Echezeaux

Here's a link to a NY Times news-service subscribing paper: http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4033979.html No account required.

I can believe the statement regarding working for Chateau St. Jean in the 1970s. The winery was a beautfiul new facility in the Sonoma Valley. The initial releases of white wines put them on the map quickly. Rieslings and Gewurztraminers were exceptional, putting them alongside other "boutique" hotshots such as Lyncrest and Veedercrest Vineyards. The single vineyard Chardonnays were also compelling wines, St. Jean making a large range of single vineyard bottlings. They had an enologist, whom they'll billed as their "wine master," named Dick Arrowood. He had been hired away from Mr. & Mrs. Strong's winery over in Windsor, a place called Sonoma Vineyards. Now Simi was not much of a source of interesting wine back then, though it was a facility in a state of flux. Russ Green had purchased the winery, though the 80 year old Isabelle Simi Haigh still worked there. The winery began making somewhat more interesting wines, with a fellow named Robert Stemmler as the winemaker. He never really produced much of significant quality. The winery only became moderately respected with the arrival of former Mondavi enologist, Zelma Long, but that was some years later. And, as they say, the rest is history. Or herstory.

As one participant here pointed out, there's a lot of poor quality wine sold bearing the DOC and DOCG designations. These are supposedly more about controlling that wines actually are made from grapes grown in a particular "denominazione" and made of grape varieties approved for that designation. However, there is a great temptation to ameliorate one's wine with something perhaps stronger, darker in color, etc. And the government bureaucrats sat idly by when there was a big "to do" when some prominent Italian wine critics spotlighted the practice of "ameliorating" Barbaresco and Barolo wines with Barbera. Who's regulating the wines making their way to the US market which have got to be frauds??? I am thinking of a Barbaresco and an Amarone being sold at a chain of retail stores of those denominazione for $9.99 a bottle. Neither one tastes of its appellation.

I participated in a blind-tasting of Tuscan reds the other night; wines based on Sangiovese. One person, at the start of the tasting, asked the host "Are these Super-Tuscans?" To which he replied, "I don't know yet. But we will find out how Super they are in about an hour!" As for the "Fili di Seta," I suppose those silk threads turned back into a sow's ear! I've often thought of the Sassetti wines not as "Pertimali" but often as "Purty Mali." Many Italian barrique-aged wines are short-lived, though they often appear, in their youth, as though they have cellaring potential.

1. Which winemakers have a need for "concrete" shoes, I wonder???? 2. More seriously...the DOC, DOCG and IGT laws are lovely, but when producers skirt the laws with various curious practices (blending non-approved varieties into DOC, DOCG wines, per esempio), what's the difference what the "law" says if nobody audits or regulates the wineries? And not to pick on the Italians, because there are shenanigans in other countries, too, of course.

CHARLES HEIDSIECK (Mis en Cave) H. BILLIOT (non vintage is very fine and so is the 1996 Vintage) AGRAPART (non vintage and 1996 vintage Brut) ROGER POUILLON "Fleur de Mareuil" RUELLE-PERTOIS 1996 Grand Cru RENE GEOFFROY Brut ROSE LAURENT PERRIER BRUT ROSE

Spain has long been known to bargain hunters as fertile ground for good wines. Some sleepy regions are starting to wake up and produce some exceptional wines--the Toro region, por ejemplo. The Rueda area is now producing a number of excellent white wines...Navarra, long famous for its pink rosado wines, now produces a range of wonderful varieties, including Gewurztraminer! There are many "world class" wines coming from Spain. As far as comparisons with Italy goes: Spain makes the best Spanish wines...Italy makes fine Italian wines. With a bit of homework, one can find great wines in both countries.

In the SF Bay Area there are consistently good croissants produced by "Bakers of Paris." These are even flakier than some of the colorful folks posting notes on this web site, with the possible exception of myself.

Well said (written).

