[Unoaked Chardonnay vs. Riesling]

Most white Burgundy is "oaked" chardonnay.

Maybe someone should tell them to switch to stainless steel and ride the wave!

[The Act of Description]

I have no problem with someone saying they like or dislike a wine and describing what they taste in support. We do it all the time. However, adding some sort of score to this is just awful. You make this point well in the analogy with students lacking the discipline and knowledge attempt to go beyond "I like" or "I don't like" and quantifying their observations about jams and jellies.

The sample wine note you use is a good example of a note that makes no sense. For eg there is little support for the conclusion that the wine is question is more like a port. "Raisin prune and over ripe are not flavors/notes one finds in "Port." Noting the alcohol level is confusing as I don't know whether or not the taster actually sensed the higher alcohol level or read it on the label. (obviously he/she read it on the label as no one can determine via blind tasting the actual amount of alcohol in degrees or per cent in a wine). To this confusion, adding a score derived by some unknown (to the reader at least) is ludicrous.

Your point about initial impressions is interesting to consider. Most people rely on their initial impressions and do not think much about these impressions. I have found that when people do not like a wine they will not change their mind under any circumstances. There seems to be a piece of conventional wisdom that the opposite is true.

I must say, I do not get Gladwell's point with the jam test other than it seems to indicate amateurs often struggle with reconciling the subjective preference and more objective evaluative processes as well as being able to support/defend their impressions. This brings me back to my point about wine tasting notes and evaluation and scores.

I don't know anyone who has an initial impression of a wine then attempts to support those impressions and revises his or her final evaluation out of frustration.

The sample note you provide doesn't support this because it is so poorly written that it makes no sense.

The truth is, when most people taste wine they have an initial impression and that's what they go with--some people are a bit more contemplative and form their impression more slowly. They are rarely challenged to support their impression.

Beyond good-- better-- best, most people don't attempt to apply a score to a wine.

Gladwell's experiment is, to me, not indicative of how people in real life situations act. Unless I am missing something (wouldn't be the first time).

Your analogy to tasting notes and scores also doesn't seem to work for me because the person who posted the note was clearly intent on what he or she was doing, the jelly taster students were clearly not possessing of any intent that they were evaluating jelly in the role of professional taster.

All I am saying is that people should not attempt to evaluate wines and certainly score them in a professional manner or even argue with professional notes or scoring systems until they at least have a rudimentary knowledge of what's involved.

And again, I have no problem with anyone saying they like or dislike a wine (or anything) and supporting it with their impressions. In the context of general discussion this is more than fine. In the context of trying to convince me that the wine in question should be tasted by me (or others) and worse--purchased, acting as an arbitor of taste putting themselves on the same level or in the same arena as professional tasters, then I have to challenge them.(I usually ignore them).

Believe me, I have plenty of complaints about the professionals but adding these amateurs into the mix is just too much!!

Finally, if your point is that people can fool themselves or be fooled by scoring/scores, I disagree here as well. There are a few exceptions, but people will simply not drink wine they do not personally like regardless of any outside influence. There is a difference between trying wines to find something one likes and attempting to evaluate a wine and covey one's impressions to others.

In the note you provide the taster likes the wine and says so. They obviously do not have the skills or vocabulary to support that impression and trying to score the wine adds to the confusion.

In short--they are not confused--it is all the rest of us reading the note.

[Media Shy Winemakers]

Mary,

Unfortunately, Dover Canyon wines are not easily found here on the East Coast. I'd love to try em. I was in Monterey and Los Gatos last week and picked up a Paso Robles winery brochure. I am amazed at how many wineries I have never heard of or are not distributed much here, though not unexpected with small artisinal producers.

You were a bit too far south for a side trip!

Maybe Dan's traits are part of what enable him to be such a good wine maker. Probably, rather than formal power point presentations or stand up schtick, it's best just to have him kind of mingle or hang out at tastings or events once in a while, where he can be conversational and more relaxed.

