How to Effectively Engage International Participants in Tech and Wine Events?

What happens when you step out of your own “filter bubble” and participate in open discussions? We all need our assumptions and outlooks challenged on a regular basis to encourage ideas to develop and for the events to meet the actual needs of our audience, not just what we think they are. Gabriella decided to [...]

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWineConversation/~3/iKIve2RJhNA/

Lauren German LeAnn Rimes Leeann Tweeden Leelee Sobieski

Competition Winners Announced

The winners of the 70th annual Los Angeles International Wine & Spirits Competition were announced today and the list is an impressive one! A box wine, a Scotch whisky, repeat winners (Armida Winery and baseball legend Tommy Lasorda) and so much more! Take a look at the winners here then check out the buzz on [...]

Source: http://blogs.fairplex.com/blog/wine/?p=78

Lokelani McMichael Lori Heuring Lorri Bagley Lucy Liu

QPR Wines of Distinction

The sample boxes from our distributors were backing up at the retail operation in which I was, until recently, gainfully employed, so we divvied up the take and went our separate ways to taste and report back. Happily, the six I took home are all from our good friends at Wines of Distinction/J&J Importers and [...]

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/gangofpour/uncZ/~3/Z7WQ4IQNJn4/qpr-wines-of-distinction

Kristy Swanson Kylie Bax Lacey Chabert Laetitia Casta

Palate Tuning and the Permanent Record

I’m aware that there are at least three strata of consumers who use wine reviews (and likely many more). 

1)  People that calibrate their palate to that of a critic so they can make very informed purchase decisions.  These people are few and probably most closely aligned with Robert Parker or niche critics like Allen Meadows of Burghound or Charlie Olken of the Connoisseurs’ Guide to California Wine.

2)  The broad swath of consumers who use scores, perhaps with some deference to the score-giver, to make retail purchase decisions.  With these folks, all things considered equal while balanced against price, a 91 is better than an 88 so they go with the higher score on the shelf-talker.

3) Online armchair wine researchers are an emerging category of users. Searching for a wine presents a sort of blotter file like the dreaded “permanent record” of school days gone by.  Consumers use search to research wines, validate a thought, sway indecision and incent action, sometimes in conjunction with #2.

This is linked, but separate from a recent working study presented under the banner of the American Association of Wine Economists called, “The Buyer’s Dilemma – Whose Rating Should a Wine Drinker Pay Attention to?”  For a well-considered post on this topic, see Joe Roberts post at 1WineDude.

For my part, I’ve done very little wine reviewing on this site preferring instead to make any specific wine the context for bigger ideas or points I want to make (no pun intended).  However, as I’ve gotten into the groove with my Forbes.com column, where there is a much broader audience, a wine-of-the-week column does have merit and I’ve started reviewing wines with more regularity.

image

Doing so is fun, but the most that I hope for is to be a part of the permanent record as noted in item #3.  I certainly don’t have visions or a desire for anything more, but just the same, doing any sort of reviewing does open a can of worms, particularly in the case of the 2009 Red Car “Trolley” Sonoma Coast Pinot Noir, a wine that I recently reviewed and gave four stars to – which equates to a generalized “90-94” score.  I don’t give precise numeric ratings.  If I had to, I would have given the Red Car a 92, I liked the wine – it was earthy, nuanced, layered, balanced and it required some thought to figure out, all hallmarks of a good wine.

So, consider me SHOCKED when I saw the Wine Spectator review for this very same wine and Jim Laube gave it an 81.  I was less shocked, but slightly curious when I saw that Steve Heimoff at Wine Enthusiast gave it an 86 and Stephen Tanzer gave it an 88.

Can you imagine somebody searching online for the Red Car and seeing search results that present a disparate spread along the lines of Spectator’s 81, Heimoff’s 86, Stephen Tanzer’s 88, CellarTracker’s average score of 89 and a score under the Forbes masthead of 90-94?

It would be a real WTF moment that creates more confusion instead of the consumers desired order.

image

This disparity in scores brings me to my point, which is the point of the Wine Economist working paper – whose score should you listen to?  Well, Joe Roberts, rightfully so, says listen to your own palate.  However, with the preponderance of existing and emerging wine reviewers out there, combined with an ever burgeoning tsunami of information about wine online, that’s easier said than done.  The real need is for meta-aggregation of scores, a sort of super wine review database.