St. Emilion wines tend to be predominately blends of cabernet franc and merlot. More often than not cabernet franc is the predominate varietal. Merlot stars only in Pomerol where the cool clay soils and the early ripening merlot match perfectly. Cheap Bordeaux from lesser appellations tend to have a very high percentage of merlot. I've always thought St. Emilion wines were, with a few exceptions, predominantly Merlot. So, I looked 'em up. The Ausone estate is planted with 50% Merlot and 50% Cab Franc. Cheval Blanc is 60% Cab Franc and 40% Merlot. Angelus is 50% Merlot, 47% Cab Franc and 3% Cabernet Sauvignon. Figeac is 35% Cab Franc, 35% Cabernet Sauvignon and 30% Merlot. But most of the other noteworthy estates are predominantly Merlot. Beausejour Becot - 70% Merlot Belair - 60% Merlot Canon La Gaffeliere - 55% Merlot Clos Fourtet - 80% Merlot La Gaffeliere - 65% Merlot Monbousquet - 60% Merlot La Mondotte - 80% Merlot Pavie - 60% Merlot Pavie-Macquin - 70% Merlot Tertre-Roteboeuf - 85% Merlot Troplong Mondot - 80% Merlot Valandraud - 80% Merlot Beausejour - 70% Merlot Canon - 75% Merlot L'Oratoire - 90% Merlot Corbin Michotte - 65% Merlot La Couspaude - 70% Merlot Dassault - 65% Merlot La Dominique - 80% Merlot Faugeres - 80% Merlot Franc Mayne - 90% Merlot Grand Mayne - 75% Merlot Moulin Saint-Georges - 70% Merlot Pavie-Decesse - 90% Merlot Quinault L'Enclos - 70% Merlot Yon Figeac - 80% Merlot Grand Pontet - 75% Merlot Clos des Jacobins - 70% Merlot La Mauriane - 85% Merlot Of course, these are the percentages of each estate which are planted to Merlot. The percentage in the final wine varies from vintage to vintage. And your mileage may vary, depending upon how you drive.

The issue of whether or not "it's old news" is not the point...the point is the NY Times held up a mirror to this situation and I'm certain it's "news" to many of their readers. Much as with any entity that offers a critique of a product or service, I'm always interested to know if there are any backdoor dealings involved which might shade or color the supposedly objective critic. While all the e-gulleteers might be savvy enough to realize the less-than-above board dealings with various wine journals, not everyone who has seen a "Wine Spectator Award" at the entrance of a dining establishment might have known it was something the restaurateur had to pay to "win."

Jeremiah Tower's beef dish also features "massaging" the roast with Vodka, a step many chefs feel is rather useless. One critic described this dish, which he used to serve at Stars in San Francisco, as "simply showing off but not really accomplishing much."

And I have very fond memories of old time Martini wines...reds matured in old, scuzzy redwood tanks! They were marvelous in their day and many old vintages are still interesting today. There is an ocean of technologically "perfect" wine today, to be sure. But there are many really fabulous wines being made not only in California, but around the planet. Look at some of the superb wines from France from places that had god-awful wines twenty or thirty years ago! Wines from Corbieres, for example, were (in my opinion) nearly undrinkable way back when. Today you can find really good wines and sometimes exceptional wines in that region. The same can be said for much of the Languedoc. Similarly, much of the wine made in Italy 40 years ago was barely "wine." But today the technology is such that all sorts of people are making really good wine. Some are making really strange wine, attempting to cater to a perceived market or palate. The average vintage in so-called enlightened places like Bordeaux is far higher today than 30 years ago, no? Technology accounts for some of this, but also a dedication to quality on the part of vintners is supremely helpful. Even Burgundy hasn't had the total "wash out" vintages it once experienced many years ago... That being said, I don't put Helen Turley in Barry Bonds' league

I didn't mean to offend anyone on this forum. I'm sorry some of the particpants have a limited appreciation for some of today's wines. It is a bit like those who wax nostalgic about baseball players from the 1950s and 1960s and who are unwilling to give credit to some of the marvelous athletes in the game today. Again, apologies if I've been "imperious."

One might also argue that any "prestige" bottling, be it Stag's Leap's Cask 23, Chateau Lafite-Rothschild, DRC's various wines, Screaming Eagle, Bryant Family, Harlan Estate or Mondavi's Reserve wines are "bad values." I would agree, I can find wines which please me more than do the Mondavi Reserve wines. But enjoying a bottle of wine isn't always about finding the best wine for the least amount of money. Any fool can spend $5 on a bottle of wine and get hosed, as can anyone buy a $100 bottle and get taken.

No - just fat obvious ones with no acid and too much residual sugar. And so the Robert Mondavi Reserve wine is "fat", "obvious" "low in acidity" and has "residual sugar" ???

Famous Gate is the "reserve" bottling of Pinot Noir made by the sparkling wine firm called Domaine Carneros. It is often a delicious and rather showy bottle of wine.

These types of tasting are pointless and tiresome. The results are always the same. Mondavi is made to taste good young and they don't worry about the future. Lafon makes wine that does not even show its best stuff for ten years. Even then I would rather drink a young Lafon any day over any wine Mondavi EVER made. Every giant winery like Mondavi can find some special barrels out of the thousands in their cellars to show well in tastings. Some people make wines for tastings other people make wines that matter. Mondavi needs the press from those few special barrels they can come up with to sell the rest of the stuff they make.

