re: Who is really cheering the sale of Erath?

Lots of local boosterism and jabs at others.

It's one thing to respect Dick Erath's work and want to conserve it, but I don't think that anyone at U. S. Tobacco will enjoy the poke in the eye you give them with your coverage. Perhaps an interview with an executive from Ch. Ste. Michelle would have gotten some concrete stances on what they would do with Erath. If you choose to poke them in the eye rather than talk to them, that's your business.

First of all, let me correct you regarding a factual error in your posting and in the referenced article. Erath was not sold to Chateau Ste. Michelle, as you state, but rather to Ste. Michelle Wine Estates (henceforth "SMWE"). Chateau Ste. Michelle is SMWE's flagship label, but not even its largest (Columbia Crest, in terms of volume, is larger). This may sound like nitpicking but I assure you it is not. And yes, SMWE is a division of UST, Inc., whose primary business is smokeless tobacco. If this troubles anyone, so be it. But take a close look at who owns such household names as Kraft Foods and Nabisco.

I suggest that you delve more closely into the Washington wine industry by actually talking to some of its primary players, particularly the owners and winemakers of some of the smaller wineries that are not (yet) owned by Constellation Brands and other such entities who buy and sell wineries like commodities. I suspect that you will find very few, if any, who will tell you that SMWE has had anything other than a net positive impact on the Washington wine industry.

Among others, you might talk to the owners of wineries that lost all or most of their crop in the 1996 and 2004 freezes and were able to produce wine only because SMWE provided them with fruit from its own vineyards. Or you might talk to the many winemakers who honed their skills at one of the SMWE wineries and now have started their own wineries or have become head winemakers at other Washington wineries. Or you might talk to the former owners of Spring Valley Winery, a truly boutique winery which recently received, FWIW, several 90+ scores in WS for wines made in quantities less than 1000 cases. When they lost their winemaker, they approached SMWE with a proposal that SMWE manage their winery. Instead, SMWE purchased Spring Valley with the assurance that the quality of the wines made there would be maintained. Or you might talk to Bob Betz, a Master of Wine and for 25 years SMWE's VP of Enology. A few years before he retired from SMWE, he started a small winery that he named the Betz Family Winery, truly a "mom and pop" operation. He is now making world class wines in a new facility in Woodinville, WA. I could go on and on, but I think I've said enough to make my point.

You seem to long for the days when Oregon wines were a "well-kept secret". I've got some advice: GET OVER IT! You're too late. Oregon wines are no longer a secret and wine lovers everwhere are the winners. There is no question that with success comes problems. Your challenge now is how to deal with those problems. One other piece of advice: whining, which was so much in evidence in your article, won't help.

Cole

David:

I read with interest your reponse to my posting. Clearly, you are passionate about the Oregon wine industry and have heartfelt concerns about its current state and how it will evolve in the coming years. In particular, you are concerned about smaller, artisnal wineries that are unable (or are indifferent to taking collective action necessary) to market their products. Believe me, I share the same concerns, whether the wineries in question are in California, Oregon, Washington, or wherever. I fear these problems will continue to exist barring a fundamental change in the wine distribution system in the USA, which is not likely. The ongoing liberalization of state wine shipping laws may help some but won't, on its own, solve the problem.

In Washington, wineries of all sizes coexist relatively peacefully, recognizing that their main competion is two states to the south and from a very large country located south of the equator. Some of the better known "small" wineries (Leonetti, Quilceda Creek, Cayuse, etc.) don't have a problem since their entire production is basically sold out before it is bottled. Some smaller wineries have problems because, frankly, they don't make very good wine. It's the others that you and I should be (and seem to be) concerned about.

I don't claim to have a good answer to these problems. But based on my personal observations of the Washington wine industry over a number of years, I truly believe that your fears regarding the effect on the Oregon wine industry by the acquisition of Erath, on its own, are misplaced. But only time will tell.

