It happens every year. With anticipation of the World of Pinot Noir, a wine lover’s thoughts turn to–Petite Sirah? Mais non! Le Pinot Noir!

This is WOPN’s twelfth year. Wine Enthusiast has been a sponsor for many of those years; I forget just when it was that I persuaded the magazine to ally with WOPN, but I just knew, from the moment the event began, that it was going to be big and important–the same way I felt about The Chardonnay Symposium, which the magazine now also co-sponsors. I love these consumer events that focus, at a very high level, on specific varieties. Of course, the wines have to be good enough to warrant public interest; otherwise, people wouldn’t pony up the [sometimes considerable] bucks to go. For example, I can’t image a World of Chenin Blanc, at least in California. Maybe in the Loire Valley.

Recently I was looking through my wine reviews over the past year or two to find “new faces” in Cali Cabernet Sauvignon, but I ran into a wall. The young, hip winemakers today who are just starting out aren’t turning to Cabernet. No, it’s Pinot Noir they want to break into. At first, I was surprised, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious the reason became. Why would a young, ambitious winemaker begin with Cabernet? That’s the hardest field to break into. You can’t, really, unless you start with a zillion dollars. Money will buy you great grapes: Beckstoffer, for instance. But most young winemakers can’t afford to buy Beckstoffer, much less plant their own vineyard. And it doesn’t make sense to start up an ambitious Cabernet winery unless you’re in Napa Valley. That’s not because I say so, it’s because the market speaks for itself. People just aren’t interested in expensive Cabernet if it doesn’t bear a Napa Valley address.

But Pinot Noir? Totally different story. Supplies on the bulk market are less than they used to be, due to a series of light vintages, but still, it’s possible to strike a deal with some famous vineyards out there: Bien Nacido, Pisoni, Keefer Ranch, Monument Tree, Fiddlestix, Garys’, Hirsch, Stone Corral, La Encantada, Clos Pepe, Saralee’s, Ferrington, Sierra Madre. And you’ll notice that these Pinots are from up and down coastal California. One of the lucky historical breaks Pinot Noir has enjoyed, as opposed to Cabernet, is that it never got pigeon-holed into one region. Napa Valley is super-great for Cabernet, obviously, and it’s far from clear that no other region in California could succeed at Cab, but there are so many reasons why it’s unlikely that it may never, in fact, come to pass.

Pinot Noir’s luck was that nobody got really serious about it, throughout California’s 200 years of wine cultivation, until the modern era, when the state had become very diverse, and wine cultures were springing up everywhere. Because of this democratic (with a small “d”) opportunism, talented growers and vintners could succeed wherever terroir conditions were right for Pinot Noir. They did; consumer interest and confidence leapfrogged, and World of Pinot Noir was born.

If you’ve never been to WOPN, the main tastings occur on two consecutive days, beneath huge, white fluffy tents set on a bluff just about the beach at The Cliffs Resort, in Shell Beach, which is about halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles, conveniently located (as they say) just off the 101 Freeway. When you check in, a valet takes your car, and you don’t see it for days. Nice, because you can drink to your heart’s content and not have to worry about driving.

I like to wander the tents, not to taste so much as to schmooze with old winemaker friends and make new ones. There is much trading of business cards. For serious tasting, WOPN has set aside a private media room that has duplicates of every wine being poured under the tents. The public is not allowed in, so you can sample quietly and with concentration. Of course, this isn’t blind tasting, so I won’t be formally reviewing the wines, but it’s educational nonetheless; and if I come across wines I’m unfamiliar with that strike me in particular ways, I can always ask the winemaker to send me a bottle in Oakland.

A few other things I like about WOPN are John Haeger’s annual presentation on Friday morning. John is of course author of the notable book, North American Pinot Noir. Then, Allen Meadows, the famous Burghound, always hosts a seminar. Allen’s the smartest guy I know when it comes to Burgundy. It’s all he does: 24/7/365, it’s Burgundy, Burgundy, Burgundy. I swear, the guy could tell you the exact latitude and longitude of every square inch of the Cote d’Or, who owns it now, who owned it 100 years ago, and what the rainfall was in every vintage inbetween.

I’m bringing Gus with me, which should be interesting. I will report here on Friday morning after getting to Shell Beach. In the meanwhile, enjoy a good bottle of Pinot Noir tonight.

This is the third and final part of my conversation with Antonio. Here’s the link to part 1 and here’s the link to part 2.

