I liked Eric Asimov’s mea culpa last week when he wrote about how he had mistaken a Syrah for a Pinot Noir, in the company of people he was having dinner with at a restaurant. Of course, it’s always gracious to acknowledge one’s faux pas with a dash of self-deprecating humor, and Eric did, claiming that one of his missions “is to do away with the aura of omniscience that so often adorns wine writers.” Well, there’s nothing like getting the variety wrong, in public, to take that aura of omniscience and pulverize it to smithereens.

It does happen to the best of us. Harry Waugh‘s famous, and similarly self-deprecating, remark that he hadn’t confused a Burgundy for a Bordeaux “since lunch” comes to mind. Now, Eric put up a little fig leaf to hide his nakedness when he said that, after all, it hadn’t been a light, silky wine he’d confused for Pinot Noir, it had been a Copain Syrah — Copain’s style being dense, dark wines. Here’s where the psychology comes in. Eric knew he’d ordered Copain off the wine list. His brain was expecting a broodingly ripe, dark Pinot Noir, so when he tasted the Syrah, that same brain censored, in essence, the wine’s “Syrah-ness” (pepper? violets? crushed blackberries? meat?) and hallucinated instead a “Pinot Noir-ness” that was in accordance with Eric’s expectations.

Remember all the debate in the blogosphere last summer about whether wine tasting is “subjective” or “objective”? I should think that this settles the matter. It’s “subjective” because the brain can never be entirely neutral. Somebody once said that Andy Warhol’s films of the 1960s, such as Sleep or Empire State Building, were the only authentically neutral films because they had absolutely no point of view. But that’s not true. Their point of view was precisely that they had no point of view. And the reason they had no point of view was because Andy Warhol had decided to simply point his camera at something, and then leave it running while he read magazines or went to the bathroom. His films therefore did have a point of view: boredom, banality, unconventionality.

The most extreme example of a wine taster having no point of view with regard to the wine is the Master of Wine tasting blind. This is supposedly the classically objective way to critique a wine. The mind as a camera, capturing incoming information, with the brain functioning as a computer, analyzing it in a completely detached way, then printing out data in the form of a review. But does anyone really believe a person can function like Frank Herbert‘s mentats, in Dune, which Wikipedia defines as “humans trained to mimic computers: human minds developed to staggering heights of cognitive and analytical ability…the embodiment of logic and reason”? Can’t be done, and that’s the overarching reason why wine reviewers must approach their jobs with humility and even a bit of apology. As Eric discovered, mistaking a Syrah for a Pinot Noir comes with the territory.

Okay, so what happens when that “aura of omniscience” is stripped away from a wine writer? It’s not exactly a case of “the emperor has no clothes.” But it does mean that wine writers not only have to review to the best of their ability, they also have to be great historians, students of popular culture, with an aptitude for science and geology and — above all — transcendent writers.

This emperor is missing some clothing!

In 2008, Kendall-Jackson’s winemaster, Randy Ullom, visited 20 of their top U.S. markets — including Vancouver, Dallas, Chicago, San Diego and Phoenix — as well as selected overseas ones. He would fly to wherever he was going, meet and taste wine with influential critics, distributors and key retail accounts, spend the night in a hotel, then fly back to California. All very 2oth century: time consuming, expensive, and imposing a big carbon footprint on the planet’s environment.

Then K-J’s PR team came up with the idea of what they’re calling “e-tasting” (after considering tele-tasting and video chat). “Now, we can do tasting without leaving our homes or offices,” Ullom says. If your computer has a built-in webcam, K-J’s tech guys will walk you through the set-up for a remote visit. If it doesn’t, they’ll send you a free webcam kit and help you set it up. Randy pre-mails you the wines to taste, you agree on a mutual time to call, and voila, there the two of you are, split screen, talking with each other. “We’re mimicking what we’d do face to face in real time, across the table. We still have a table, but there’s an electronic distance between us,” Ullom says, adding, “There’s complete and full interaction.” As someone who has tasted with Ullom many times, at cost to both, this was a revelation.