Cole

David:

I was trying to be conciilatory and suggest that the two of us have more in common than might have first appeared. Then I read your smug, self-congratulatory posting on your own web site that bragged about how much controversy (two whole posters responding) your original article stirred up. I am now convinced that your primary purpose is to call attention to yourself by creating a controversy where none really exists. To use a well-worn cliche but which seems highly appropriate in your case, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want Oregon wines to become better known, but would rather sit back and whine that they are not (when in fact they are very well known around the country; look at the Zachy's ads in the Wednesday editions of the New york Times; there are more Oregon wines there than Washington wines) than to actually do anything to advance their cause. I'm signing off. This is my last contribution to this manufactured controversy.

Cole

Hi Cole,

I'm glad to find common ground with you on this, because this is something that will take a lot of people's input and guidance, if we are to help turn things around.

You're absolutely correct about the existing wine distribution system. It is designed for mass "broadcast" of product, assuming there is ample inventory, which by the numbers alone crosses most artisan wineries off the list. There are many hoops to jump through, competing distributors and out-of-state wineries who'd rather not see their products compete with one from 1,000 miles away, etc. It can add up to a lot of hassle, and even be cost- and effort-prohibitive for small producers.

On the other hand...

While the changing inter-state shipping laws could be opening up faster, I think they may present the smaller players with the most feasible/workable opportunity to get into new markets. For example, many of the small Oregon ones currently do direct-ship to customers in all of the reciprocal states (thanks in part to few if any licensing fees), and are simply waiting for additional states to join the ranks. For them to ship to a "new" reciprocal state would entail checking on shipping options, and adding that new state to their sales database.

If you consider the paperwork aspect, direct shipment sales to reciprocal states make for the least headaches. There's no issues with having to deal with a middle-man (distributor, wine bar, state-run liquor store, etc) as there are in some of the "permit" states. Even if you're talking about a permit state, where special licensing is required in order to ship product to residents there (and may include the winery needing to ship to a local/state-run liquor store close to the resident), it still enables the winery to get their product out to the consumer, direct.

What we've found is that even though many Oregon wineries *can* ship to a lot of states, they don't sell many in some states because residents there don't know the winery exists. Overall, we've encountered, again and again, cases where this or that winery would love to get their product out-of-state, but have said again and again, there's simply no demand. That is where being a "best kept secret" is frankly killing them, and that's in part something we're trying to turn around, not only with our Web site, but by trying to get the message out, head up marketing campaigns that target out-of-state audiences, but most importantly, simply get people to start talking about it all. :)

I digress below with some thoughts on direct shipping...

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with selling out of your product. And, if your wines don't sell themselves, you need to re-examine why it is you're in the business. If you fall in-between these two, with good product but extra inventory, then you have the problem that we are discussing :)

This is where, in our haste, we didn't go into enough detail to underscore why we have these concerns. And likewise, we certainly don't have many answers. What we do know is that many wineries here have an ambivalent approach to marketing, if any at all. Some even just expect the business to fall into their hands. And it's unfortunate, because some of those wineries produce damn fine wines! Whenever 'Oregon wine' is mentioned, they cheer. But then they walk away, back to their fields and the status quo.

So our concerns are really about the recent press doing little to help the small players, and that they shouldn't for a moment lose sight of that fact.

Now, you talked about large and small WA wineries working together. This is information that we want to know about. I'm sure that within WA state, things are going very well, and of course wineries big and small have some type of symbiotic relationship. They are, after all, neighbors and members of the same industry.

My interest is to find out how this relationship has extended for these wineries -- if at all -- beyond the state boundaries, or if, thanks again to the established distribution system, it's every winery for themselves, competing against one another, etc., with the "largest label" winning through sheer brand domination.

I can't help but feel that, as interstate shipping laws continue to open up, many of the smaller wineries will be able to avoid the necessity for out-of-state distributors. It strikes me that the three things limiting the small winery from shipping out of state, to State X, are:

1. Whether they can direct-ship there (so as to not have product pass through a restricted/felony state -- which typically leads to the product being dumped out on the tarmack, if you will);
2. If it is a permit state, then is there enough demand from residents of that state to make it cost effective for the winery to front the additional licensing fees;
3. This is the big one -- to simply get their message out, get their brand in front of people, and start building a target market in that state.