Neil Monnens and his Wine BlueBook represents this on some level with his monthly newsletter that aggregates wine scores for individual wines from three or more critical scores giving it a QPR rating, but this is just the tip of the iceberg compared to where information is going.

Methinks that if a stats wonk can assign a Quarterback rating to NFL quarterbacks, and Sagarin ratings for college football, there has to be a way to create a meta-rating database based on regression analysis that accounts for palate preferences across a wide diversity of reviewers to create a super score for a wine that acts as the ultimate arbiter.  And I won’t be surprised if, in the near future, this emerges. 

Ultimately, the ongoing debate about wine scores is for naught.  The horse has already left the barn.  A better conversation might be around shaping the future and the fact that the best answer to, “Whose Rating Should a Wine Drinker Pay Attention to?” might be, “Trust your palate,” but it might also be, “Tune your palate against the database.”

Source: http://goodgrape.com/index.php/site/palate_tuning_and_the_permanent_record/

Malia Jones Malin Akerman Mandy Moore Maria Bello

A Day in Rutherford?s Dust

Interestingly, when the wines were unveiled we learned that the first flight of wines were all from the eastside of the Rutherford AVA and presented from south to the north. The second flight represented wines made from vineyards on the westside from north to south. Continue reading

Source: http://www.winecountrygetaways.com/napablog/a-day-in-rutherfords-dust/

Liz Phair Lokelani McMichael Lori Heuring Lorri Bagley

The dearth of recommendable California wines under $12

The New York Times magazine ran an charticle on Sunday that compiled the picks of 18 wine industry types. The category? Wines under $12. But the list raised questions for Ray Isle of Food & Wine, since he tweeted: The lack of California wines is understandable for a couple of reasons. Yes, California makes a [...]

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/GuSC/~3/P5T4B5aow3I/

Sarah Gellman Sarah Michelle Gellar Sarah Mutch Sarah Polley

Domaine Pierre Usseglio

I frequently participate in press-wine tastings in Copenhagen. Normally its about tasting the recent vintage or vintages from a particular wine producer - maybe with one or two older vintages. Nothing wrong with that. Its always the latest vintage that is going on the shelves and where the need for good press is welcomed. But I [...]

Source: http://www.wine4freaks.com/42/domaine-pierre-usseglio/

Kelly Monaco Kelly Ripa Kelly Rowland Kerry Suseck

Tasting Report: 2009 Failla Keefer Ranch Pinot Noir

The winning streak continues around here for California Pinot Noir with the 2009 Failla Keefer Ranch Pinot Noir. I've been hearing good things about Failla (pronounced FAY-la) from a number of friends so when Wine Spectator dropped a big 95-point rating ("Classic") on this one the hunt was on.

We were able to track some down before things got too out of hand and I'm pleased to report the wine delivered. Kind of like when Arizona Cardinals coach Dennis Green said the Bears "are who we thought they were" (). Well, maybe not just like that but the point I'm trying to make is I had high expectations and the wine delivered in a big way.

Here are my notes... 

2009 Failla Keefer Ranch Pinot Noir
$45 Release Price
13.9% Alcohol
 550 Cases Produced

Another one of these California Pinot Noirs that charms with it's fruit-forward aromatics and ultimately satisfies for how clean and free of "off" notes it is. Pure. Something for everyone I think, with aromas of tart cherries, orange oil, and soft leather. Well balanced. Silky smooth on the palate with a beautiful finish without any strange aftertastes. Fantastic stuff.

Cellar Tracker
Wine-Searcher 

93/100 WWP: Outstadning 

Bottom Line

It might be hard to find this particular bottling but I'd definitely be interested in seeking out other Pinot Noirs from Failla. Especially the 2009s. 

Check 'em out:
Failla Website
@faillawines

I'm compiling some thoughts and tasting notes for 2008 Oregon Pinot Noir (what the heck happened to that vintage?) and 2009 California Pinot Noir. Especially if you're interested in domestic Pinot Noir I'd love it if you subscribed to the site so we can keep in touch. 

Question of the Day: Have you tasted Failla's wines? What did you think? What have you heard?


Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WellesleyWinePress/~3/mTfCzEqg1Qo/tasting-report-2009-failla-keefer-ranch.html

Leeann Tweeden Leelee Sobieski Leighton Meester Leila Arcieri