Re: French Boycott 2

"Bill Spohn" ha scritto

lifelong investment which still garner

Ayeah, Mister. And France is not the most strict, with regard to winemaking rules.

Vilco

I personally don't have much use for boycotting French wines but that's not really the topic here. I think you're mistaken about what determines wine prices. It really doesn't matter whether we're talking about France or any other wine region - wine prices have very little to do with wine production costs. Those production costs set a price minimum below which a winery would after a time go out of business but beyond that they are irrelevant. Wine prices are set by supply and demand: the price a wine commands in the market place is determined by what consumers are willing to pay.

You are also at least partly mistaken about what French winemakers are not allowed to do. The rules vary somewhat by region within France but winemakers there *are* allowed to add acid. They are also permitted to add sugar, something that is not permitted in California, although often not in the same vintage when they add acid.

Supply and demand will play a small part in the equation. There is also Production cost. Opporunity lost on land. And many other factors to consider.

What can I add, Bill and Ian said it all, and they are 100% right.

Mark W., sugar cannot be added in southern French wines, and neither would you ever need to. California cannot add sugar either, for the same reasons. However, yes, sugar can be added in limited proportions to most French wines, Bordeaux does it all the time, so does the Loire. I happen to be in favour of natural wines, and consider adding sugar to be a form of fraud both for sweet wines and for dry, but that is just me, I know I'll get slammed for saying this, but ANY shortcut is bad in wine... Sugaring is a procedure used in some of the great wines of Bordeaux and Bourgogne, and I find that mildly depressing, because the only reason is $$$, lower yields would not make economic sense I guess, but my links to the wine world are emotional, that's all.

Italy does not allow sugar, something most Italians harp on endlessly, but in fact they are allowed to add concentrated rectified grape must, which is basically the same thing, pure sugar. Oh well...

Good news for everyone, you NO LONGER NEED TO ADD SUGAR OR MCR, now you can cheat in a way that is totally untraceable even using NMR, you just buy an osmosis machine or rent one for the day. There are thousands of these gadgets around in Italy and France. The good news is that, like sugar, they will not improve a wine, just make it more concentrated.

Mike

I would argue that it *is* all supply and demand! A customer really doesn't care how much money the wine took to produce; he only cares if he likes the wine enough to pay the asking price for it. So yes, the market place decides the price - cost of production determines only the profitability of the producer. If a winemaker is able to produce wine cheaply but still command a high price for it, he is very profitable. If another winemaker buys the most expensive grapes and picks them by hand but yet make wine not good enough to recover his costs, he goes out of business. I don't think that's "short sighted"; that's the way the world of business works!

- Mark W.

That might be why a person buys the product but it is not necessarily the way it is priced.

Example why does a wine like Opus One cost so much.

1) They use French Oak at about 700 per barrel. And they only use it 1x. vs American Oak at less than half the price. 2) The land cost in Oakville is amonst the highest in the area. Cost of land? 3) The wine has to be held for about 3 years before release...thats a lot of holding cost. 4) Marketing costs for an upscale wine. 5) Additional methodology in the field on the small amount of grapes selected. and on and on and on.

So, do you think that Opus Ones cost of production is the same as Gallo of Sonoma?

I will agree that supply and demand plays a roll...but only if you agree that there is not way Opus could stay in business at $11.00 per bottle retail. In other words, activity based costs do play a direct roll.

dick

I had to read this sentence three times before I truly understood your point, Ian (note: this has nothing to do with the clarity of your writing). I first asked myself, "how would be *cheating* when it will only produce more dilute wines?" but as I thought about it I realized that it indeed is an artificial way of increasing crop yield, and hence is cheating to someone used to dry farming. Interestingly (perhaps), in my part of the US (the Midwest) almost all crops _are_ dry farmed

-- but that's because the interior of the US is not anything close to a Mediterranean climate and gets summertime rains...

I would add a fourth point, Ian: as long as it doesn't mask or eliminate the character of the wine. Without that point, any producer of "International" style wine could justify their intrusions as improving the taste. I realize that "character" is a very subjective term, and can be abused just as "typicity" at times is. Nonetheless, if we are not to be awash in a world of soft, oaky, fruit-driven wines with no sense of grape or place, some sort of standard needs to be in place.

Hear, hear.

Interesting point, Ian, but doesn't it beg the question of why alcohol levels need to be boosted at all? What's wrong with 9%???

Mark Lipton

Salut/Hi Mike Tommasi,

le/on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:34:27 +0200, tu disais/you said:-

Quite true, and although my answer was in the tight context of chaptalisation, I was really thinking in the wider context of oak chips, adding acid, reverse osmosis and ALL the techniques used to "improve" the wine - or at least its saleability. But I've heard many wine maker - _good_ wine maker claiming that the half a degree that they add in chaptalisation does just "round out" the wine. Not having the opportunity to taste comparatively with and without, I have no way of knowing whether I can go along with it or not.

agreed.

Grin!!!

