Craig Camp
-
Posts
3,274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Craig Camp
-
-
And yes, Craig, I agree with your earlier comment on the lack of investigative reporting.
-
JohnL - you should really get your own blog. You put up more words on the internet each week than most bloggers. The only difference here is you get a built in audience because of the stature of eGullet, while on your own blog you would have to build your own readership.
As far as Parker, I consider him an outstanding critic. It's The Wine Spectator that I mostly differ with. Other than that, I think most critics do a great job. I also think many bloggers do a fine job.
For the rest of your post, let's just save time and say you're right.
-
Daniel,
1. You say that the established wine press does not like blogging because it takes control from them and transfers it to the consumer. This in turn, you say, eats away at our power and income. Diametrically disagreed and in several ways. The very fact that so many wine blogs have appeared in recent years has actually inspired an increasing number of newspapers and magazines to add wine columns to their regular press and on-line editions, in fact this making for more work and greater income for the pros. Perhaps more important, in recent years those who read wine columns in both magazines and newspapers have increased by nearly 40%.Outside of the major markets who is making a great living primarily by writing a wine column for a newspaper. Frankly, outside of New York and perhaps San Francisco the number may be zero. Wine column writers from Florida to Washington exist because it is something they love to do and support themselves with "day" jobs. Matt Kramer may show up in the Oregonian, but if he didn't have his Wine Spectator gig this column would not make the mortgage payments. The number of writers in the USA making a great living from wine writing you could probably count with your toes and fingers. The reason all these writers exist on the crumbs tossed to them by newspaper editors is because they are doing something they love to do and have a passion for that goes beyond money. Oddly enough, just like the bloggers.
As to transferring "power to the consumer", any critic who does not believe and/or know that that power has always belonged to the consumer is an abject idiot. Keep in mind that those consumers are both the clients and judges of the critics. They read us, decide whether we're worth reading and then either continue or discontinue reading us. As often I have said, the true "bosses" of any critic are neither his editors nor his publishers but his readers. That does not mean we have to pander to readers. It does mean that we have to be faithful to and respectable of them.No they don't have to be idiots, they just have to be arrogant. Something that is easily achieved after your ass has been kissed by enough wealthy winery owners. I don't know where you have been, but a high score in The Wine Spectator or The Wine Advocate will turn consumers into obsessed madmen trying to buy a wine they have never tasted. So much for whose the boss. American consumers are well proven followers not leaders when it comes to wine.
As to publications deciding what is to be sold, you may be over-crediting the power of the press. I do not have publication numbers (and any publisher who gives you numbers is telling lies!) but I can assure you that fewer than 1% of wine buyers read Parker, the Wine Spectator, Decanter or even the most major newspapers in the USA.See above. Also, maybe not many subscribe to these publications, but the marketing people of wineries, importers, distributors, retailers and restaurants sure do and they make sure they buy as much of every top rated wine they can then promote the hell out of it. There are far more copies of shelf-talkers printed of Robert Parkers scores than there are Wine Advocates printed.
As I said earlier, blogs have something remarkably akin to autobiographies. How many people who write autobiographies are going to say "I led a rotten and boring life and was basically a rotten human being?" For that matter, how many winemakers are going to be self-critical enough to write, "this was a truly terrible harvest and we had an abundance of problems at the winery, so you can pretty well believe that our wines are going to be pretty mediocre this year".Blogs are in a way autobiographical in the sense that they chronicle one persons experience with wine. Sharing that experience is often a drive the writer feels and they do it as much for themselves as their readers. That is one of the great powers of wine blogs as while print wine writers are often into codifying wine with points and a firm ranking of quality, bloggers do a better job of communicating the personal experience of wine, then invite you to participate in that conversation, while print media seems more paternal in its approach to readers.
Again, my objection is not at all to people writing about wine (or food or any other aesthetic endeavor) and presenting their writings in public. My objection is to the abysmal proliferation of not-nearly-knowledgeable enough people who do this on every possible subject.This professor and student attitude many wine writers present is really ridiculous. The true student of wine recognizes the more they learn about wine, the more they realize they don't know. The attraction of many blogs is that they share the process of discovery with the reader in an honest and almost disarming way. Sure they make mistakes, but that is part of their educational process, which they are sharing with the reader. I believe these bloggers by sharing the joy of their voyage of discovery do more to encourage others to join them than writers whose main ambition is to define exactly which wines are the finest - something that should remain a subjective decision.
