The Borrowed Penguin Wine Review

The Second Spanish Armada

For years now it has been said that if you want to find really good values in the wine world, you need to check out Spain. I’ve been hearing this for over five years now, and the amazing thing is it is still true. As a retail wine buyer it’s not just that I can find plenty of interesting and enjoyable wines at great prices from Spain but I am routinely presented more and more choices by importers. At times it really does feel like a bottomless basket of great wine values.

The red wines have been far more popular than the whites (so far). This is because Spain uses several varietals that are already established in the US: Grenache (Garnacha) is already a staple in this country, and more and more you’re seeing Cabernet along with Mourvedre (Monastrell), and Syrah also prominent. The white wines are just as strong, but as a rule the best Spanish whites are grapes and styles that most people aren’t familiar with. Albarino is probably the best Spanish white, and it’s just not something everyone is familiar with. Which is too bad. Good Spanish whites are light and crisp with a surprising degree of depth and complexity. You can find Spanish Chardonnay and even Sauvignon Blanc, but seek out something a bit more unique.

Finally there is Cava, which is Spanish Sparkling Wine. Cava is made using the same methods as Champagne (secondary fermentation in the bottle..) but instead of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, and Pinot Meunier Cava is composed primarily of local varietals. Crisp and bright, this is great Sparkling Wine and normally comes in as less than $15 a bottle. This really is a slam-dunk if you’re looking for enjoyable Sparkling Wine at a great price.

One of the interesting aspects of Spanish wine is the recent explosion in popularity has led to plenty of importers looking to get into the market. In terms of exposure Eric Solomon is the most prominent name right now. The owner of European Cellars, Solomon has become almost omnipresent when publications discuss Spanish wines, and he certainly has developed a powerful reputation. The Solomon catalog carries a few big names, probably the best known of which is Las Rochas Garnacha, but this huge portfolio is largely composed of new labels from lesser-known regions. Obscure might not be the right word because of the negative connotation, but much of the Solomon stuff is regions and grapes even a pretty knowledgeable wine lover wouldn’t be familiar with.

Solomon also brings in French wines, as well as some Portuguese stuff and a few things from South Africa and Switzerland, but the main focus is the massive selection of Spanish wines. There are plenty of interesting things in this portfolio, but as large as it is there are also some things I’m not sure about. More than a few of the wines I’ve had didn’t offer the same level of quality for bargain price I’ve come to expect from Spain, and others are just things I’m not sure I could sell. Solomon is aggressively pursuing new avenues, some of which really are undiscovered gems. But time may show there was a reason some of these grapes/regions/wines were undiscovered (as a quick aside: former Solomon employee Steve Miles has left European Cellars and started his own company, Steve Miles Selections, and has taken many wines from Solomon—more to come on this new project).

Another intriguing option is WineBow, which is a well-known Italian importer. WineBow was out of the Spanish wine business for a while but is now trying to establish some new things. I’ve only had a few of these wines, and the company seems to be moving very deliberately. But what I’ve had I liked. WineBow has found some regions/styles that already have some traction here in the US, like Garnacha, Garnacha/Syrah blends, or Rioja. The wines I’ve had have been attractive and very well priced, which is important because I know how many great wines I can get for not much money. I don’t think WineBow is about to set the world on fire or win any awards for being creative and inventive, but I’m encouraged by what they are doing.

However, when it comes to Spanish wine importers the standard is set by Jorge Ordonez. The man behind Jorge Ordonez Selections, Jorge has done more to make Spanish wines popular in America than anyone else. A portfolio of over 30 wineries and more than a hundred wines, the Ordonez book is packed with exceptional wines at exceptional prices. 99 and 100 point wines at $100 or more, 98 point wines for $50, Wine Spectator Top 100 wines for $30, and a variety of exceptional wines from $7-$20, many of which are 89 points or more, including the now iconic Tres Picos (last vintage: 93 points from Parker, $12.49 a bottle).