I think, in the end, nothing speaks so well as the wines themselves. If the wines are good then just getting people to try them is more than enough. I am a huge believer in word of mouth (word of "palate??) --especially with wine. (something tells me you are well aware of this).

[The Act of Description]

I have said this before and I'll.....

Tasting wine and evaluating it is a science and an art. Unfortunately, too many people play up the art part and ignore the science. That is, it is far easier to take a purely subjective approach.

The problem is compounded when the taster operating on a purely subjective level then attempts to apply a score to the wine. In the end, none of it (the note or the score) makes any sense.

Any worthwhile scoring system is a system, it demands a level of objective observation to have any value as a communicative tool and most importantly, scores are a summation reflecting the observations and impressions of the taster.

If this were not true, then technically correct wines would always have higher scores--they in fact, do not.

The analogy to jam tasting doesn't work for me. I have no idea what professional tasters are or do regarding jelly. I do know that wines need to be tasted and evaluated blind thus removing the impact/influence a label or knowledge of a wine's provenance may have on the taster.

Anyone who knows what they are doing while tasting wine for the purpose of evaluating it and communicating that evaluation to others will not "lose track of their initial impressions and become mired in justifications." Their notes and their scores (if any) will reflect this.

I will say that, as Mary notes, these awful notes (and scores) are rife on the internet.

Lord knows, there are plenty of places where professional tasters evaluate wine from the critics, Parker, Robinson, Burghound et al to the magazines, Wine Spectator, Decanter etc etc etc why anyone would need additional input from often vague sources who offer what are clearly poorly written notes and confusing scores is beyond me.

Before writing their own notes and scoring wines let alone criticize professionals. People should learn what tasting and evaluating wine is all about and how scoring systems should work. Ya'd think?!!

[Media Shy Winemakers]

Most wine makers are employees. They are hired and fired at the pleasure of negociants, winery owners/management etc.

In turn, many wine makers move around at their pleasure, from winery to winery.

(I heard this on my recent trip to the Santa Cruz Mountains)

I doubt that most wine makers would agree that their job description includes selling the wine (I would guess that most would probably ask for a salary increase or maybe a piece of the action from their employer to take on this additional task).

The wine maker's name rarely appears on a bottle of wine.

Wine is first and foremost a business. The public is fed a steady stream of romance from wine writers and the industry itself. The same folks who tell you that wine is just a simple drink to accompany your food will turn around and proclaim it "art in a bottle." Whatever view that convinces you to buy a bottle or preferably a case!

I don't know of any wine maker or winery that is making wine for the love and giving it away!

That said, wine is a magical drink. There are many passionate people who make and sell it. My guess is that the wine makers who are glad to take on the role Mary indicates in her initial post are also owners of the or have a piece of the action in the wine making operation. Even so, wine making is a fairly intensive business and I doubt there is much time for wine makers to travel about selling their wine and talking about their jobs.

Many passionate wine makers are really consultants. Michel Rolland et al consult for many wineries all over the world. Helen Turley makes wine (or oversees the making of the wine) for a number of wineries. These folks certainly do not have much time to

promote their work and I doubt that the wineries they consult for would want them to. Egos aside there are ethics involved! I bet there are very few Chateau owners in Bordeaux who want their wine makers to be out taking credit for their work. In fact, I doubt, many wine lovers could even name the wine makers for the various chateau or Domains in France (or really anywhere).

I have been to many a tasting where a winery owner or a negociant or an importer will "bring along" the wine maker who invariably is a rather soft spoken humble person who is clearly along to support the main attraction.

As an example one of the most charismatic and engaging people in the wine world is Michael Twelftree who is a relentless promoter of wine, Australian wines, and specifically his wines, and not necessarily in that order! I attended a tasting led by Michael who brought along his wine maker, a young quiet chap who seemed to respond only to direct questions from Michael (or the audience). It was Michael who was the empresario!