-
For example, you can read the caveman's fine blog here:
-
Epee, courtesy of Wikipedia
I generally prefer the sabre.
Here's my problem with most wine writing and blogging: there is a painfully high educational, chronological, and capital investment to keep up with either the blogs, or the actual consumption in the blogs.
Take me, I like wine. I can marginally describe a particular wine. But, if I come across a reasonable wine description (take FloridaJim's on eG for example) I zone out. I can't finish it because it is mentally exhausting to actually recreate his tasting experience, or I don't have the knowledge to recreate his tasting experience, or the wine is totally out of my budget.
I have rarely found much wine literature for me. Good wine salespeople can work with me well, and I well with them. But Wine Spectator, or wine blogs are completely inscrutible.
Actually it is very easy and free to find and keep up with your favorite blogs due to services like Bloglines, Rojo and others.
-
Wine Blogging is not one thing. Most of the blogs out there are written by people doing it just out of a love a wine with no intention to become famous or to make money from it. I think blogging represents wine better than publications like The Wine Spectator because they truly bring out the diversity with which wines are perceived by the drinker. As wine is about personal taste, there will (and should be) just as many opinions out there as there are tasters. Blogs take control of information away from “experts” and puts it into the hands of the consumer. The established wine press doesn’t like this as it eats away at their power and income.
There are more excellent wines to drink in the world than ever before. In fact, there are far too many for traditional wine publications to cover and the explosion of blogs means that many excellent wines that would be ignored might just show up in someone’s Google or Yahoo search and end up on their dinner table. Blogs also let small wineries reach beyond the constipated 100 point scale information logjam and tell consumers that may be looking for their style of wines their story. Take for example our host Mary Baker’s excellent blog on their winemaking voyage at Dover Canyon. She brings alive the mission and passion of a small producer that many would never have heard of if they relied on The Wine Spectator or similar publication.
Like anything you read, the reader needs to be critical and evaluate that information and decide if it is worthwhile to them and based on sufficient experience to be useful. This applies to any article whether is writing by Robert Parker, James Suckling, Daniel Rogov or some blogger.
One of the major assets of blogs is their conversational nature. The reader can challenge or agree with the writer right on the spot and even call them to account for incorrect information. Imagine if James Suckling had to put his opinion of the 2000 vintage in Piemonte up for a challenge. It would have saved people a lot of money. I think it is great to see someone like Eric Asimov actually engaging his readers. Wine writers who author blogs are more accountable to their readers than those who don’t
Blogs are opening a wine world that was becoming closed with just a few publications controlling all information and ultimately deciding what would get sold. Already blogging is breaking up their control by forcing top critics to defend their positions publicly against educated drinkers who disagree with their opinions.
Blogs encourage diversity in wine.
-
Alexis brought millions into the world of wine. You can find my comments on his passing here
-
Gee--now you are sounding so ....well...moderate and reasonable!
Damn, I blew my cover.
I would say that Hanzel and Mount Eden Reserve chardonnays are on a par with a lot of fine chardonnays from France in terms of expressiveness.will they ever rise to the level of a DRC or Leroy Montrachet?
The question may not be if, but if they are not already there? Part of the "level" of Montrachet and white Burgundy is they were the first to achieve chardonnay excellence. That style is a function of that terroir, just as Hanzel and Mount Eden are a function of theirs. At some point it only becomes a question of taste and/or prejudice.
I had a revelatory experience a while ago with a number of side by side tastings of Eyrie Reserve Pinot 1985 and The '85 Volnay 60 Ouvrees of Pousse D'Or at ten years of age.Interesting comment. I can really see the comparison of these two wines, they are wines made in the same minimalist spirit and are decidedly driven by their vineyards of origin.
I would say the future is looking good for the New World.Something I would obviously agree with.
-
Ivan
Could you be specific?
