A summary of the results of the Wine Consumer Preferences study I conducted via the Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi, www.consumerwineawards.com , are now posted and can be downloaded that web site and at www.timhanni.com . The report compares differences in preferences, attitudes and behaviors between SWEET and TOLERANT (love big red wines) consumers. Dr. Utermohlen, my research partner, and I also issued a press release that is sure to draw the ire of the dry-wine-is-good-wine crowd. I will be posting some of the comments, pro and con, as they are received. Please send me YOUR story! tim@timhanni.com
The first one is from Jeff Quackenbush who lives in Sonoma:
Tim,
Thank you for sending this. I’ve been ridiculed by black coffee–drinking big cab lovers as not having a “sophisticated” palate for preferring sweet wines — fruit-far-forward rieslings and icewines, preferably — to pucker-producing titans of tannin. I like icewines, because they don’t have the bite of high-alcohol ports or the like. A Napa Valley chef recently tried to convince me that learning to savor bitterness was part of “growing up” as a cosmopolitan connoisseur.
Jeff
The next from a very cool mini-consortium of Sauterne producers called Boredeaux Gold (and this is covered in detail in the revision of the wine and food section of the WSET materials I was asked to rewrite):
"We are working with the Sauternais to 'Liberez les Sauternes' or free Sauternes from it's labelling as a dessert wine and I instinctively feel that you might be able to help us. The Sauternais drink their wines with fish, roast meats and spicy foods as well as with dessert - they can't understand why the world insists on drinking it only with sweet dishes, cheese or foie gras... The 'anti-sweet' phenomenon is frustrating and confusing to them. They sense that, if left alone to choose, most people would prefer to drink sweet wines much more frequently and your research suggests that this might be the case."
When the Lafite and Hermitage came out in a formal, French haute cuisine meal sweet wines were served right along side as DINNER wines, not dessert wines. As stated in Larousse Gastonomique in 1938, "if the guest prefers." Kinda shoots down 'traditional' wine and food matching.
Finally for now is this embarrassing (for our industry) recount from a meal at a very famous restaurant last year:
Lissa Doumani is representative of the millions of hyper-sensitive wine drinkers in the world and does not fit the stereotype of a "wimpy" consumer in any way, shape or form. Lissa, daughter of iconic vintner Carl Doumani, grew up in the heart of the Napa Valley surrounded by vines at a winery that was famous for intense red wines. Lissa became a pastry chef by trade (not unusual for a highly sensitive taster) and now she and her husband Hiro are proprietors of two Michelin-starred California restaurants; Terra in St. Helena and Ame in San Francisco. Also at the table were Dr. Harold McGee, food scientist and guru to the culinary world and Chef Kukuoka from Kyoto.
During a dinner at a world famous high-end restaurant she turned to her table mate Tim Hanni MW, co-author of this study and a recognized authority on wine and food, and asked him to order a wine that she might like better than the ones pre-selected by the restaurant. The highly rated, high-alcohol wines that had been chosen by the wine experts to accompany the meal tasted unpleasantly overpowering and even burned her hyper-sensitive palate.
What ensued is the bane of the vast majority of consumers who prefer light intensity and even sweet wines. Hanni's request for a recommendation of a "light, delicate wine" was met with the embarrassing retort, "if you knew anything about wine and food you would know that these are the appropriate wine for each dish."
Says Hanni, "This is not an indictment for well-intentioned wine professionals. It is indicative of our lack of understanding how vastly different our sensory physiology can be from one person to the next."
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Bull S*%t, Breakfast of Champignons
I took this picture many, many years ago and made this poster. Thought it would be fun to share!
A new article just came out in the Guardian (U.K.) written by a really nice guy named Oliver Thring. He attended a dinner I did in Wimbledon as part of my 'Bibendum Tour' in London a couple of weeks age. We spent the evening in Wimbledon with about 16 wine and food writers/bloggers discussing my ideas about individual taste sensitivity and the role it plays in shaping our wine preferences.
After that we attacked Wine and Food Matching conventional wisdoms with gusto! Lots of fun. Ollie was inspired, as were most of the guests, by the step-by-step dismantling of each wine and food myth, demonstrations that provide dramatic evidence that something is amiss with even our most closely held beliefs and then demonstrations incorporating Flavor Balancing that make both wine and food wonderfully delicious even in bizarre and unimaginable combinations.
What I find so challenging in this age of communications is that full and complete concepts cannot be presented very well in the scope of a news article. In this case the entire psychological/neuroscience component of my work was omitted and I have no probelem with that. What cracks me up is how so many people,k who have no clue about the complete scope of my work or the many wonderful chefs, scientists and wine experts I interact and work with on a regular basis.
Oliver had a blast as did I. He and the rest of the crew were really engaged in the demonstrations of taste illusions and in-depth critical re-thinking of wine and food traditions and I applaud him for this great article! Missed a bit of a point - I think wine critics are great, we just need new ideas for millions of other consumers. An alternative, not a threat or replacment.
AND THEN - it hits the blogosphere!
Here are some links to go see the real action that develops!! Love to all - come have lunch with me when you can.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Great Cabernet Debate: Hypersensitive vs. Tolerant Tasters
I got so involved responding to a blog by Steve Heimoff today I thought I would tweak it a bit and make my own blog out of it! Lazy bastard that I am. And save your breath on the "this dumbs down wine" and these ideas are "stoopid and moronic." I know, I know. come have lunch with me.
Two radically different perspectives on the "state of the art of Cabernet Sauvignon" have surfaced the information superhighway over the course of about 2 weeks time. Just to be clear, I seriously LOVE both of the guys I will cite below who seem to be so diametrically opposed to each other on this topic. Both are brilliant, passionate men who very probably have VERY different sensory sensitivities that directly affect their experience of Cabernet Sauvignon. But I, on the other hand, give them something to agree on - ME! They both have really passionate, strong and generally negative views on a new initiative I have undertaken to create a process and new event with consumers formally evaluating wine and generating peer-to-peer recommendations. This is being done with my partners Pooch Pucilowski and Aaron Kidder (sorry to drag you guys into this! :-) ).
Steve recently posted a sarcastic (more like a thinly-veiled attack, but maybe I am being hyper-sensitive?) on the Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi event that is one of my pet projects. I take it all in stride (sniff). Conversations I have had with Dan Berger have demonstrated he agrees with Steve in principle that consumers are not generally fit to evaluate wines in a formal tasting situation. Says Steve, "With this breathless hyperventilation, the producers of the latest get-rich-quick “wine awards” gimmick announce yet another effort to 'democratize' wine assessment by taking it away from — gasp! — evil experts like me and handing it over to that ever-popular bastion of populism — the Consumer! We’re seeing these 'consumer-judged wine competitions' multiply like e coli in a petrie (sic) dish..."
The intention is not to take anything away from "evil experts" - just seeing if we can find a way to bring more people into the wine community fold and have them feel welcome. For the whole enchilada go to on this conversation at Steve’s blog go to http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2010/01/20/announcing-the-new-voice-of-the-people-worldwide-wine-awards-competition-exclusively-on-steveheimoff-com/#comments .
Below are links to the Berger article and Heiman blog that set this up "great Cabernet debate" so nicely. I have also provided some snippets taken from each.