Jorge has worked hard to help wineries develop styles and wines that are favorable to the American pallet. Additionally, he has brought in absolutely astounding wines from regions that are normally not included in the elite category within Spain. Instead of just focusing on Priorat and Rioja he has set a new standard in Jumilla with the Juan Gil/El Nido property and the recent Atteca Old Vines Grenache will probably completely change the way the Calatayud region is viewed. Ordonez has a presence in the classic standard bearers of Spanish wine, but he is also calling attention to and improving the quality of other areas.

Finally, it should be noted that the wines Jorge imports always look great. In fact, I can think of no other supplier where I can count on attractive, exciting, unique packaging (as a retailer that really does matter). I’m not going to try explaining some of the cooler labels I’ve seen, but the next time you’re in a retail store go to the Spanish section and find the first cool label you see. Pick up the bottle and turn it around: I’ll bet anything you will see the Jorge Ordonez name on the back.

Stain Your Teeth Your Purple

This past week was one of the better industry tastings I get to go to. One of our larger independent producers opens up pretty much every single Cabernet or Cabernet-based wine in their portfolio once a year, and they don’t hold anything back. Top-flight Cali Cabs, Super-Tuscans, and Bordeaux. Not a tasting for the faint of heart…or anyone who doesn’t like full-bodied powerhouse wines.

Normally I get there very early, bring my own spit cup, and try to make it through the whole lineup paying serious attention. However, this year my schedule was crazy, my day was packed, and I was pretty much just worn out. So the tasting was half over by the time I showed up and I wasn’t really feeling like working. Instead, I just cherry picked through my favorite wines and enjoyed some really good wines. Here’s a rough recap of the things I tried:

Started out with Larkmead Vineyards, a Napa Valley winery with a very long history (for Napa) and an impressive list of clients who buy grapes from Larkmead and use them for other wines that often fetch more money. First wine tasted was the 2004 Firebelle, Larkmead’s Bordeaux-style blend. This is an impressive Claret and really captured the imagination of people at the tasting. But for me it is the Cabernet that really stands out. The 2004 is deep and heavy, with compact fruit that only hints at what the wine really holds. Fruit, oak, acid, and power are all major players in this wine but most impressive of all is the structure that holds everything together. Also tasted a pre-release sample of the 2005, which is bottled but not yet available for release. The winery representative (Colin, who is awesome and is definitely a cool guy to visit with) emphasized the winery wanted to give the wine as much time in the bottle as possible, and I understand why. The wine shows many of the Larkmead qualities: a more Old-World style and great structure, but needs to settle down just a bit. Right now it is too solid.

Next up I tasted the 2001 Laurel Glen Sonoma Mountain Cab. Chalk this up as one I can’t figure out. The wine is amazing, with beautiful, long-lasting cherry flavors, the minerality you would hope for from mountain fruit, and a gorgeous finish of full yet approachable tannin that fills the mouth with flavor and gives a very satisfying sensation. The wine retails for $50 and is routinely passed over for Cali Cabs that aren’t nearly as good.

I then decided to try some European stuff. First up was the 2004 Ornellaia, which is getting mind-boggling press from the major wine publications right now. As always, Ornellaia is wonderful, and while it is massive and driving I also get the sense that this may actually be a vintage where this blockbuster is more approachable in its youth than is normally the case. If you think the Super-Tuscan thing is a bit ridiculous and doesn’t have much substance, you’ve obviously never had this wine. From France I sipped on a bit of 2004 Duhart-Milon. The 2003 Duhart was the star of the vintage for me, so I was interested to see how the 04 would be. First off, it is something to walk through a room of Cali Cabs and then try a Bordeaux. The first thought is: “hey, this smells funny.” That aside, I once again think this is a great bottling. The aromas of the nose are distinctly Old World and the flavors on the pallet show more depth and complexity than most California wines. Additionally, the mouth feel of this wine was considerably different than pretty much anything else in the room. The wine feels full-bodied and immense but is light and gentle moving across the pallet. Instead of hitting only a few spots along the way the Duhart Milon has a presence the whole time. I really liked this wine.

