I thought it was pretty clever for Wine Spectator to choose that Columbia Crest 2005 Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, which retails for $27, as their Wine of the Year.

The Spectator has gotten a heavy reputation over the years for being a snobby, rich man’s (emphasis on man’s) magazine that caters to collectors and puffed-up winemakers who want to sell to collectors at inflated prices. That reputation worked back in the old days (i.e. pre-Fourth Quarter 2008), when money was flowing and everybody wanted the latest cult wine. But it’s a lousy rep to have today, being totally inconsistent with the new national trend of modesty and inconspicuous consumption. I obviously have no way of knowing the internal workings at Wine Spectator, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the word hadn’t gone out to the effect that “Let there be something inexpensive this year.” And, lo and behold, there was something inexpensive, not to mention relatively accessible, and from a major commercial producer.

(For the record, Wine Enthusiast on Dec. 2 reveals our Top 100 Wines of the Year.)

To some extent this reputation for Spectator snobbery has never been a fair one. The magazine always has value lists and value articles, and I don’t think their staff shies away from reviewing inexpensive wines. But perception is reality, as they say, and whether fair or not, the Spectator has been saddled as the publication of, by and for the cults and triple-digit wines. When I began at Wine Enthusiast, fresh off my stint at Wine Spectator, the decision already had been made by our management to be a (hopefully refreshing) alternative, which is to say a magazine dedicated to the average wine consumer, not merely the collector. That was a philosophy I could buy into, because I have always been an average wine consumer, if by “average” you mean someone who doesn’t have the means to buy lots of expensive bottles. And, I must confess, I had been rather put off by the collector types I met while at the Spectator, who seemed to exist on a plane that was hard for me to relate to.

I think Wine Enthusiast has accomplished our goal. People, both in the industry and “just” consumers, tell me all the time they think the Enthusiast “shares their values” more than the Spectator, which often puts me in the odd position of defending the Spectator, even though they’re “the competition.” I suppose people think if they say something anti-Spectator I’ll like it, but I don’t, not really. It makes me uncomfortable.

Does the selection of the Columbia Crest signifies a sea change at the Spectator — a re-orientation toward more popularly priced wines? Probably not. I’m sure there will be upcoming verticals of Mouton, or the latest $400 garragiste wine, etc. But for the time being the Columbia Crest award removes the elitist bull’s-eye from the Spectator’s tuchas.

Incidentally, Wine Enthusiast’s Pacific Northwest Editor, Paul Gregutt, reviewed the C.C. 2005 Reserve Cab and gave it 89 points, a very good but not great score. On the Seattle Yelp page, public reaction to the award seemed proud that Washington State was honored, but at the same time, bemused. One person called the wine “very flat [and] one dimensional.” Another called it “boring,” while still another said “the choice really has made me wonder what the criteria were.” You can wonder whatever you want to about the selection, but this is true: it created buzz, it got people talking, and it’s better to have people talking about you — even controversially — than not.

Just a quick post from here in my Napa hotel room before I hit the road for the rush hour commute, in the rain, for Oakland. Yesterday, I blind tasted 52 Cabs and Bordeaux blends at Napa Valley Vintners’ offices, in St. Helena. And as always happens, there were some real surprises.

My scores and reviews will be published in future editions of Wine Enthusiast so I can’t get into detail here, but I will say that some inexpensive wines beat out some very expensive ones. First, I went through all 52 in sequence, then narrowed down my top scorers into a final group of 12. I focused on that flight of a dozen very carefully, then made my ultimate scoring decisions. The entire tasting took more than 3 hours.

Fifty-two wines is more than I usually do in one sitting, but in this case it was very easy. The Vintners Association did a wonderful job setting everything up, which meant I didn’t have to, which freed my energies. I used a swivel chair to move up and down the table of bagged wines. There was water and Carr’s little crackers and spit cups, and that’s all I needed.

I should add that the particular wines I tasted were ones that don’t normally send me review bottles, which is why I traveled to Napa to taste them. I had the feeling that some wineries that never would have submitted to a group tasting did so because of the economy; just because you’re Napa Cab doesn’t mean you don’t have to get out there and market yourself. It was evident, right off the bat, that these were wines of great purity and grace. When you are at that quality, everything is good. It’s just a matter of splitting hairs. There were truly no bad wines; they all that that Napa Valley je ne sais qua. Under those circumstances you’re looking for nuances, not bold strokes, to make quality judgments.

