Dr Vino's wine blog

About half of the wines entered into at least three wine competitions bring home a gold medal. But of those winning a gold, 84 percent win no further medal at another competition. Thus, “winning gold medals may be more a matter of chance than a predictor of quality.”

Such are the findings from a paper published in the current issue of the Journal of Wine Economics. Robert Hodgson (pictured), the paper’s author, is a professor emeritus of oceanography at Humboldt State University. He also co-owns Fieldbrook Winery in Humboldt county, which “normally produces about 1000 cases per year. Though small, the winery has earned distinction by winning many awards in state and national competitions.”

In fact, it was his personal experience winning medals and then coming up empty handed that led his quantitative analysis of 13 wine competitions as he told Reuters. The paper says that there are about 29 wine competitions in the United States; for the 13 that he studied, entry fees exceeded $1 million.

Other research has shown that consumers’ buying decisions are slightly but positively influenced by medals, which placed sixth out of thirteen variables (ahead of front labels and shelf talkers).

What do you think explains this disparity: something inherent to wine competitions, the nature of blind tasting, or a lack of consensus of quality wine?

Links to abstract and full paper in pdf

“French wine exports have plunged 25 percent in the first half of this year as consumers worldwide scaled back on non-essentials amid the global financial crisis…Exports of luxury products such as Champagne and Cognac fell 45 percent and 27 percent respectively.” [AP]

“With sales falling, producers may be ordered to leave up to half their grapes to wither on the vine in an attempt to squeeze the market.” [timesonline.co.uk]

A reader just sent this satirical video about how distributors may be selling wine in this slow economy. Caution: it’s wonky, profane, cynical and sometimes hard to understand because of the robotic nature of the voices. But it still has some good laughs and discussion points on a Friday afternoon.

First up in this virtuous summer, Alabama banned an 1895 reproduction of a bicycling nude nymph on a wine label. Now, Maine will prohibit children from “observing” wine tastings as of September 12.

An amendment to a new law included this language: “Taste-testing activities must be conducted in a manner that precludes the possibility of observation by children.” But if they close their eyes, is it permissible to hear slurping and spitting?

The law penalizes small wine store owners as well as customers with families. One shop owner says in a story in the Kennebec Journal (via Fermentation) that she will have to install draperies to be in compliance so that no children passers-by on the street would be able to see in-store tastings happening.

The story elaborates that the author of the amendment claims it was a mistake: “There was supposed to be an exemption for small retail stores. (The negotiations) were quick with several people weighing in on how it was to be and a drafting error was made. We wound up with language that inadvertently scooped the wine shops. We’re working as fast as we can to fix that.” But the legislature doesn’t reconvene until January.

Other highlights in the state’s history of alcohol regulation:
1849: Maine enacts a law that ”punishes by imprisonment any person not licensed who should sell during any cattle show or fair any intoxicating drink.”
1851: After a long fight, led by Portland’s Mayor, Neal Dow, Maine becomes the first state to outlaw the sale of all alcoholic beverages, except for ”medicinal, mechanical or manufacturing purposes.”
1973: NOW achieves the end of sex discrimination in taverns

With red ink pouring onto many balance sheets, newspapers are now offering to pour something red in your glass: wine.

The Wall Street Journal has done it. So has the San Francisco Chronicle. And the Financial Times and the Times of London. Now the New York Times jumps into the pool with the announcement yesterday that they will be starting the New York Times Wine Club.

Two levels are available: The Times Sampler, six wines “for everyday drinking” for $90, or The Times Reserve, a selection of six wines “ideal to serve on special occasions” for $180. Intervals are monthly to quarterly.

The press release states “The New York Times Wine Club is operated independently of The Times’s critics or other members of the news department.” Global Wine Company, chosen to run the wine club, will “source wines directly from wineries, with no private label or bulk wines.” The dedicated club Web site “includes recipe pairings and links to additional food and wine content on www.NYTimes.com.”

Wines & Vines reported in June that California regulatory authorities have called such clubs “illegal” since unlicensed parties are profiting from the sale of liquor.

But the most pressing question for consumers remains: are any of these clubs any good? Just yesterday, a reader wrote in wondering about the quality of the WSJ club. Unfortunately, I have no first-hand experience. In theory, a club from a winery, shop, or newspaper could inform and educate with new wines that people might not discover on their own as well as sourcing incredible deals since the wines are essentially pre-sold. But clubs could also send a bitter, tannic wine to someone who likes only sweet, for example. The biggest drawback with many clubs, it would seem, is the lack of feedback ability from the consumer to the retailer as boxes arrive automatically. In a good store, a knowledgeable staff member can listen to consumer preferences and adjust a selection accordingly.

