Young Sommeliers

[Rebel Rose]

In this month's Food and Wine, Lettie Teague takes on the under-30 sommeliers:

Fred returned a few minutes later. "I want to introduce you to one of my guilty pleasures," he said, producing a bottle of 2001 Montus Pacherenc du Vic-Bilh Sec, a white wine from southwest France. From a respected producer of Madiran (the region's much better-known red), this deep gold-colored white was made from the obscure Petit Courbu grape. Its aroma reminded me of Viognier, though in the mouth it was more like a well-oaked California Chardonnay.

"It tastes like a California Chardonnay," I said to Fred, noting the lavish amounts of new oak. Fred disagreed with me, insisting "No, it doesn't. It tastes like a Burgundy." After Fred left, my friend said, "It tastes like cologne." Fred checked back to see how we liked it. Not much, we confessed.

Has anyone encountered these youngsters? Your thoughts?

[Really Nice!]

During my first visit to The French Laundry in July 2000 I had a table in the garden next to the kitchen. There were four tables, about 10-11 people. One young man was serving the wine and he gave a lot of details, notes, and comparisons to the wines he was pouring for the tables and he was able to answer every question.

About half way through the meal, my third or fourth glass, I asked him his age. He replied 23. I asked him how he got to know about wines at such a young age. He said that he started drinking wine when he was 3.

[Jaybert41]

Regardless of age, the proof is in the product. If a young sommlier can offer me unique and enjoyable wines at a good price then I'm in.

Just like anything or anyone in its youth- there are sure to be some over steps and abuses along the way. Maturity, experience and modesty does account for something important.

I consider myslef to be a very open minded wine consumer and would enjoy somebody that is passionate and enthusiastic about less well known and often time less expensive wines. I'm not sure that I would put mysleft in thier hands while consulting a few decades old Bordeaux options, but would certainly let them lead the way otherwise.

During my first visit to The French Laundry in July 2000 I had a table in the garden next to the kitchen. There were four tables, about 10-11 people. One young man was serving the wine and he gave a lot of details, notes, and comparisons to the wines he was pouring for the tables and he was able to answer every question.

About half way through the meal, my third or fourth glass, I asked him his age. He replied 23. I asked him how he got to know about wines at such a young age. He said that he started drinking wine when he was 3.

←

[Gaucho]

Very interesting topic. One thing with young-gun sommeliers is that many choose to use their "credentials" to issue some pretty harsh veredicts. Not that a young sommeliers cant be right, but you have to wonder how much wine one can have tasted by the time you are 25 years old. Its not only an issue of when you started drinking, but also, have some of these folks had access to the budget required to taste some of the cult stuff that they sometimes critique? Furthemore, if one is to issue bold and definitive remarks, does it suffice to have merely "sampled" a few sips of some of these great wines?

Can short lived credentials and academic certificates give license to destroy wines made by winemakers with decades of experience and accolades, that have been praised by many?

Sure, some young Sommeliers I know really know their wine, but, there are some cases similar to the French Laundry experience posted above that really make me wonder.

Finally, dont get me started on the Sommeliers that insist on telling you what you are supposed to smell and taste in your wine glass....

Edited July 22, 2005 by Gaucho (log)

[Sackville]

I am very new to the world of wine compared with many of you, I'm sure, but the first thing that jumps to mind is the pay. I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in the UK the wages are pitifully low.

Here's a search of current jobs going in the UK.

As a journalist of just 4 years experience (in the financial arena) I am earning at least double what many of those jobs are advertised for. So where is the incentive for someone who's been in the trade many years to be a sommelier? You cannot live on love of wine alone!

[MaxH]

Not that a young sommeliers cant be right, but you have to wonder how much wine one can have tasted by the time you are 25 years old.

Yes indeed, Gaucho. Some of us wine enthusiasts wondered in the 1980s how a new wine critic aged in his 30s could presume to write sweeping, decisive judgements about the 20-year aging potential of young wines, given his probable inexperience with same. On the contrary, many of my compatriots seemed unperturbed by this and, if anything, attracted to it. Who can predict ...