In one corner we have the Steve Heimoff opinion, “Well, these certainly are wines that have become spectacular in recent years. You really do have to wonder where their evolution will take them. I know some people who don’t like the Napa cult style, which is based on super-mature grapes (with consequent low acidity) and generous dollops of new oak. They’re entitled to their opinion; I happen to like it.” http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2010/01/19/napa-cabernet-as-good-as-it-can-get/
In the other corner we have this just in from Dan Berger's recent article, "For more than a decade, I have hoped for a miracle. Then last week I realized the worst: Cabernet Sauvignon has changed so appreciably that I fear we’ll never see it in the way we once did... A long book could be devoted to this sad tale of decline."
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/lifestyles/food-and-cooking/wine/columnists/dan-berger/article_704bc688-0712-11df-a231-001cc4c002e0.html
Consider for a moment that on one end of the spectrum we have, Dan Berger, a hypersensitive taster whose tongue, general taste sensitivity and wine preferences I have personally analyzed, is writing about his very real and very passionate views on what Cabernet should or should not be. His hypersensitivity provides an experience such that high alcohol burns and that modern Cabernets and many other wines are over-blown, over-oaked and not nice with food. For Dan, and anyone else with his sensitivity and values, this point of view is dead-on correct: “There are complicated reasons for this turnabout, but the bottom line is that we may have lost cabernet for all time. I can’t drink them young; I can’t imagine they will age well, and I cannot figure out why so many people are still buying them.” Spoken like a true hypersensitive taster! And perfect advice for other hypersensitive and many more-sensitive tasters.
People at the less-sensitive to tolerant end of the spectrum will more predictably LOVE the high-alcohol, oak and intensity that have come to define great Cabernet for the Parker/Laube crowd. And with food as well! The alcohol tastes ’sweet’, the oak and tannin are not at all overbearing and in fact the very same wines are perceived as smooth, rich and balanced. This level of extract and intensity is the source of ‘great’ for many tolerant tasters.
I can pretty much surmise that the getting to the source of these differences in opinion lies in better understanding the vastly different experiences from people at different ends of taste sensitivity continuum. I have not had the pleasure of personally assessing Steve H.’s taste sensitivity profile but will when/if he comes to lunch. I have personally tested thousands of people. I know that people like Tim Mondavi and Jancis Robinson, along with Dan, are both at the hypersensitive end of the spectrum and very predictably in the same camp with Dan Berger on the unpleasant direction things have gone with ‘too much’ oak, ‘too much’ alcohol and their experience that the food and Cabernet affinity is lost in all of this extreme flavor.
Steve responded to my on of my comments on his own blog, "But is a hypersensitive palate necessarily a good thing in a wine critic? I don’t think so." My response - it is not good, not bad. Just different sensory physiology and the source of a lot of unpleasant disagreement between wine critics and experts.
The first thing to understand about what we are looking at is there is not a 'good, bad, better' to taste sensitivity. It just 'is what it is.' Some people have as few as 300 taste buds, others over 10,000 and this plays a very significant role in establishing our individual perception of wine and everything else. All of our senses come into play and taste sensitivity correlates to our sensitivities to smell, sight, touch and hearing as well. A person with way less taste buds has many advantages and the people with the very most taste buds often have preferences that make the wine industry howl in horror! Just ask Dr. Virginia Utermohlen at Cornell University, one of our key research partners who studies this phenomenon in the context of personality development and behavioral traits and is a super/uber/hypersensitive taster. She is one of our 'poster children' for the most sensitive tasters of all - what we call SWEET tasters. If it is over 10% alcohol and less than 3% sugar, count her out. Just like MILLIONS of consumers in the US and BILLIONS around the world.
To Steve H.'s point "But is a hypersensitive palate necessarily a good thing in a wine critic? I don’t think so." Not a good thing, not a bad thing - just a very important thing to understand so that the differences in our opinions, so brilliantly lit up by the 'Great Cabernet Debate', can be better understood in a very cool and valid new way. Also PLEASE keep in mind we are simultaneously studying the psychological phenomena that have us move about with our preferences and passions.
Dan Berger goes on to note rhetorically, “P.S. Is there any connection to the decline in Cabernet style and the dramatically increased sales of pinot noir?”
This actually points to our studies of the migration of more sensitive tasters (NOTE: not inferring “better tasters” or anything of the sort!!!) to lower phenolic wines which they have a more natural tendency to enjoy. Then you can see the Hypersensitive vs. Tolerant division erupt in the same way over Pinot Noir style between the people who love and savor delicacy and finesse vs. the high extract, high alcohol and heavy oak camp (read more tolerant tasters).
Steve then commented on my observations, “As for Tim’s observation that the “decline in Cabernet style” is connected to the rise of Pinot Noir, I don’t agree. Over the course of my career, many experienced collectors told me they started off with Bordeaux/Cabernet, and then, when they got older, found themselves preferring Burgundy/Pinot Noir. I think that’s a natural progression, and not due to any modern style of Cabernet.”
I am saying that the ‘decline in Cabernet style’ is a point of view largely held by hypersensitive, and more sensitive tasters in general, and that the migration to Pinot Noir is more predictable for this sensitivity group. Our research on the subject points to traits which are very typical of a hypersensitive taster's view of things and their often predictable migration to less intense, less bitter and astringent wines. It is not a universal or uniform progression to Burgundy or Pinot Noir, more like the 'March of the More Sensitive Tasters' with a lot of passion and intellectual elements involved! Many people are absolutely satisfied to stay with their intense, extracted and oaky favorites.
Understand the examples I am providing here are greatly generalized insights from the nearly 20 years of observation, research and learning with the participation of really great researchers and scientists around the world. There are variations and mitigating factors that abound in all of this. It is a wonderfully complex and fascinating area of science and learning we are exploring and I invite any and all of you to jump in with us to continue learning more.
My usual response when people get really upset about my point of view is to invite them to lunch. I will reiterate my invitation to Steve H. in his blog: Hell – everyone is invited to my place for lunch to learn what we have discovered and argue and attack all of the premises for my outrages claims. I will cook, and I am serious.
Two radically different perspectives on the "state of the art of Cabernet Sauvignon" have surfaced the information superhighway over the course of about 2 weeks time. Just to be clear, I seriously LOVE both of the guys I will cite below who seem to be so diametrically opposed to each other on this topic. Both are brilliant, passionate men who very probably have VERY different sensory sensitivities that directly affect their experience of Cabernet Sauvignon. But I, on the other hand, give them something to agree on - ME! They both have really passionate, strong and generally negative views on a new initiative I have undertaken to create a process and new event with consumers formally evaluating wine and generating peer-to-peer recommendations. This is being done with my partners Pooch Pucilowski and Aaron Kidder (sorry to drag you guys into this! :-) ).
Steve recently posted a sarcastic (more like a thinly-veiled attack, but maybe I am being hyper-sensitive?) on the Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi event that is one of my pet projects. I take it all in stride (sniff). Conversations I have had with Dan Berger have demonstrated he agrees with Steve in principle that consumers are not generally fit to evaluate wines in a formal tasting situation. Says Steve, "With this breathless hyperventilation, the producers of the latest get-rich-quick “wine awards” gimmick announce yet another effort to 'democratize' wine assessment by taking it away from — gasp! — evil experts like me and handing it over to that ever-popular bastion of populism — the Consumer! We’re seeing these 'consumer-judged wine competitions' multiply like e coli in a petrie (sic) dish..."
The intention is not to take anything away from "evil experts" - just seeing if we can find a way to bring more people into the wine community fold and have them feel welcome. For the whole enchilada go to on this conversation at Steve’s blog go to http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2010/01/20/announcing-the-new-voice-of-the-people-worldwide-wine-awards-competition-exclusively-on-steveheimoff-com/#comments .