SH:Let me ask this. Do you use regional organizations to assemble large tastings, like Napa Vintners? Or do you prefer to go to the individual wineries, which is more time-consuming but, as you say, you get more of the experience.

AG: So, in pretty much every region that I have, except for Burgundy, which is really domaine by domaine, there is some component of the tastings that are–let’s just take Napa Valley Vintners. The big tasting that I did in October was 12 days. Of those 12 days, Napa Valley Vintners set up 3-1/2. And the rest was estate visits.

SH: And how many wines did Napa Vintners–?

AG: I don’t remember exactly. It was several hundred.

SH: So why not do those blind, since you’re not on the property?

AG: Because I think you’d want to have all the wines tasted the same way. Otherwise, it’s not–I’d want to taste all the wines the same way.

SH: So what do you taste blind? When do you taste blind?

AG: The wines that we buy, later, on release, and other things. There’s wines coming in to my office all the time; I’m sure you know. But a typical tasting for me would be three vintages of each wine, okay?

SH: Like today.

AG: Like today. But I’m tasting wines from the barrel, too, okay? So let’s just say Phelps lines up 2008, 2009, 2010, Insignia, or their Cabernet, and Backus. If I hit a barrel sample blind that was not sulfured, or something is off, I might review that wine negatively. I mean, the review might be accurate of the wine, of what’s in the glass, but not really fair to the wine. Right? And so, when I come here, it’s usually three vintages for each one. And people don’t see. There’s a lot of this work that people don’t see. If I go to Scarecrow, or Harlan, or Colgin, or taste at Napa Valley Vintners, I always ask to taste three vintages, if possible. A lot of times they’re in barrel. And in this case, let’s just say it’s ‘08, ‘09 and ‘10, I don’t re-review the 2008s because Bob’s already reviewed those wines, and we just don’t have the space to re-review wines every year. But I have context. And then I review ‘09 and ‘10. And the questions that people ask of me and our peers are things like, these wines are pretty expensive, right? Couple hundred bucks a bottle, right? So people want to know, How does that vintage compare to other vintages? For example, how does 2009 compare to 2008, 2007, 2006?

SH: How do you know if you really were not familiar with those wines?

AG: Well, because I am familiar with those wines.

SH: 2006s?

AG: Of course.

SH: You weren’t working here then.

AG: That doesn’t mean I wasn’t tasting those wines.

SH: You were tasting California even when Parker wasn’t paying you to taste California?

AG: For myself, absolutely.

SH: How many Gallonis are there? You would need 25 Gallonis to go through all that stuff.

AG: I’ve been tasting California wine for twenty years, when I worked in restaurants. I saw the first vintages of Harlan, Alban. People don’t know that stuff, but it’s okay.

SH: How do  you keep your teeth healthy?

AG: My dentist has a lot of my money! I go often.

SH: It’s important, isn’t it?

AG: Yeah.

SH: You see a lot of older wine people and their teeth are, like–

AG: Every three months for cleaning. And if I get back from a trip and I want a quick polish or whatever, they’ll take care of it.

SH: What’s the one thing in California that’s surprised you the most since you got this job?

AG: The number of top estates where there are really young winemakers making wine. I think it’s fantastic.

SH: Thank you.

AG: So let me just say one last thing, while you have that thing on. You ask, how is this possible, how is this possible? For me, at the level I aspire to be, wine is not a job, it’s a lifestyle, you know? I’m sure it is for you, too. You’re surrounded by it all the time. I brought my wife and my kids out here this week. They travel with me as much as possible. We’re opening and tasting wine all the time. There’s wines that are being shipped to my office all the time. So there’s a chance to be tasting and retasting wines a lot. I mean, sometimes I’ll come here–this just happened to me a couple times–where people came to me. I tasted the 2009 and the producer said, “You know, I didn’t think our wines showed well, and we want to send them to you after they’ve been in bottle–”

SH: What do you say to that producer, when they call you up and they, “You know what? I think you got a bad bottle” or whatever?

AG: This is pre-review.

SH: But what do you do post-review, if somebody complains, and I’m sure they do, because we all get that. Do you have a standard response? Will you retaste?

AG: I don’t have a standard response, just because I try to do the best in each situation.

SH: So will you agree to retaste, if the producer says that doesn’t sound like the wine I sent you?

AG: Well, we’ll do everything we possibly can. I mean, we bend over backwards to be accurate. So, of course, if there’s a bottle with a problem, I’ll retaste it. It’s no problem. But it’s a lifestyle. We’re opening and drinking wines at our house all the time, tasting these wines all the time, and buying wines off the shelf.

