Dr Vino’s wine blog

First time here? Check out the "site highlights," send in a question, subscribe to the latest posts by RSS, daily email, or free monthly updates by email (right sidebar). Thanks for visiting!

If an alien landed in a room full American wine drinkers, it would meet mostly college educated, AARP eligible women, probably not from the midwest. There would be relatively few men aged 18 (!) to 49. So says the polling group, Gallup. Almost.

In their annual survey of how and what American drinks, the smokin’ pollsters at Gallup point to a gender gap where men prefer beer and women prefer wine. (For beer-wine-spirits preferences, men are 58-19-18 while women are 21-50-24. Click through for full summary and charts.)

How does this square with your experience? In my own, I find a lot of enthusiasm for wine among them there young folks. And men and women seem equally into wine. But my evidence is purely anecdotal!

As to the economic effect of the recession, they say it is hard to sort out. But their main finding is that the percentage of Americans who drink alcohol is the same as last year, at 64%. Meanwhile, over on the Big Board, The AP has this about the quarterly numbers from Constellation (STZ): “Sales for the company, whose brands include Robert Mondavi wines and Svedka brand vodka, dropped 15 percent to $791.6 million from $931.8 million on the stronger dollar as well as the sales of the value spirits business, spirits contract production services and some Pacific Northwest wine brands.”

I recently stumbled on this olde tyme ad from Sonoma (in the Yalumba winery museum in Australia of all places).

In case you can’t read it, the ad says “Sonoma Valley Sobriety Test #1: If you can’t say Gundlach-Bundschu Gewurztraminer, then you shouldn’t be driving!”

I’d venture to say that both the Gun-Bun marketing and Sonoma sobriety tests have changed.

Drawing on the New Yorker profile of Fred Franzia, champion of wine under $10, last week we pondered the puzzle of why so few low-cost wines–say under $10 (or, perhaps, $15)–made in America are just not tasty. By contrast, several imported wines in the price range have appeal despite having to be transported and pass through the importer’s company as well.

Over 30 of you had your say in the post from last week. So I decided to put the question to several people in the trade. Today, we hear from Patrick Campbell and Veronique Drouhin Boss. Patrick Campbell of Laurel Glen Winery in Sonoma makes a tasty $10 California wine, REDS, billed as “a wine for the people.” Veronique Drouhin Boss is the winemaker at Domaine Drouhin in Oregon and is co-winemaker at her family’s negociant house in Burgundy, Maison Joseph Drouhin, which a Beaujolais Villages that is particularly lip-smacking in 2007 and is widely available for $9.95. Tomorrow, we will hear from an American wine importer with his views.

Question: why are there so few good American wines under $10 (or slightly higher) while there are many more imports at that price point? Read more…

Fred Franzia, creator of Two Buck Chuck and founder of Bronco Wine Co, has a somewhat laudable if self-serving goal: no wine should sell for over ten dollars a bottle. While tasty wine under $10 is something wine consumers could rally behind even in the best of times, the recession certainly makes value have greater appeal now. The only trouble with Franzia’s wine is the that they just aren’t that tasty.

The current issue of the New Yorker has a lengthy profile of Franzia that is well worth reading, especially if you’re not familiar with his story. Here’s how the author describes his winery in Ceres, California:

It also irritates Franzia when people describe Bronco’s facility, with its four hundred and fifty-two stainless-steel storage tanks–including six liquid oxygen tanks that once held fuel for intercontinental ballistic missiles and are now being used to make champagne [sic]–as being reminiscent of an oil refinery.

(In addition to the satellite image above, click here for a street view of the flags. Franzia had this to say about the flags in the story: “No California flag–they’ve screwed us too many times. We shouldn’t fly the US flag, the bastards. They have a felony on us.”)

One of the biggest puzzles about the American wine market is why there are so few tasty values made in the USA. Imports, somewhat paradoxically, offer better value despite traveling a farther distance and often having to pass through another tier, the American importer.