Below are links to the Berger article and Heiman blog that set this up "great Cabernet debate" so nicely. I have also provided some snippets taken from each.
In one corner we have the Steve Heimoff opinion, “Well, these certainly are wines that have become spectacular in recent years. You really do have to wonder where their evolution will take them. I know some people who don’t like the Napa cult style, which is based on super-mature grapes (with consequent low acidity) and generous dollops of new oak. They’re entitled to their opinion; I happen to like it.” http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2010/01/19/napa-cabernet-as-good-as-it-can-get/
In the other corner we have this just in from Dan Berger's recent article, "For more than a decade, I have hoped for a miracle. Then last week I realized the worst: Cabernet Sauvignon has changed so appreciably that I fear we’ll never see it in the way we once did... A long book could be devoted to this sad tale of decline."
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/lifestyles/food-and-cooking/wine/columnists/dan-berger/article_704bc688-0712-11df-a231-001cc4c002e0.html
Consider for a moment that on one end of the spectrum we have, Dan Berger, a hypersensitive taster whose tongue, general taste sensitivity and wine preferences I have personally analyzed, is writing about his very real and very passionate views on what Cabernet should or should not be. His hypersensitivity provides an experience such that high alcohol burns and that modern Cabernets and many other wines are over-blown, over-oaked and not nice with food. For Dan, and anyone else with his sensitivity and values, this point of view is dead-on correct: “There are complicated reasons for this turnabout, but the bottom line is that we may have lost cabernet for all time. I can’t drink them young; I can’t imagine they will age well, and I cannot figure out why so many people are still buying them.” Spoken like a true hypersensitive taster! And perfect advice for other hypersensitive and many more-sensitive tasters.
People at the less-sensitive to tolerant end of the spectrum will more predictably LOVE the high-alcohol, oak and intensity that have come to define great Cabernet for the Parker/Laube crowd. And with food as well! The alcohol tastes ’sweet’, the oak and tannin are not at all overbearing and in fact the very same wines are perceived as smooth, rich and balanced. This level of extract and intensity is the source of ‘great’ for many tolerant tasters.
I can pretty much surmise that the getting to the source of these differences in opinion lies in better understanding the vastly different experiences from people at different ends of taste sensitivity continuum. I have not had the pleasure of personally assessing Steve H.’s taste sensitivity profile but will when/if he comes to lunch. I have personally tested thousands of people. I know that people like Tim Mondavi and Jancis Robinson, along with Dan, are both at the hypersensitive end of the spectrum and very predictably in the same camp with Dan Berger on the unpleasant direction things have gone with ‘too much’ oak, ‘too much’ alcohol and their experience that the food and Cabernet affinity is lost in all of this extreme flavor.
Steve responded to my on of my comments on his own blog, "But is a hypersensitive palate necessarily a good thing in a wine critic? I don’t think so." My response - it is not good, not bad. Just different sensory physiology and the source of a lot of unpleasant disagreement between wine critics and experts.
The first thing to understand about what we are looking at is there is not a 'good, bad, better' to taste sensitivity. It just 'is what it is.' Some people have as few as 300 taste buds, others over 10,000 and this plays a very significant role in establishing our individual perception of wine and everything else. All of our senses come into play and taste sensitivity correlates to our sensitivities to smell, sight, touch and hearing as well. A person with way less taste buds has many advantages and the people with the very most taste buds often have preferences that make the wine industry howl in horror! Just ask Dr. Virginia Utermohlen at Cornell University, one of our key research partners who studies this phenomenon in the context of personality development and behavioral traits and is a super/uber/hypersensitive taster. She is one of our 'poster children' for the most sensitive tasters of all - what we call SWEET tasters. If it is over 10% alcohol and less than 3% sugar, count her out. Just like MILLIONS of consumers in the US and BILLIONS around the world.
To Steve H.'s point "But is a hypersensitive palate necessarily a good thing in a wine critic? I don’t think so." Not a good thing, not a bad thing - just a very important thing to understand so that the differences in our opinions, so brilliantly lit up by the 'Great Cabernet Debate', can be better understood in a very cool and valid new way. Also PLEASE keep in mind we are simultaneously studying the psychological phenomena that have us move about with our preferences and passions.
Dan Berger goes on to note rhetorically, “P.S. Is there any connection to the decline in Cabernet style and the dramatically increased sales of pinot noir?”
This actually points to our studies of the migration of more sensitive tasters (NOTE: not inferring “better tasters” or anything of the sort!!!) to lower phenolic wines which they have a more natural tendency to enjoy. Then you can see the Hypersensitive vs. Tolerant division erupt in the same way over Pinot Noir style between the people who love and savor delicacy and finesse vs. the high extract, high alcohol and heavy oak camp (read more tolerant tasters).
Steve then commented on my observations, “As for Tim’s observation that the “decline in Cabernet style” is connected to the rise of Pinot Noir, I don’t agree. Over the course of my career, many experienced collectors told me they started off with Bordeaux/Cabernet, and then, when they got older, found themselves preferring Burgundy/Pinot Noir. I think that’s a natural progression, and not due to any modern style of Cabernet.”
I am saying that the ‘decline in Cabernet style’ is a point of view largely held by hypersensitive, and more sensitive tasters in general, and that the migration to Pinot Noir is more predictable for this sensitivity group. Our research on the subject points to traits which are very typical of a hypersensitive taster's view of things and their often predictable migration to less intense, less bitter and astringent wines. It is not a universal or uniform progression to Burgundy or Pinot Noir, more like the 'March of the More Sensitive Tasters' with a lot of passion and intellectual elements involved! Many people are absolutely satisfied to stay with their intense, extracted and oaky favorites.
Understand the examples I am providing here are greatly generalized insights from the nearly 20 years of observation, research and learning with the participation of really great researchers and scientists around the world. There are variations and mitigating factors that abound in all of this. It is a wonderfully complex and fascinating area of science and learning we are exploring and I invite any and all of you to jump in with us to continue learning more.
My usual response when people get really upset about my point of view is to invite them to lunch. I will reiterate my invitation to Steve H. in his blog: Hell – everyone is invited to my place for lunch to learn what we have discovered and argue and attack all of the premises for my outrages claims. I will cook, and I am serious.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Terroir continued
Happy new year, y'all! I have been participating in another 'terroir' discussion and thought this would be useful to post here:
Let me see if this makes sense - there is something that drives me to want to find completion for explaining things like terroir - not leaving it open ended and undefined. Please excuse my obstinance and let me try an analogy that occured to me.
Terroir is the combination of everything and anything that shapes the characteristics of a wine. A 'gout de terroir' is a distinctive characteristic in a wine that enables someone with experience to connect a wine back to its' origin.
Here is an important definition to help explain things:
Flavor: definition #4, American Heritage DictionaryA distinctive yet intangible quality felt to be characteristic of a given thing: "What matters in literature . . . is surely the idiosyncratic, the individual, the flavor or color of a particular human suffering" (Harold Bloom).
New York, as a city, has a certain 'flavor' to it. Meaning there are certain things that distinguish the locale. The people, the taxis, the buildings. If you see a picture of the skyline or Times Square you can say, "oh, that's New York." London has a different flavor. Or LA, or San Francisco, or Miami, or Peoria. Every town, village or city has a 'flavor' to it.