My tasting with Randy

Ullom began the e-tastings 6 weeks ago, and the team has been on a fast learning curve. At first, they couldn’t make it work with Macintoshes (which is why our first appointment had to be postponed). Then the IT guys figured that one out. Now, the sky’s the limit for what K-J can do online. Some of their ideas, maybe slow to some but cutting edge for wineries: To hit up every one of K-J’s markets in 2009, not just the 20 or so Ullom can fly to. “Every state, every big metro city,” he says, “and we hope to take it international as well. Imagine the carbon footprint of flying to Dubai.”

Beyond e-tasting is the terra incognita of social networks. “Twitter, Facebook, they’re all things we’re looking at,” Ullom says. “You can talk to thousands of people.” They may start with K-J’s club members and see how it goes. Ullom’s also been experimenting with a blog, which for a lot of winemakers is something they haven’t been comfortable with, yet.

“It’s virgin territory out there,” Ullom says of the Internet, “but this is the wave of the future. You have to get onboard, go to a new frontier, where no man has gone before, take a stab at it, as opposed to doing nothing. I was resistant to email 12 years ago,” he grins, “and now, it’s a way of life. Who knows where this is going? But it’s going, that’s a fact.”

Where no man has gone before

My bosses at Wine Enthusiast asked me to do a seminar at tonight’s Toast of the Town San Francisco, and I thought it would be fun to pick 6 of my top-rated wines over the last few months that show off their terroir or origin, and then explore the whys and wherefores of how they do so.

For the record, my selected wines are Geyser Peak 2007 Block Collection Russian River Ranches Sauvignon Blanc (Russian River Valley), Heintz 2007 Chardonnay (Sonoma Coast), Hall 2005 Bergfeld Cabernet Sauvignon (St. Helena), Beaulieu 2005 Georges de Latour Private Reserve Cab (Napa Valley), Morgan 2006 Double L Pinot Noir (Santa Lucia Highlands) and Gary Farrell 2006 Bradford Mountain Zinfandel (Dry Creek Valley).

Like a good lawyer, I can argue for or against the notion of terroir. (My Gemini nature also contributes to that perennially bifurcated point of view.) Against appellation is the reality that you can have wines of the same variety, grown within a stone’s throw of each other, that are vastly different. But arguing in favor of terroir is the fact that there are wines, such as the six above, that are perfectly in alignment with the theoretical qualities of any given appellation. Each defines, in a stereotypical way, its origin’s personality.

When I rate wine, it’s generally on the basis of how good/bad/indifferent it is regardless of terroir. This is especially true when the tasting is done blind. A case can be made, however, that it’s pointless (no pun intended) to rate a wine unless it’s from the point of view of how well, or not, it expresses its terroir, so I was fascinated to read about this tasting that took place in New York State. It was of Finger Lakes wines, and they were “judged based on how well they express[ed] the environment in which they [were] grown,” not merely on how good they tasted.

The tasting was conducted — not surprisingly — by the folks over at Appellation America. Last month, I posted about AA’s efforts to appellation-ize the U.S. in a piece I called “The Appellation Myth” in which my mixed feelings expressed themselves with classic duality. On the one hand I worried about “an appellation-literary complex…that seeks to make money” from writing about appellations. On the other hand, I acknowledged that appellations “are important, but not overly so.”

Regarding that AA competition in New York, it’s actually not a new-fangled way of judging, it’s an old one. The French historically interpreted their grands vins by how they expressed the attributes of their origins, and not merely by how they tasted (which is why, in the late 18th century, there was such a furor over “improving” the wines of the Médoc with darker wines from the south).

Tasting by terroir rather than strict hedonistic or organoleptic impressions provides endless opportunities for discovery, insight, conversation, debate and passion, which are all things that serious winos enjoy. Is tasting by terroir antithetical to the 100-point system? I don’t think so. They can be meshed together. When a wine is very, very good, as the six above are, and truly do seem to be expressions of where they were grown, it’s right to praise their typicity. But it’s important to remember that a wine may be very good even if it is not a precise expression of where it was grown. I have in mind certain sparkling wines from Schramsberg that are assembled from 3 or even 4 counties, or a Napa Cabernet that’s blended from vineyards up and down the Valley. So if I had to choose between wines that were defined by their terroir and those that were simply, purely hedonistic, it would be the latter. (Fortunately, no such choice is demanded!)

