Wine Spectator's Wine Experience 2009

There are some serious perks to working in the wine business. One of them is wrangling a ticket to Wine Spectator's Wine Experience. This is the second year in a row that I have gone to this event, which can really only be described as an orgy of wine. There were people wall to wall BEFORE PEOPLE WHO PAID FOR THEIR TICKETS GOT IN THE DOOR. In addition to this press of people, on one of the floors the air conditioning had stopped working, so it became unbearably uncomfortable and was one of the reasons I left the event. Other reasons had to do with I could not taste anymore and still be able to go to work the next day...

Wine Spectator magazine holds their New York Wine Experience at the Marriott Marque in Times Square. There are 256 wineries that participate in this extravaganza, chosen by the editors of the magazine and asked to show one wine that was scored above 90 points. The list of the wines is much to long to include here, and there was no way for me to taste all of them. So I picked my way through the tasting (which spanned two floors of the Marriott Marque). Almost needless to say, all of these wines are more expensive than the wines I tend to purchase and it is unlikely that I will have the ability to purchase more than one or two of them in the foreseeable future.

WINES TASTED (highest price found online for a single bottle from retailers in New York)

Dom Perignon Brut Cuvee 2000, Champagne, France ($200) - Fresh green apple, yum!

Perrier-Jouet Brut Fleur de Champagne Cuvee Belle Epoque 1999, Champagne, France ($170) - Noticeably rich and bready.

Krug Brut Grande Cuvee NV, Champagne, France ($225) - Absolutely lovely, no wonder it is so sought after. Wonderful Balanced sweetness.

Joseph Drouhin Chassagne-Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche 2006, Burgundy, France ($100) - Smelled rich and round but tasted beautifully refreshing.

Kistler Cuvee Natalie Silver Belt Vineyard Pinot Noir 2007, Sonoma Coast, California ($160) - bright red cherry and easy drinking.

Kosta Brown Pinot Noir 2007, Russian River Valley, California (not yet released, 2006 is $150) - Soft, ripe, and spicy.

Opus One 2006, Napa Valley, California ($200) - Way over the top. Wasn't ready for the power behind this wine.

Almaviva 2006, Puente Alto Maipo Valley, Chile ($100) - needs a steak, immediately!

Chateau Clerc Milon Pauillac 2003, Bordeaux, France ($65) - High on both fruit and structure.

Chateau Mouton Rothschild Pauillac 2005, Bordeaux, France ($1375) - Definitely an impressive wine, but worth the money?

Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauillac 2003, Bordeaux, France ($1650) - I could not fully describe what I tasted here if I had a hundred years to write. Such an amazing wine.

HALL Kathryn Hall Cabernet Sauvignon 2006, Napa Valley, California ($75) - I was lucky enough to receive a sample of this wine before coming to this tasting. I was going to write it up in a future blog post, but it just fit so perfectly with the rest of these amazing wines. When I tasted this wine it was brilliantly smooth, with a beautiful lingering power.

Staglin Cabernet Sauvignon 2006, Rutherford, California ($180) - If you've been reading my blog for a while, you'll remember that in July I visited Staglin Family Vineyards. And you may also remember that I did not have a great experience. When I saw the winery here I knew I had to try the wine, just to be able to say I had tasted it. Honestly, the wine was fabulous. Their was a great balance of fruit and structure, plenty of length and power, with a touch of brightness to show that this wine could make it for the long haul. After tasting it I was almost sadder that I did not get the opportunity to taste the wine on a more personal basis with the owners, but such is life.

Concha y Toro Don Melchor Cabernet Sauvignon 2006, Puente Alto Maipo, Chile ($100) - Certainly a great wine, but comparing it to California Cabernets has made me re-evaluate where it standing in my personal assessment.

Chateau Margaux Margaux 2001, Bordeaux, France ($360) - Stunning.

Chateau Cheval Blanc St.-Emilion 2001, Bordeaux, France ($420) - I wish I could buy a bottle to save for 10 years, or longer.

Bodegas y Vinedos O. Fournier Alfa Crux Malbec 2006, Uco Valley, Argentina ($50) - Rich and ripe.

Bodegas Vega Sicilia Unico Gran Reserva 1999, Ribera del Duero, Spain ($450) - Elegant and tasty! Rich but not overly so.

Ridge Monte Bello 1989, Santa Cruz Mountains, California ($240) - I love old wine. So many thanks to Ridge for pouring a wine from the cellar. Truly a delicious experience. I need to purchase some of their wines pronto.

Joseph Phelps Insignia 2006, Napa Valley, California ($210) - Super structured! Tasty but a little over the top.

Chateau Ducru-Beaucaillou St.-Julien 2006, Bordeaux, France ($230) - Somehow meaty and fruity at the same time.

Montes Alpha M 2005, Santa Cruz, Chile ($85) - A little disapointing because I had tasted this wine before and I loved it. It did not sing to me this time.

Santa Rita Casa Real Cabernet Sauvignon 2005, Maipo Valley, Chile ($80) - An awesome wine! So rich and smooth, with fruit to spare and enough structure to balance.