As a final note. In my experience, one has to take with a large grain of salt anything a wine maker (or empresario) tells you. Especially about their own wines. And really, would we expect a grand parent to admit that a grand child may not be all that talented or beautiful. Likewise, is the President of Sony going to admit that their current line of TV's is not up to snuff?

Mary, If you really want that wine maker of yours to get out there and represent the brand, why not make him or her a part owner and put their name on the label (in the front). That should do the trick!

[Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy]

Agreed Doc.

Little Italy in Manhattan once had around 70,000 inhabitants of Italian extraction in the twenties. The current figure is around 5,000.

No wonder the restaurant/food scene is fading.

I would imagine that the first wave of immigrants came from Southern Italy which would account for the proliferation of restaurants serving Neopolitan cuisine.

This would also account for the fact that most Americans at one time were most likely to be exposed to this cuisine. As best as I can recall other Italian cuisines came later or seemed to.

The Arthur Avenue neighborhood is still thriving but it is not what it once was as it is probably experiencing the same dynamic that the Manhattan Little Italy is going through.

I wonder how long it will be until all that is left is a plaque.

[The history of the straw-wrapped Chianti bottle]

fiasc comes from fiasco and according to Wikipedia stems from mistakes in glass blowing wherein the bottle was short and squat etc.

[Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy]

This is starting to veer off topic but I would say that you are not looking at the whole picture. The studies to which you refer, I believe deal with patterns of movement after initial immigration.

You also use the term "segregated neighborhoods."

Racism plays a role in restricting choices and opportunity. Let's not blow it way out of proportion though. The fact remains that a primary reason Little Italy's are disappearing is a lack of influx of poor Italians combined with a movement of Italian Americans from poorer "enclaves" to wealthier areas. Interestingly there are wealthier enclaves of Italians in Westchester and Long Island proving my point that people poor or rich and in between tend to migrate to places where there are others like them.

The race issue doesn't play well here either--there happen to be neighborhoods in the suburbs that are mostly populated by African Americans--New Rochelle for example--who are wealthy.

It is far too simple to say that ghettos or ethnic neighborhoods in America are the result of the factors that created European ghettos such as those prior to WWII.

I also believe you are really talking about red lining which is a real estate practice motivated not so much by racism as greed. You also seem to be confusing segregation as a major reason for ethnic neighborhoods. these neighborhoods exist due to many reasons--this is a complex issue--in most cases not as a result of some sort of forced segregation.

For example there are neighborhoods in Manhattan populated by people who have come from the same town in the Dominican republic.

Even using the term "colonization" in the context of this discussion is hugely off base and just plain wrong.

[Media Shy Winemakers]

there's a difference (I think)--Gina Gallo has the family name and was likely brought up in a manner to be an ambassador for the family and the brand.

Few wine makers experience this.

some of the most engaging folks I have met are:

Bob Foley

(maybe if your name is on the label there's more to it than just making the wine! though he got his real start at Pride)

This guy is a wine maker--degrees in both enology and viticulture from Davis. Also possess a real California kind of attitude--a kind of wine dude if you will. Laid back erudite knowledgeable and funny.

Olivier (Zind) Humbrecht

became a MW taking the test in a language other than his native tongue

This guy. like Foley, knows grape farming and wine making. If ever there was anyone capable of talking about terroir in a manner that makes sense it is him!

[The thickness of a slice]

Most deli's don't know how to construct a good sandwich let alone slice the meat and cheese to the proper thickness.

One area is in layering the items. All too often cheese is placed on top of or under tomato slices. The acid in the tomato actually starts to melt the cheese.

meats and cheeses need to be layered in order and there needs to be some "air" in sandwiches.

FG is correct--too often cheese is sliced way too thick or too many thin slices are layered on top of one another which meld together into a too thick slice.

Stronger meats like assertive salumi need to be sliced thinner and more "blander"meats like baloney or less assertive salumi a bit thicker.

[Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy]

huh?

we weren't talking about Arthur Avenue.

there are no Italians left in Little Italy/NoLIta/Chinatown...except for a few senior citizens.

the largest blocs of residents today in NoLIta are Europeans and Australians....and none of them are over 40.  people who live there flee the festival.  what are you talking about?

edit: there's a reason why the neighborhood has asked for the festival license to be revoked.  no one local wants it there (and it's really bad for the local businesses).

←

That is my point.

In recent years these festivals in Manhattan and the Bronx were attended by locals as well as tourists (who were there because of the locals).

Manhattan's Little Italy has been dying slowly over the years as there were fewer and fewer locals who were Italian and more and more tourists. In the end when the tourists realize there are few locals who are italian it will be over.

[Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy]

I think that part of the explanation of what's going on lies in how these neighborhoods were formed in the first place.  "Ethnic enclaves" don't just happen because similar people choose to move to the same neighborhood. Some of that happens, yes, but there has historically been a whole lot of racial steering involved which limits where people can live, who can buy property at all, and where.  I would guess that NY Italians are a lot less less ghettoized than they were in the past and have a lot more options of where to live and what they can do.  This is not the case with every immigrant group, and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Italian immigrants (like other European immigrant groups) are now commonly considered to be "white." They weren't always, and their ghettozation reflected it.  So, sure, Chinatown might be considered to be a more successful neighborhood by having better and more authentic restaraunts, but there's a price for that.

←

People tend to live where they feel comfortable and in the case of most ethnic enclaves which are populated by people immigrating from another country where friends and family are already settled.

In many cases new arrivals have no sense of their new country other than where fellow immigrants have settled. Most of these people are poor regardless of their racial make up and don't have the resources, language mastery or the economic sufficiency to live anywhere other than these so called enclaves. the Chinatowns and Little Italy's are really support groups.

Interestingly, there are "enclaves" of Asian Americans in wealthy areas like Scarsdale and Englewood, consisting of highly skilled wealthy people who either got started in less wealthy enclaves like Chinatown and improved their skills and education or arrived with these skills from their countries of origin. these people could afford to live anywhere but choose to live where they do but gravitate towards others in their socio economic and racial group.

So, these neighborhoods need replenishment as their inhabitants obtain skills and money to move out of them. There is no longer an influx of poor immigrants from Italy to replace the populations that have moved out. Keep in mind, the fact that immigration is also driven by conditions in the countries of origin. The great famines drove many of the first wave of Irish immigrants for eg. Poverty and oppression in the country of origin are probably the most critical factors.

[Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy]

We are now talking about neighborhoods as defined by geography.

not ethnicity.

Because people change more readily than buildings and streets, in the end, geography usually prevails.

[Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy]

I beg to differ--the feasts are well attended by the locals!

When I lived in Arthur Avenue neighborhood--we all made a point to go to the feast!

I recall my friend Fat Tommy and I hitting every sausage and pepper stand one fateful friday nite!!!

My point is that the ethnic populations of the neighborhoods are declining or are changing. I would venture that tourist visits are down as well. There has been an influx of Albanians and Hispanics into the Arthur Avenue area and a lot of the Italians have moved out to the suburbs. When the sons and daughters go to college and grow up they tend to move out of the "neighborhood."

so life in the city goes......

[Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy]

I think the problem is that these neighborhoods were just that "neighborhoods" that drew people from outside the neighborhood because of more than just food.

(food is a very important part of it).

When thriving these neighborhoods had markets and restaurants that the people in the neighborhood frequented. Yes some places in competition for the business played up things to attract "tourists" but still the real draw was the neighborhood as a larger entity. Little Italy represents a kind of foreign place within a domestic setting. Same for Chinatowns all over America.

It is cultural, historical, architectural, aspects that are the draw. Movies were made in these neighborhoods (more draw). The people living in them are still holding on to their ethnicity and this can be attractive to people as a different experience than they have in their daily lives.

Contrast these ethnic neighborhoods with their inherent authenticity with Disney or Epcot where these experiences are created out of whole cloth.

Unfortunately, as neighborhoods change and evolve, we may eventually be left with Disney or Epcot.