I mentioned a few days ago that some Santa Maria Valley growers and vintners are looking to promote their region, which they feel doesn’t get the same respect as Santa Ynez Valley and Santa Rita Hills — err, I mean Sta. Rita Hills — not to mention Napa, Sonoma, etc. They want to draw more attention to it, and more tourists.

More recognition = more prestige = higher bottle prices. You don’t believe it? Ask Oakville.

Wine regions are like actors who go to Hollywood hoping to be discovered. Many are called; few are chosen. Show business isn’t a democracy. A few stars get the lead roles; everybody else waits tables. Talent alone is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. It also requires a nearly-impossible-to-achieve combination of luck and promotion.

Napa Valley was already famous for being famous by the 1960s, so it wasn’t too hard to transfer that fame to the various sub-appellations (Stags Leap, Mt. Veeder, etc.) which then became famous in their own right. Ditto Sonoma County and its plethora of AVAs. It’s like being the child of a famous actor. (Hello, Charlie Sheen.) You start on third base.

Newer wine regions have to carve out their own paths through the jungle  toward recognition. Inland wine regions have a tougher time, because the media long ago dismissed inland California as too hot for great wine. Coastal appellations have it easier. Carneros, Santa Lucia Highlands, Santa Rita Hills and Santa Ynez Valley all got famous pretty quickly, and a big part of that was because they’re located close to urban areas and freeways, thus making them accessible to wine lovers. (Anderson Valley also got famous, even though it’s fairly inaccessible. If it were closer to San Francisco, it would be even more famous.)

Santa Maria Valley is also near freeways and the mega cities of Southern California. What it lacks is a tourist infrastructure to draw visitors. It’s hard to imagine much of an infrastructure developing there anytime soon. The inns, B&Bs, restaurants, art galleries, antique stores and spas just aren’t there.

But the great vineyards are, and I couldn’t agree more with Appellation America’s description of Santa Maria Valley as “one the finest viticultural regions in North America.” It may well have the highest overall quality of grapes and wines of any AVA in California.

I mentioned promotion earlier as a way to help a wine region. It can be done. It’s expensive, though. Glossy brochures, winemaker tasting tours, free stuff for us wretches of the media. It can be hard to get all the local wineries on board. Who pays, and how much? Do you base dues on case production? Then the big wineries complain. If you don’t, the little ones howl. Sometimes, a winery that’s doing just fine, thank you, doesn’t want to cooperate with an effort that might help its rivals. I’ve seen politics in appellation movements that would make Washington blush. Well, maybe not Washington…

But does every great wine region have to be a tourist destination? I don’t think so. Santa Maria Valley is an insider’s secret, a special place that knowledgeable people go to while the crowds throng the tasting rooms of Santa Ynez Valley. Besides, whenever an appellation gets famous, more and more wineries move in, the average quality dips, and it begins to lose its luster. It happened in Carneros, it’s happening in Santa Lucia Highlands, and it will happen in Santa Maria Valley if it gets too popular.

Back in the ‘90s they called them DINKs: double income, no kids. They were primarily gay men, and they were perhaps the most highly sought-after demographic, because they had a lot of cash to spend — including on wine.

They’re still dependable spenders. And now, one of the biggest and most formidable amateur wine groups in California, Magnum Men’s Wine Tasting Group, is comprised primarily of gay men. It has about 400 members, and is run out of the Healdsburg home of retired tech exec Bill Carney and his partner, Scott Monroe, who does hospitality at Gary Farrell winery.

The group meets once a month from Spring until Winter, at gay-friendly wineries. “We’ll pick a varietal, and then people bring along [bottles of] what’s designated,” Carney says. The group tastes the wines blind; attendees fill out scoring sheets, and a winner is declared at the end of the evening. There’s usually a potluck dinner. “It’s really a fun thing,” Carney notes, adding, “and it’s also an opportunity for the host winery to showcase their wine to a community that in many cases has discretionary income. They can talk about their wine, put one in the mix, do sales, club sign-ups, and so on.”

Recent or upcoming wineries that have hosted Magnum events include Passalaqua, Sbragia, Seghesio, Gary Farrell, Clos du Bois, Raymond Burr, Wilson, Mazzocco and Ridge.