Back to California I decided to go for some classic faves. The Wine Spectator may still feel Chateau Montelena has some problems and is producing flawed wine, but one again a bottle I tasted was spectacular. This really is one of the true masterpieces in California. Rich and supple, dark in color and inviting aromas of wet leaves and spice. The fruits are dark and deep, the finish full and extensive, and the wine just majestic. The Chateau Montelena Estae Cab is still a strong contender for the benchmark California Cabernet.

Another perennial favorite of mine is Anderson’s Conn Valley. While Larkmead is a wonderful Napa Cab done in more of an Old World style Conn Valley’s wines are a great expression of New World Cab. Fruit steps up and carries this wine. Brighter in color, juicier on the pallet, and just flat out delicious, this is a hedonist Cab if there ever was one. The critics like to point out the potential for aging and improvement, but this baby tastes so good up front I don’t see much reason to wait. On the other hand, I also had my first opportunity to sample the 2004 release of Eloge, Conn Valley’s Bordeaux blend. Always an interesting wine, it has little in common with the winery’s cab. Instead the Eloge is a bit more restraint and perhaps even a bit harder. I get more wood aromas coming up out of this wine, and definitely a stronger presence of spice. The wine is firmer in terms of structure and begs to be left in the bottle for a few years so the fruit can come out. If you’re drinking it tonight go with the Cab, but if you are looking for something to cellar then spend the extra $15-$20 on the Eloge. Either way, it’s unlikely you will be disappointed with any of this winery’s products.

Finally, I tried Eagle’s Trace. This is an offshoot product from Gus Anderson following his departure/retirement from Conn Valley. I tasted these wines last December at the Jefferson Cup and was intrigued, but they also tasted like they had just been put in the bottle the day before. I was excited to try them again. I still think the wines are huge, but at least now I’m prepared to offer an opinion of them. Done in a style more in line with the Eloge, I feel these wines are huge in weight and structure and definitely are top-quality. I was given the open sample of this to take home and actually finished it the next night, which was a much more appropriate time to taste it. This is another great effort from Gus Anderson and I have little doubt the people who choose to put forth the money for this great new project will be glad they did so over time.

Rock and Roll Winemaker

Winemaker’s are now rock stars. People travel great distances to meet them and hear them speak, special events where you pay extra to sit at the same table (or in some cases just the same room) as a particular celebrity winemaker are becoming more and more common. They sign autographs and hold court when out socially. In a society that desires and lavishes praise upon people who hold the keys to social standing, winemakers are an emerging and firmly implanted group.

Of course, many of them are happy to play the part. They dress a bit Bohemian, stay out late, and project a devil-may-care-attitude. Jumping through all the hoops and doing the song and dance can not only sell wine now but develop legitimate “fans” who now have some level of emotional attachment to the wine and will continue to buy it and encourage their friends to do the same. However, for most this is more act or delusion.

But for Charles Smith, it’s no act. The owner and winemaker of K-Vintners and the genius behind Charles Smith Wines and The Magnificent Wine Co. (which owns the increasingly popular House Wine) isn’t putting up an act when he shows up 2 hours late, wears punk rock t-shirts to fancy restaurants, or drops f-bombs or conducts himself in a manner not befitting his environment. Charles is the real deal: a guy who one day just decided to make wine and is now fantastic at it and has no interest whatsoever in paying homage to the segment that has traditionally supported upper-tier wines.

Not just that, but Charles actually looks like a rock star. With a huge, flowing mane of curling hair that he sometimes pulls back into a huge pony tail and standing over six-feet tall, Charles actually looks like Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons. He also makes some of the best Syrah in the US.

This past week Charles was in Kansas City to show off some of his new wines, and he also came by my store for a casual tasting during the evening. I’ve had several of Charles’ wines and have always been impressed. For around $10 House Wine is a great drink. The red is normally a Bordeaux-style blend with some Syrah mixed in and it shows good earth, nice balance, hefty fruit, and even a strike of minerality. Most blends with a clever name and a $10 price point are pretty weak—House Wine is actually really good stuff. The blend on the White can vary, but as a rule it is a clean Chardonnay with some other varietals blended in to make the aromatics more exciting. While I don’t get as excited about the white as I do the red, it’s still really good.