--Max

[melkor]

During a meal at Michael Mina a friend brought a bottle of 82 Bordeaux with her and we had the sommelier comment that it was from his birth year

[JohnL]

Reading the entire piece in F and W I noted that Ms teague does offer some perspective:

"These men and women worked long hours constructing creative and challenging wine lists. And while some could be a bit overzealous, their enthusiasm was inspiring and certainly helped to sell a lot of wine..."

A sommelier has a job that boils down to: gauging a customer and their likes and dislikes and what price level they are compfortable with --then recommending a wine appropriate to the food being ordered.

The question of how much wine they have tasted (the age thing) is, in my opinion, secondary to their ability engage a customer and deliver a pleasant experience for that customer.

Ms Teague seems to be pointing out that the youthful exhuberance sometimes gets in the way of that pleasant experience.

Arguing with a customer (disagreeing) that"no it (the wine in question) doesn't it tastes like Burgundy." is an ill informed, somewhat arrogant comment.

I would also like to note that I have encountered many an older (over forty) sommelier who was equally arrogant and overbearing (though often with more subtlety and style).

A good example of youthful exhuberance is the sommelier who is passionate about an obscure wine and "pushes" it with an "I know something you don't know--let me turn you to it..." approach.

What is missing is the all important element of good service: knowing the customer and anticipating his or her likes and dislikes--then determining the best wine on the list for their dining experience. Not "thrusting" your knowledge and enthusiasm upon them with an "I know what's best for me so it will be best for you" approach.

Also some good points by "Gaucho" re: credentials etc. It may be that young people have not yet gained any real perspective as to what their role in the dining experience is. It may also be a trend that restaurateurs have also lost sight of this role and are more interested in a "young gun" or "hotshot" rather than a thoughtful and customer friendly wine service overall. It certainly may be a salary thing as well--I am not very well versed in the area.

As for Max H and the not so subtle mention of Mr Parker:

The proof is in the pudding as they say!

His track record speaks for itself. At the time, Parker was a breath of fresh air (to many he still is). Agree or disagree with him, he basically says:I have tasted this wine here is what I think. I doubt your "compatriots" are sheep-- so more than likely they find enough points of agreement with Mr P's pronouncements to follow him.

As for Parker's brashness--I doubt that he would have been noticed had he been equivocal in his pronouncements.

Also Parker is in the business of offering up his opinions for money, a sommelier needs to be a bit more deferential, I think, as only a part of an overall dining experience.

[MaxH]

As for Max H and the not so subtle mention of  Mr Parker: The proof is in the pudding as they say!

Yes, but of what, don't you see?

At the time, Parker was a breath of fresh air (to many he still is).

I see this asserted lately, sometimes by people who never even heard of all of the respected, independent US wine newsletter critics of the 1970s (predating Mr. P), critics who offered in essence the same service that he did, excepting the categorical statements and the two-digit number. Though these asserters seldom offer real comparative assessment versus the earlier critics (preferring to intone an increasingly mythical notion of the US wine criticism scene before the breath of fresh air -- often, also before their own experience), there was a real change with his advent: the appeal of the decisive pronouncements and of the two-digit number. As I said, some found these attractive. Occasionally we get penetrating looks at this phenomenon, which are not necessarily negative. But we don't get them from the True Believers.

Woe unto anyone who dares question the new orthodoxy. Realities at issue need not even come into play. Stuart Yaniger, in McCoy's new Parker biography The Emperor of Wine, is quoted as learning on the Prodigy online service the unacceptability of questioning Parker’s ideas or methods. Following “dodge” answers from P. would arrive “thirty or forty or fifty emails from the Human Shield ... `how dare you imply the great man is anything but a paragon of honesty. Clearly you are a horrible person and how jealous you must be of the Great Bob.’ ” “Religious reactions” was Yaniger’s characterization. His experience of the Faithful is consistent with mine online for 20+ years, predating Prodigy.

I doubt your "compatriots" are sheep

-- if you insist on introducing such language; hardly my point.

As for Parker's brashness--I doubt that he would have been noticed had he been equivocal in his pronouncements.

Edited July 25, 2005 by MaxH (log)

[Chef Shogun]

Have to start somewhere, right? This is the 'experience' part for when in a few decades they are regarded as 'experienced' sommeliers.

Edited July 25, 2005 by Chef Shogun (log)

[JohnL]

As for Max H and the not so subtle mention of  Mr Parker: The proof is in the pudding as they say!