So what does it mean than an inexpensive wine beats a super-pricy one? When you pay $100 or more for a bottle of wine, much of what you’re paying for is image. On the other hand, when you get something great for under $30, you’ve got a great value. I’ve spent most of my career trying to explain that great wine doesn’t have to cost a lot, and yesterday’s tasting proved that once again.

A final word about the handful of wineries I wish had submitted to the tasting, but didn’t. Why not? Fear? Pride? Because they don’t have to, or because they think they don’t have to? They know who they are.

Next month, I’m going to be guest-lecturing at Rusty Eddy’s winery P.R. class at U.C Davis, as I have for the past several years. The first time he invited me was before I started blogging, and before blogs were a big deal in the wine industry. The next year was after I had started blogging, and it was amazing what a difference that year made. Where the previous session had been about the meat-and-potatoes of P.R. — press releases, pitches, the difference between a magazine column and an article — the next one was almost exclusively about blogging and the metamorphosis of wine writing. By 2008, Rusty’s students, as budding winery P.R. specialists, had absorbed the lesson that blogging and social media were going to be hugely important for them to understand.

Rusty called the other day and told me one of my co-speakers will be Jo Diaz, who writes the blog Juicy Tales. Jo and I are old friends; she was one of the people who inspired me to start blogging, and her husband, Jose, who’s her partner in their PR firm, Diaz Communications, often helps me with technical issues, at which I am hopelessly inept. I was glad to learn I’d be united with Jo, because we always have a good time together.

Later, when I thought about it, I thought: How weird it is that Jo Diaz and I, Baby Boomers who were reared on Howdy Doody and black and white T.V., have been invited to talk about blogs and social media to a roomful of young students. I mean, there are 12-year olds that know more about this stuff than I do. Wouldn’t you think Rusty would have gotten a Millennial to talk to Millennials? I concentrated on this paradox, trying to figure it out, but I couldn’t, until, the very next day, I was reading the Wall Street Journal and I came across an article that explained it all. It was called “The Relentless Rise of Power Jeans.”

Okay, I know you’re thinking, WTF? Where’s he going with this? Stay with me. The article (which has really cool photos) explained how Dmitry Medvedev (president of Russia), Nicolas Sarkozy (president of France), Tony Blair (former Prime Minister of Great Britain), Barack Obama (President of — well, you know) and Steve Jobs (Master of the Universe) all have turned to “jeans [as] a legitimate part of the global power-dress lexicon.” It seems that, when well-accessorized, a good pair of jeans signals that a leader is “serious — but not fussy — and innovative…There’s also something of a rebel in a pair of jeans” which “can be read as creative.”

What we have here, in other words, is what the WSJ called “gray-haired circles” embracing a “look [that] started with the young” and appropriating it for their own uses and meaning. Now, what other artifacts of the popular culture started with the young and are now being embraced by Boomers? Choose from the following list:

a. blogging
b. Facebook
c. Twitter
d. YouTube
e. cell cam
f. Lady Gaga

If you answered “a through e,” you’re right! (Your prize is in the mail.) You’re probably using most or all of these tools yourself. When it comes to them, age is irrelevant, which is precisely the point. Jo and I were invited by Rusty to describe for his young students how naturally and easily our (traditional, paper-based, telephone-centered) jobs have incorporated digital media as part of our modus operandi.

It’s not surprising that in our age of instantaneous everything, demographic worlds (old and young, print and digital) are colliding, like opposite tectonic plates fusing together in fiery concussion. Jo and I — on a Baby Boomer plate — and the Millennials, on their own slab of reality, are all being mooshed together by the tidal forces of history, by the relentless advances of technology and by paradigm-shattering cultural shocks, by events we’re not even aware of, can only barely discern and whose outcomes we certainly can’t predict. When you think of it that way, the occasional altercation between the generations — who’s entitled to what, who’s more ethical — seems pretty petty.

And maybe it’s just me

but is anyone else surprised that the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum is currently hosting an exhibit called “The Culture of Wine”?

The 43rd U.S. President was a notorious teetotler, after a callow youth allegedly spent abusing various substances, including alcohol. As part of the exhibit, the museum will have wine tastings, wine education classes, wine book author lectures and even a visit by Maximilian Riedel.  As one who’s always ready to find the irony in life, I can’t help but wonder if Bush’s tenure in office would not have been “kinder and gentler” — and less divisive — if he and Laura had permitted themselves a civilized, everyday glass of wine with their meals. I suppose the Texas wine industry had something to do with this.