Within the last year Charles has launched Charles Smith Wines, and the first release is Kung-Fu Girl Riesling. According to Charles this wine was inspired by eating delivery Chinese food in LA at friend’s house around 4:00 AM while they watched Kung-Fu movies. Clean and crisp, this is slightly off-dry wine that has plenty of acids and stays fresh the whole glass. Exceptionally versatile, the wine is also a wonderful stepping-stone for anyone who likes sweet wines but wants to expand their pallet a bit. Don’t let the gimmicky name fool you: this is great wine.

Next up from Charles Smith wines is Holy-Cow Chardonnay, which is just getting set to be released. Once again, there is a quirky name, but Yellow Tail or Little Penguin it ain’t. In fact, this is one of the more atypical domestic Chards I’ve ever had. Showing virtually no oak, the wine is clean and strong, with mineral dominating most elements of it. I don’t recall the exact pricing right now, but it wasn’t expensive (less than $20 a bottle retail I believe) and is a unique creature in that category. This is definitely my style of Chardonnay, and another well-made wine that actually shows character and individuality.

Those wines are all great, but the real star and the winery that won Charles all his fame is K-Vintners. Based in Walla Walla, K-Vintners is known for making some of the finest Syrah in America. Powerful, rich, unique, defined, balanced, and enthralling, these wines represent some of the best domestic wines you can find (although they are getting harder and harder to find). First up was the Milbrandt, which is unique because it has a traditional foil capsule as opposed to the wax capsules most K-Vintners wines have. From the Wahluke Slope in Columbia Valley, this wine shows so much mineral it is almost hard to believe it’s a red. Full of flesh and flavor, this wine is a worthy entry point to the rest of the K-Vintners line (Milbrandt retails for around $32, while most of the other wines are right around $50).

Next up was “The Boy,” a traditional Rhone-style blend of Grenache, Syrah, and Mourvedre. Most people think of Grenache as being a lighter than Syrah, but one look at this wine in the glass will dispel that misconception. Dark in color, lush in fruit, and powerfully focused, this wine shows what you can do in cool climates with lots of sun. I think for many people at the tasting this was the favorite.

Moving on, we had managed to procure a couple bottles of 2002 Morrison Lane Syrah, an older release from Charles. The big knock on New World wines is they taste great right away but don’t age well. The K-Vintners wines are blockbusters, full of power and intensity. In other words, they are the exact type of wines some people claim can never develop but instead just fall apart. This would be an interesting chance to test that theory.

Admittedly, I didn’t get to concentrate as much as I would have liked on this wine. It was not as explosive right off the bat as some of his others, but it certainly still tasted focused and intense. The richness was there as was some nice integration. As to whether or not the wine was developing any complexity, I can’t say either way. The wines from K-Vintners are always massive and dominating upon release, and while this one had settled a bit and was showing a bit more elegance and refinement it also hadn’t lost any luster or depth. I think Charles’ wines can do quite well over time.

Last, we tried the 2005 Cougar Hills Syrah. This is the current release from Charles that is actually available at the moment, and it is one damn fine drink. Dark and heavy, with aromas that are much more enticing than wine this young should have, this is the style that has made Charles famous. This is every bit as powerful and rich as good Aussie Shiraz, but it retains balance and isn’t fruit dominated. The wine has plenty of backbone.

During the afternoon we had the chance to taste some of the upcoming releases from K-Vintners, and while they were all great in particular “The Creator” stood out. In the past this wine has been a 60/40 Cab/Syrah blend and while I’m not sure of the exact percentage, it is close. This was the best wine we tasted. Charles is adamant that his wines have unique character, and The Creator does. The two different grapes play off each other quite well: the Cab offers backbone while the Syrah offers intensity; the soft and supple tannins of the Syrah bleed across the pallet and are then complimented by the strong Cab tannins to give the wine an extended finish. This is real rarity: a powerful and intense red wine with great fruit that also has the minerality and acidity that lets you keep drinking it. Amazing.

While House Wine and Charles Smith Wines are both designed to be widely available, the stuff from K-Vintners is getting harder and harder to find. Most K-Vintners releases are already around $50, and it’s hard to imagine them going down in price. Additionally, Charles is preparing to release a couple of winery-only wines that will cost $75-$100. K-Vintners is hard to find, and even when located it can be hard to afford. Even so, keep an eye out. This one is worth it.