Hit the comments with your actual wine club experiences!

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Casella Wines, the maker of [yellow tail], has sued two companies associated with Fred T. Franzia over their new Australian wine, Down Under. Franzia’s Bronco Wine Co. also makes “Two Buck Chuck.”

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan yesterday, alleges that the label for [Down Under] is substantially similar to and infringes on the trademarked label for [yellow tail].

“Bronco’s use of Casella’s iconic square brackets and its use of Australian-centric wording in connection with the sale of Australian wine are likely to confuse consumers,” the lawsuit said.

[Down Under] sells for about $3, or half the price of [yellow tail]. Both wines come in high-shouldered bottles and have duotone capsules as seen in the image after the jump.

If you were presenting evidence to the judge, what would you say in this case? Read more…

A remarkable wine story of the past few weeks that has gained lots of media attention is the story of “Banned in ‘Bama.” (click for details)

Interestingly, UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh, posted about this label and said that it seemed “pretty clearly unconstitutional.” Not that Hahn, the producer of the banned Cycles Gladiator, would want to challenge the decision since they have garnered such a huge amount of media attention: they are making a massive amount of lemonade from these tiny lemons and now is mounting point-of-sales material in other states to try the wine “banned in Bama.”

Which other labels might be in jeopardy of being banned in Bama? Hit the comments with your thoughts.

To get the ball rolling, consider the image to the right that is on bottles of Geheimer Rat, Dr. Basserman-Jordan from the Pfalz (click to enlarge). Not only does the woman have sensuous grapes in her hair, but the screw cap is adorned with some rather sensuous initials.

And while we’re on the topic of judging a wine by its label, be sure to surf over to a site called The Coolist and see their display of 30 cool and clever wine label designs.

Should wine lot numbers appear on the labels of American wines as they do in Europe?

The recent saga of Sierra Carche exposed some cracks in the process of wine making, wine reviewing, and wine buying. For those who haven’t checked out the saga (see Felix Salmon’s excellent summary over on Reuters.com), an influential critic gave a wine brand called Sierra Carche the score of 96, retailers sold the wine touting that score, but many consumers then found the wine undrinkable (as the critic also did 10 months later).

Although the mystery of how this could happen remains unresolved, the winemaker has pointed out there were three “lots” (a batch bottled under nearly identical conditions) of the wine and admitted one of those lots a different wine entirely that was bottled as Sierra Carche.

Charlie Olken, publisher of the Connoisseur’s Guide to California Wine, posted several comments on this subject on the previous thread about his experience with lot variation in domestic wines. An excerpt:

I cannot name the winery because of legal reasons, but I was asked to testify in a law suit in which a winery sued another company over wine lost in an accident. It turned out the winery had sold out of the wine in about eight months and simply went out on the open market and purchased wine in bulk and bottled it as their own under the same label. In discovery, it was found that the lost wine had 20% Chenin Blanc purchased at wholesale at a price way below what labeled grape would have cost.

Unless wineries are required to identify separate lots, whether they are bottling wine in California or Spain or Morocco, these kinds of events will continue to happen. Sometimes it will be only a slight difference in character as in the Ste. Michelle and Mondavi examples above, but the potential for mischief when anybody can bottle several lots under the same label is real and the Sierra Carche is not the only bad example.

Lot labeling has been mandatory in the EU since the early 1990s to facilitate traceability in the event of a recall or consumer complaint. Importer James Koch also posted to the comments: “I have been selecting wines by lot numbers since 1992 – a year after lot numbers started to appear on every bottle of wine – when I discovered that ‘bottle variation’ often is just the result by mixing up different lots. Due to the lot numbers I’ve been able to offer my clients the wines I tasted and selected on my wine buying trips – not only VERSIONS of it.” Koch also pointed out that lot numbers may be difficult to see since it can appear anywhere on the outside packaging material. Lot numbers must start with the letter “L” in Europe.

But American wineries are not required to print lot numbers on bottles. They should. And they should have a standard of 100 percent accuracy. Maybe some progressive wineries will start to do this as Bonny Doon has with ingredient labeling.

Several factors can cause bottle variation to the consumer and disclosing lots would at least provide more transparency. Remember all those consumers who found variation in Two Buck Chuck? Lot numbers could help sort out some of that.

Do you think critics should also list lot numbers in their reviews?