They all talk the talk. Nothing in the wine biz gets more lip service today than the blesséd and elusive terroir, a zealotry which begins with the notion that every place has a unique flavor signature, and (depending on whom you speak to) embraces aspects of living soil and even cultural tradition.
Got a note this morning from an attorney chum who has wisely over the years converted a portion of his excessive salary to the acquisition of burgundy. He now sits atop a cellar of some 900 cases, peacefully ageing a few yards beneath his endangered liver. He tells me now the valuations of his stuff have gone so crazy it’s no joy at all to drink.
In the August 2006 edition of The Wine Spectator, we see once again the old armchair viticulturist refrain regarding crop yield that less is always more. James Laube’s assessment of the 2005 vintage is that it should be a good vintage, but he finds that its size casts that into doubt. Putting aside that the record crop is mostly based on record bearing acreage rather than high yields per acre, I contend that in many cases, (Napa Cabernet being the most glaring), quality suffers mainly from under cropping.
This weekend Napa Valley hosted the 2006 Symposium of the Institute of Masters of Wine. One of the most stimulating speakers was a chap under whom I studied Sensory Science at UC Davis, Dr. Michael O’Mahoney, a thoughtful and erudite chap who also brings his training as a Shakespearean actor to the lecture hall, and is never boring.
I received this letter recently from Fran in Phoenix.
"In the context of tools that wine makers can use these days, Enologix has gotten a lot of press. I'd love to hear your take on what he's doing, and how that differs from Vinovation (which I ask just to enhance my own understanding). Is he a competitor? A different universe?"