If you have never been to the town, or seen pictures of it or a movie set in it you may not be able to recognize the 'flavor' of a place. If you see a movie set in parts of Miami you may not be able to distinguish it from Cuba. The more experienced you become with the places the more adept you become at recognizing the 'flavors' and identifying the locality. Skylines, neighborhoods, villages, towns and cities change over time. The 'flavor' of a neighborhood may become transformed and unrecognizable to someone who grew up there. They will lament that something was lost - it is not like it was in the 'good old days.'
The smell of a certain section of a place may be viewed by one person negatively as a stench (flaw) or by another as a distinguishing attribute that evokes positive memories. Low tide will do this, as well as a run around Pike's Place in Seattle!
The 'flavor' of New York changed on 9/11. The twin towers went down and the 'distinctive characteristics' of the skyline were forever changed. Phylloxera devastated the vineyards of France in the late 19th century and millions of vines had to be replanted but only after being grafted onto (gasp) Americian rootstock. The terroir, the local flavor of the wines and even the people, changed as a result.
THIS is terroir: the FLAVOR of a wine in the context of "a distinctive yet intangible quality felt to be characteristic of a given thing." It ma be any combination of the people, the customs, the the traditions, the soil, climate, yeasts and barrels - anything and everything that plays a role in shaping the 'flavor' of a wine from a given place. A 'gout de terroir' are the elements of true flavor (in a sensory context) that enables a person with an intimate knowledge and memory of wine 'places' to say, "that is a Pinot Grigio from Northern Italy," or "that is a Lodi Zinfancel," or "that is a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc," "this is Harlan Estate," ad nauseum.
People can do that! A wine may exhibit great qualities yet have no context of terroir. When Sassacaia came along in the region where Sangiovese was sacred it was greeted with skepticism. It became so overwhelmingly successful the entire region of Chianti was changed! The 'alien' Cabernet was now desireable, even legalized to replace the tradtional white grapes that were required in Chianti. The gout te terroir of Chianti morphed.
Good and bad experiences shape your memories and attitutudes. You can go to LA and find yourself in a bad neighborhood. That may forever change your memories and the mere thought of LA will elicit an "I HATE LA" response. Conversely you could hate New York but go there and discover a neighborhood that is filled with friendly, loving people that bowl you over with their charm and grace. Then people get together on a New York or LA of Paris or London or Peoria discussion on line and we all get to argue over who is right or wrong! we are, of course, human.
Love to you all for the New Year!
Let me see if this makes sense - there is something that drives me to want to find completion for explaining things like terroir - not leaving it open ended and undefined. Please excuse my obstinance and let me try an analogy that occured to me.
Terroir is the combination of everything and anything that shapes the characteristics of a wine. A 'gout de terroir' is a distinctive characteristic in a wine that enables someone with experience to connect a wine back to its' origin.
Here is an important definition to help explain things:
Flavor: definition #4, American Heritage DictionaryA distinctive yet intangible quality felt to be characteristic of a given thing: "What matters in literature . . . is surely the idiosyncratic, the individual, the flavor or color of a particular human suffering" (Harold Bloom).
New York, as a city, has a certain 'flavor' to it. Meaning there are certain things that distinguish the locale. The people, the taxis, the buildings. If you see a picture of the skyline or Times Square you can say, "oh, that's New York." London has a different flavor. Or LA, or San Francisco, or Miami, or Peoria. Every town, village or city has a 'flavor' to it.
If you have never been to the town, or seen pictures of it or a movie set in it you may not be able to recognize the 'flavor' of a place. If you see a movie set in parts of Miami you may not be able to distinguish it from Cuba. The more experienced you become with the places the more adept you become at recognizing the 'flavors' and identifying the locality. Skylines, neighborhoods, villages, towns and cities change over time. The 'flavor' of a neighborhood may become transformed and unrecognizable to someone who grew up there. They will lament that something was lost - it is not like it was in the 'good old days.'
The smell of a certain section of a place may be viewed by one person negatively as a stench (flaw) or by another as a distinguishing attribute that evokes positive memories. Low tide will do this, as well as a run around Pike's Place in Seattle!
The 'flavor' of New York changed on 9/11. The twin towers went down and the 'distinctive characteristics' of the skyline were forever changed. Phylloxera devastated the vineyards of France in the late 19th century and millions of vines had to be replanted but only after being grafted onto (gasp) Americian rootstock. The terroir, the local flavor of the wines and even the people, changed as a result.
THIS is terroir: the FLAVOR of a wine in the context of "a distinctive yet intangible quality felt to be characteristic of a given thing." It ma be any combination of the people, the customs, the the traditions, the soil, climate, yeasts and barrels - anything and everything that plays a role in shaping the 'flavor' of a wine from a given place. A 'gout de terroir' are the elements of true flavor (in a sensory context) that enables a person with an intimate knowledge and memory of wine 'places' to say, "that is a Pinot Grigio from Northern Italy," or "that is a Lodi Zinfancel," or "that is a New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc," "this is Harlan Estate," ad nauseum.
People can do that! A wine may exhibit great qualities yet have no context of terroir. When Sassacaia came along in the region where Sangiovese was sacred it was greeted with skepticism. It became so overwhelmingly successful the entire region of Chianti was changed! The 'alien' Cabernet was now desireable, even legalized to replace the tradtional white grapes that were required in Chianti. The gout te terroir of Chianti morphed.
Good and bad experiences shape your memories and attitutudes. You can go to LA and find yourself in a bad neighborhood. That may forever change your memories and the mere thought of LA will elicit an "I HATE LA" response. Conversely you could hate New York but go there and discover a neighborhood that is filled with friendly, loving people that bowl you over with their charm and grace. Then people get together on a New York or LA of Paris or London or Peoria discussion on line and we all get to argue over who is right or wrong! we are, of course, human.
Love to you all for the New Year!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Terroir and Semantics
The biggest misconception about the term 'terroir' is largely one of SEMANTICS and a gross misunderstanding of the etymology and use of associated concepts.
Even the French no longer seem to understand the original meaning and intention of uses and meaning of terroir! Things started getting jumbled about years ago from my experience:
1. Vin de terroir simply means a wine from a specific (or general) locality or origin.
2. Gout de terroir means the "taste" (or any corresponding attributes) that corresponds to a given locality or origin, more in the sense of a territory. This includes all of the influences of growing conditions, grape variety or varieties) PLUS laws, customs, traditions, culture and economy that ALL play a role in giving character to a wine that associates it with a place of origin. Huge fruit bombs, oak, varietal characteristics or delicate nuances of minerality (a metaphoical, not literal term), oak, acidity, etc. all can be considered part of a gout de terroir if it means one can relate the charcteristic to a locality.
3. Gout de terre (taste of dirt) is a NEGATIVE word used to imply the winemaking and storage of the wine created a 'dirty' taste, probably really high levels of brett and other sorms of spoilage.
These concepts have become misenterpreted and collapsed with the generic term 'terroir' so the arguments have become heated, cofusing and pointless! Then personal preferences, emotion and metaphores come into play and the conversation becomes impossible!
Keep in mind that the AOC system in France is less than 100 years old. The 'hundreds of years of tradition and culture' are very distorted and have little bearing today. Great vintages of Montrachet 100 years ago would be considered 'late harvest' dessert wines today - botrytis infected and VERY sweet. The 1855 classification of Bordeaux was based on market price at the time and the wines of more wealthy families won out - go figure. The differences in the wines 50 years ago were clear and easy to distinguish. Not so much these days! When the wealthy Mentzolopolous in 1976 they were able to completely restore the quality of the wine in 2 years with the right investments. They did not changing the soil, but the yield, barrels and triage of wines during assemblage.
