The Judgment of Paris

[JohnL]

I'm bumping this thread back to the top.  I'm two-thirds of the way through Taber's book.  It is a very good read.  What I've come away with thus far. . .

1. The book gives a good history of winemaking in California from the days of the immigrants who first planted vines to prohibition to the making of jug wines to, eventually, the push for some to make world class wines.

2. Every winery owner and winemaker that wanted to make world class wines meant making wines like the great wines of France.  But their proclivity toward experimentation soon had some of them trailblazing their own paths.  For example, some thought the best red wines would be made from 100% cabernet sauvignon grapes while others thought blending in some merlot or cabernet franc (as is common in Bordeaux) would be a better approach.

3. Some winemakers were worried about making wines that were too high in alcohol.  High ABV levels get a alot of play now, but I was surprised to learn it was also an issue in the 60s and 70s.

4. The winning wines had virtually no track record.  The 1973 Montelena Chardonnay was only that winery's second release, and the 1973 Stag's Leap Cabernet might have been its first release.  I mention this because criticism has often been directed toward newcomers that charge steep prices for their wines when they have no track record.

5. The organizer of the tasting, Steven Spurrier, actually thought the French wines would wine both red and white categories.  And he didn't have a preference either way which wines would "win."

I'll probably have a few more observations to add after I finish the entire book.

←

I am also in the middle of it.

I agree it is a very nice read--I am enjoying it a lot.

I also agree with what you have recapped here.

I would add one thing from my own perspective--wonder if George also shares this thought.

One interesting conclusion one can make is that this infamous tasting puts terroir into perspective. The tasters should have been able to distinguish the different terroirs.

There was literally an ocean between them!

[Phil Ward]

I had lunch yesterday with George at Rats Restaurant in Hamilton Twp, NJ. The group included: Jim Filip, owner of Doris and Ed's Restaurant, one of NJ tops restaurants; Jim is also one of the first people to feature many of CA's emerging wineries back in the late 70s and early 80s; Joe Brandolo, a veteran of the wine industry; Anthony Accardo, GM/Wine Director of Rats; and Jeff Carlson, Sommelier of Rats. It was a lively conversation about the book, the day in 1976, the reactions of the tasters at the results, the impact of the tasting, the current and future state of the wine business and many more discussions.

We had a fine meal, a Domaine Baumard Clos de Papillon, Savenniere 2002 and I brought a Lynch Bages 1985 and a Laurel Glen, Estate, 1985 for a bit of a comparison taste. Both reds were nicely matured and showing beautifully 20 years into their life.

As to the book, for me it is one of the best books I have read about the history of the CA wine business, littered with fun facts about where we were in the 60s and 70s in regard to wine, a great overview of the wines and wineries involved in the tasting as well many more informative facts. I truly enjoyed the sagas of Mike Grgich, Warren Winarski and Steven Spurrier and how wine affected and changed their lives.

I have purchased multiple copies, which George kindly signed, to give to co-workers as Holiday gifts.

I urge all wine professionals as well as wine "amateurs" to read this book. In conclusion, I am not a shill for George, just an admirer of this book.

Phil

[George Taber]

Sorry that I've been traveling a lot promoting my book Judgment of Paris for a couple of months and have been in limited email access. I'll try to be a better boy in the future. On the question raised by I think it's JohnL about the changed view of terroir, I think that the Paris tasting destroyed the French claim (but also supported by a lot of others in particular the Brits) that the only great terroir was in France. I think Paris opened the door to winemakers to look harder at their own terroirs and how to work them to their maximum to see what they could do. When they did that, better wine started being produced in a lot of areas. Just think of what's come out of Tuscany in the last quarter century. It might have all happened without Paris, but at a minimum the process was speeded up by Paris. The Paris Tasting showed very clearly that the esteemed French judges couldn't easily tell the difference between wines made in French terroir and northern California terroir.

Thanks to those who have bought the book. Sales have been good, and it's into a fourth printing. If you have any other questions, let me know. I promise to answer more quickly in the future.

[prasantrin]

I must admit, I'm not knowledgeable about wines in the least (if it's a little sweet, or has a cute animal on the label, I'll buy it). But when I first read of your book (a month or so ago in either Time or Newsweek) I was intrigued. I read another very recent article in which the tastings were repeated (same wines, same vintages) and the wines that came out on top were all French. The reason being that it takes time for the influence of terroir to develop, and the original wines were too young to properly discern their terroir. Thus, the original tastings were somewhat unfair as the results were biased in the direction of California from the outset (at least in terms of flavour).

Would you agree with the above, and have you tried the wines since then?

I'm not in any way implying that California does not deserve honours for its wine-making. I just found the article to be interesting.

I'm waiting for the paperback version of your book, so it will suit my budget a little better. But I'm glad to see that Amazon Japan has it for when I need it!

Edited to add: The article in question was by Eric Asimov from the New York Times, but I found an online version here (no registration or payment required to read it).

And I was wrong about the wines--they weren't the same vintages. Their results were:

Mouton-Rothschild 1975

Grand-Puy-Lacoste 1982

Haut-Brion 1981

Ridge Monte Bello 1978

Mayacamas 1984

Stag's Leap Wine Cellars 1986

Dominus 1985

Mouton-Rothschild 1978

Edited December 2, 2005 by prasantrin (log)

[George Taber]

There have been literally dozens and dozens of retastings modeled after the Paris Tasting. Steven Spurrier could make a career out of going to retastings around the world. In the early years they used exactly the same vintages, but in more recent years they have used more contemporary vintages. The results have varied all over the board. The most closely followed retastings were done at 10 years. After the original 1976 one the French had claimed that their wines were too young and that they would do a lot better later. So people waited to see if that was the case. Spurrier organized a retasting in New York in 1986. The tasting involved only the red wines because people thought the whites were probably over the hill. The results were very different, although a California wine came out on top---Clos du Val. Stag's Leap, the winner at Paris, had slipped. Overall the California wines actually did a little better in 1986 than in 1976. Also in 1986 the Wine Spectator magazine did a retesting. Heitz Martha's Vineyard won that. Earlier this year there was a retasting in Sao Paulo done by Spurrier. Stag's Leap won there. In late September in Manhattan there was a "modern" Paris Tasting that included all the original French wines, the winning California ones and some new California cult wines. Tht was done with modern vintages, including 2000 for all the French, which was a great year in France. Haut Brion won that one, with Stag's Leap a close second. The retasting reported in the New York Times last week was the only lopsided French victory that I can remember. Most of the retastings have been close, and my general unscientific impression is that the California wines have been slightly ahead. More retastings are planned. The Vintner's Club in San Francisco, which did a first retasting in 1978, is doing another next May for the 30th anniversay of the Paris event. It looks like a debate that fortunately will not be ending any time soon.

[Rebel Rose]

Congratulations, George! According to Decanter, The Judgment of Paris has been optioned as a movie by Clear Pictures Entertainment in Studio City, California. The movie will tentatively star Hugh Grant and Jude Law.

[MaxH]

According to Decanter, The Judgment of Paris has been optioned as a movie by Clear Pictures Entertainment in Studio City, California. ...

Though certainly good news for the author, I wonder if such a movie would also be good news for public understanding of California wine and its history. Please keep in mind that I haven't read the book, and am not referring to it here at all. Rather, I'm thinking of the potential for more mythology of the kind (cited here in related threads, "French Resistance" and "from michael bauer's blog") in recent glib media accounts of the re-tasting. Those accounts (surely penned by non-wine-specialists, generally) are already detaching the event from its history and broader context. I wonder what Hollywood will do with it, therefore.