A Simple Tasting Note

After making plenty of statements in recent blogs, now I’m just going to offer up a simple tasting note. Today was a gorgeous day in KC, and with the temperature getting to the mid-70’s by afternoon with a light breeze and clear skies. Sitting on the patio around 5:30 there was actually almost a tiny chill to the air when the wind blew (according to my girlfriend, who is a total sissy when it comes to things like this). So we decided to sip on some red wine during while enjoying the early evening.

I decide a bottle of Chateauneuf would be nice, and I kind of felt like something pretty decent. I had both the 01 and the 03 Mas des Papes from Vieux Telegraphe and we ended up pulling the 03. The Southern Rhone Valley has enjoyed a wonderful run of vintages since 98 (pardon the problems of 02) but recently it appears people are starting to feel as if the wines from 03 might not have the same potential and lasting qualities as initially thought. In fact, a good rule of thumb right now would be drink your 03’s and let your 01’s keep aging.

Mas des Papes is/was the second label of Vieux Telegraphe (beginning with the 04 vintage the wine is now labeled Telegramme). It normally is around $30-$35 and is a very happy representation of good Chateauneuf. One of those wines that has a top-flight pedigree and allure that doesn’t require a top-flight price tag.

The 03 vintage was painfully hot, with drought prevalent throughout much of France (in particular Burgundy was punished). One trick you can use to remember just how hot it was in France during the summer of 2003 is the year Lance Armstrong actually “cracked” in the Tour de France (off course, so did everyone else and Lance ended up winning, but he did so by the smallest margin of his seven victories). It’s also the year heat waves resulted in over 10,000 deaths in the country.

Which leads us to a very interesting conclusion: the vintage tended to receive high marks from the critics, but there were some major challenges evident. Are the wines great or ones to be avoided? If you want a little more perspective on how difficult the vintage was, how about this quote from one of the winemakers I met with during my visit: “in 02 it was easy to make wine, it was just a nightmare at the sorting table; in 03 the sorting table was easy, but the actual winemaking was very difficult.”

I’ve had many 03 Chateauneufs and I definitely can feel the heat. The wines have a dried fruit element that is not normal from the region and alcohol levels are elevated. But where I’ve found the biggest problem is in the tannin. Either the wines finish hot or the tannin feels like it hasn’t integrated into the wine. It’s not that the wines don’t taste fine, they tend to have great spice and a lot of the famous Chateauneuf fruit. But there is a sense that the balance really isn’t there.

As for the 03 Mas des Papes, the first thing I want to say is the color is gorgeous. The wine is just beautiful in the glass, with a bright red tone and wonderful clarity. This is the kind of stuff you should use when you take a picture of a glass of wine. The nose itself is not terribly exciting; there is enough spice and earthy/leathery tones to make you think Chateauneuf, but there is no real enticing aroma to the wine. On the pallet, the wine certainly delivers the regions spice qualities and there is plenty of structure to go with the strawberry and cherry flavors. However, the wine does feel exceptionally dry and a bit rough across the back half of the pallet. The finish itself is not overwhelming, but the lack of fruit or floral elements on the back end really call attention to the tannic qualities of the wine and create a hard sensation on the finish. The wine itself doesn’t taste hot, but the flavors that appear on the back pallet are reminiscent of wines with elevated alcohol. Overall the finish has a dusty element more in line with a Gigondas than a Chateauneuf du Pape.

Don’t get me wrong, the wine is enjoyable and has some attractive qualities—namely the spice. But I’m glad I didn’t leave it in the cellar a few more years. The lack of rich and developed fruit along with the awkward tannins that throw off the balance leads me to believe the wine isn’t going to age terribly well. Drink it now if you want to get the most out of it.