SH: What time do you start tasting wine?

AG: 8:30, 9 a.m.

SH: What time do you stop?

AG: Sixish, sevenish.

SH: So literally tasting 10, 11 hours a day.

AG: Yeah. Take lots of breaks. And it depends on the style of wine. You know, California wine is one of the harder regions, because the wines have a lot of tannin. But I grew up on Barolo, Barbaresco, and after that things are pretty easy. When I go to Montalcino, which is Sangiovese, that’s like a walk in the park. Tasting 100 Brunellos, relative to Cabernets or Nebbiolos, seems very easy. And it just depends on the vintages. I always tell people this, because it’s true: when the wines are great, I don’t ever feel tired. I’m just so energized. What’s the next great wine I’m going to taste?

SH: Okay.

AG: Is that it? Does it work?

SH: It does! Thank you. You’re a nice person and a gentleman.

This is a continuation of yesterday’s post. Here’s the link, in case you missed it: http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2012/02/27/a-conversation-with-antonio-galloni-part-1

SH: Now, do you taste openly or blind?

AG: Well, it’s usually a combination of both.

SH: What about people who suggest it’s not possible to be objective about a wine if you know what it is, and particularly if you’re at the estate?

AG: Okay. So, as an example, Burgundy, a region that I cover, there’s a very narrow window for any critic to evaluate these wines. They are always tasted from the barrel first, and they are always tasted unblind. And you know you’re at de Vogüe, you’re at DRC, you’re at wherever. You know exactly what you’re tasting. Because part of what people are looking for is a commentary on, to what extent does that wine capture the vintage, the site, the style of the producer? That’s the real value-add of a wine writer, the kind of writing I want to write. And so, as an example, nobody tastes Burgundy blind, except for Michel [name unclear], in France, and what he does, he limits the number of wines that a producer can submit to four.

SH: Well, let’s come back to California. If you’re at Harlan, and you’re tasting all those wines openly.

AG: Yeah.

SH: Then, again, what do you say to somebody who says, “You know you’re at Harlan, and that is necessarily influencing your impression of the wines.”

AG: I would say, When you go to an estate like Harlan, it’s like eating at a three-star restaurant. Your expectation is extremely high. And people have a view that tasting a wine unblind, that there is a bias that is favorable. Nobody ever thinks, Could there be a bias that’s negative? Because your expectation at a top domaine is of outstanding quality, and therefore the margin for error is humungous.

SH: Which California wine have you reviewed so far where you have really veered from Parker’s palate?

AG: Well, I think people could look at–there’s a couple of cases where I think Bob has liked certain wines better than others. I mean, Scarecrow is kind of a topic of discussion on our bulletin board. It’s very hard to know, because I didn’t taste the wine in the barrel with Bob, and he didn’t taste the wine in the bottle with me, so we could both be–you know, nobody’s ever right. This is not about right or wrong. But his barrel rating could have been very representative of that wine on that day, just like my bottle rating could have been very representative on that day.

SH: Do you feel any pressure to maintain a certain consistency in the handover from Robert to you, in the sense that if you suddenly started not liking the wines he really loved, people would be shocked?

AG: I think most of the times we like the same wines. Where I’m very focused on maintaining consistency is making sure that all of the estates that are normally reviewed are reviewed when people expect to see the reviews, and that may sound the most obvious statement in the world, but it is extremely hard to see Bob driving this Ferrari he’s been driving for 32 years in California, where he knows everybody and has forgotten more about California wine than most people know, and then to be able to just take his pace and just to keep up with all the areas of California and making sure that Napa reviews come out in December, Sonoma reviews come out of February, Central Coast reviews come out in August. Just to keep up.

SH: So you do all of California.

AG: Yeah. Just to keep up–to finish this thought. Just to maintain where we are is an extraordinary amount of work. And then to think, that’s not my ultimate goal. My ultimate goal is to, and Bob’s, too, when he gave me this job, is to, Okay, take it to the next level. So now we’ve got to put the Ferrari in sixth gear, and we’ll do it. It’s just going to take some time.

SH: What does that mean, taking it into sixth gear?

AG: It means, you know, producers that we maybe haven’t traditionally covered, that may have fallen off our radar screen. There’s all sorts of new wineries coming up all the time.

SH: Can you give the state equal representation, from Santa Barbara through the Sierra Foothills and Anderson Valley? I mean, it’s hard for me to do it, and all I do is taste California. So will you be more Napa-centric, or can you really spread the wealth around the whole state?