For the small producers, many of whom have no budget -- or know-how -- for marketing, #3 is frequently the killer. They tend to join the state-run winegrowers and winery associations, attend a tasting or wine-related event close to home, and stick to other grassroots marketing efforts to fuel their business. Like many small businesses, they depend on repeat customers to drive future sales growth. If they cannot get their own message to market, then they are completely dependent upon relying on members and marketers of their industry to do it for them.

And on that note is where my concern about big-name companies comes in, because while they will certainly raise awareness to Oregon (or any other wine-producing state) as a whole, maybe even helping people learn how to locate the state on a map, I don't think their presence or marketing efforts will do anything to build direct brand recognition in the small wineries located around them.

Now, forget about companies and marketers and associations, all of whom are certainly doing their part to help out (some for their own gain more than others).. what about state-run marketing efforts? There is a Web site for the Oregon wine board, and they do list all wineries and vineyards, some events calendars, and some industry news... and there are some state-sponsored wine events -- but it seems that little has been yielded from those well-intended efforts. Whatever the case, more needs to be done.

Again, in our admittedly... dire... editorial, we did poke fun at Brand Oregon, something aimed to build brand recognition for out-of-state people that yes, Oregon produces wine, beer, bison/emu, fruit, and this and that... in fact, the homepage of the official state site for that effort proudly says, "Pears are Oregon's Official State Fruit..."

Did you know pears were our state's official fruit? Now we all know. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, Oregon pear growers should expect a bunch of people to start inquiring about pears, right? Sorry

-- a bit more sarcasm there -- but the entire plan just struck us, and many others here, as rather grade-schoolish, and it soon disappeared from headlines, Web sites, everywhere, except perhaps the "Made in Oregon" stores at airports and some malls throughout the state.

What is needed is something more cohesive, more of a tie-in between wineries and organizations, to truly get together as a team and get their brand(s) out to other markets. More many wineries, could they supplement their existing demand with residents from every reciprocal (and many permit) states, they'd be kept busy with sales until the cows came home -- and by then, even the cows might want a glass or two. Moo!

Along these lines, here in Oregon, we frequently see T.V. ads produced by tourism boards in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, etc. I even saw one for San Diego recently. All of them show inviting imagery, pictures of wine country (I think Florida focused mostly on the nice, sandy beaches, although we have plenty of those here -- but give the Floridians credit for trying!), etc. They all showed a banquet of imagery, and then a simple link to this or that Web site, perhaps a toll-free number. But it's simple and effective, and it gets the message out. Things like that do actually tend to work.

To recap... sorry this is such a diatribe but it's a continuing issue...

1. Small wineries are dependent upon the assistance of others to market their product.
2. Where those providing assistance are not doing enough of the right things, the wineries must take the initiative and do it themselves.
3. Because of the small scale of production, jumping on board with distributors isn't going to solve the problem, as it comes with production requirements for it to be cost effective, which simply will not be met.
4. Due to local competition with other producers, these wineries may have a better chance by targeting out-of-state audiences in markets they presently can and do ship to.
5. The only thing preventing increased out-of-state demand is lack of brand awareness in those markets. If they are out to do it themselves, they need to look at cost effective marketing avenues, but whatever the case, they simply need to do it. As in, yesterday.
6. If available, then the "right" kind of assistance from state agencies, marketing firms and associations for these small players is that which is aimed at driving in more business from those out-of state markets.
7. With this type of infrastructural shift in the marketing of local regions, less-focused branding campaigns (yes, even Brand Oregon can be counted in this) and industry events (such as recent press from SMWE purchasing Erath) can and will add supplemental support to the overall marketing effort, but by no means can #7 alone accomplish the task.
8. Prior to #7, #'s 1-6 need to be instituted in some form, as one builds on another. Going right to #7 is essentially getting the cart before the horse.