Fortunately, as these neighborhoods change and evolve, new neighborhoods are created and the cycle goes on.

I believe this issue was ands is always about much more than food. The most authentic Thai food (at least as far as I can ascertain with my limited experience) I ever had was in a tiny storefront place in a strip mall in Mechanicsberg PA.

Good authentic cusines from all over the world are out there but the experiences of enclaves or neighborhoods are another thing all together.

[Grass fed beef vs grain fed]

No!

FG is correct about how the press is handling these issues. The Times recently had a piece on ethically produced veal. The requisite taste test accompanying the piece was interesting in how the author (tasters) were straining to "like" this stuff and remain journalistically "ethical."

Gee a clash of ethics! Resulting in an ethical dilemma!!!

"I know this meat is produced ethically and my article should promote good cause but Damn--this stuff is so chewy and not that great tasting--but I gotta be honest--I am a journalist after all and...."

Same case with the free range beef.

Same case with free range chicken.

Same case with.......

Enough already!

Ethics are endlessly debatable. Aside from the golden rule I don't see much agreement.

It seems who controls the debate is whose ethics are being forced down our throats (the foie gras issue comes to mind--actually it has been sticking in my craw!)

To bring this back to my original beef:

How about we produce meat that tastes good to most people. How about we let the market place speak. I am all for diversity in food choices. I do not like other people forcing their ethics on the market place.

So, folks like Pollan are fine--we can read them and make our own decisions.

We should have plenty of choices.

I choose good ole Iowa corn fed prime beef (actually I don't care where they grow the cows) --plenty of fat (fat tastes good--can we stop promoting the notion that a fat free cup cake is just as good as...)

If people will keep their ethical little hands off my steak then I promise not to meddle with their grass fed meat (or whatever). Those are my ethics--freedom of choice!

We can all be happy!

[Shame, shame, shame: shame on Little Italy]

IMOP, people who are still on the "bridge and tunnel" kick haven't been to dinner outside Manhattan.

New Jersey, Westchester and LI (not to speak of the boroughs) are loaded with some pretty fine ethnic dining of their own.

Which brings me to the point made earlier here that the problem at hand is due to the Italians leaving the "neighborhood." For the suburbs--=possibly?!

I lived in Little Italy in the Bronx for many years and I can say that the heyday for that neighborhood has long passed. It is declining a considerable bit more slowly than Manhattan but it is not what it was. (is any place?)

Same for good Jewish deli food in the city. At one time not too long ago there were good deli's all over New York (and a few very good to great ones).

[Media Shy Winemakers]

In my experience, most wine makers are not glamorous at all. Domestic or foreign!

Who are these jet setters you reference?

Most of the promotion seems to be from winery owners or negociants or importers.

My guess is that wine making is difficult work and requires a lot of attention--few wine makers would seem to have much time to be traveling around doing PR work.

[Monster Cabernets]

It is difficult to analytically compare two wines that are so different. The Malescot is not really a "cabernet" being a blend with a healthy dose of merlot. Also comparing an older wine to a much younger wine is a dicy proposition at best.

However for pure drinking pleasure--this sounds like a really fun evening!

Interestingly, you note that the Bond (tasted blind) could have been French. It would be fun to compare it to an equally young Bordeaux (with a higher cabernet presence in the blend).

Unfortunately, these so called California "cult" wines are often lumped into a stereotypical profile/category with the intent to slight them. In fact, they can be complex, nuanced, earthy and balanced. (just like fine Bordeaux).

by the way, the beef looks absolutely magnificent!

[Terroir]

Thanks Mary for that cogent summation.  I have the impression that not just "terroir" but terroir controversy is perceived differently by different folks.

My perception of French terroir view comes mostly from informal contact with winemakers in only one region (Burgundy).  Its vineyards have been cultivated for an interval in the low thousands of years, sometimes by the same family for several hundred years.  These people express devotion and humility, likening themselves (repeatedly) to midwives.  In earlier times they might have said "God makes the wines, we just try to clear the way."  Obsessively they fine-tune their cultivation of grapes matched to the land over centuries [1].  History, and perpetual optimization on small land plots, surely contribute to the sense of "place" there which (FWIW) I hear in terms much like yours: "comparing wines only a few miles, or even feet apart."