AND Pinot Noir is not the only permissible grape in Burgundy's celebrated Cote d'Or - it is legal (and used to be commonly practised) to add Chardonnay, Pinot Beurot (Gris) and Pinot Blanc, in some cases up to 15% of the final blend. The white varieties in most vineyards, including Clos de la Roche, Musigny, Corton, Beaune and Nuits St. Georges are more often vinified separately today and sold as white wines. The intensity of fruit, color and lack of brett in today's red Burgundies make them very different from those I grew up with!
EXAMPLE OF RELATIONSHIP OF SOIL TO GRAPE COMPOSITION:Limestone soils have high levels of calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate binds potassium and prevents uptake. This lowers the ph in the grape and creates more acidity. The vine is subject to lime-induced chlorosis which lowers vigor and reduces yield. Also renders the soils less suitable for red wines as color concentration is lowered. This is why the 'white wine on white soils' concepts holds some truth. The flinty 'minerality' associated with older Chablis, German and Loire wines was in truth over use of sulfites and a vivid marketing imagination! Today minerality is a vague, personal and metaphorical term having nothing to do with soil per se, but living in the minds of anyone who experiences it.
Which makes it as true and real, for said individuals, as anything!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Message to Wine People: STOP IT!
met-a-phor: (noun)
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance.
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
‘You’ is a metaphor. Not that you are a metaphor, although ‘you are’ is a metaphor that represents the existence of you. ‘You’ is the metaphor that ‘I’ (who exists as ‘you’ metaphorically to yourself) use to represent 'me' (possessive metaphor for ‘I’ for me which is ‘you’ to you).
I (me, metaphorically speaking) know what you are thinking, “I (meaning you) is/are not a metaphor.” Truthfully I, (or me) can’t possibly have a clue what you (‘I’ or ‘’me’ to you) are thinking and ‘I’ only say this as a metaphor suggesting that ‘I’ could possibly know what ‘you’ are indeed thinking, with ‘I’ representing ‘me’ to ‘you’ and ‘your representing ‘you’ to ‘me’. In fact I (you may know me as ‘you’ but I am ‘I’ to ‘me’) have no clue if you exist. I only think you do in my head, where metaphors run free. If a tree fall in the woods does anyone read my blog? Wow, am I writing my blog for the metaphorical ‘you’ who may not even exist.
Wait a minute - are 'you' (‘I’ to ‘you’), or am I (‘you’ to ‘I’ or ‘me’) saying 'I' is a metaphor or that 'you' (I meaning you) is (or is it are) a metaphor? Do I (or you) mean you ARE a metaphor? I (me) is, or are, confused. Are you?
Which brings me (or ‘us’, which is a metaphor for the collective I and you) to the point (if someone stops reading a blog because the blogger is a moron does the blog, or for that matter the blogger, exist?). ALL words, points, descriptions, concepts, values, ideals and personal points of view are metaphorical. Indeed, it may be suggested that the only thing objective in existence is the existence of the object itself. Metaphors are required for ANY attempt to qualify the existence of the object or describe it in any way, shape or form.
Humans use metaphors to describe, understand, assess and evaluate the objects the sensations we encounter in life. Failing to understand the fundamental possibility that we may experience things differently people argue, go to war and act crazy in general. It may be a disagreement over ownership or entitlement of land, food or objects. It may be a disagreement over who is right or wrong about spirituality, morality or governance.
Wine people disagree whether or not descriptions, puffs, medals, stars or ‘points’ are the best metaphors to use to convey wine value. If you agree on ‘points’ as the metaphor people will then argue whether 100 points, 20 points or 10 points is better or worse, right or wrong. Then we will argue over “how in the world did you decide to give that number of points to that wine!”
If you use words as your basis of metaphors people may be a disagreement over whether a wine smells like ollolaberry, huckleberry or Chuck Berry. Barnyard, manure, bretanomyces, crap, perfume or BS? Is ‘cat’s pee’ a. correct at all and b. good or bad? A lot depends on your personal interpretation and reaction to the metaphor ‘cat’ and your life experience with cats, cat pee and litter boxed.
I have but a simple request: stop it.
This is to coin a Bob Newhart solution to ANYTHING you suffer over and you really should watch this clip from Mad TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1g3ENYxg9k
When someone ‘goes off’ (a metaphor for reacting strongly, like a bomb or gun) defending their position, point of view and become self-righteous make sure to gently inform them, “uh-uh, we don’t go there.” Just like Bob.
“Can’t we all just get along!” That is a metaphor representing of what my Mom used to say in complete exasperation at the dinner table. Fer chrissake, don’t even get me started on terroir!
BTW, what the hell did my wife put in my coffee? It occurs for me that this is a metaphor representing transference of blame for my inane rambling to some one, or some thing, else thereby metaphorically ‘letting me off the hook’. Hmmmm…’letting me off the hook’ is a metaphor for…, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
TAKE OUR SURVEY, PLEASE!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/L2HNDJX
We are collecting information that will enable us (wine geeks, dweebs, wonks and wusses) to learn new ways to make wine more fun, less stuffy and truly transform how we, as experts and professionals, can be of service to wine consumers.
We need to drive every day wine consumers to this and appreciate any help you can provide tweeting, blogging, emailing, talking (analogue means of communication for those unfamiliar with term), newslettering, YouTubing Facebooking, texting, LinkedIn-ing, and anything else anyone can think of. THANKS!
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance.
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
‘You’ is a metaphor. Not that you are a metaphor, although ‘you are’ is a metaphor that represents the existence of you. ‘You’ is the metaphor that ‘I’ (who exists as ‘you’ metaphorically to yourself) use to represent 'me' (possessive metaphor for ‘I’ for me which is ‘you’ to you).
I (me, metaphorically speaking) know what you are thinking, “I (meaning you) is/are not a metaphor.” Truthfully I, (or me) can’t possibly have a clue what you (‘I’ or ‘’me’ to you) are thinking and ‘I’ only say this as a metaphor suggesting that ‘I’ could possibly know what ‘you’ are indeed thinking, with ‘I’ representing ‘me’ to ‘you’ and ‘your representing ‘you’ to ‘me’. In fact I (you may know me as ‘you’ but I am ‘I’ to ‘me’) have no clue if you exist. I only think you do in my head, where metaphors run free. If a tree fall in the woods does anyone read my blog? Wow, am I writing my blog for the metaphorical ‘you’ who may not even exist.
Wait a minute - are 'you' (‘I’ to ‘you’), or am I (‘you’ to ‘I’ or ‘me’) saying 'I' is a metaphor or that 'you' (I meaning you) is (or is it are) a metaphor? Do I (or you) mean you ARE a metaphor? I (me) is, or are, confused. Are you?
Which brings me (or ‘us’, which is a metaphor for the collective I and you) to the point (if someone stops reading a blog because the blogger is a moron does the blog, or for that matter the blogger, exist?). ALL words, points, descriptions, concepts, values, ideals and personal points of view are metaphorical. Indeed, it may be suggested that the only thing objective in existence is the existence of the object itself. Metaphors are required for ANY attempt to qualify the existence of the object or describe it in any way, shape or form.