AG: Well, in 2011, I spent around 5 weeks in California. Spent ten days in the Central Coast. When I went to the Santa Lucia Highlands a couple of growers told me that I was the first person they knew to actually go and look at the vineyards with them. I thought they were probably just being very polite. It’s hard for me to believe that’s true. But the list of people is probably not very long.

Tomorrow: Antonio talks more about his job.

It was a real treat to run into Antonio Galloni at last Friday’s Vintage Retrospective Tasting at the Rudd Center of the Culinary Institute of America, in St. Helena. I asked Antonio if he wouldn’t mind my interviewing him, and he kindly agreed, for which I am grateful.

Antonio became, of course, instantly famous in California last year, when Robert Parker announced he [Parker] no longer would review new releases here for The Wine Advocate, but would instead turn that portfolio over to Antonio. Much of the past year in California wine chat circles has been preoccupied with anticipation of how, or whether, Antonio would, or would not, hew to Parker’s tastes.

I found Antonio to be a gentleman of great charm. Born in Venezuela, reared in Italy, living now just outside New York City, he exudes an urbane cosmopolitanism. He’s also quite good-looking, which never hurts in wine country. In my conversation with him–taped–he was, perhaps, a little guarded, but then, under the circumstances, who wouldn’t be? Yet Antonio also is a voluble man; a single question elicits a mountain of information, which is a treasure trove for a reporter.

Most published Q&As have been heavily edited. This one is not. What you read is pretty much verbatim as it was recorded. I thought it would be more interesting to present this conversation, which was entirely spontaneous, in its fullness. Here’s Part 1.

SH: This is a real treat and a pleasure. So you’re here at Premier Napa Valley.

AG: Well, I’m here at the [Wine Writers] Convention [Symposium]. I think the Premier Napa Valley is a subset of that.

SH: What were you doing at the Symposium?

AG: They asked me to speak at a couple of events. The first one was, the first night we had a 2001 tasting.

SH: How was that?

AG: It was fun, great. It was sort of like this welcome dinner, and then after dinner, there were a bunch of 2001s for people to taste, 30 or so wines, and I picked a bunch of my favorites, and then it was really informal. I talked about 6 or 7 of the wines I really liked, and why. It was very informal, a standing tasting, not unlike this [Rudd Center tasting]. I thought that was interesting, because the wines showed beautifully, you know?

SH: Okay. Well, let’s talk about what people want to understand, which is your role at The Wine Advocate. You had been doing Italy for how long?

AG: Since 2006.

SH: And was it a surprise to you that Mr. Parker asked you to do California?

AG: Well, let’s back up for a second, because there’s one or two intermediate steps. The first one is, I did Italy in 2006, and then, in 2008, I thought we really should upgrade our Champagne coverage, so in 2008, I took on Champagne. And all the while I was doing a fulltime job in the finance world. And Bob had always been sort of pushing me to write fulltime, and we’d talked about what that might look like. And I just think, you know, things just evolved to a state where he really wanted to focus on writing different types of articles, like massive vintage retrospectives that he does, verticals, and more thematic stuff, and at the same time, I think he realized that the number of producers to cover in California was just exploding, was hard to keep up with. And so it just made sense to sort of hand off some of the day to day grind.

SH: So which regions do you cover now?

AG: I do all of California, but [only] new releases. And Italy, Champagne and Burgundy.

SH: Now, how does one mere human being have just the physical stamina and the time? Those are four gigantic regions.

AG: Yeah. The key to success is having a great wife! Or partner. Because she organizes a lot of my–and she works very closely, but she does all of my scheduling and stuff.

SH: How many wines, let’s say a day, on average, do you taste?

AG: Well, it depends, because sometimes I’m not–that’s one of the reasons I’m not going to taste a bunch of wines here, because when I’m not in a big tasting mode, I kind of like to just rest.

SH: So how many wines to you expect to taste this year? Let’s put it that way.

AG: Well,  let’s do the math. If I’m traveling somewhere, I probably taste 100 to 150 wines a day, and an average trip might be ten days, a little longer, a little shorter. But let’s say, ten days.

SH: How do you avoid getting inebriated, tasting that many wines?

AG: I think that tasting wine is a lot like sports. You build up endurance. I don’t ever feel inebriated.

SH: When you get to number 100, you don’t feel like you’re losing a little objectivity?