Allow me to interject a bit of cynicism here. "God makes the wines..."

Really, then one would think these humble servants would abhor the widespread practice of chaptalization! After all, God would probably frown upon someone "sweetening" up his (or her) grape juice for the purpose of making a profit!!! 

How about adding a "touch" of wine from Algeria or Italy?

These folks are also not beyond over cropping that precious soil, requiring government intervention regarding yields etc.

If Mark were here, he (rather than we) could elucidate his brief comment.  It reminded me not of what might be wrong with it, but of expert comments that aren't very controversial and could have underlain it.  Bob Thompson examined California vintage history (what's wrong and right in the old industry slogan "every year is a vintage year" there).  First citing glaring exceptions, he then mentioned "a climate that ripens grapes for winemaking more reliably than in any part of Europe, including such sheltered districts as Italy's Piedmont, or France's Rhone."  Maynard Amerine (hardly hostile to California wine!) punctuated a comparison of old- and new-world growing zones with comments like "Hail is rare in California" and "winter killing of vines is not a problem."  30 years of reading such comments instills sympathy for others consistent with them.

... I sometimes get phone calls from people who say, "Yes, I'd like to fly into Los Angeles in the morning, visit a few wineries in Santa Barbara, then stop by your place in Paso Robles, and finish with a few stops in Monterey before heading up to Napa." When I explain that they are looking at a 12-hour drive without stops I hear a gasp.

Ain't it the truth. Growing up in California (and long appreciating its wines) but living also in other parts of US I am used to distant people projecting, say, New England geography intuition onto a much larger state. Los Angeles and San Francisco are separated roughly like Boston and Baltimore, yet some people suppose them suburbs of each other.

[1] "In Europe, a region and a grape variety are substantially synonymous." -- Bob Thompson.

←

We know that the amount of stress on vines produces better quality wines. I believe that people trying to make a political point often like to compare the best of the old world in counterpoint to the worst of the new world (and vice verse).

Bulk wines made in the fertile soils of California's very hot growing regions are better compared to bulk wines made in the old world, not fine Burgundies.

If one visits the better vineyards in California, one will see vines just as stressed as any in the old world. "Pampered?" by whom? Certainly not nature. try climbing (even with the help of an automobile) the vineyards of Howell Mountain or Chalone or Mt Eden or maybe where Flowers grow their grapes. these are not locations where grapes are "pampered."

Taste a cabernet from the Rutherford bench vs one from the Santa Cruz mountains (or Howell Mt)

and of course one will taste the results of terroir.

Climate is an issue. In Burgundy the wine makers have to battle the fact that often the weather creates less than optimum ripening. In many other places (California) where the weather is not as extreme, wine makers battle grapes that often achieve ripeness too soon.

But this is not an "old world" vs "new world argument. many of these problems are shared by wine makers in Italy and Spain. Why not compare wines from France (Burgundy or Bordeaux) with wines from Spain or Southern Italy? Or even Southern France where a sea of insipid wine is produced? (just as insipid as the bilk wine produced in California--proving just about every country is capable of producing insipid wine!).

The whole "new world" vs "old world" debate in an attempt to make a political case one way or the other is IMOP, tired and never had much validity. I suggest we start looking at warm climate wines vs cooler climate wines. Most everyone would agree that there is a difference no matter which world the wines come from.

[Terroir]

"Pampered"???

By whom? By mother nature?

I think that the concept of terroir is a valid one. Ithink it has been misused and confused.

First, to say that some wines express it and others do not is just wrong.

California has no terroir? Ridiculous. Even if the grapes in California were grown hydroponically there would be terroir.