Humans use metaphors to describe, understand, assess and evaluate the objects the sensations we encounter in life. Failing to understand the fundamental possibility that we may experience things differently people argue, go to war and act crazy in general. It may be a disagreement over ownership or entitlement of land, food or objects. It may be a disagreement over who is right or wrong about spirituality, morality or governance.
Wine people disagree whether or not descriptions, puffs, medals, stars or ‘points’ are the best metaphors to use to convey wine value. If you agree on ‘points’ as the metaphor people will then argue whether 100 points, 20 points or 10 points is better or worse, right or wrong. Then we will argue over “how in the world did you decide to give that number of points to that wine!”
If you use words as your basis of metaphors people may be a disagreement over whether a wine smells like ollolaberry, huckleberry or Chuck Berry. Barnyard, manure, bretanomyces, crap, perfume or BS? Is ‘cat’s pee’ a. correct at all and b. good or bad? A lot depends on your personal interpretation and reaction to the metaphor ‘cat’ and your life experience with cats, cat pee and litter boxed.
I have but a simple request: stop it.
This is to coin a Bob Newhart solution to ANYTHING you suffer over and you really should watch this clip from Mad TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1g3ENYxg9k
When someone ‘goes off’ (a metaphor for reacting strongly, like a bomb or gun) defending their position, point of view and become self-righteous make sure to gently inform them, “uh-uh, we don’t go there.” Just like Bob.
“Can’t we all just get along!” That is a metaphor representing of what my Mom used to say in complete exasperation at the dinner table. Fer chrissake, don’t even get me started on terroir!
BTW, what the hell did my wife put in my coffee? It occurs for me that this is a metaphor representing transference of blame for my inane rambling to some one, or some thing, else thereby metaphorically ‘letting me off the hook’. Hmmmm…’letting me off the hook’ is a metaphor for…, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
TAKE OUR SURVEY, PLEASE!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/L2HNDJX
We are collecting information that will enable us (wine geeks, dweebs, wonks and wusses) to learn new ways to make wine more fun, less stuffy and truly transform how we, as experts and professionals, can be of service to wine consumers.
We need to drive every day wine consumers to this and appreciate any help you can provide tweeting, blogging, emailing, talking (analogue means of communication for those unfamiliar with term), newslettering, YouTubing Facebooking, texting, LinkedIn-ing, and anything else anyone can think of. THANKS!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wine Preference Survey: experts NOT invited (sort of)
We have launched a new consumer wine preference survey to collect information as a precursor to our revolutionary Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi (www.consumerwineawards.com) project and would very much appreciate having anyone and everyone help us get this out into the world. I will be sharing results and insights as we go he at my blog. This year our wine evaluations for the CWAL will be conducted using the process been developing for the past three years and will be using up to a couple of hundred consumers!
As for this survey, we are focused on collecting information and want to get this into the hands of every day wine drinkers that are tired of the ‘stuffy’ or snobbish attitudes of wine experts. I would be beholdin’ to ya if you might be able to forward this on to anyone you think might be interested and help us get it out there? We are anticipating well over 1,000 consumer responses between now and March 2010 and will share the data with those who help us get this out. Here is what we are sending to family and friends – we also want to hear from the industry to compare how we align, or not, with the every day consumers out there.
TAKE OUR SURVEY, PLEASE!
Our consumer wine preference survey is now live and we need your help. This is a formal research project produced in conjunction with the Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi (www.consumerwineawards.com) and our sensory research teams at UC Davis and around the world. Our intention is to collect information that will enable us (wine geeks, dweebs, wonks and wusses) to learn new ways to make wine more fun, less stuffy and truly transform how we, as experts and professionals, can be of service to wine consumers.
Please help us broadcast this! We need to drive every day wine consumers to this and appreciate any help you can provide tweeting, blogging, emailing, talking (analogue means of communication for those unfamiliar with term), newslettering, YouTubing Facebooking, texting, LinkedIn-ing, and anything else anyone can think of. THANKS!
***Survey link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/L2HNDJX ***
As for this survey, we are focused on collecting information and want to get this into the hands of every day wine drinkers that are tired of the ‘stuffy’ or snobbish attitudes of wine experts. I would be beholdin’ to ya if you might be able to forward this on to anyone you think might be interested and help us get it out there? We are anticipating well over 1,000 consumer responses between now and March 2010 and will share the data with those who help us get this out. Here is what we are sending to family and friends – we also want to hear from the industry to compare how we align, or not, with the every day consumers out there.
TAKE OUR SURVEY, PLEASE!
Our consumer wine preference survey is now live and we need your help. This is a formal research project produced in conjunction with the Consumer Wine Awards at Lodi (www.consumerwineawards.com) and our sensory research teams at UC Davis and around the world. Our intention is to collect information that will enable us (wine geeks, dweebs, wonks and wusses) to learn new ways to make wine more fun, less stuffy and truly transform how we, as experts and professionals, can be of service to wine consumers.
Please help us broadcast this! We need to drive every day wine consumers to this and appreciate any help you can provide tweeting, blogging, emailing, talking (analogue means of communication for those unfamiliar with term), newslettering, YouTubing Facebooking, texting, LinkedIn-ing, and anything else anyone can think of. THANKS!
***Survey link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/L2HNDJX ***
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Survivor - Turducken Island
Sometimes things just don’t go the way that I plan. I decided to prepare a Turducken as a post-Thanksgiving project. We invited friends over to participate in the grand event. I set up to video the preparation of the dish (I will post coordinates when editing complete).
I had the turkey, duck and chicken ready and the stuffing pre-prepared. People came over about 3:00 PM and we were underway! In 1966 I deboned my first turkey with my father’s supervision. It was a project to make a ‘gallantine’ – boneless stuffed fowl or game filled with finely ground meat and strips of ham and meat. You carful arranged everything, rolled it in cheesecloth and poached it gently in a stock made with the bones. The galantine is a beautiful dish and served cold. It provides beautiful oval slices with cool patterns and is garnished with jewel-like aspic made from the clarified poaching liquid. I was 14 and getting hooked on this culinary stuff. An additional benefit is that my Dad drank wine during the production of the meal and turned a blind eye when I helped myself to some too. For a dish like this – red Burgundy like Volnay, his favorite. For less adventurous meals Gallo Hearty Burgundy. The Great Turducken Adventure brought me back to these memories.
My Turducken did not turn out as a tribute to culinary aesthetics. But I digress.
I deftly deboned the birds and decided to put my own spin on things to ‘improve and simplify’ the preparations. This usually translates to ‘complicate and screw up.’ Ask my frines or wife. That is kinda what you will get a sense of when you view the videos.
One ‘improvement’ was to lay out cheesecloth and build the Turducken on top. All I would need to do is bundle it all up and put it into a roasting pan. So far so good. Everyone was engaged, impressed with my culinary dexterity and knowledge of poultry anatomy. We got the Turducken assembled, seasoning with Vignon Flavor Balancing seasoning all the way, and in the oven by 4:00 with relative ease.
Timing became a little issue. I went on line to check cooking times and figured the 20 minute per pound at 325 degrees rule would put us at about 6 and a half hours for our roughly 20 pound mass of fowl flesh. That would put our Turducken-to-table time at roughly 10:30 PM. Online estimates ranged up to 8 hours.
What the hell – we had plenty of wine, great company, the kids were playing video games. We were basking in the friendship of our gathering. For a couple of hours. Then people started voting thmselves off the island.
