The Wine Question

[hollywood]

I've been waiting patiently for a wine question. As you are no doubt aware from reading this site's posts, California wine seems to get its share of criticism. Lacks terroir. Too oaky. Too fruity. Too expensive. Too[insert judgment du jour]. Giving these criticisms their due, what do you like and what do you think the future holds? Somewhat off topic, do you think Rancho Cucamonga wine/vines are worth saving?

[russ parsons]

That there are problems with the California wine industry is beyond dispute. But so is the fact that there is enormous potential. Each of those criticisms ... lacks terroir, too oaky, too fruity, too expensive ... are true, and maybe for the vast majority of wines. But then there are the exceptions and that's what keeps me coming back (that and rank chauvinism). California wine is in an odd spot culturally and historically in that it developed in an atmosphere where the only goal was to make a work of art. Think about the implications of that. We don't really do a lot of "drinking" wine here. We make prestige wines (albeit, based on a very shaky notion of what is prestigious). I think that's where California is really hurting. We are pretty poor in the kind of $8 to $12 delicious wines that people will want to drink every night with dinner. And we are inundated with teh kinds of trumpets-blaring big event wines that really should only be tasted a couple of times a month.

In a way, I think there is a parallel in the restaurant scene, in that we're trying to build a culture from the top down rather from the bottom up. The places where wine (and restaurants) are best are the places where simple goodness is accepted as a natural fact.

I'm skeptical about saving the Rancho Cucamonga wines. I'm glad that the vines have been saved, but when a wine region exists for 100 years and nobody pays any attention to it, there's probably a good reason. I'll make an exception for the Rancho Cucamonga Sherry, which is solera-aged and very, very nice. It is also very very hard to find.

[hollywood]

Thanks. Other than the sherry, do you have any California favorites?

[russ parsons]

Oh, of course. Many of them. Right now, I tend to drink wines I have a personal connection to. Rob and Maria Sinskey are good friends and I think his Carneros Merlot (no, not PN, no, not Chard) is about as good a wine as that region has produced. Very elegant. I like Richard Sanford's Pinot Noir from the Santa Rita Hills and I very much like the Melville Estates Chardonnay "Inox" bottling from the same area. Great acidic ripe fruit, all stainless steel, made by the same guys who make Brewer-Clifton. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting. I'm sure they'll let me know.

[hollywood]

Thanks for the recommendations. I notice that the voice you use in answering these questions seems a little more Texan (perhaps flavorful, is a better word) than your Times voice. Do you have to work to tone it down? Do you automatically get into a Times trance?

[russ parsons]

Wow, you're a good reader. I wasn't even aware of that. I do know that my speaking voice changes ... usually after I've had a few beers or when I'm telling a story.

I do find that my "professional" writing voice is different than what I use in correspondence (which I consider e-mail and web stuff to be). I think of the professional voice as a more polished version of my regular voice--the nice thing about writing and rewriting is that you can present yourself as you might wish you were rather than the way you really are. And the regular voice then comes through much stronger and more noticable when you use it for effect. We're a tricky bunch.