I recall an interesting quote from a noted grower/wine maker (I believe it was Tom Rocchioli) who noted that he could make a better pinot noir by blending wines made from grapes of his various vineyards but he could charge more for a wine made from a single vineyard--many in the market believing that wines from a single vineyard were somehow better than a wine that carried no such designation.

I believe that the French have had a great impact on how the rest of the world "sees" wine. There are many benefits form this view but also a downside.

terroir has been oversold and twisted to be things that it is not.

Interestingly, with all the terroir talk, the most interesting thing to emerge from blind tastings like the famous 1976 event--IMOP--is that all the proponents of terroir had quite a bit if difficulty in discerning the terroir of wines from grapes grown thousands of miles apart.

It's time to start putting terroir into proper perspective.

[Minerality why it's not on the wheel]

The question is: what exactly were you tasting?

It is highly doubtful that you were tasting minerals.

The seashell component to the soil has more impact on the wine due to water drainage/retention than any specific flavors in the wine.

The main point is you enjoyed the wine!

[Minerality why it's not on the wheel]

White wines that are high in acidity and low in alcohol often have a tanginess or flintiness or "mineral" quality.

I would say in most cases--"minerality" tasted in a wine has little or nothing to do with actual minerals.

[Terroir]

I think the real problem comes in when people try to take a very complex subject and simplify it.

For eg--we often hear about minerality and fruit driven. Usually someone is trying to make a point about terroir.

It is a fact that especially in white wines, high acid and low alcohol results in a sort of "tanginess." --minerality.

In fact, what the taster is experiencing is not the taste of minerals but rather the result of how and to what degree the grapes ripened.

Now a high alcohol low acid wine with tropical fruit flavors is often described as fruit driven.

I would argue, both wines are equally fruit driven and equally expressive of their terroir. The answer is--climate. Mineral like flavors not flavors from minerals.

Wine is comprised of myriad chemical compounds that mimic flavors we can perceive in the wine. bell pepper does not come from actual bell peppers but from chemicals that result in the wine. The way and degree to which grapes ripen has more impact on what we taste than the transference of actual flavors from rocks, dirt, minerals whatever. Soil impacts water retention and drainage most--also very important.

So terroir exists--it has to. Unfortunately, it is often used in service of some silly argument about Old World or New World styles (say isn't the terroir of places in Spain and Southern Italy more akin to the climate in Napa than the Loire?)

Worse, terroir is often used to justify some poor wine making or high prices.

So when I hear fruit driven or terroir driven I accept that the person using the term is attempting to describe the wine's style and what they taste in the wine. I know they are both terroir and fruit driven!

By the way--I am still trying to figure out how saddle leather notes get into wine--I have sniffed a saddle (don't ask it's completely innocent) but I have never tasted one (and don't plan to). wait--wine sometimes evokes a sense of saddle leather! Those pesky chemical compounds! They not only mimic things we can taste but smells as well!!! (I never really believed somehow saddles were being used in vats by wine makers!

Say there are oak chips to add complexity on the cheap. How about using old saddles all shredded up and....

Wallah! Your crappy two buck Rhone Ranger will have the complexity of ....

[French Propose Bans on Oak Chips as U.S. Wineries]

This is somewhat confusing and a bit misleading.

The French are "continuing" their ban on the use of oak alternatives in AOC wines.

No big deal here. The French have an AC system that regulates not only where and what grapes can be grown but also wine making techniques.

This affirmation of the current regulations is in response to the EU which is also attempting to regulate wine and wine making in Europe.

Adding in the point about the US situation is IMOP just adding unnecessary confusion to the issue. Most makers of fine wines (really anywhere in the world) are not using oak alternatives. The size of the winery in the US has little to do with this issue. Use of new (or old) oak in wine making has many purposes other than just "flavoring" a wine.

Many people do like the flavors that oak imparts in a wine so makers of cheap and or bulk wines who do not want the expense of using oak barrels will often seek to add oak flavor to their inexpensive wines.

Basically this piece does a fine job of alerting us that the status quo remains...well...the status quo!

The article in Wine Business Monthly is most likely the result of a slow news period!