G: No. In fact, I think it’s quite the opposite. I can only speak for myself–it’s different for everybody–but I always chuckle. People think it’s hard to taste at the end of the day. I find it actually harder to taste at the beginning of the day.

SH: You kind of have to get warmed up.

AG: Yeah, you have to get warmed up. And it’s just like sports, have to get warmed up. And I always liked the end–my favorite tastings are the ones at the end of the day, because you’re really focused, you’re really honed in, and everything is very clear. At the end of the day, I always feel like everything is very focused, very clear. It’s not unlike if you run or do some kind of endurance sport. At the end of when you really feel the endorphins kick in, you really feel great, is at the end.

SH: Well, you’re obviously in good shape. Is it important to be physically healthy and in good shape in order to do your job?

AG: Well, I think it’s important for me. But I can’t say for somebody else.

SH: How do you stay in shape?

AG: Well, I go to the gym several times a week, a lot of cardio, spinning, weights. It’s important for me, but, you know, I think there’s plenty of evidence out there that it’s not an important criterion for success!

SH: Now, one of the big things people were really interested in, they were thinking, “Is Galloni going to, in California, continue to kind of like the same wines Parker liked, or is he going to diverge to some extent, will he pull a 180?” What’s your answer to those people who are wondering that?

AG: Well, every time I taste with Bob, if we have ten wines, in 7 or 8 or 9 of those cases we’re going to be very close. And then there’s always going to be some that he likes more, or that I like more, and I think that’s pretty normal. But for the most part, we’re pretty close, and I think that is because great wines are just great wines. What I’ve always tried to do is give a very representative picture of what’s out there, and let people decide what they like. It’s not so much about what I like, it’s just about–I think of wine as being very agnostic to style. I can love Shafer Hillside Select, it was brilliant at that 2001 tasting, but yesterday, here, Denis Malbec [Malbec & Malbec] brought 1991 Dunn Howell Mountain, which was equally beautiful. I can’t tell you that one is more beautiful than the other. I just know, on one day I might be more in the mood for one, and on another day I might be more in the mood for the other. But they’re both, for me, very top representations of what Cabernet Sauvignon can be in Napa Valley.

Tomorrow, Antonio Galloni on tasting open versus tasting blind.

The first two sessions at the Washington Association of Wine Grape Growers were both called Myth Busting. Mine was based on the premise “High alcohol wines taste better.” I said, not necessarily. That’s too easy a formulation, and one that should be shot down. I bash as many high alcohol wines as low- or moderate alcohol wines; in fact, probably more.

The second panel, which I wasn’t part of, was based on the premise “Low yielding vines make better wine.” The lead speaker was Gallo’s head viticulturalist, Nick Dokooslian. He said “Not true,” and offered a series of powerpoint slides showing his extensive research into the matter. I personally don’t need research to agree with Nick. I learned a long time ago that some damned good wine comes from vines we would consider high yielding (e.g. 8 tons per acre). Then too, as Nick reminded us, tons per acre is a misleading metric. How many clusters per vine? What is the vine spacing? So generalizations are complicated.

There was lots of discussion on the panel, and interaction from the audience, on the yield question, but it wasn’t until the end that the panel moderator asked what I think is the key question: If low yield isn’t the alpha and omega of wine quality, then why is the perception so strong—among writer/critics, sommeliers and even educated members of the public—that it is? I was a little disappointed that there wasn’t enough time to delve into this in depth. The answer, from my point of view, is simple: MARKETING.

Hard-core viticulture guys, which this WAWGG audience largely was, are rightfully concerned with things like cluster thinning, shoots per vine and the like, but they don’t really know much about marketing. No reason they should; they’re farmers. Thus, they don’t really understand the marketing, P.R. and communications side of selling wine. It’s no insult for me to say that. I don’t understand viticulture all that well; it’s not my job, just as it isn’t their job to know what happens out there in the world where wine actually has to be sold to skeptical, fussy consumers via a distribution chain that largely cares only about what simple message they can communicate to the end buyer to persuade him or her to buy the SKU. Winemakers, of course, do have to worry about marketing, but there’s always been a cultural gap between winemakers and grape growers, and that gap is no less today than it was 50 years ago. Growers want yield; it’s how they make their profit. Winemakers tend to want to keep yields down.