As for what this says about 03 as a whole? Well, I can’t help but think of the comment I referenced earlier about the 03 vintage versus the 02 vintage at the sorting table. Obviously there were plenty of quality grapes that survived the conditions and heat of 2003, but based on my experience the finished wines demonstrate some of the year’s problems. Mas des Papes did okay, but Mas des Papes is a really good producer. I think the end lesson from all of this whenever there is any doubt, trust the producer. When things are perfect the best producers shine brighter than the others; and when there are concerns or questions they are the ones who will still put out a quality product.

A Few Miles to the North

I recently stumbled onto a wine that I really felt would be successful in our store, and two weeks into the experiment my feelings have been verified. At a recent tasting of an importer’s Spanish portfolio there was also a bottle of Vacqueyras open, specifically Domaine la Garrigue. Being a huge lover of Rhone wines I took a bit, gave it a swirl, a sniff, and a sip, and then took a moment to evaluate it.

The wine definitely showed some herbal spices and a dusty component of warm, earthy texture. The pallet had plenty of bright cherry fruit along with a very nice mouth feel for a full-bodied Grenache (there is also 20% Mourvedre). All in all it was a really nice Vacqueyras, very enjoyable and well-made, the kind of Southern Rhone wine that offers reasonable value, decent ageability, and good character. Like most quality AOC wines from the Southern Rhone I expected it to run in the $25-$30 a bottle range (retail). When I was told it would price out at less than $20 a bottle I honestly thought they had made a pricing error.

I brought in a moderate quantity in the wine, and I’m now down to around a case and a half. I’ll probably reorder pretty soon. It has been well-received by my customers in the one tasting of it I’ve done, and I think quite a few shoppers have recognized the wine offers a unique value.

What interests me is discussing what distinguishes Vacqueyras, as well as the neighboring village of Gigondas, from the more famous Southern Rhone village of Chateauneuf du Pape. First of all, Chateauneuf du Pape is more expensive, despite the fact that it has higher production than any other Southern Rhone commune. Next, the signature flavor of Chateauneuf du Pape is a distinct level of spice on the finish. The wines are known for their rich fruit and strong texture, but it is the spiciness of the finish that really makes them stand out.

Vacqueyras and Gigondas lack this spiciness. The blend is generally the same, with Grenache playing the lead and Mourvedre and Syrah serving as the main supporting cast, and the approach is often similar. However, the wines tend to offer more of an earth driven or even dusty finish. Additionally, when these wines offer up a wonderful elongated fruit finish, and believe me, the good ones do, it is accompanied by the same dusty element through the tannin. The obvious explanation for this would be the different soil type that exists in Gigondas and Vacqueyras as opposed to the classic stones of Chateauneuf du Pape, but there are also other factors at play.

The Domaine La Gariggue is a really good wine—and given its providence and price it’s a wonderful wine. I’m excited I can put a well-made wine from a worth Southern Rhone AOC that is a good representation of the region it people’s hands for that price. Now, is it Chateauneuf du Pape? No, it’s not. But it’s not supposed to be, and there is plenty to enjoy from Vacqueyras and Gigondas, often at a discounted price.

The Score on Scores

Okay, I’m still slacking on my last few France updates. Basically I’ve sworn that until I take the time to actually start posting pictures from the trip I’m not going to blog about it anymore. This, plus the fact that the last few weeks a lot has been happening that I’ve wanted to talk about, is why I’ve decided to take another break from France trip report. So this week I’m not just doing a bullet-points update—I’ve got an actual theme.

This past week issue 172 of The Wine Advocate was released. Robert Parker’s bi-monthly wine review publication is by far and more the most powerful voice in the world when it comes to wine, and one positive review can secure a wineries future and make a winemaker a fortune, while one disparaging, or even indifferent, review can be crushing to an independent winemaker. The scores bestowed upon countless wines in each of these issues carry immense weight and six times a year a sizeable portion of the wine community goes into atwitter over each and every score.

Which is exactly the problem. The focus is on the scores. A number either confirms success or rejects the efforts of a winemaker. This is a problem.

I’m going to try and address my concerns about wine scoring, and I hope I will be able to voice my objections to the scoring system while at the same time acknowledging the talents of most of the wine reviewers and the usefulness of their notes. Additionally, I acknowledge that I arrived late to the party and maybe I can’t fully appreciate how much the presence of major media publications putting out scores benefited the wine community.