Are you saying that there are no wines from the new world that express any terroir?
No, I am saying that a typical business model does not allow for it. If I understand Randall's musings, any grape will have terroir if allowed to, but it might not be an appealing terroir. The goal of a business is to make wine that appeals.
bingo
-
Cool weather and acidity is not the point. Take Southern Italy's Nero d'Avola, Nerello Mascalese, Negoramaro and Aglianco - all vines capable of extremely terroir driven wines in warm climates not defined by acidity or herbs.
I was simply throwing out some examples. If I tried to list all the ways that wines can show terroir, I'd need a few pages.
In 1976 there was good reason to be confused. However, nobody makes wine like that in California anymore. That was in the days when they thought 24 brix was ripe.Ouch. Careful with the generalizations, please.
Let's not get down on Randall for his excesses here. Look at what he is saying.Actually, I have read Grahm's speech through several times. And in fact, I have just performed sensitive crystallization trials on our wines with the help of soil scientist Dr. Tom Rice. As far as I know, I am the first person to have attempted to replicate Grahm's efforts, and as Grahm would not release slides of his crystals, my petris will be the first cyrstallization trials to be published on the internet. Watch for the article sometime later this week on Appellation America.
I have to say I don't buy the weird side of biodymanics. It's hard to believe in things that would make a chemistry professor roll on the floor in laughter. What I do believe it that anyone who is willing to make this much extra effort is bound to make better wines and end up with a deeper knowledge of their vineyards.
Indeed, that is a generalization about California, but it is based on reality. In 1976 growers would brag about 24 brix, today its nothing to go over 26 or more. There are obviously many, many dedicated producers in California making terroir driven wines of great character. However, like in every other wine region of the world, most do not. The style that sells, aided and abetted by the press, is big, ripe, woody and fruity few have the courage to take another course.
Most producers are in the beverage wine business and a small percentage are in the terroir wine business and that is probably natural way of things and the way it should be. The problem is that, in the past, the terroir wines received the honors and attention of collectors, while today it is all to often winemaking wines that get all the attention.
-
Barolo the wines of
Voerzio, Conterno (pick one A or G-or take both), Scavino to name a few--all taste the same? really?
My point exactly. Conterno tastes like Barolo while Scavino and Vorezio taste like Scavino and Vorezio - vine and vineyard are secondary for them and primary for the Conterno. (I assume you mean Giacomo) This doesn't mean that Scavino and Vorezio aren't delicious and enjoyable, it just means they don't taste like nebbiolo. In fact, almost everything they do is to control some aspect of nebbiolo they think needs adjusting while Conterno is doing everything to expand on the natural character of nebbbiolo.
also for eg-you seem to be saying that one can dismiss my point about the 1976 tasting because the wine making obliterated the terroir back then?Just the opposite.
I also see no reason to bring Parker into this and think for the most part he personally respects terroir in France - with a few notable exceptions. This issue is not globalization but industrialization and elimination of regional characteristics in the pursuit a wine that pleases the highest percentage of consumers. It's easy to find European wine for under $20 that displays terroir, how many New World wines can say that?
-
The fact is--that science is dealing with terroir--the evidence thus far--inconclusive.
Centuries of hard evidence of distinctive terroir in places like Burgundy and Barolo are inconclusive?
I would love to know what this "real divide" is? Who exactly is debating industrial fruit bombs and terroir wines? What are these wines?Also just what the heck is the "points war?"
There is a clear and well documented divide that is easily discovered with just a little research. If you don't know of this debate you are simply not on top of what's going on in the wine industry. What do you think the whole Parker vs. the British wine press is about? The only people who are not thinking about this are those satisfied with industrial, over manipulated wines with interchangeable characteristics no matter where they are produced.
I look at the shelves of local retailers and see an absolutely incredible range of sources of wines and wine styles.Yeah, like those 100 chardonnays they offer that all taste more-or-less exactly the same? Most of the wines on store shelves today are almost identical as they are manufactured to be in a particular style. That style is determined by marketing departments not vineyards.
Those supposedly "terroir" driven wines from Southern Italy you mention were not even available not long ago.They have been making terroir driven wines from these varietals in southern Italy since it was part of Greece – only over three thousand years ago. It is only consumers like you that have just "discovered" these wines.