Now remember that while doing this tasting I was walking around and talking to people I knew and introducing myself to those that I felt it was important to meet. This is only a tiny selection of the amazing wines that were available.

Looking forward to the next time...

As requested, a comment about Wine Spectator

Yesterday WineWonkette added this comment on my post Have you met me?:


Rob: Have any comments on this?
http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wine-spectator-statement.pdf found on twitter


Here is my response:
Thanks for putting this link up here Wonkette!

This is a well thought out statement that Tom Matthews sent, which shows a lot of great work by him and his PR staff (everyone has a PR staff) because he obviously expected the letter to be posted online for the world to see.

I can only speak to my experience with James Molesworth, who covers Chile (the country I represent).

The give and take between wine writers and PR/marketing people such as myself is one that strikes a careful balance, one that I believe is truly necessary.

For instance, everything that Tom Matthews wrote in that letter I find to be accurate in terms of how the magazine reviews wines and how they conduct themselves in relating to the worldwide wine industry (2.5 million readers seems high me, but he would have the numbers in front of him). I have what I consider to be a good relationship with James Molesworth. He travels to Chile roughly once a year to speak with winemakers, check in on new plantings, see what new regions are showing promise and which ones need more time, and to generally cover the news coming out of Chile. Every year I offer any services I can provide that would make his trip easier. If he would let me, I would happily buy his plane ticket, set up the visits for him, set up his hotel arrangements, the works. However, every year he says thanks but no thanks and coordinates the entire trip himself. I would not be doing my job if I did not offer my services, especially for such an influential publication in the wine industry. His publication has enough financial security to allow him to travel to Chile on their dollar; therefore he uses his right to do so.

Consider this however; does every wine writer have that luxury, especially in this economy? Would you as bloggers have as much information about Chile available if Wines of Chile was not here? And this expands into all other country programs, be they Germany, Spain, Bordeaux, Burgundy, Australia, etc.

I could digress to many tangents here but I want to stay on the subject of Wine Spectator. There is one thing that James does come to me for, information that he would not have access to such as overall industry statistics. I have provided him with the facts that Chile is growing in the U.S., more land in Chile is being put under vine every year, and that the hot varieties are Sauvignon Blanc, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Carmenere (with Pinot Noir and Syrah showing healthy gains in the market).

For all other publications, from the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times to Wine Enthusiast and Wine & Spirits we abide by their requests and policies. Each has earned their audiences’ trust, and I think with good reason.

I relate to bloggers in much the same way as I relate to other journalists. Everyone has a right to information and I do my best to distribute the information, giving everyone full access.

I would be interested to hear what you think about the back and forth between PR people such as myself and the universe of media, both print and online. If you have something to say leave a comment below.

A question of points

William Tish (known as Tish), at www.wineforall.com, made a comment on one of my recent posts. The post was about my experience at Total Wine and Tish had a question about what I found more influential, cards that list the number of points that the wine received or the personal notes that were written by the staff.

I started replying to the thread and before I knew it I had a whole blog post written. So instead of just posting it as a comment I thought I would post is as an article and let others see it and respond as they see fit.

Tish’s comment was:

Are you for real about the points? Why do numbers impress you? And if one rating comes from WS and another from RP and another from IWC, doesn't that make you wonder what they ratings they did NOT post were? I have been to Total Wines in several states, and have always been WAY more impressed with the hand-written shelf talkers that consciously avoid ratings.

And now the response:

Hey Tish, thanks for the comment!

I think that's because you have a strong bias against ratings to begin with. I agree that it made me think about what the other publications gave the wines that had ratings tags, or why there weren't ratings on every wine. But they were names I trusted. Perhaps it is the special position I have in the industry, but if Michael Schachner at WE rates a wine or Josh Raynolds from the IWC I have a higher chance of buying that wine because I have tasted wines they have rated and I have agreed with their ratings (for the most part).

And do not get confused between trusting and being impressed. I am not impressed about which wines are rated what, it is simply a matter of trust. I trust wines that have the names of WS, WE, W&S, IWC, WA associated with them. And why shouldn’t I? That is why these publications exist! However, I trust my own taste buds MUCH more!

Which brings me to the point about the staff at the store. I don't know them, and I do know that the main goal of the storeowner and staff is to sell wine. Sure they have the incentive to recommend a good wine so that I come back for another recommendation, but because I have not tasted with them I do not know if I should trust their recommendation.

It would be much different if I visited Total Wine regularly and got to know the staff and taste with them during their free in-store tastings, but since it was a one time visit (and maybe again in the future if I get back there) I trust names I know.

At the end of the day, I did not buy a single wine that I knew was highly rated unless I had already tasted it. I purchased wines from producers I had little experience with or regions that I had not tasted as thoroughly as I had others. I completely ignored the signs left by the staff and made my own choices on whatever criteria my brain came up with that day. I might have been buying with a few articles that I had read in mind, or perhaps a wine by the glass I had at a wine bar that someone had recommended that I found enjoyable. But I still found it comforting to know that there were wines that were rated there.