However, the reality is right now the 100-point wine scale is having a major negative impact on wine. There are two major (and powerful) publications when it comes to wine scoring: The Wine Spectator and Robert Parker’s The Wine Advocate. To criticize The Wine Spectator these days has almost become a joke. The Spectator, which relies heavily on advertising dollars, has for years been accused of adjusting scores to reflect the level of marketing dollars it receives from a particular winery or importer. While I am not going to completely discount every single score that appears in the magazine I certainly feel that in many cases wines are unduly praised, while on much rarer occasions wines are punished because of agendas by the magazine. Simply put, I wouldn’t be comfortable putting much faith in the reviews of the Spectator and I feel many of their reviewers put more effort into advancing their own agenda than they do in offering an objective evaluation of the wines in question.

But my real complaint about the Spectator it is of very little use as an actual resource for consumers. A recent “shopping list” insert in a copy of the Spectator focused on White Burgundy and on California Pinot Noir. Now, my numbers might be a bit off here because I don’t have the insert right in front of me, but I’m close enough to get the point across. Of the White Burgundy recommendations, the first eleven were from Montrachet, Chevalier-Montrachet, Batard-Montrachet, or Corton-Charlemagne, and all were at least $150 a bottle. Additionally, finding these wines is a trick itself as production is microscopic and the high demand normally results in most—if not all—of it being sold before it even hits a retailer’s shelf.

What is even more ridiculous is the California Pinot report: as I recall, eight of the first nine wines were from either Kosta Browne or Marcassin. Both of these wines have waiting lists that are years long, and the availability at retailers or even upper-echelon restaurants is very scarce. If you can find one of these wines, you’re sure to be paying a very serious secondary market premium.

Finally, the list did include two “Collectible” recommendations: Chave Hermitage and Chave Hermitage Blanc. Just call your local retailer and tell them you want a couple bottles of each. I’m sure they’ll have no problem accommodating you, and they’ll probably be able to do it for only around $200 a bottle. There is a small section of “Best Buys” which lists wines priced at $20 or less—and strangely enough this section is normally very similar to the full-page adds you find in the magazine.

My point is the Spectator is of little value to the average wine buyer, even the one looking to find $50-$75 bottles. In my admittedly cynical opinion the Spectator’s main purpose is to reinforce the decision a small portion of the wine-buying public has made to purchase certain high-end trophy wines. The reality is not only would I not recommend the Spectator to someone looking to get into wine read, but in fact I would advise them to stay away from it (interestingly enough, the Spectator actually has developed into a pretty good food magazine and the restaurant and chef profiles and reports are normally quite good).

What interests me much more is the Advocate. Free of advertising and universally respected for a commitment to remaining financially independent, the Advocate is the most powerful force in the wine world today. Robert Parker and his team of reviewers release an issue every two months and each one is packed with hundreds of detailed reviews organized by winery. There is little dispute that each issue of the Advocate, which reads like a technical journal, offers a mountain of useful information. In fact, if the scores were left out altogether the Advocate would be the ultimate wine resource.

The problem is the scores, and perhaps more specifically the reviewers opinion of what a wine should be. Despite all the claims by Mr. Parker and his companions, they have a very specific idea about what they like in a wine and by scoring the wines they establish a system where wines not made in the style they prefer are punished and deemed to be of lesser quality. In the explanation of his scoring system that appears on the front page of every Advocate Parker states: “There are specific standards of quality that full-time wine professionals recognize, and there are benchmark wines against which others can be judged.” This may be the case, but Parker owes the readers more information. Specifically, we need to know what those standards of quality are, which wines are the benchmarks, and who has determined these things.

Simply put, Parker defines these as being the qualities and wines he personally fines enjoyable. Specifically this means elevated alcohol, slightly high residual sugar, powerful levels of French oak (especially in red wines), and most importantly massive levels of fruit extraction. In particular it is the level of fruit extraction that ruffles feathers. As Parker’s influence has grown, more and more wines have been tailored specifically to meet his tastes. In response to this, Parker has grown to demand higher and higher levels of fruit extraction, most noticeably evident in his renowned love for the cult California wines. In fact, many people now feel that by increasing the level of extraction you can overcome any other flaws—at least in the mind of Robert Parker.