Everyone, those are my thoughts for now... again, feedback welcomed. This is turning into a thesis. Ugh! Thanks for reading. Of course, I respect and welcome everyone's views. If anyone thinks this is off base, please tell me you think so -- but please also provide your own insights on the matter. Through our conversations, we may actually figure out a way to help that small guy that Cole addressed - the guy who produces good stuff but can't get it to market.

Cheers!

David

Hi Cole,

You just caught another factual error on our site. :)

I'd posted a message similar to the first one here, on a Web-based message board (NOT Usenet) which elicited some extremely, shall we say, "colorful" responses from members. My comments were in no way a reference to your posts, which are valid and important to this discussion. All due apologies if you have gotten the wrong idea about this -- definitely not our intent!

David

Hi Dick,

Well, the corporate consumer landscape looks a lot alike, but I'm hoping to find out from someone - anyone - if they've seen a case where a wine region in the U.S. underwent a significant shift towards corporate management, yet was able to retain a grasp on quality and the culture of its product.

The average (American) consumer doesn't really care about differences in products, as much as they seem to care about price. And that, my friend, is the best gift anyone ever gave to Corporate America: an audience indifferent to what they're purchasing so long as it doesn't make dent their wallet. It invites a lot of abusers into the supply stream, including the wine biz. Buying more for "less" can work for some industries, but not ones where quality is of prime concern.

On one hand, toilet paper can be as rough as sandpaper, but so long as it's cheap, people will apparently still buy it (along with some Tuck's!). But we're talking about wine, not $.08 rolls of toilet paper on the end of aisle 57 at Wal-Mart. This is a type of product which consumers tend to be a bit pickier about, and care a little more regarding quality than, say, Joe Six Pack who just cares about alcohol content in his "BEER" cans from Costco. Wineries produce an "artisan libation", not an "alcoholic beverage". Not that there has to be any snobbishness, either. It's simply the fact the making good wine is hard to do, making very good wine is extremely hard to do, and all of it takes an artist's touch. And, whenever you attempt to accomplish that under the gun of corporate expectation, you're bound to run into some trouble along the way.

Personally, I dislike the thought that wine has to be haughty, a thing of sofistication about which you must read tomes in order to appreciate its complexities... I would much rather see it settle into U.S. culture as more of a day-to-day thing that just happens at table... much like the dinner tables of Europe where it is a common drink enjoyed by most without a thought of status. But that paradigm shift would simply involve better education for consumers, not any change on the part of the supplier. There shouldn't be any requirement that wineries must go corporate in order to appeal more to consumers, unless beyond mass marketing, the aim is to "Joe-Six-Pack-ify" their product to such a level that Joe Six Pack will concede to drink it.

But guess what? All those artisan boutiques that we're talking about don't have to increase supply, or sacrifice quality. They don't have to go corporate. They simply need a better vehicle with which to move their product. I should like to think that, while some larger wineries like Erath are purchased, the smaller ones are able to keep a foothold on that small appeal. The thing that bugs me to bits is that if you actually talk with these small players, quite a few don't see it that way. They think the key to growing their business is to take the easy route and sell out to corporate management.

And on that note, I'm sure a lot of small businesses in rural America thought likewise when they were looking for a way out, and Wal-Mart came along. Only Wal-Mart didn't pay any of them a dime -- it simply shut them down due to sheer market domination. And to THAT end, I reiterate the concern that whatever shift takes place in a winegrowing region, its members shouldn't forget they are, still, actually competing against one another, and when it comes to corporate buy-outs, sponsorships, partnerships, or any other way of saying it -- the players who get in with corporate America will likely see profits increase -- but also likely is that it will happen in a way to keep their local competitors small, or worse, shut them down as well.

Meandering thoughts on a Friday evening. Sorry guys, I should start a blog so as to not clog your inboxes.

David

My point using supermarkets and Wal-mart is as follows. First it is cyclical.