In 1976 expert tasters could not discern wines from different terroirs thousands of miles apart.In 1976 there was good reason to be confused. However, nobody makes wine like that in California anymore. That was in the days when they thought 24 brix was ripe.
I personally have sat in myriad blind tastings where a majority of tasters could not note the differences between any number of New World and Old World wines--most of the tasters being industry professionals and savvy collectors.Myriad? You must be older than I thought. Most tasters are at best generalists and often can make such mistakes. Even the trained palate is fallible as it is a human instrument. I too have been in myriad blind tastings and have often seen vineyards identified down to the button. For example, Guiseppe Colla, who has now made over 50 vintages of Barolo and Barbaresco can do this routinely. There is expertise and there is expertise. Those of us who spend our lives trying to master the entire world of wine are doomed to never knowing a terroir at its deepest levels. This does not mean that we can't appreciate it, but expecting to be able to precisely name was section of Vosne Romanee it came from is not realistic.
The original concept of designated vinyard sites was to promote commerce--that is identify where better wines were produced and encourage good practices.True it was based on commerce, but not in the way you think. For example in Barolo, the vineyards were farmed by small farmers without the resources to produce wine and the wine were made by large negociants like Fontanafredda. The hierarchy of vineyards with identifiable terroir became important as a way to price your grapes, not to sell the wines. You site the example of the many styles of Clos Vougeot today, but not so many decades ago there were only a few bottlings of Clos Vougeot produced unlike the dozens sold today.
There is a lot of interesting wine available today. In fact, there is more better quality wine available due to improved viticulture and vinification techniques.Terroir is real, it is a good thing--let's just put it into proper perspective and enjoy the bounty of wine we have.
This is not true. While indeed there have never been more well-made wines in the world, the fact is that most of them are the same wine with different labels. The improved viticulture and winemaking of today has actually improved real terroir.
-
There has been a lot of discussion in the wine industry about wines that are manipulated into a popular and predictable candied cherry and chocolate profile, as opposed to wines that might have cool weather acidity and herbal, mineral, or earthy notes that reflect terroir and vintage.
Cool weather and acidity is not the point. Take Southern Italy's Nero d'Avola, Nerello Mascalese, Negoramaro and Aglianco - all vines capable of extremely terroir driven wines in warm climates not defined by acidity or herbs.
The debate is between manipulated wines and terroir wines - wines of the vineyard or wines of the winemaking.
-
There has been a lot of discussion in the wine industry about wines that are manipulated into a popular and predictable candied cherry and chocolate profile, as opposed to wines that might have cool weather acidity and herbal, mineral, or earthy notes that reflect terroir and vintage.
Grahm's pontifications should be taken with a grain of coarse sea salt, but he generally hides some gems of deep experience in his quirky essays, and he's always entertaining!
Let's not get down on Randall for his excesses here. Look at what he is saying.
-
what point are you trying to make? that wines with terroir cannot have expressive fruit?
No, they do have expressive fruit. In fact, the most expressive. That is the point of terroir. Simple over-extracted fruit-bombs don't have expressive fruit - they just have volume.
-
If you have ever been unclear about the meaning of terroir, do not miss the the article linked to below. I'll be blogging about it for days.
http://wine.appellationamerica.com/wine-re...on-Terroir.html
Writes Grahm, “A great terroir is the one that will elevate a particular site above that of its neighbors. It will ripen its grapes more completely more years out of ten than its neighbors; its wines will tend to be more balanced more of the time than its unfortunate contiguous confrères. But most of all, it will have a calling card, a quality of expressiveness, of distinctiveness that will provoke a sense of recognition in the consumer, whether or not the consumer has ever tasted the wine before.”
On biodynamics he comments, "“biodynamics is perhaps the most straightforward path to the enhanced expression of terroir in one’s vineyard. Its express purpose is to wake up the vines to the energetic forces of the universe, but its true purpose is to wake up the biodynamicist himself or herself.”
