Fuck This Shit

I got a text message from one of my favorite sales people today. He is one of my favorite for the simple reason that his wines are better than most, by far. He was just in the store tasting me on wine last week and they were the best wines I have seen in months. But today instead of just sending me a note telling me of exciting arrivals or better yet his personal favorites, wines he's know for years, estates he's visited again and again, he sent be a brief synopsis of The Wine Advocate's review for one of his Barolos.

Et Tu Michael? This was made all the more unpleasant by the fact that it was my day off and I was in a dark room meditating on the Buddha, as I do every Monday. My prompt reply was that perhaps he should fuck Robert Parker,"and I don't mean that gentle boy-love of two Cubscouts on their first camping trip, but the punishing sex of a prison shower."

He replied that perhaps I was bitter, and that may be, but I've never been called an asshole, not in New York. So I went about my day. When I got home I started to make a stir fry of broccolini, red pepper and shrimp with little thai peppers that I grow right here in the Brickhouse. I have a beautiful bottle of Breton Bourgeuil, but that's not quite right for this particular application. So I dug around in the 'fridge and pulled out a free sample that was given to me in the spirit of kindness and commerce. In that spirit I'm not going to reveal it's name because, Jesus what's the point, swing a dead cat, hit a bottle of shitty wine or some other glorified piece of mediocrity in this world. My point, hopefully is more profound.

That point is this, as I drink this wine I realize that I could write a perfectly relevant, seemingly critical review that nonetheless avoided the fact that the wine just tastes bad.

To Wit;

"This inexpensive little wine delivers Sauvignon Blanc character clearly rooted in the New Zealand style. Pronounced herbaceousnecss up front, rests on dramatic tropical fruit and vibrant acidity. Best with seafood, especially shellfish."-Jim Morrison

Here's another review I found on line of the same wine.

"A refreshing, crisp white that has very good Sauvignon Blanc character. Solid fruit flavours (green apple, citrus and a hint of tropical) with good acidity make it a versatile white for grilled fish and seafood. "

And Finally Parker's whore

"Its not often that we get so excited over a $10 white wine, but this stuff is so good for so little, we really love it. All the flavor and complexity that you would want (gooseberry, minerals, grapefruit, sour apple tang) in a $17+ Sauvignon Blanc for a lot less. A wonderful aperitif, or perfect seafood and salads.

Wine Advocate No notes. Score: 85. —Jay Miller, June 2007. "


Once more, this time with feeling,


This is definitely Sauvignon Blanc, or more accurately someone's idea of Sauvignon Blanc. It has all the elements of Sauvignon Blanc, but those elements are poorly integrated, they rattle around inside the wine like a bunch of doorknobs in a pillowcase. Reminds me of a dinner salad from the 1970's, big hunks of iceberg lettuce and tomatoes that seem to have nothing to do with each other, you technically have a salad, so there is no point arguing with the waiter.

This is a wine of plausible deniability, there is nothing you can point to and complain about, grapefruit, grass, a little tropical fruit, it must be Sauvignon Blanc, and only $10 what a deal. Except it vaguely reminds me of windshield wiper fluid, a combination of soap and a solvent that won't freeze. Has it come to this? Do we continue to embrace the poor shadow of greatness just so that everyone can buy it for $10 ?

Jay Miller are you really "excited"? Do you really "really love it"? Seriously? Just be honest with me. Presumably you've had Sancerre and Pouilly Fume, with that in mind, still excited? Or is it just really great to have another value oriented, volumetric brand, complete with adorable icon, in the portfolio of one of the biggest fine wine importers?

Fuck you for helping to ruin something I love, fuck you for diminishing the world by degrees, for lowering everyone's expectations, for turning the world of wine into a room full of slack-jawed fools blathering over the considered attributes of wines with Doggies, and Horses, and Birds and Bicycles on the labels, wines from fucking nowhere.
-Jim Morrison November 2008

R Wines Boarding Pass Shiraz

Jay Miller, taken from Robert Parker's The Wine Advocate

"The 2005 Shiraz was aged in French and American oak for 12 months. Purple-colored, it is very expressive, with a nose of smoke, spice box, blackberry, and blueberry jam. Layered, supple-textured, sweet, and full-bodied, this seamless, crowd-pleasing wine offers a remarkably long finish for its humble price. Drink this awesome value over the next 6-8 years. The Boarding Pass label is just that, a dead ringer for an airplane boarding pass. According to Dan Philips, it is like going on a trip to Australia without leaving home while the First Class is a luxury upgrade. Aside from the humor, these two wines have more in common with Fed-Ex, delivering the goods right on time. R Wines is a new company founded by importer and marketing genius, Dan Philips, along with co-owner, renowned winemaker, Chris Ringland. 92 PTS "






Stephan Tanzer of The International Wine Cellar reviewing the same wine, sent to me by wine professionals who like Irony

"Inky ruby. Raspberry and blackberry aromas are complemented by cinnamon, nutmeg and vanilla. Sweet dark berry preserve qualities verge on sickly but are firmed by gentle tannins, which barely keep the wine's sweetness in check. Many wine lovers will find this undrinkable. At least one foot here is squarely planted in the critter-label school of cloyingly sweet beverage products that contain alcohol. (The 2005 First Class Shiraz South Australia was cartoonishly confectionary, with off-putting mucoid texture and disturbing persistence. The 2006 Evil Cabernet Sauvignon South Australia smelled and tasted like chocolate-coated asparagus, while the aptly named 2006 Suxx Shiraz South Australia and 2006 "r" Cabernet Sauvignon Barossa Valley both resembled wine.)"

Dialogue with a winemaker

"In spite of the occasional profanity and less-occasional rant (which, come to think of it, may be what a blog is), I find yours interesting, amusing, and very well said and refreshingly well spelled."