Independents and regional chains were abusing their suppliers with Slotting fees and shelf placement fees and at the same time elevating their margins at the expense of the consumer. Why? Because they could. The competed on location, selection, etc....but they charged and overcharged.

Along comes Wal-mart who does not accept money from supplier in slotting or shelf placement fees. Suddenly they open up 140000 to 220000 square feet supercenters and the groceries are on average 25% less for same items in Safeway, Albertsons, Kroger-Fred Myer.etc. Amazing because those chains want to collect $100 per store per item to put items on shelf(approx average). Wal-Mart does not. They say...just treat the consumer right.

Suddenly the independents and regional chains have to compete...Zupans and Wizers have incredible selections of small regional suppliers. They can actually cater better than any of the big guys. So they don't sell as much toilet paper and dog food at cheap prices as Wal-mart...but you can get organic free range chicken, tons of unique items that Wal-mart would never supply. In essence they will create a niche.

Not all consumers will be happy with Wal-mart...but Wal-mart did not grow because they were bad to their suppliers. I supply everyone in the industry and Wal-mart is a good in fact excellent trading partner as is Safeway and Kroger. Albertsons is a different picture presently.

The consumer will want local butchers again one day soon. They will want local produce again, local bakeries, small supermarkets that really cater to their needs. Charcuteries etc. Wal-mart will help the chains and smaller store that are not really doing a service to consumers and help them out of the business. And that will not be bad. Then smaller start ups will emerge and niche themselves.

Ken Wright Cellars, Bergstrom etc...they are not commodity wines. The 2 buck chuck is however. Who cares of Gallo acquires them as long as I can get my Leonetti, L'Ecole etc.

Again, Erath is an excellent winery and I hope that they would not beocme a target. But if they did it would be because the current ownership approves of the sale to another party at an agreed upon price and conditions. I don't really want to stop them from doing what they feel is on their best interest. If they did sell remember that Dick Erath made his mark in Oregon Pinot in the early days and he has the right to profit on it if he wants to. We have the choice of buying or not buying his wine. Remember this is capitalism in a free economy.

Just for the record, the posting I referred to was by you and was on a web site that it appears you control. It specifically referred to a "Usenet" site. I see now that the reference to Usenet has been quietly deleted. So where is ithis other web-based message board where so much controversy has been aired?

Cole

Cole,

Why are you trying to make everything we do and say sound negative or in some way sneaky? What is your motive here? What are you really after?

Of course we have control over our Web site. What group of webmasters doesn't? When you caught the SMWE error, we went back in and revised our editorial to reflect your corrections, and thanked you for pointing out the error to us. Even though we felt that detail was, as you put it yourself, nitpicking, we wanted to make sure the facts in the editorial were correct.

As for the list/board comment, that's a personal reminder for me to be careful to re-check the facts when doing late-night publishing on the site. I honestly don't recall putting in the term 'Usenet', because in my post on that board I was not referring to this list. But you were right, when you pointed it out to me, I looked it up on our board and sure enough, saw the comment. I then realized I got mixed up with which list/board I was talking about. I use Google Groups, and all messages and posts for alt.food.wine are through a Web-based interface. At the same time, I subscribe to dozens of other lists, and participate in about half a dozen other online boards. So mistakes are bound to happen.

My comments on our board were in reference to some of the negative feedback we have received, having simply posted an editorial -- which by nature is opinion-based and so of course will elicit some personal bias in its writings -- to our Web site. Even on this list, I think someone used the term "local boosterism" or the like. It's amazing to see how dismissive some people can be when they don't take the time to try and understand the topic -- or understand where we were coming from when we wrote the piece -- or stop to consider that editorials frequently talk about scenarios, what-if's and the like. But everyone has their right to their own opinion. You certainly do, and my comments on our board were certainly not intended to imply anything negative about you. If I didn't appreciate your input, I wouldn't have spent a bunch of time replying to your other posts here trying to strike up more conversation with and relate to you.