The group began informally about 5 years ago when some gay men in the wine industry decided to get together as a social thing. “Then it started to snowball,” Carney recalls. “People heard about it and wanted to know when the next one was. So Scott and I decided to turn it into a network and institutionalize it.”

Carney says he posted results of the tastings on the e-Parker blog and also on Wine Spectator’s, but ran into some not-so-subtle homophobia on the latter. “Unfortunately, on Wine Spectator, it turned into a hate blog. ‘Who wants to join a bunch of fags?’ People were really rude. It turned into a really ugly situation. I stopped posting because it got so unpleasant.” Carney is quick to point out that the Wine Spectator moderator did not quash his posts. “Privately, he emailed me saying he thought we were great. But some of the people were idiots and bigots, and I just got tired of responding.” At e-Parker, Carney says, “nothing like that happened. People were very civil.”

But the story had a happy ending. “It’s turned into a great thing,” Carney says. “There’s a lot of gay people who take pride in what we do in the wine industry.”

I emailed Wine Spectator’s editor, Tom Matthews, asking for comment. Tom, who has previously posted on this blog and with whom I used to work, did not immediately reply. If he does, I will report it here.

I asked Carney why California needs a gay men’s wine tasting group. “People raised that question on the Wine Spectator blog,” he replied. “It’s a matter of comfort. People like to be around the same type. At Wine Spectator’s blog, they have Jewish singles! So people self-select who they want to be around. It’s a social opportunity.”

Magnum isn’t just for gay men, it’s for anyone who likes seriously tasting wine in a nice atmosphere. Members are primarily from Sonoma County, with a smattering from Napa Valley and San Francisco. If you’re interested, go to eventbrite.com and search for Magnum Men’s Wine Events. The next event is a Pinot Noir tasting at Gary Farrell.

Tom Matthews responds: [I got his email after posting]

Steve,

I appreciate your reaching out to me before commenting on this matter. However, I find your email ambiguous, and am not sure if you are implying that Wine Spectator supported the “homophobic readers” by cancelling posts by Magnum, or supported Magnum by cancelling posts that attacked the group. Let me say first that we would never discriminate against a poster because of their orientation (whether sexual, political or vinous), nor do we tolerate hateful or defamatory comments in our Forums.
(Read our Terms of Service here: http://forums.winespectator.com/eve/tos)

It’s true that Magnum posted a few times on Wine Spectator’s Forums, that there was some vigorous back and forth, and that Magnum has not posted for a while. Your characterization that they were “attacked by homophobic readers” seems provocative to me, but that is a matter of judgment. None of Magnum’s posts were “cancelled,” though some of the less-civil comments by other posters were deleted from one thread.

Here is some background:

On September 6, 2006, a Forums member using the handle “ZinGasm” started a
thread entitled “Monthly Gay Men’s Winetasting Events – Healdsburg Area” on
the WS “Off-Line Events” board.  The thread drew a certain amount of
negative feedback from some other users (egregious examples of which were
deleted), but it remained active until March 30, 2007.

You can see the first post in the thread here:

http://forums.winespectator.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2566058161/m/302108683/p/

1

Once we determined the thread had run its course, it was closed by our moderator, Robert Taylor. However, his post closing the thread invited ZinGasm to continue to post:

http://forums.winespectator.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2566058161/m/302108683/p/

7

ZinGasm launched another thread on March 28, 2007, but it again drew some
negative feedback, and ZinGasm seems to have abandoned it after April 4,
2007.  You can see that thread here:

http://forums.winespectator.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2566058161/m/614105524?r=

371108624#371108624

In addition, Taylor had some private email correspondence with Zingasm. While I don’t think it would be appropriate to share that with you, I can say that Zingasm stated he was satisfied with our response.

As you must know from your own experience, posts and comments from anonymous users can sometimes be boorish, insensitive, hostile and inflammatory. We try to maintain a balance between allowing free expression and maintaining a respectful community. We did our best with this thread. I don’t know who is trying to dig up old dirt now, but judging from the phrasing of your email, it may be someone with an axe to grind against Wine Spectator. I hope you’ll read through this material thoroughly, and carefully consider anything you decide to say on the matter.

Let me know if you have further questions,

Sincerely,

Tom