What has recently raised my interest in this topic is a comment in the most recent issue of the Advocate where Parker offers the following when discussing Edmunds St. John:

I do not believe (owner and winemaker) Steve Edmunds, one of the pioneers of California’s Rhone Ranger movement, has made anything as good over recent years. …there also appears to be a deliberate attempt to make French-styled wines. Of course, California is not France, and therein may suggest the problem. if you want to make French wine, do it in France. Edmunds. St. John’s current releases all possess good aromatics, but… “where’s the beef?”

So it apparent that Parker is penalizing ESJ (Edmunds St. John) for working in a style that is not “correct” for California. But what if the wine still has the “specific standards of quality” required for a top-flight wine? Additionally, and I know I am not the first person to say this, but when will Parker start criticizing the people in Bordeaux who are doing everything they can to make their wines in the California style Parker favors? Perhaps most telling of all is the “where’s the beef?” comment, which more or less sums it all up: not enough fruit.

I’m not arguing that we get rid of everything Parker says. If you’re looking for an over-extracted, slightly out-of-balance fruit bomb then he is a wonderful resource. But if you have different tastes then you are going to be misguided plenty of times, and even if you do share in Parker’s preferences there is the very real possibility you will miss out on plenty of other styles you may enjoy just as much, or maybe even more. Parker is a useful resource—I just think he’s only one point of few and far too powerful.

One potential resolution to this problem would be for Parker to bring in some reviewers who were more interested in qualities other than fruit, such as finesse, balance, elegance, or expression. Unfortunately Parker has never once shown any interest in expanding the viewpoints of his publication or even asking these questions. The Advocate now has several different reviews, but Parker has surrounded himself with people who share his same tastes and reinforce the standing positions of the Advocate. Instead of exploring other viewpoints Parker has decided to insulate himself.

Sadly, there is little reason to think this will ever change. Anecdotally Parker is known for being very defensive and vocal whenever anyone questions his opinions. Simply put he is renowned for dismissing anyone who dares to disagree with his singular perspective. Over the years it has become increasingly clear that Parker believes he has unlocked the mystery of what makes a great wine and anyone who does not utilize his approach or share his opinion is wrong. Ironically, in many ways the opposite is true: Parker’s pallet has been “cracked” so to speak and the formula for making a wine that generates high scores is now well-known, and there are even wine consultants who are hired for the sole purpose of increasing a wine’s score in a publication.

The ideal response would not be to get rid of Parker. The man is very talented and devotes a massive amount of effort to his work. The objective descriptions of wines he offers in his tasting notes are uncannily accurate, and if you read a Parker note and it sounds like something you enjoy you probably will, regardless of the score. We don’t need to get rid of Parker—which just need some others out there to keep him honest.

What does that mean? Well, for starters more people could seek out Steven Tanzer’s publication, The International Wine Cellar. I think it would be great if Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, and Tom Stevenson offered up regular reviews in a similar manner to Parker. Given the problems the Advocate has historically had evaluating Pinot Noir (know why? Because Pinot is a subtle grape that emphasizes complexity and doesn’t normally lend itself to blockbuster extraction), both in California and Burgundy, it would be great to have Clive Coates offer up an annual review of wines from these regions. My personal respect and admiration for Doug Frost means I would love to see him do a regular newsletter. If a variety of independent opinions and perspectives actually existed then the consumers could educate themselves and we would not have to worry about winemakers being penalized for disagreeing with one all-powerful opinion.

Of course, the easiest thing would just be if consumers stopped putting so much stock in the actual rating and started to actually read the reviews and look for the wines that sound appealing to them. Years ago Parker decided to include, and even emphasize, the numeric scores of the wines because it would help sell magazines. It’s too bad a few more people didn’t follow his lead at the time. Right now the Parker numbers are having a negative impact on wine, and I seriously doubt we will ever get rid of them. So the only option I see is to get a few more scores up there fighting with those of the Advocate for the spotlight.