Cole, you have now said some rather opinionated things on this list about me personally, regarding our motives among other things. No, we're not smug. No, we're not braggers. Nor is the topic we were writing about a manufactured controversy. Regarding the quantities of postings we receive on our board, the majority of traffic goes to the resumes/open-jobs section. While we do have links to discuss each and every article/editorial we post to the site on our board, the average reader just wants to view the content, not participate in the discussion. The links are provided as a courtesy to our readers, and are in no way out there to force readers to take part. If they don't want to participate, that's okay by us. I guess if we wanted more posts to our board, we'd simply need to write more editorials and less news/reviews, since we seem to be so capable of firing people up over 'manufactured controversy'.

In any case, take it for what you will. I hold no animosity towards you, nor do I have any desire to argue or mince words over this or that detail. If you don't like what we have to say on our Web site, we respect your opinion, but in any case, it's our site, and no one's forcing you to read it. As for my comments to this list, I would simply ask that you get your own facts straight, and stop jumping to the wrong conclusions about our motives or views, because it makes you sound as though you're out to hinder our efforts or tarnish our image, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case, but you never know.

In any case, I will not be responding to any further comments by you about this matter on this list. If you want to continue it off-list, that's fine by me.

Best Regards,

David

For starters, a clear and umambiguous answer to the question I posed in the last sentence of my recent posting quoted above. I'd like to read some of the postings you keep referring to but whose location you seem reluctant to provide. Could it be that they just don't exist?

Cole

Cole -- if that is you, since you're writing in from a different Yahoo address that's also subscribed to this list (which to me looks suspicious) -- as I said previously, if you want to discuss this further, take it off-list. Otherwise, I'm done answering your 20 questions, since no matter what I've said, you still posture and doubt, which gives me no reason to do anything to appease you.

But since you (again) asked about the list which you don't believe exists, quite frankly, I have absolutely no desire to post the link and help promote that abusive list, just as you have no any desire, as it has become increasingly apparent, to say anything positive about my efforts to contribute discussion to this list. All you seem to want to do is be confrontational. Who's the one 'manufacturing controversy' now? Get over it. Say what you want. I personally don't care.

David

I have watched this thread for a while and wanted to pipe in with my thoughts. I am not 100% against the sale of Erath. I am more worried about how this effects the rest of the Oregon wine scene. I think this could be a needed and helpful wake up call the scene has needed. If the new owners do get Erath wines into new markets and people do enjoy the wines it could help other wineries increase their sales in those areas as the consumers look to learn more about Oregon wines.

However if this starts the wave of mid to large size Oregon wines selling to other owners I am against this move then.

Respectfully I don't have any way to stop it and I understand each business will determine what is best for themselves. I just hope this is used as a springboard to get Oregon wines out to new markets and help grow our wine industry.

I look at the current Washington State wine scene and I am not a big fan of it. I see three major players controlling a large portion of it and the rest fighting for left over scraps. I think WA wine scene is even harder/harsher then CA where you have a few large players (Gallo,etc) but most are self owned and seem to work together to keep their tourist dollars and still fight each other for retail space. I think CA wineries have a full understanding of what is going on and what needs to be done. WA is just trying to become the 500 lb gorilla. Oregon does not truly know how to act or what do to and this sale of one of the founding wineries might be what is takes to make them figure it out.

Here is hoping that Oregon Wineries learn quickly

Matt

to be fully open to all, I also write for Oregonwines.com, like David. I am not saying my opinions are facts but these are my thoughts and feelings may not be shared by many or all.

This seems like a good opportunity to cool the rhetoric here and engage in a rational discussion of what is, after all, a topic of some importance, particularly to those of us who live in Washington and Oregon and who care about the wine industries in those two states. I apologize for any part I played in the earlier degradation of the level of discourse here.

Matt, you seem to be more open to the idea that SMWE's acquisition of Erath might not be such a bad thing. As they used to (and still do) say where I grew up, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do take pride in the wine industry of my adopted state.

