substances in
paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this
section, may only be used when the
provisions set forth in § 205.206 (a)
through (d) prove insufficient to prevent
or control the target pest.
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and
sanitizer, including irrigation system
cleaning systems.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol.
(ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materials - Except, That,
residual chlorine levels in the water
shall not exceed the maximum
residual disinfectant limit under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine dioxide.
(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfate--for use as an
algicide in aquatic rice systems, is
limited to one application per field
during any 24-month period.
Application rates are limited to those
which do not increase baseline soil
test values for copper over a
timeframe agreed upon by the
producer and accredited certifying
agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gas--for use as an
irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acid--for use in
disinfecting equipment, seed, and
asexually propagated planting
material.
(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.
(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as
applicable.
(1) Herbicides, soap-based - for use
in farmstead maintenance (roadways,
ditches, right of ways, building
perimeters) and ornamental crops.
(2) Mulches.
(i) Newspaper or other recycled
paper, without glossy or colored
inks.
(ii) Plastic mulch and covers
(petroleum-based other than
polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).
(c) As compost feedstocks- Newspapers
or other recycled paper, without glossy
or colored inks.
(d) As animal repellents– Soaps,
ammonium - for use as a large animal
repellant only, no contact with soil or
edible portion of crop.
(e) As insecticides (including acaricides
or mite control).
(1) Ammonium carbonate - for use as
bait in insect traps only, no direct
contact with crop or soil.
(2) Boric acid - structural pest control,
no direct contact with organic food or
crops.
(3) Copper Sulfate - for use as
tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice
production, is limited to one
application per field during any 24-
month period. Application rates are
limited to levels which do not
increase baseline soil test values for
copper over a timeframe agreed
upon by the producer and accredited
certifying agent.
(4) Elemental sulfur.
(5) Lime sulfur - including calcium
polysulfide.
(6) Oils, horticultural - narrow range
oils as dormant, suffocating, and
summer oils..
(7) Soaps, insecticidal.
(8) Sticky traps/barriers.
(9) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS
#s-42922–74–7; 58064–47–4)-in
accordance with approved labeling.
(f) As insect management.Pheromones.
(g) As rodenticides.
(1) Sulfur dioxide - underground
rodent control only (smoke bombs).
(2) Vitamin D3.
(h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric
Phosphate (CAS # 10045-86-0).
(i) As plant disease control.
CCOF Manual 2: USDA National Organic Program Standards
QS 02 Rev5 , 5/15/08 24 of 33
(1) Coppers, fixed - copper
hydroxide, copper oxide, copper
oxychloride, includes products
exempted from EPA tolerance,
Provided, That, copper-based
materials must be used in a manner
that minimizes accumulation in the
soil and shall not be used as
herbicides.
(2) Copper sulfate - Substance must
be used in a manner that minimizes
accumulation of copper in the soil.
(3) Hydrated lime.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Lime sulfur.
(6) Oils, horticultural, narrow range
oils as dormant, suffocating, and
summer oils.
(7) Peracetic acid - for use to control
fire blight bacteria.
(8) Potassium bicarbonate.
(9) Elemental sulfur.
(10) Streptomycin, for fire blight
control in apples and pears only.
(11) Tetracycline (oxytetracycline
calcium complex), for fire blight
control only.
(j) As plant or soil amendments.
(1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than
hydrolyzed) - Extraction process is
limited to the use of potassium
hydroxide or sodium hydroxide;
solvent amount used is limited to that
amount necessary for extraction.
(2) Elemental sulfur.
(3) Humic acids - naturally occurring
deposits, water and alkali extracts
only.
(4) Lignin sulfonate - chelating agent,
dust suppressant, floatation agent.
(5) Magnesium sulfate - allowed with
a documented soil deficiency.
(6) Micronutrients - not to be used as
a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant.
Those made from nitrates or
chlorides are not allowed. Soil
deficiency must be documented by
testing.
(i) Soluble boron products.
(ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides,
or silicates of zinc, copper, iron,
manganese, molybdenum,
selenium, and cobalt.
(7) Liquid fish products - can be pH
adjusted with sulfuric, citric or
phosphoric acid. The amount of acid
used shall not exceed the minimum
needed to lower the pH to 3.5.
(8) Vitamins, B1, C, and E.
(k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene
gas - for regulation of pineapple
flowering.
(l) As floating agents in postharvest
handling.
(1) Lignin sulfonate.
(2) Sodium silicate - for tree fruit and
fiber processing.
(m) As synthetic inert ingredients as
classified by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), for use with
nonsynthetic substances or synthetic
substances listed in this section and
used as an active pesticide ingredient in
accordance with any limitations on the
use of such substances.
(1) EPA List 4 - Inerts of Minimal
Concern.
(2) EPA List 3 - Inerts of Unknown
Toxicity allowed:
(i) Glycerin Oleate (Glycerol
monooleate) (CAS #s 37220-82-
9)-for use only until December 31,
2006.
(ii) Inerts used in passive
pheromone dispensers.
(n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen
chloride (CAS # 7647-01-0) – for
delinting cottom seed for planting.
(o)-(z) [Reserved]
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as
amended at 68 FR 61992, Oct. 31,
2003; 71 FR 53302 Sept. 11, 2006]
§ 205.602 Nonsynthetic
substances prohibited for use in
organic crop production.
The following nonsynthetic substances
may not be used in organic crop
production:
(a) Ash from manure burning.
(b) Arsenic.
(c) Calcium chloride, brine process is
natural and prohibited for use except as
a foliar spray to treat a physiological
disorder associated with calcium uptake.
(d) Lead salts.
(e) Potassium chloride - unless derived
from a mined source and applied in a
manner that minimizes chloride
accumulation in the soil.
(f) Sodium fluoaluminate (mined).
(g) Sodium nitrate - unless use is
restricted to no more than 20% of the
crop's total nitrogen requirement; use in
spirulina production is unrestricted until
October 21, 2005.
(h) Strychnine.
(i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate).
(j)–(z) [Reserved]
[65 FR 80657, Dec. 21, 2000, as
amended at 68 FR 61992, Oct. 31,
2003