Our son, Landen, had arranged to go to Game Crazy to get a new game and then go over to a friend’s house for a sleep over. He left with my wife Kate. Then my bis partner John’s kids were getting a little uncomfortable, bored and wanted to leave. They headed out. Rick, Rob and Samantha decided to ‘cut a chogie’ (leave). We coerced them to stay a bit longer to watch a video of our band performing a few years ago at Copia. Hunger won out and they headed off to Taco Bell for sustenance. Kate came home and headed upstairs to work on her computer and watch TV in bed.
I had won! I was the ultimate Turducken Survivor!
When you see me pulling the mass out of the oven in the video I am in my pajamas. The cheesecloth stuck to the skin of the turkey and, despite my vast culinary training and skills, the whole thing was a mess. It was like pulling old gauze off of a massive 3rd degree burn, taking skin and flesh with it. I felt like Julia Child when she flipped a frittata and half of it ended up on the stove. I, like her, pushed everything back together and served it up as best as I could. IT WAS REALLY DELICIOUS! Alas, no one to share in my glory. I had won indeed, but was alone (sniff).
So here are my learnings:
· Have fun and don’t sweat the way the finished product looks.
· Consider sewing and tying your Turducken to avoid cheesecloth cling.
· Start at daybreak and make sure not to have friends and family show up at that time unless they are in it for the duration.
· Provide meals and beverages at appropriate times if anyone is sticking out the entire ordeal with you.
· Leftover Turducken makes a great hostess gifts, stocking stuffer, breakfast meat (sautéed with some stuffing and served with scrambled eggs).
· If you end up as the sole Turducken Survivor no one will be there to admonish you when you eat the pie and whipped cream leftovers.
So celebrate! You too can be the ultimate Turducken Survivor!
I had the turkey, duck and chicken ready and the stuffing pre-prepared. People came over about 3:00 PM and we were underway! In 1966 I deboned my first turkey with my father’s supervision. It was a project to make a ‘gallantine’ – boneless stuffed fowl or game filled with finely ground meat and strips of ham and meat. You carful arranged everything, rolled it in cheesecloth and poached it gently in a stock made with the bones. The galantine is a beautiful dish and served cold. It provides beautiful oval slices with cool patterns and is garnished with jewel-like aspic made from the clarified poaching liquid. I was 14 and getting hooked on this culinary stuff. An additional benefit is that my Dad drank wine during the production of the meal and turned a blind eye when I helped myself to some too. For a dish like this – red Burgundy like Volnay, his favorite. For less adventurous meals Gallo Hearty Burgundy. The Great Turducken Adventure brought me back to these memories.
My Turducken did not turn out as a tribute to culinary aesthetics. But I digress.
I deftly deboned the birds and decided to put my own spin on things to ‘improve and simplify’ the preparations. This usually translates to ‘complicate and screw up.’ Ask my frines or wife. That is kinda what you will get a sense of when you view the videos.
One ‘improvement’ was to lay out cheesecloth and build the Turducken on top. All I would need to do is bundle it all up and put it into a roasting pan. So far so good. Everyone was engaged, impressed with my culinary dexterity and knowledge of poultry anatomy. We got the Turducken assembled, seasoning with Vignon Flavor Balancing seasoning all the way, and in the oven by 4:00 with relative ease.
Timing became a little issue. I went on line to check cooking times and figured the 20 minute per pound at 325 degrees rule would put us at about 6 and a half hours for our roughly 20 pound mass of fowl flesh. That would put our Turducken-to-table time at roughly 10:30 PM. Online estimates ranged up to 8 hours.
What the hell – we had plenty of wine, great company, the kids were playing video games. We were basking in the friendship of our gathering. For a couple of hours. Then people started voting thmselves off the island.
Our son, Landen, had arranged to go to Game Crazy to get a new game and then go over to a friend’s house for a sleep over. He left with my wife Kate. Then my bis partner John’s kids were getting a little uncomfortable, bored and wanted to leave. They headed out. Rick, Rob and Samantha decided to ‘cut a chogie’ (leave). We coerced them to stay a bit longer to watch a video of our band performing a few years ago at Copia. Hunger won out and they headed off to Taco Bell for sustenance. Kate came home and headed upstairs to work on her computer and watch TV in bed.
I had won! I was the ultimate Turducken Survivor!
When you see me pulling the mass out of the oven in the video I am in my pajamas. The cheesecloth stuck to the skin of the turkey and, despite my vast culinary training and skills, the whole thing was a mess. It was like pulling old gauze off of a massive 3rd degree burn, taking skin and flesh with it. I felt like Julia Child when she flipped a frittata and half of it ended up on the stove. I, like her, pushed everything back together and served it up as best as I could. IT WAS REALLY DELICIOUS! Alas, no one to share in my glory. I had won indeed, but was alone (sniff).
So here are my learnings:
· Have fun and don’t sweat the way the finished product looks.
· Consider sewing and tying your Turducken to avoid cheesecloth cling.
· Start at daybreak and make sure not to have friends and family show up at that time unless they are in it for the duration.
· Provide meals and beverages at appropriate times if anyone is sticking out the entire ordeal with you.
· Leftover Turducken makes a great hostess gifts, stocking stuffer, breakfast meat (sautéed with some stuffing and served with scrambled eggs).
· If you end up as the sole Turducken Survivor no one will be there to admonish you when you eat the pie and whipped cream leftovers.
So celebrate! You too can be the ultimate Turducken Survivor!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Of Stepmoms and My White Drinker Zin Epiphany
My wife, Kate, just got off the phone with her Mother, Joanne. It brought back memories of 17 years ago when I met Joanne for the first time. This meeting was also the source of my 'epiphany' (or nervous breakdown) about the stereotypes we have created in the wine community and how completely off base we are about who they are and why they like what they like. WAY off in many cases.
I was the 'new' boyfriend and we were visiting 'Mom' for the Christmas holidays. Kate was very nervous. Mom liked her ex-husband very much and Kate was worried how well I would go over on the potential-new-son-in-law-o-mometer.
Kate told me Joanne liked White Zinfandel. I worked for Breringer and got it for free. Score! Kate told me Joanne loved to eat so I brought a leg of lamb and accoutrements to prepare a killer meal. We drove from Napa to Eureka, where Kate had grown up, and arrived in the early evening. Kate was expressing her trepidation at this meeting. Mom liked the last guy a lot. I was very much on the goofy side both in look and actions.
We pulled up to Mom's house after a long drive, grabbed a load of stuff, went to the door and rang the doorbell. I had the case of White Zin under one arm and the leg of lamb in my other hand. Kate was pulling luggage. The door swung open and Joanne took one look and said, "Son - welcome and let me show you the kitchen!"
Kate was struggling behind hauling the suitcases and aid, "hi Mom..."
Joanne yelled back, "just put those things downstairs honey" as she took my arm and led me to the kitchen.
Joanne has a Ph.D. in economics and taught for years at Humboldt State University. She is a remarkable golfer, golfed in Scotland and she and her husband Jack, former superintendant of schools in Sacramento, travel around participating in amateur gold tournaments around the country. They are retired, living comfortably in the west Phoenix area and always up to exciting things.
And she loves White Zinfandel. On our first meeting it occured to me that maybe I had something wrong. Joanne did not meet my vision of a White Zinfancel drinker. If you are reading this you probably have some interest in wine and can appreciate when I say, "you know - THOSE people."