Right on Claude. Mondavi never made a wine that matched those. Not being a huge fan of the Mondavi wines across the board, but I might point out the results of the Grand Jury Europeen tasting some years ago. The "jury" (comprised of European judges including the likes of Michel Bettane, Bernard Burtschy, Thierry Desseauve, Armin Diel, Peter Dipoli, Michel Dovaz,Joel Payne, Jacques Perrin, Jancis Robinson, amongst others). Chardonnays from around the world were entered. Three vintages: 1989, 1992 and 1994 (the tasting was in 1997, I think). A winery might get lucky with one wine in a particular vintage, but this three vintage idea evens the playing field. You have to perform well on a consistent basis to fare well. Here's a list of the "players"...a rather formidable list of winemakers: Bienvenue-Bâtard-Montrachet (Olivier Leflaive) Chablis Les Blanchots (Domaine Laroche) Chablis Valmur (Raveneau) Chardonnay (Ca' del Bosco) Chardonnay (Donatsch) Chardonnay (Rebholz) Chardonnay Gaia e Rey (Angelo Gaja) Chardonnay Grand Ardèche Chardonnay Milmanda (Torrès Miguel) Chardonnay Mountadam Chardonnay Private Reserve (Mondavi) Chardonnay Roxburgh (Rosemount Estate) Chassagne-Montrachet Les Caillerets (Jean-Marc Morey) Chevalier-Montrachet (Maison Bouchard) Chevalier-Montrachet Les Demoiselles(Maison Jadot) Corton-Charlemagne (Bonneau du Martray) Corton-Charlemagne (Maison Louis Latour) Meursault Charmes (Lafon) Meursault Perrières (Jean-F. Coche-Dury) Montrachet (Domaine Prieur) Montrachet Marquis de la Guiche (Drouhin) Nuits Saint Georges Clos de l'Arlot (Clos de l'Arlot) Pouilly-Fuissé (Domaine Valette) Pouilly-Fuissé (Mme Guffens-Heynen) Pouilly-Fuissé Hors Classe Hors Classe (Ferret) Puligny-Montrachet Clos du Cailleret (Chartron) Puligny-Montrachet Les Combettes (Domaine Sauzet) Puligny-Montrachet Les Pucelles (Domaine Leflaive) Like it or not, the winner of this prestigious tasting by a large margin was the Robert Mondavi Winery. The runners up were Meursault Charmes du Domaine des Comtes Lafon & Montrachet Marquis de la Guiche de J. Drouhin. I'd say that's a nice feather in Monsieur Mondavi's chapeau. I hardy-ly agree with someone's remarks about resting on one's laurels. But this is a matter of perspective. For those of us who are critics or critical consumers, we may have encountered wines we don't find to our taste. But the producer (Mondavi or anybody else) may be quite happy with the quality of their products. Is it a qualitative judgment or is it a matter of style which is even more subjective?

Seems to me that Claude Kolm (assuming, for the sake of continuity, that CK is indeed a Mr.) is devoted to quality fine wines. I find his points about the caliber and prices of California wines (and others, so far as I've seen) learned and unimpeachable. Au contraire, condescension towards someone with a palate more experienced and sophisticated than one's own seems rather unfortunate. My only issue with Mr. Kolm's assertions is his mistaken notion that it was "easier" to buy exceptional California wine 30 or 40 years ago than today along with the idea that great California was more plentiful way back when. Safeway stores did not sell "fine wine" back in the 1960s and 1970s. Most of its wine sales were in the form of jug wines such as those from Italian Swiss Colony, 11 Cellars, Cribari and Gallo. "Fine" wines such as BV, Inglenook, Louis Martini and Wente Brothers were NOT sold in such a venue. Nor were the wines of Heitz, Ridge, Hanzell or Stony Hill. There were less than 20 wineries in Napa at the start of the 1970s. Today there are two or three hundred. While I am a big fan of some old vintages of Louis Martini, BV and Inglenook, "some" is the key word. I would argue that "great" vintages happened more by chance and less by planning in those days (not to say there aren't difficult vintages...but the so-called poor years demonstrate who know what they're doing and who doesn't). Keep in mind, too, that Napa's valley floor was planted because it was easier to cultivate. Today vintners (not all, of course) have a better idea of how to produce higher quality wines. More difficult terrains are devoted to wine grapes these days than 40 years ago because the price of wine is such that a grower can expect to turn a profit. I'm sorry if my commentary is viewed a "condescending." And I don't wish to enter into a debate as to whose palate is more experienced or more sophisticated. Everyone has his or her OWN tastes and we should not feel a need to conform to the tastes of others.