Jim
"Rant, yeah well, if you are looking for a reasoned argument, you're talking to the wrong guy. "

"I think that you (what I know) and your blog (what I've read) are very reasonable indeed. It's just forcefully said.
Let's put it this way: We all know there will be R. Parkers and a long list of others who will sell us tripe (fig.) because we're ready to buy. That ain't changing. And what you say about him and about that whole misguided way of reducing the universe-to-be-discovered by elevating a few crappy nadas (100 points!) is so true. What you say against that reduction is interesting, but the light really comes on when you argue for a richer, more positive view - your view.
I certainly intended no affront by using the "r" word."

Jim
"I try to do a little of that in the Nutmeg piece and the 2006 Burgundy preview, but seriously no one cares. However, there is a lot of pent-up anger toward R.P. , yet few, very few people are in a position to criticize him. I am the only person I know able and willing to say that he doesn't know what he's doing. I spent hours researching, looking for one piece of criticism published about Parker. I found nothing. "

"Interesting. I assumed there was a whole world of winemakers who truly didn't care what R.P. said. I generally believe monoliths point the way to their own demise, but I guess that's not true here. I'll keep reading."

Jim
"The point is that there are many winemakers who disagree with him, but no one willing to publicly criticize him. The people who make, import, distribute and retail wine are not in a position to bite the hand that feeds them. And Monoliths may point the way to their own demise, yet men like this can do much damage. There are now two or three generations of winemakers and wine drinkers laboring under the hegemony of Parker. How many generations does it take to lose a tradition? How fast does a culture die? "

Wines You Can't Drink

In this month's Wine Spectator Matt Kramer has a article that got me thinking. I've always sort of liked Kramer, simply because he is the most reasonable of what I consider an unreasonable and ludicrous bunch, the wine press. He has real insight, although he seldom takes the argument all the way and I can't tell if it's because Marvin Shanken signs his paycheck or if he is quite literally a half-wit.

This month he writes that the 21st century world of wine will be divided into the wines we taste and the wines we drink. Even a generation ago First Growth Bordeaux and Grand Cru Burgundy were affordable enough to be consumed if not everyday, at least routinely. Now even those of us who work in the industry are lucky if we drink wine like that a few times a year, while the average wine lover may never taste a bottle of Haut Brion or Montrachet, and if they do it will be nothing more than a taste. Kramer writes that this tasting in place of actual drinking is a virtual wine experience, a virtual relationship with wine. I agree with him wholeheartedly as far as he goes, but then I got thinkin'. While it's sad that much of the great wine of the world has been relegated to the fringe of our drinking experience because of price, isn't it just as sad that much of the wine in the world was never MADE to be drunk, it was made only to be tasted.

Many times I've been to a friend's house for dinner and with great ceremony they show their hospitality by opening one of the stars of new wine, Numanthia, Quilceda Creek, Shafer Hillside, Kosta Browne etc, and my first thought is, "how the hell am I going to get through that?" Drinking those wines, actually drinking them is like marching through a swamp in heavy boots, a sticky exhausting affair. God forbid some poor chef has made great food only to have their work undone by the heavy hand of Chris Ringland, it's embarrassing. That is not to say that those wines don't deserve the scores that they get.

However, the 100 point score should be qualified with a disclaimer "100 points, this wine is an absolute marvel, it shows best when consumed in a single sip while standing on a loud synthetic carpet in a over-lit hotel banquet room. Ill-suited for food, the wine is both ponderous and awkward at the dinner table. Will contradict most cuisines and be undone by anything less inert than water."

In other words the wine has been created, from over-ripening in the vineyard, to over-extraction and over-oaking in the winery, to do nothing but garner scores from people who are not actually drinking them. This my friends is a problem.

One of these two men is a psychopath

I just watched Mondovino, I laughed, I cried, I made death threats. The interviews with Robert Parker... This! This is the man we are all listening to? I mean look at that haircut, holy shit. And then they cut away to the old picture of him with more hair and it's worse! Jesus Christ, dude go to a salon, they're called hair products. Parker's proclaimed preference for young wine (even first growths?) is not surprising given his love of Californian wine, I just can't believe that he admits to it on camera, such is his arrogance. He says he loves the vibrancy, he says, "The older I get, the younger I like them," with a wink and a nod, and certain sexual implications, but I don't think he would know good wine or pussy if he saw it. Could it be that maybe his palate, that million dollar palate is just dying?

To say you like the vibrancy of a young Staglin over the fractal complexity of an old Bordeaux, or Chateauneuf or Burgundy is like saying Led Zeppelin is better than Mozart, it's more vibrant. Thing is I don't think Parker ever discovered Mozart. And I don't think his mind or palate can really grasp the nuances of an old, terroir driven wine. I think he will always take flash and beauty over truth and culture. That just makes him a fool. What makes him dangerous is that so many people follow suit and believe that a bottle of Screaming Eagle is the pinnacle of the wine world. Equally tragic is his insistence on seeing himself as an agent of the "democratization" of wine. Yet the fruits of his labor, the globalization of wine and the hegemony of aesthetic , have only served to strengthen the position of wealthy wine aristocracy like the Frescobalis and the Rothschilds.

And James Suckling (has ever a man had a more appropriate last name), what can I say, another self-absorbed, self-centered, self-congratulatory baby boomer. The idea that there is anything cultural or historic in the world that he is not aware of is absurd to him. He is just another post war T.V. baby (I wonder if he watched Daniel Boon and had a coon skin cap?) , largely ill-equipped to understand the scope of what he writes about . For Suckling, culture is a flower whose beauty is only manifest upon his perception of it. If this were a Greek tragedy we would simply have to wait for an angry god to strike them dead for their hubris. Unfortunately, this isn't Euripides, this is the fucking wine business.