Yes, but of what, don't you see?

At the time, Parker was a breath of fresh air (to many he still is).

I see this asserted lately, sometimes by people who never even heard of all of the respected, independent US wine newsletter critics of the 1970s (predating Mr. P), critics who offered in essence the same service that he did, excepting the categorical statements and the two-digit number. Though these asserters seldom offer real comparative assessment versus the earlier critics (preferring to intone an increasingly mythical notion of the US wine criticism scene before the breath of fresh air -- often, also before their own experience), there was a real change with his advent: the appeal of the decisive pronouncements and of the two-digit number. As I said, some found these attractive. Occasionally we get penetrating looks at this phenomenon, which are not necessarily negative. But we don't get them from the True Believers.

Woe unto anyone who dares question the new orthodoxy. Realities at issue need not even come into play. Stuart Yaniger, in McCoy's new Parker biography The Emperor of Wine, is quoted as learning on the Prodigy online service the unacceptability of questioning Parker’s ideas or methods. Following “dodge” answers from P. would arrive “thirty or forty or fifty emails from the Human Shield ... `how dare you imply the great man is anything but a paragon of honesty. Clearly you are a horrible person and how jealous you must be of the Great Bob.’ ” “Religious reactions” was Yaniger’s characterization. His experience of the Faithful is consistent with mine online for 20+ years, predating Prodigy.

I doubt your "compatriots" are sheep

-- if you insist on introducing such language; hardly my point.

As for Parker's brashness--I doubt that he would have been noticed had he been equivocal in his pronouncements.

←

Max,

Robert Parker has had quite substantial success, that is irrefutable. There are many reasons behind that success. But the fact remains, were Parker off or wrong on his assements to any great degree he would lose his credibility and his success would quickly wane.

That is enough people put some credence in his assessments to establish Parker's credibility.

If you want to denegrate those people (I am sure there are many zealots among them) so be it. There are large numbers of people who are equally zealous in their dislike of Parker. This is pretty much to be expected when anyone expresses strong opinions. (especially regarding something as ethereal as wine).

As to the "breath of fresh air" comment I made. If those anonymous (you fail to mention any) "seventies" newsletter writers were able to communicate as effectively as Parker perhaps they would have been more impactful. There is an element of right place right time in play and Ms McCoy's book does a good job of explaining what happened to Mr Finnigan (there I mentioned one) and his contemporaries. Perhaps the myth is that there was any substantive American wine criticism pre Parker.

As for the compatriots not being sheep comment, you seem to be implying that the problem lies with those who follow Parker (I am assuming you mean those who subscribe to his news letter).

That is they are somehow following blindly. I am sure that some do. However many are very knowledgeable wine lovers (again Ms McCoy's book does a good job identifying Parkers fans) who are anything but blind. Many of them also disagree with Parker from time to time.

There are many very good wine writers some of whom agree with Parker and some who disagree with parker and his methods and approach there is a lot of room for debate. It should be noted that for what ever reasons Parker is responsible in full or part for the sucess of many of them. Tanzer, Meadows etc. and many European writers have increased subscription lists due to Parker. So I guess in the end everybody wins.

What I find most disturbing about the Parker detractors is many of the comments are tinged with elitism. Yes wine snobbery! There is a lot of room to criticize Parker and his approach to wine but unfortunately many detractors would rather grumble about Parker's success and how anyone who follows him must be.........

ps

ya know I just realized that this thread is about a piece in F and W regarding thirty something sommeliers and here we are in a discussion of Robert Parker?!

Edited July 26, 2005 by JohnL (log)

[Carlovski]

I don't really know how the career path of a sommelier runs, but if you can't be a young sommelier, how does anyone become a sommelier?

[JohnL]

Yes that is a valid point!

I think Ms teague was getting at the style of these young sommeliers and commenting on the current scene.

Maybe the people who hire and train these young "turks" are the real source of the problem.

In the end wine service is about people and helping customers and applying one's knowledge and expertise to that end.

[Rebel Rose]

ya know I just realized that this thread is about a piece in F and W regarding thirty something sommeliers and here we are in a discussion of Robert Parker?!

Quite right, thanks for returning to the topic, John. Further discussion on the always popular Parker can be continued here:

Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate: Prince of Points?