In your opening paragraph, you express some hopes as to what might happen as a result of the Erath acquisition. Based on my observations of the influence of SMWE on the Washington wine industry, I truly believe your hopes will be realized. I think everyone would agree that, without SMWE and the support provided by UST, the industry would be very different from what it is today. I suspect it would more closely resemble Oregon's, but no one can really say for sure. Almost certainly, it would be smaller than it is today. The result, whatever it might have been, might have been more to certain individuals' liking but at this point the whole issue is irrelevant.

I don't really agree with your assessment of the Washington wine industry. When you refer to 'three major players", I can't figure out who you are talking about. SMWE is clearly the largest wine producer in Washington, with its flagship label Chateau Ste. Michelle and other labels, most notably Columbia Crest. The only other large companies that I am aware of that have any presence in Washington are Diageo and Constellation although there may be others. Both companies gained that presence by acquisitions (Chalone, Vincor, etc.) and it is not obvious to me that either has any strong commitment to the Washington wine industry.

If you go into a typical Seattle supermarket with a decent wine collection, it is probably true that you will see more SMWE labels than any other single winery, although if you totaled all of the Constellation labels, the result might be different. In any case I believe this would be more a result of broader product lines rather than any any form of market control. But you would also find that SMWE's products would represent a small minority of the the total wines on display. Size does not inevitably lead to market control.

In an earlier posting I suggested that David talk to some owners and winemakers of various size wineries in Washington. I used the term "major players" which was (understandably) misinterpreted in a way as to exclude the many small (mom and pop) wineries. I'll make the same suggestion to you. I think you will find an overwhelming consensus that SMWE has had a beneficial effect on the industry here. Hopefully, that scenario will be replicated, at least to some extent in Oregon.

Cole

When I mentioned three players, I keep being told and reading there are three major corps that control/own a large share of the wineries and wines produced in the state of Washington. I am not saying all three a bad or all three are good. My thoughts are if you have such a small group controlling such a large portion of a market it usually does work out well for the consumers or quality. Now, I will admit my one personal tasting tour of Washington was around Leaveningworth during a winter vacation there. All the wineries I visited where single ownership situations, like what we have in Oregon. I like most of the wine tasted and brought back about two cases from I think seven different wineries. I did talk to the owners and at that time I think there were a fewer corp influences in the state but most agreed a few big boys is good for the industry but not if they start buying up the little guys to get control.

Matt

I still don't know what the three major corps are that your refer to. (Please don't treat this as a hostile statement. I'm simply trying to establish some common ground upon which any rational discussion must be founded.) I've provided my take in an earlier posting and there is really nothing, at least at this point, that I can add to it. With all due respect to the wineries that you might have visited around Leavenworth (I've probably visited most or all of them), they are not representative of the Washington wine industry as a whole. (Among other things, they are close to Wenatchee, which is close to Lake Chelan, where several vineyards are trying to grow pinot noir. This is not a variety that grows well in the Columbia Valley, but I wish them well. But to date I have not tasted a Washington pinot noir that compares well with an average Oregon PN.) I'm not sure what else to say that I have not already said but I would like to continue this dialogue.

Cole

For what it is worth friend of mine will be working as a cellar rat during this years harvest. When he heard the news about the sale he spoke to the assistant winemaker and he was told that they do not expect any changes.

Salut/Hi David Anderson, Ny only comment is to do with your use of English.

le/on 6 Jun 2006 21:17:00 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

Unique means - something thaty is literally one of a kind. That means that it can't be qualified by comparatives. Either it is unique, in which case no such article has ever existed before, or it isn't. "Rather unique" like very unique is simply bad English.

As to whether the sale of an Oregon winery to Ste Michelle is "hot news for the wine industry"....... I guess that depends upon what your perspectives are. Mine are, forgive me, a touch wider.

Anywone would think Ste Michelle was the Devil incarnate and based in Outer Mongolia. Crumbs, it's under 200 miles from Seattle to Newberg. What's more they make some fine wines. I remember that when I emailed Erath to try to lay on a visit, they didn't reply. Ste Michelle laid on a splendid visit, and even contacted their Walla Walla subsidiary to arrange a visit there too.

Sorry