What do you think are the key reasons that American wines under $10 are so often uninspiring? (Granted, there certainly are uninspiring imports under $10 but there are also some rustic wonders that sell for three to six euros in Europe.) Here are some variables to toy with: short-ish history of American wine with relatively few small growers, recent industry consolidation, the soil and/or climate, high land prices, producer greed/pride, the three tier distribution system, or the consumer as chump.

Swirl. Spit. Discuss. And while you’re at it, let us know your favorite American wines under $10–or even cast the net wider to include wines under $15 if under $10 is too hard. Maybe in a future post we’ll do a low-cost throwdown, domestic versus imports.

On a forgotten page of nytimes.com yesterday, wedged in between stories entitled “Liberals Attempt Overthrow” and “Octopuses Taught to ‘Read,’” ran an unexpected wine story. To the tape:

PARIS Within the next month, Americans at Pacific coast ports will be able to enjoy gratuitously 3,600 bottles of French wines as the result of a generous gesture of the “little fellows,” or small producers of France. The consignment of wine left Le Havre yesterday [April 26] on the French liner Wisconsin after being inspected and tasted by representatives of the press.

Only the story wasn’t breaking news; it was part of a roundup of “100, 75, 50 Years Ago.” This item dates from 1934, a few months after the repeal of Prohibition. Unfortunately, their offering of “Château du Liot Haut-Barsac 1929 Riesling, Chambertin 1923 Champagne brut and 1835 Cognac” didn’t spark US wine consumption, which languished for several more decades. Now, let’s get back to those octopuses from 1959…

For enophiles, one of the great travesties of the past few years has been the rise of a new puritanism in France. Yes, the country perhaps most associated with wine has, paradoxically, also seen increasing amounts resistance to wine from some parts of society. In my book Wine Politics, I’ve compared this (French?) twist with America and how the two countries seem to be headed in opposite directions; many others have also commented on these changes.

Perhaps the most jaw-dropping of the actions relates to wine and the internet. A French court ruled early last year that Heineken’s web site was illegal to display in France, which sparked fears and confusion among wine web sites and Microsoft pulled wine ads. Also, in another decision last year, a court fined the newspaper Le Parisien €5,000 for a champagne review article claiming that it was no different than an advertisement and should run the disclaimer: “Alcohol abuse is dangerous to your health.”

That could never happen here, right?

Well, not entirely. According to this article on ABCnews.com, under new Federal Trade Commission regulations on Consumer Product Testimonial and Endorsement Rules, product reviews on blogs may soon fall under the same liability standard as advertisements. (Given the various claims to the tune of “lose thirty pounds in thirty days,” one might easily be forgiven for not even realizing that there even were advertising standards.) The most obviously affected category would be paid reviews, but those, rightfully, shouldn’t count as editorial anyway.

“It would only affect bloggers who are paid to write reviews but the sticky issue that is raised is what happens if a product is given for free,” an FTC spokesman told ABC News.

That could raise a host of issues for wine bloggers as well as wine journalists whose articles appear on the internet. But whether a review of a free sample wine (as opposed to a purchased wine) could ever be seen as basis for liability, as it might in an infant car seat as the focus of the ABC story, seems like an incredible long shot. The subjectivity of reviews (what, you couldn’t find notes of raspberry and saddle leather?) and the bottle variation among consumers in different states would be two strong aspects running against any enforcement of this FTC act. As they probably say in fine print on the weight loss ads, results may vary.

One way to connect the dots more closely might be if the blogger in question were, say, a wine retailer or a winery who also happens to sell wine. There’s a lot of web content, be it blogs or Twitter or Facebook updates, emanating directly from wine sellers and marketers that might fall under this increased stringency from the FTC.

As Matt Drudge might say, “developing…”

Randall Grahm is one of America’s most fascinating winemakers and winery owners. From his base in Santa Cruz, he rose to fame (and a good bit of fortune) by following the path of grape varieties traditionally from the Rhone and Italy–with a dose of Zinfandel. Puns and cute labels helped make the wines fun and approachable. Consider that in 1992 he bought a vineyard in Soledad, a town then best known for a large prison, and decided to call the resulting wine “Big House Red” complete with a cartoon jailbreak on the front. Or Cardinal Zin, a Zinfandel with a Ralph Steadman depiction of a cardinal on the label.