A novel thought...let's drink wine from WINE GLASSES!

I'm not sure at what point the juice glass invaded the restaurant world. Inspired by inexpensive trattorias in Italy, the notion is that it is charming and unpretentious to serve wine in tiny, straight sided, stemless glasses. That's all fine and good if you're serving the generic carafe wine and average food that these trattorias sell. There's not much about the bouquet of these wines you'd actually want to experience anyway.

But by using these glasses, your restaurant is simply telling me that you do not recognize or care about the enjoyment of wine, plain and simple. The tongue is fairly limited in what is can detect flavor wise, so most of our enjoyment of flavor comes from the complexities of aroma. All of this is lost in the juice glass. This is not just about the enjoyment of great wines, even simple bottles that retail for $10 will be less enjoyable given the juice glass treatment.

Wine glasses break and I realize that at very expensive restaurants it becomes a major cost. I'm not asking for $50 per stem Riedel Sommelier Series here. A $1 per stem Libbey wine glass will do. Or, if you are desperate to keep that unpretentious feel, there are plenty of stemless wine glass options out there.

Here's the Rat's guide to whether a juice glass or wine glass is appropriate-

You wine list consists of unidentified Pinot Grigio, Chardonnay, Merlot & Cabernet- Juice Glass
Your wine list has $7-$12 glass pours and $25 and up bottles- Wine Glass!

You menu has a "Sandwiches" section- Juice Glass
You refer to your "concept" as "small plates"- Wine Glass!

"Would you like steak fries, baked potato or hash browns with that?"- Juice Glass
You identify the farm from which the pork belly came- Wine Glass!

And anyway, if your menu features something like "Steamed French White Asparagus with Burrata, Iranian Pistachios & Nasturtium", don't you think unpretentious went out the window a while ago?