But if, as everyone on the panel agreed, low yield isn’t as important as people think, then why is the perception so entrenched that it is? (Nick Dokoosian did point out that low yield seems to be associated with quality in Pinot Noir more than in most varieties.) Well, if you think about it, what messages have you heard all your life about low yield? It’s that low yield=quality. And who were you hearing that message from? For the most part, it’s been from wineries who can charge very high prices for their wine, and thus can demand that growers keep yields exceptionally low. They then use the low-yield fact in their marketing and advertising. Their P.R, people trumpet the low yield. That message in turn is picked up by the distributors, who use it as a selling point to the final tier, the retailers, who then repeat the claim to the end buyers. The result is that a sommelier, in trying to make a sale, can tell the customer about how low-yielding the vines were, and this will help persuade the customer to spend a premium on the wine.

But in my experience, low yield in and of itself is pretty meaningless. Nick presented data showing that undercropping is actually detrimental to wine quality. There seems to be a sweet spot that’s neither low nor high, at which most varieties perform best. As for Pinot Noir, well, probably the fact that it needs a cool climate is the reason for its low yields; Mother Nature takes care of that. In the final analysis, one take-home lesson from the WAWGG panel is that the myth that low-yielding vines make better wine is another one to toss out.

After the panels, they had the big walkaround exposition of technical geegaws for the industry. I was really struck by how beautiful these machines have become: MOG sorters, concrete egg fermenters, filterers, crusher/destemmers, bottling machines, tractors. I used to work at California College of the Arts, where I got to know the industrial designers, who were hip, young guys who knew how to make machines sexy. I’m telling you, these modern wine machines are gorgeous enough to display at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

P.S. Check out this link to the Sonoma County Wine Library. They’re honoroing the great Merry Edwards this Friday. Try to be there.

When you’re on the road, you can’t be too fussy.

This is an unalterable truth for the itinerant wine critic. You play the cards you’re dealt, and don’t complain. In this case, I’m in Pasco, Washington, at the annual meeting of the Washington Association of Wine Grape Growers, staying at a chain hotel on a strip that could be anywhere in America. There’s nowhere within walking distance to eat or drink, other than the hotel’s bar and dinky little restaurant. I could take a taxi someplace, but evidently the best place in town is P.F. Chang’s, which doesn’t seem worth a cab ride, especially since it’s really cold outside. Besides, the day was a long one: up early to drop Gus off at his dog hotel, then a stopover in Seattle, then on to little Pasco. All I wanted when I got here was some liquid libation and food.

Do I care that the Riesling and Chardonnay—the first two glasses of wine I had at the bar—were indifferent? Nope. That’s what I mean by “you can’t be too fussy.” It was warm and comfortable, my room was 100 yards away, and I was ready for serious relaxation. If you’ve ever been on the road at an event like this—which is basically a trade show—you know what the hotel bar scene is like. On my left, a young winemaker who just started up his Washington winery and is learning the ropes and was eager to share his experiences. On my right, a filtration salesman.  A little later, comes a young guy who designs tchatchkies for winery tasting rooms—wine-themed earrings, kooky T-shirts, stuff like that. I asked him how’s business. “Through the roof!” he said, elaborating that it’s “drunk women” who buy his stuff.

I love this part of the industry. This isn’t some high-level cult tasting in a rarified bubble, it’s the real world of hard-working people, with their feet on the ground. They travel thousands of miles a year, staying at chain hotels, eating indifferent food in anonymous chain hotel restaurants, and drinking whatever the bar is serving, often to excess, as the night wears on. There’s plenty of laughter, anecdote-trading and confessions, and you know what? I’d rather be in that company than with some snooty MWs waxing on and on about the latest Burgundy they just had “at the domaine with the proprietor.” That’s just me.

The flight from Seattle over the Cascades to Pasco is gorgeous. I had my nose against the window the whole time. You leave the verdant lushness of the Puget Sound area, flying so low over the snowy mountains the plane’s belly practically scrapes the mountaintops, the suddenly the land levels off and you’re over the flat, brown high desert of eastern Washington, where nothing grows without irrigation, even though the coast is the rainiest, snowiest part of the continental U.S. When I first visited here, 20 years ago, it blew my mind. It still does.

I love meeting these real industry people at the bar. We wine critics tend to live in petrie dish. It’s all about the end product, the wine. What we lose track of is that wine is a collaboration of a huge number of people, from filtration salesmen to barrel purveyors to label designers and distributors. Going to trade shows gets us out of the bubble and reminds us that we’re part of a big family of people loosely known as ‘the wine industry” but in reality composed of thousands of individual stories. All of them are fascinating. I look forward to many more chance encounters at hotel bars with lonely, traveling working people just looking for the chance to unwind and relax and get buzzed with like-minded souls they can share war stories with.