Is that so? I didn't know that. My thoughts were running to the sort of flabby whites that the middle of Italy was so notorious for producing, bit like the old day Mediterranean climate French wines. You know the sort of thing. Look, I could be completely wrong on this, Mike, as you know, I'm almost completely ignorant about Italian wines, nowadays.

Could be that too, of course.

But... but... but... there's ALL sorts of assumptions here. In a lesser (let's not talk about a bad) year, I could well imagine the grape juice being a bit "light" all round, without having any particular fault you could put your finger on. If the wine tastes nicer (to put it at its most basic) then is the _method itself_ important? I'm not sure.

Up till today, frantic, we're still busy (118% occupancy) but with a family of 6 Australians staying for a week, we'll have a bit of time for the next few days.

Salut/Hi Mark Lipton,

le/on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:13:39 -0500, tu disais/you said:-

Interesting that you got that sense out of it. I was too elliptical.

I'll explain more clearly - and apologise for wasting your time. In France, because in nearly all the wine growing areas, there's enough rain most years to produce good wine, almost all irrigation is banned. SO a French wine grower from his particular perspective can consider irrigation as cheating, because foir HIM it would be. You know, as well as I do, that in some areas of the world, (we saw the tubes in Marlboroough, for example) wine growing simply wouldn't be possible at all without it. So if the French - arguing from their own perspective - were to impose a world wide ban on irrigation and world wide permission to chaptalise, then that would clearly be ludicrous. However, _from a French perspective, with yield sometimes limited by lack of rainfall, irrigation FEELS like cheating. As does acidification. Equally, from a French perspective, where along with adequate water, there is fairly often _in_ adequate sun to ripen the grapes fully, it seems to them to be unjust to be criticised for chaptalisation especially when it is countires which don't NEED to do so that are doing the criticising.

Whew!!

I'llk not go along with this, Mark. At the very top end, yes, perhaps. But when you think of the great mass of wine drunk by 90% of the wine drinkers of the world, I don't think that the intrinsic character of a particular wine is of great importance relative to its general palatability. But perhaps I'm guilty of some kind of inverse snobbery here - "it's unnacceptable for you and me, but quite alright for shopfloor worker Baggins there, he knows no better"

Nothing of itself, but is it acceptable in the market place? A professional wine maker HAS to sell her wines, and that means being - to some extent - prepared to compromise if the market doesn't exist and can't be created for what she believes in.

Mike, we're in violent agreement. I was only making the point to the original poster that (a) he was wrong, that you can never add acid in France and (b) that since chaptalization is allowed in Bordeaux and Burgundy, they can't claim to be white as the driven snow there. As you say, it's easy to make rules against x where x is never necessary, as in the case of sugar in California. FWIW grape concentrate is also allowed in California. I don't believe it is used much and when it is it is most likely to add color since extra sugar is almost never needed.

All around the wine world, people are experts about making illegal what is never necessary anyway, then boasting about it. No irrigation in France where it is rarely needed, no sugar in California. I think Oregon is particularly entertaining - Oregon wineries like to make a big deal of their varietal content rules which require 90% of a wine to be a particular varietal in order to be labelled as such, "tougher", they like to say than the 75% US federal minimum. What they fail to point out is that the main red in Oregon is Pinot Noir, the main whites Chardonnay and Pinot Gris - none of which are often blended anyway. And they're very quiet about the exception for Bordeaux reds and whites which fall back to the usual federal minimums. Again, a law prohibiting practices no one would be tempted to use - and then lorded over others as "superior"!

- Mark W.

Mike, we're in violent agreement. I was only making the point to the original poster that (a) he was wrong, that you can never add acid in France and (b) that since chaptalization is allowed in Bordeaux and Burgundy, they can't claim to be white as the driven snow there. As you say, it's easy to make rules against x where x is never necessary, as in the case of sugar in California. FWIW grape concentrate is also allowed in California. I don't believe it is used much and when it is it is most likely to add color since extra sugar is almost never needed.

All around the wine world, people are experts about making illegal what is never necessary anyway, then boasting about it. No irrigation in France where it is rarely needed, no sugar in California. I think Oregon is particularly entertaining - Oregon wineries like to make a big deal of their varietal content rules which require 90% of a wine to be a particular varietal in order to be labelled as such, "tougher", they like to say than the 75% US federal minimum. What they fail to point out is that the main red in Oregon is Pinot Noir, the main whites Chardonnay and Pinot Gris - none of which are often blended anyway. And they're very quiet about the exception for Bordeaux reds and whites which fall back to the usual federal minimums. Again, a law prohibiting practices no one would be tempted to use - and then lorded over others as "superior"!

- Mark W.

I have to ask the question...what book did you write?

Alright then

OK, but I was referring to MCR (rectified must concentrate) which has no colour. It is almost pure sugar and water.

The Midi is very dry, comparable to California. In Bandol it rarely rains between end of may and harvest time.