Meeting Joanne shifted things for me. I had to revise my view of things and was really curious about what was going on. This began my journey into understanding sensory sensitivity and how we all end up with our individual wine preferences. Now, my research now shows that White Zinfandel drinkers typically have the MOST taste buds. They are not immature, stupid, of any of the other embarassing things the wine community seems hell-bent on saying. They simply find many of the wines wine 'experts" rate the highest are for the White Zinfandel drinkers are the most horribly bitter, burning and unpleaseant.
Last night Kate and I watchd an Oscar-winning movie with French subtitles. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (film by Buñuel [1972]) They were drinking vintage Port as an aperitif. Most people overlook, or don't know, that the French drink more Port wine than any other country. And usuually before dinner.
We overlook, or don't know, that Champagne was always VERY sweet by todays standards. Or the great Montrachet used to be a sweet, botrytis infected wine.Or that if wine was to strong the French and Italians would not hesistate to add water or a cube of sugar to make it better. Or fruit juice, especially in Spain. Or that the world ALWAYS valued sweet wines more than dry until very recently.
Glad to know I was wrong about White Zinfandel drinkers and for that I give my thanks. And especially thanks to you, Joanne.
I was the 'new' boyfriend and we were visiting 'Mom' for the Christmas holidays. Kate was very nervous. Mom liked her ex-husband very much and Kate was worried how well I would go over on the potential-new-son-in-law-o-mometer.
Kate told me Joanne liked White Zinfandel. I worked for Breringer and got it for free. Score! Kate told me Joanne loved to eat so I brought a leg of lamb and accoutrements to prepare a killer meal. We drove from Napa to Eureka, where Kate had grown up, and arrived in the early evening. Kate was expressing her trepidation at this meeting. Mom liked the last guy a lot. I was very much on the goofy side both in look and actions.
We pulled up to Mom's house after a long drive, grabbed a load of stuff, went to the door and rang the doorbell. I had the case of White Zin under one arm and the leg of lamb in my other hand. Kate was pulling luggage. The door swung open and Joanne took one look and said, "Son - welcome and let me show you the kitchen!"
Kate was struggling behind hauling the suitcases and aid, "hi Mom..."
Joanne yelled back, "just put those things downstairs honey" as she took my arm and led me to the kitchen.
Joanne has a Ph.D. in economics and taught for years at Humboldt State University. She is a remarkable golfer, golfed in Scotland and she and her husband Jack, former superintendant of schools in Sacramento, travel around participating in amateur gold tournaments around the country. They are retired, living comfortably in the west Phoenix area and always up to exciting things.
And she loves White Zinfandel. On our first meeting it occured to me that maybe I had something wrong. Joanne did not meet my vision of a White Zinfancel drinker. If you are reading this you probably have some interest in wine and can appreciate when I say, "you know - THOSE people."
Meeting Joanne shifted things for me. I had to revise my view of things and was really curious about what was going on. This began my journey into understanding sensory sensitivity and how we all end up with our individual wine preferences. Now, my research now shows that White Zinfandel drinkers typically have the MOST taste buds. They are not immature, stupid, of any of the other embarassing things the wine community seems hell-bent on saying. They simply find many of the wines wine 'experts" rate the highest are for the White Zinfandel drinkers are the most horribly bitter, burning and unpleaseant.
Last night Kate and I watchd an Oscar-winning movie with French subtitles. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (film by Buñuel [1972]) They were drinking vintage Port as an aperitif. Most people overlook, or don't know, that the French drink more Port wine than any other country. And usuually before dinner.
We overlook, or don't know, that Champagne was always VERY sweet by todays standards. Or the great Montrachet used to be a sweet, botrytis infected wine.Or that if wine was to strong the French and Italians would not hesistate to add water or a cube of sugar to make it better. Or fruit juice, especially in Spain. Or that the world ALWAYS valued sweet wines more than dry until very recently.
Glad to know I was wrong about White Zinfandel drinkers and for that I give my thanks. And especially thanks to you, Joanne.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
3 Blind Men and a Wine
Do you remember the old Sufi parable about the 3 blind men and the elephant? The first blind man reached out and grasped the elephant's trunk and described a serpent, the second felt its tree-like leg, the third its leathery ear and the fourth man encountered its rope-like tail. When the blind men began to talk with each other, an argument ensued as each tried to describe the elephant in his terms. Each interpreted and described the animal from their direct, personal experience yet they could not reach a consensus or fuller understanding about the elephant.
Each man possessed a “truth” from their own personal experience but that “truth” was limited to their own experience and interpretation. In many ways experiencing, interpreting and describing wine and wine with food is analogous to this parable making the topic of wine unnecessarily complicated, contradictory and difficult.
Advice, attitudes and opinions on the subject of how wine is enjoyed and what to do when wine and food are served together cover an almost limitless gamut of options. Positions range from a simple, laissez-faire attitude of “drink and eat what you like” to intense and emotionally charged, wine based micro-cultures replete with their own language, rituals, protocol and propriety. For every expert judgment proclaiming a wine is great there is another expert voice claiming to the contrary. For virtually every expert recommendation to “serve this wine with this food” there is the counter opinion to “never serve that same wine with that same food.”
Surprisingly this allows us to acknowledge and honor everyone’s point of view. It provides us with a better understanding that there are many ways of describing, judging, or scoring wine. What is missing is the knowledge of the fundamentals of our differences and if something appears a different way than WE experience it there must be something wrong with THEM. Whatever value system you find works for you is, indeed, valid. What does not work is the inference that what works for you will work for everyone, or even anyone, else. The research and findings I have been playing around with create a powerful context for radically changing many of the commonly held wisdoms and principles of wine enjoyment also provide insights into why we should embrace and respect the many differing points of view that have become standards for appreciating wine. The net result is a higher level of understanding that puts an end to the constant bickering about who is right or who is wrong.
There is a lot to be learned about ourselves and others. Happy Thanksgiving to those of you who celebrate it, and love and good wishes to everyone.
Each man possessed a “truth” from their own personal experience but that “truth” was limited to their own experience and interpretation. In many ways experiencing, interpreting and describing wine and wine with food is analogous to this parable making the topic of wine unnecessarily complicated, contradictory and difficult.
Advice, attitudes and opinions on the subject of how wine is enjoyed and what to do when wine and food are served together cover an almost limitless gamut of options. Positions range from a simple, laissez-faire attitude of “drink and eat what you like” to intense and emotionally charged, wine based micro-cultures replete with their own language, rituals, protocol and propriety. For every expert judgment proclaiming a wine is great there is another expert voice claiming to the contrary. For virtually every expert recommendation to “serve this wine with this food” there is the counter opinion to “never serve that same wine with that same food.”
Surprisingly this allows us to acknowledge and honor everyone’s point of view. It provides us with a better understanding that there are many ways of describing, judging, or scoring wine. What is missing is the knowledge of the fundamentals of our differences and if something appears a different way than WE experience it there must be something wrong with THEM. Whatever value system you find works for you is, indeed, valid. What does not work is the inference that what works for you will work for everyone, or even anyone, else. The research and findings I have been playing around with create a powerful context for radically changing many of the commonly held wisdoms and principles of wine enjoyment also provide insights into why we should embrace and respect the many differing points of view that have become standards for appreciating wine. The net result is a higher level of understanding that puts an end to the constant bickering about who is right or who is wrong.
There is a lot to be learned about ourselves and others. Happy Thanksgiving to those of you who celebrate it, and love and good wishes to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)