I think this is really powerful stuff and communicates well the real essence of these issues. There is real divide in the wine industry these days between the industrial fruit-bombs and terroir wines and the fruit-bombs are winning the points war. Perhaps a thoughtful article like this might change a few peoples minds.
-
There is no such thing as organic produce unless that produce is grown in a totally isolated environment. Just because you farm organically does not mean that your production is truly organic.
For example, last vintage we lost 4 acres of organically farmed pinot gris to 2,4-D contamination from some unknown neighbor. 2,4-D in the right conditions has been shown to travel twenty miles from the application site: so much for organic grapes. By the way you can tell when your vineyard is hit as all the leaves start to wither and die. No leaves - no photosynthesis - no grapes. The chemicals being applied to your neighbors fields are also being applied to yours.
The one thing that the "organic" label means to me is that the farmer is more committed to their land and willing to do extra work to produce high quality fruit. Making the commitment to organic or L.I.V.E agriculture shows that the grower is dedicated to quality. I believe most grape growers taking this route do it because they believe it is the road to making better wine, not just because of a commitment to the environment.
Could you elaborate just a bit on that contamination example you offer?
also--
you are on to something in that there should be a distinction between "artisinal" and "organic."
I do agree about the motivation, though in the end--there is no guarantee that the final product is, in fact, better qualitatively.
There is not much to elaborate on. You're doing a regular vineyard walk-though and you look around you and all the leaves are curling up and dying. When you see it, it is very clear what the problem is, but almost impossible to prove whom is responsible.
True there is no guarantee on quality from an organic label, but when it comes to wine, few producers who practice organic agriculture put an "organic" label on their wines. While many organic wine growers farm this way partially because of the environment, I believe most do it as they believe they will make better wines. I think the same is true for bio-dynamic farmers.
Thanks
Actually I was hoping you would explain what "2-4D contamination" is exactly.
Your post is interesting and I am not up on the technical problem you noted.
Sorry, I misunderstood your question - jsolomon is exactly right. The problem here is not only is the Willamette Valley a great place for Pinot Noir, it is a great place for grass. There is a huge grass seed industry here and the conflicts with the grape industry are obvious from the above discussion.
The result is there is no such thing as truly organic Willamette Valley grapes. This does not mean there are not dedicated growers doing their best to minimize this impact by farming their own property organically. I know of no one who is farming their grapes organically whose goal is not to make better wine.
-
There is no such thing as organic produce unless that produce is grown in a totally isolated environment. Just because you farm organically does not mean that your production is truly organic.
For example, last vintage we lost 4 acres of organically farmed pinot gris to 2,4-D contamination from some unknown neighbor. 2,4-D in the right conditions has been shown to travel twenty miles from the application site: so much for organic grapes. By the way you can tell when your vineyard is hit as all the leaves start to wither and die. No leaves - no photosynthesis - no grapes. The chemicals being applied to your neighbors fields are also being applied to yours.
The one thing that the "organic" label means to me is that the farmer is more committed to their land and willing to do extra work to produce high quality fruit. Making the commitment to organic or L.I.V.E agriculture shows that the grower is dedicated to quality. I believe most grape growers taking this route do it because they believe it is the road to making better wine, not just because of a commitment to the environment.
Could you elaborate just a bit on that contamination example you offer?
also--
you are on to something in that there should be a distinction between "artisinal" and "organic."
I do agree about the motivation, though in the end--there is no guarantee that the final product is, in fact, better qualitatively.
There is not much to elaborate on. You're doing a regular vineyard walk-though and you look around you and all the leaves are curling up and dying. When you see it, it is very clear what the problem is, but almost impossible to prove whom is responsible.
True there is no guarantee on quality from an organic label, but when it comes to wine, few producers who practice organic agriculture put an "organic" label on their wines. While many organic wine growers farm this way partially because of the environment, I believe most do it as they believe they will make better wines. I think the same is true for bio-dynamic farmers.
-
There is no such thing as organic produce unless that produce is grown in a totally isolated environment. Just because you farm organically does not mean that your production is truly organic.