Everyone is crazy on Argentina

It really is incredible how the everyday drinker latches onto a grape. In the US, Merlot had a good run (with plenty still on the shelves) and gave way to Pinot Noir after Sideways knocked over a few bottles. Now the grape of the moment: Malbec!

Even though I think this is a fad that will one day be replaced by another fad (although it may stick around… when are people going to leave White Zinfandel and Chardonnay?), there is one major difference: Malbec from Argentina is damn tasty.

There is a lot of wine flooding in from Argentina these days. In fact, Argentina is now the fourth largest importer of wine into the US, behind Italy, Australia, and France. However, more than half of that wine is bulk wine.

What is bulk wine? Let’s think about how wine in brought into the U.S. for a moment. When shipping overseas, most producers put their wines on very large tankers. They have to bottle the wines, put the appropriate labels on them (do not get me started on labeling laws), put them in boxes, and then deliver them to the appropriate port where a ship will take the wines on board and drop them off in a port in the U.S. where customs the opens the boxes and looks to make sure all importing laws are being upheld.

Have you ever lifted a box of wine? It is heavy, which adds cost in the shipping. Well, what if you decide to simply put all the wine into large plastic containers and bottle the wine wherever you decide to send it. That would save money on shipping and you can bring more wine in at the same time. The problem is that the wines almost never have the interest and the life that a bottled wine has. You can find bulk wine from every country, especially right now when producers are doing everything they can to keep prices down.

But, I digress. We are talking about the good stuff here and there is not much better than the Bodegas Salentein Reserve Malbec 2006 from the Uco Valley in Mendoza, Argentina. This wine was very good, with a beautiful deep velvety purple color. There was a very nice vibrant freshness in the wine when I stuck my nose in the glass, accented by ripe red fruits. The vibrancy continued in my mouth where I found some cherry, black raspberry and cranberry flavors. Towards the end of the finish there was some nice spicy richness to it.

I looked up what the experts said, and I found that Jay Miller at the Wine Advocate gave this wine an 89. Finally, a wine I can post on the 89 project! Michael Schachner at the Wine Enthusiast gave this wine a 90. Wine Spectator gave this wine a 75. I was confused because I did not think the wine publications posted anything that was given less than an 85. When I saw the notes it looked like the Wine Spectator received a few bad bottles when they were doing their review. A real shame, because I think this is a great wine. On wine-searcher.com I found this wine between $17 and $22.

Recommendations from all sources

When it comes down to it, the best recommendation comes from the person next to you when you are in the wine shop. That is how I came to purchase a bottle of Valduero Crianza 2003 from Ribera del Duero in Spain.

I went into my local wine shop and asked for them to show me a good bottle of wine for a decent price. The guy in the shop, In Vino Veritas handed me this wine and it had a tag on it that noted that the Wine Advocate had rated this wine 92. The sales person really seemed to think this wine was a good one and so I took it. There was little else to recommend the wine over any of the others.

When I got home I went to check out the wine on the other major reviewing sites and I could not find it. I went to the International Wine Cellar, Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast, and Wine & Spirits and I could not find this wine listed. Surely, if one of them had rated the wine as highly as a 92, it must be at least listed in the other publications, right?

Nope. I even took a look at Valduero website and the most recent wine listed is the 1999 Crianza. To be fair, I did find some other vintages of this wine listed and rated, but not with any consistency. However, this leads to the question of was the wine tasted and just not good enough to be rated? Is it possible that one reviewer rated a wine in the 90’s and another did not think it worth even a lowly 85 (usually the lowest a wine can be rated while still having its rating published).

It really shocks me how hard it is to find information about this wine. And this is not the first wine I have tried to look up with such poor results. It seems that even the simplest of ideas, that the winery’s website should be up-to-date with the most recent vintages of the wines (an activity that would at most take a half hour once a year), are simply too much for some of these businesses. With the blogosphere growing at such a rapid pace, and wine blogging becoming a part of this movement, company websites have become an important resource for those that cannot travel around the world to discuss the product with the business/winery.

I popped open the bottled and drank to the health of the clerk. It was an ok wine, I think perhaps a little past its prime. It definitely did not age gracefully. Perhaps when the wine was young, it could have been interesting, but at the moment I tasted it there was little left. The main component was a bit of vanilla and prunes. There was some fruit up front, but I found it to be choked off by new oak flavors.

When all was said and done, I can only blame the staff member at the wine store for the recommendation. Yes there was a 92-point recommendation from the Wine Advocate, but it turned out I didn’t like the wine all that much. There could have been other factors why this wine ended up in my hands. It is possible they had not tasted the wine, or had not tasted it lately. It’s possible that it was a wine they wanted to unload and I was the sap that walked through the door.

The moral of the story? Find a retailer you trust and visit them often. Let them get to know you and your tastes. The stronger the relationship, the better wines that they will steer you towards.

And wineries, please update your websites. It is the simplest thing and will help you greatly in your goal of promoting your wines.