But Grahm has had a change of heart. A thorough profile in Inc magazine last summer indicated that, in close succession, he became a dad and had health problems that led to what they call a “do over.” He sold off Big House and Cardinal Zin to The Wine Group two years ago. He ramped up his appreciation of Biodynamics, an organic approach to vineyard management that blends in a dose of the celestial. He toned down the humor on his labels and has added graphic depictions of crystal formations that map the terroir of a vineyard on the Ca del Solo labels.

He’s also experimenting more with winemaking. Many wines are matured in small oak barrels that are new. Grahm is using slightly larger casks, called puncheons, that are old. The older and bigger barrels slow the exchange with oxygen, which can make the resulting wines more age worthy and can express the grape and the place more clearly without so much barrel influence. But his biggest experiment is with his 2008 wine called Le Cigare Volant, a blend of Grenache, Mourvedre and Syrah. He has held some of this wine to mature after fermentation in a series of large bottles known as demi-johns that allow virtually no exchange with oxygen.

I caught up with him at the recent tasting of his NYC distributor, Michael Skurnik. We talk about screwcaps, the wave of the future, and…England.

Nearly seven years ago, you held a ceremonial funeral for the cork and started bottling all Bonny Doon wines under screwcap. Did you replace one problem, TCA tainted corks, with another, reduction [which can lead to rotten-egg smell in some cases]? Read more…

Spotted yesterday at a trade tasting: Bonny Doon’s labels are now baring all and putting a full “ingredient” list. This is not a legal requirement but more comprehensive labeling for wine is a subject that is in play. While more information on labels is a probably good thing, it would be helpful to have some context about some of lesser-known aspects of winemaking. But maybe that’s what the internet is for, researching things like wine ingredient lists. What do you think about more information on wine labels?

I asked Doonmaster Randall Grahm what prompted him to take this extra step. He said his reasoning was twofold. While admitting it was a little bit “pious” on his part, he said that he was doing it in part to encourage the industry to do more with less and to be more natural while “trumpeting our own virtue.” Further, he said that it is kind of an enforced discipline: “if you have to add it to the label, you think twice before doing anything.” He added, “It makes a better wine.”

Stay tuned for more with the Randall Grahm as I ask him about screwcaps and his new project!

In case you can’t read it from the blog-blurry photo of his 2008 Albarino (find this wine), here’s the text after the jump: Read more…

Red Truck, a high volume brand from California, has decided to roll out the barrel. Their new three liter bag-in-barrel wine will appear this month at Sam’s Clubs across the country. Their press release claims that this packaging is “convenient, eye-catching and environmentally-friendly…[and] a terrific wine value.” Let’s check the truthiness of these claims.

Convenient? Sure, it probably keeps the wine fresh for a month with the bladder and spigot.

Eye-catching? Yes, it looks better than a box, at least from the photos. Maybe in person it is nasty, plastic-y looking but for now, yes, eye-catching.

Environmentally friendly? [NOTE: because the Red Truck press representative misunderstood my query about the weight of the packaging, this portion has had to be altered.] In my joint research into the carbon footprint of wine, we found that lighter packaging can greatly reduce the overall carbon footprint of wine. This barrel puts 3,000g of wine in 250g of packaging, so it vastly improves the wine-to-packaging ratio over bottles. (The PR person had previously told me the weight of the whole barrel, full of wine, was the weight of the packaging alone. So even though I had to redo this part, she buttered me up by saying that my NYT op-ed had inspired their their 3L package.)

But the cylindrical casing still leaves more dead air in the truck so it’s not quite as efficient as the rectangular box. (That’s why watermelons are square, right?) The packaging is all #5 plastic, which some municipalities may recycle. The plastic bladder is #7.

Value? At $29.99, it’s the equivalent of $7.50 per bottle. Although it can be found for $6.99 a bottle, many retailers appear to have it for $8.99 a bottle. So, yes, some savings. But you should probably experiment with a bottle of it first to see if you like it.