For example, last vintage we lost 4 acres of organically farmed pinot gris to 2,4-D contamination from some unknown neighbor. 2,4-D in the right conditions has been shown to travel twenty miles from the application site: so much for organic grapes. By the way you can tell when your vineyard is hit as all the leaves start to wither and die. No leaves - no photosynthesis - no grapes. The chemicals being applied to your neighbors fields are also being applied to yours.
The one thing that the "organic" label means to me is that the farmer is more committed to their land and willing to do extra work to produce high quality fruit. Making the commitment to organic or L.I.V.E agriculture shows that the grower is dedicated to quality. I believe most grape growers taking this route do it because they believe it is the road to making better wine, not just because of a commitment to the environment.
-
Three more
in Wine
2004 Ocone, Falanghina Taburno:Correct, elements of sweet gum on the nose and palate, good complexity but falls short of being complete. Pleasant and interesting but little else. Diane says odd – I agree.
1998 Mommessin, Clos de Tart:
Young, disjointed, oaky but, curiously, not unappealing; its Burgundy, it’s pretty much identifiable as Morey and then . . . well, then everything sort of goes ca-flooey. Either this needs time in the cellar or it needs to be sold off to others – I can’t tell which.
1999 Lafrage, Volnay Vendage Sélectionées:
This on the other hand, is integrated, focused, all about cherry pit fruit and so damn expressive it’s hard to explain in words – utterly Volnay and really showing well although in no danger of heading south. A lovely and fascinating wine.
Best, Jim
I get that cherry pit note in good pinot too, also peach pit in some whites. For me it is a kind of fruity-minerality that is hard to describe to others. Is this also what you mean by pits?
-
Beaujolais Villages
Why does everyone always forget poor Beaujolais? It's a lot more than nouveaux you know.
Shy away from tannin, high alcohol and oak flavors for dishes like this and you'll be fine. Think fruit.
-
In today's Mail & Guardian:Even in France, where oak alternatives have been decried as blasphemous, vintners add wood blocks to wine under the pretence of weighing down sediment or filtering, according to Alicia McBride of Sonoma Valley company Innerstave, an oak-alternative company which claimed to have pioneered the method in 1979.
"Tradition runs so deep in wine that it is difficult for wine makers to go around telling people they didn't use barrels," McBride said.
Is it honest for French winemakers to insult the use of oak alternatives while secretly using them? Or is it nobody's business?
French producers are subject to far more regulation and control than new-world producers. They often have no choice to cheat a bit if they are to make better wine. The mass-produced wines of southern France certainly can benefit from many newly developed winemaking techniques.
-
Oak chips, oak essence and overuse of oak are makeup.
A real ugly human needs lots of makeup.
The beautiful ones don't.
Same deal with grapes...
If you start with good ones you don't need the makeup.
These techniques are applied to grapes that need make-up. I know of no one exposing outstanding fruit from top-notch vineyards to these manipulations.
However, in the lower end, everyday wine end of the market, these methods help produce better wines. When used in moderation.
-
Without claims to any special expertise, I’m just an enthusiastic amateur at best; I believe that “corking” is over diagnosed. In my experience the problem is not “corking” but often “cooked wine.” If you read Kermit Lynch’s book he talks about his earliest shipments from France arriving in California in a very different condition that when he tasted them in France. Sure, they were shipped in un-temperature controlled containers through the Panama Canal and they were cooked.
The problem often is the improper storage and shipping of wine. It travels in un-temperature controlled trucks, is stored in hot warehouses and stockrooms, sits in cases in kitchen corridors and comes to the table “cooked.”
As to your problem, if you are not ordering, just drink it if its not too bad – or just pass. Tomorrow there will be another bottle.
Good drinking,
Jmahl
If anything, corked wine is under-diagnosed. Industry figures place the percentage of corked bottles at 5% to 6%. There is nowhere near that number of bottles returned to wholesalers as spoiled by the cork. That means the vast majority of corked bottles are consumed, with the drinker only thinking that "X" Winery makes lousy wine.
While "cooked" wine from poor storage and transportation is certainly a huge problem, you cannot confuse the musty funk of a corked wine with the tired, burned character of a cooked wine.
Wine Blogging Comes of Age
in Wine
Posted
Some comments from Tom Wark at Fermentation (who can't get his account to work tech support)