Cheers

Mike

Oh yes, still plenty of that around, especially Provence and Central Italy. But things are changing. In Provence we have some almost exciting whites from Chateau de Roquefort, a 20 minute drive from my place. Did you have a chance to taste the new whites from Preceptorie de Centernach while in Bouliac?

Let me get it straight, you put 18% of your guests to sleep in the garden, and Australians are lower maintenance tourists? ;-))

Mike

Not replying to any particular post, but to all..

I'm going to take the middle ground here. I don't know a lot about winemaking, but I personally can take some manipulation/technology if it (a) is done judiciously according to the needs of the vintage, (b) is not so extreme it distorts or eliminates the character of the region, (c) is done in conjunction with (not as a replacement of) good techniques such as reducing yields, and (d) tastes better :)

For example, in 2000 Claude Marechal (Burgundy) used reverse osmosis. I believe he said late rains led to some dilution. So he used RO on saignee then added back to blend for his Bourgogne Rouge. Led to a very nice basic Burg. To me this is quite different from the habitual use in search of "points". It led to a balanced wine in a difficult year. Same things applied to some of the more modern style 1997 St. Emilions- to me they were more successful than most wines in that somewhat green thin year. But in a riper year such as 1998 many of the garagistes just taste overblown to me.

My point (d) above is the most controversial, as we all have different ideas of what tastes better. My classic Bdx profile is Mike's unripe swill. :) But as long as the idea of a regional character is preserved, there should be plenty of wines to make us all happy.

Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

Mark, as I said, I'm trying to strike a balance. Your example of stainless steel temperature controlled tanks is a good one.

While I agree that more info is better, I'm not sure whether they could fit all the info on a label (please check whether Reverse Osmosis was used, degree of Chapatization if any, acidification, % new oak and degree of toast, whether green harvesting was used, yield of vineyards,cepage, etc.). To me the proof is still in the glass, and the buying is more defined by producer than other criteria. Now, due to my taste preferences, that actually tends to lead me to producers that don't use a huge amount of these technologies. I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to like a producer who uses RO heavily in a ripe year to boost a 13% wine to 15% (especially since it'll probably be coupled with new barriques with a heavy toast!). At least not on a regular basis. Though I've enjoyed monster wines on occasion (variety is the spice...)

As to ecosystems of agriculture,I'm not sure that chaptalization is likely to upset the system. :) Anyway, I seem to gravitate towards a number of biodynamie producers. And I actually try to avoid producers that seem to have no consideration for the planet or their neighbors (I think last vintage I bought Rabbit Ridge was about

1998) .

Best, Dale PS Is there anyone out there who's reasonably web-savvy and can look at Mark S's post headers? I use an offline reader, and there's a wierd thing with his posts. When I download posts, his subject line will show up in the downloads. But the post never appears. If I use the AOL online reader I can see them (but that reader doesn't show headers, nor does dejanews). He's the only poster I've noticed this with. Is there something about his posts? He's certainly not filtered, and it's not a X-no archive thing (I can read Marcel's offline). Any help would be appreciated- and Mark, if I don't respond to you, it means I didn't read!).

Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

: My point (d) above is the most controversial, as we all have different ideas of : what tastes better. My classic Bdx profile is Mike's unripe swill. :) But as : long as the idea of a regional character is preserved, there should be plenty : of wines to make us all happy.

Dale, in general, I believe the less manipulation of ANYthing, the better it is, better as in the sense of 'more genuine' or authentic, and think the time-honed ways are generally best(for example, non-drug-pumped chickens, beef, and pork). However I am not a luddite when it comes to the technology of winemaking. Where would many white wines be without refrigerated stainless steel tanks? However I want to know what was done with my food, and feel there should be some brief description of those treatments so if we find a technique that doesn't appeal to us, we don;t have to buy blindly like we do today. To me there is more than 'what's in the bottle'. There are whole ecosystems of agriculture to consider, besides just what tastes good to our little hedonistic tummies.

Just my opinion,

Sveiks!

Mark S

: While I agree that more info is better, I'm not sure whether they could fit all : the info on a label (please check whether Reverse Osmosis was used, degree of

Possibly, but maybe that's why I enjoy reading those Ridge labels so much ;)

: As to ecosystems of agriculture,I'm not sure that chaptalization is likely to : upset the system. :)

True, but this must have given the French sugar beet producers an edge during the 19th century :)

PS Is there anyone out there who's reasonably web-savvy and can look at Mark : S's post headers? I use an offline reader, and there's a wierd thing with his : posts. When I download posts, his subject line will show up in the downloads. : But the post never appears. If I use the AOL online reader I can see them (but : that reader doesn't show headers, nor does dejanews). He's the only poster I've : noticed this with. Is there something about his posts? He's certainly not : filtered, and it's not a X-no archive thing (I can read Marcel's offline). Any : help would be appreciated- and Mark, if I don't respond to you, it means I : didn't read!).

Well, people have always said I march to my own drummer Seriously though, I have no idea why this happens. If it's something set-up in the UNIX account that I'm using, someone please let me know.

take care,

Mark S