While I agree with Mr. Kolm's assertion that there are many wines on the market today with substantial levels of oak and sugar, I must disagree with the notion that more better quality wine was made in California in the "good old days" than today. While I am NOT a fan of much of what the Mondavi clan puts into their bottles, I do think their upper echelon wines are quite good. The prices they attach to these are often ridiculous, certainly. On the other hand, I DO REMEMBER wines in those "good old days." I am not one of those who felt Gallo's Hearty Burgundy was better than some of the Pinot Noirs of the 1970s and it certainly wasn't superior to good producer's wines from the Cote d'Or. California has made fabulous strides in its production of Pinot Noir over the past ten or 20 years. Not ALL wines from the likes of Louis Martini, Wente, BV or Inglenook were in the "superior quality" category. I do think, though, that today's winemakers might take a look at those old bottlings and see that it IS possible to make 12-13% alcohol, dry wines of modest oak which do age well. One of the reasons many winemakers DON'T strive to make those sorts of wines (and neither do those wineries today, whomever owns them) is that the business of wine is far more competitive than it was way back when. And winemakers are often driven by point-scoring publications to make bigger and more powerful wines so their products "stand out" in tastings. I believe Mr. Kolm's publication participates in this numerical "scoring" of wines. California has far more acreage today in prime locations (for quality) than it did 40 or 50 years ago, no? And more people are farming responsibly today than ever before, no? Tell me California isn't a suitable place for Syrah, for example. Sauvignon Blanc is being made with some flair at a number of properties, unlike in the "good old days." California didn't produce Merlot until Martini's 1968-1970 blend. There are certainly a few good estates making that varietal. California sparkling wines were limited to a few producers back then...today most tasters would agree there is far more well-made bubbly of far higher standard than in yester-year. A number of vintners are making interesting wines with other European varieties such as Sangiovese, Barbera and Nebbiolo. This is a positive development, no? As for Monsieur Rolland being "the kiss of death": Much too harsh! This guy has helped elevate the quality of numerous estates. If you want to argue about their "sameness" or his imprint being noted on many of those wines, be my guest. But please don't suggest the guy doesn't have some idea about "quality." I think Britcook and Melkor make terrific points and Mr. Kolm, while entitled to his opinion, ought to wake up and smell the Cabernet.

Mondavi IS deserving of major credit, Mr. Kolm. For one thing, he showed others that IT WAS possible to set up a NEW winery and start from scratch AND be successful in making good wines. He showed you could have a family enterprise, too. Mondavi worked hard to raise the bar in Napa Valley winemaking and they took apart all kinds of French (and Italian) wines to see what made them tick. And he wasn't afraid to compare his wines to the benchmark wines from France. He was a brilliant marketing fellow. Mondavi also has been, as you know, a wonderful training ground for winemakers. And they've been open to exchanging ideas with enologists and viticulturists around the globe. The quantity of "great" wine being made before 1966 by those wineries on your list is rather small. The quantity of "great" wine being made today is far larger, wouldn't you agree? I agree with your assessment regarding "industrial" wine...but the quality of that is far superior, today, to what California made 40 years ago, isn't it? But I would argue that Mondavi helped plant a number of seeds over the past few decades and IS to be credited with some (not all) of the bright stars in California's wine galaxy.

I went to Pacific Bell Park this past Sunday, less than two hours' drive from the Rutherford Hill Winery and can tell you the San Francisco Giants' bats were dead, too.

What's the big deal about White Shiraz? I mean, California produces Pink Chablis and Hardly Burgundy! Doesn't Rosemount make "Orange Chardonnay"? (Now there's a concept!) And another winery, Trevor Jones, makes wine called "Boots." I don't know about you (how could I?), but I know what my shoes have for aroma and I'm not drinking anything called "Boots."

The wine industry is working to expand itself, yet its largest producers rarely do anything to advertise wine as something "ordinary" people can enjoy. Look at the ads from Gallo, for example...when showing food with their wines, it's always something rather fancy...never a bucket of chicken, a take out pizza or a burger. Or they advertise showing photos of vineyards and one of the Gallo family dressed in jeans to show they're "serious" about hands-on winemaking. Wine is often presented as something reserved for the elite. No wonder the pizza franchise Round Table is doing well with its "Napa Pizza," featuring ads with guys painfully describing the attributes of the pizza as though it was some sort of fancy wine. Mondavi, at least, has advertised in very modest quality Woodbridge wines trying to take the "mystery" out of wine. But those ads don't talk about the wines being compatible with basic, normal foods. For such a "wealthy" industry, the product is poorly promoted. ECHEZEAUX