August 6 2007
Despite beating the stuffing out of a now dead moose, er horse, I’m going to beat it again and continue my personal crusade to not have wine medal competitions be invalidated as exercises of dubious merit. Despite bordering on boorishness, this post will serve as a final rejoinder to a series of unplanned posts around wine medal competitions at state fairs and the backlash that occurred with Charles Shaw’s Double-Gold medal win at the California State Fair.
With the Indy International Wine Competition complete for another year (2nd or 3rd largest wine competition in the country depending on the press release) and the winners announced, would you believe that 3 Blind Moose added to their Double Gold for their Pinot Grigio at the California State Fair by winning a Gold medal for their Cabernet Sauvignon? Not only that, but Barefoot Wine continued its streak of medals and won across the board with a gold, several silvers and bronze medals for various reds and whites.
If you’re not acquainted with 3 Blind Moose or Barefoot Cellars you’ll find them nestled next the produce section, but before the snack aisle in the wine section at your grocery store. About $8.99 or less will get you the good stuff: the medal winners. If you don’t find it at your grocery store, you can check out the 3 Blind Moose online where the web site says (while referencing the chardonnay, amongst other grimace-inducing turns of phrase), “You fall head over hooves for this beauty.”
In short, mass-produced, nationally distributed wines are winning medals in competitions at an incredible rate, against much smaller, more expensive competitors.
Instead of wine lovers jumping for joy at the thought of drinking higher quality wines for less money, it seems as if some folks are skeptical.
By way of explanation, and it couldn’t be any more timely, Linda Murphy offers up a great column in the August issue of Decanter magazine and it cuts to the core of the state fair medal/Charles Shaw Double Gold imbroglio.
The lead to her column says with excerpts following says,
The wine labeled ‘RVZN030’ had tangy, wild-respberry fruit, a lashing of peppery spice and mouthwatering acidity. It was intense and ripe, not overly alcoholic, with great balance and freshness. ‘Textbook Zinfandel … Dry Creek Valley?’ I asked myself as I gave the wine a platinum medal, the second-highest award at the Critics Challenge competition in San Diego.
But when the identity of RVZ030 was revealed, I nearly bit my tongue in half: 2004 Big Ass Zinfandel from Sonoma County.
I saw a pleasantly surprising trend towards more $15-and-under California wines winning gold and platinum medals that I remembered in the past.
Not only did bang-for the buck wines such as Barefoot Cellars Chardonnay ($6), Bonterra Cabernet Sauvignon ($15), Pedroncelli Petite Sirah ($14.50), Beringer Founders Estate Chardonnay ($11) and yes, Big Ass Zinfandel from Adler Fels Winery, win gold or higher, they outperformed some wines costing twice as much, or more, within their varietal category.
The $15-and-under wine has nothing to lose, and thus more wines in this price range are entered into competitions. Still any wine that wins gold, regardless of the strength of the field, has to be pretty damn good to pass muster with the judges.
Murphy cites several additional reasons why there has been a rash of medal winners from wineries with high production and inexpensive price points, all of which add up:
1) Improved viticultural techniques
2) Modern winemaking like micro-ox
3) Vertical management by wineries who produce multiple labels and can pass quality juice down to 2nd and 3rd labels
4) High quality on the bulk market
5) Competition from imports keeping a competitive position in the market for pricing many domestic wines
Murphy ends the article with a brief comment about the U.S. becoming a nation of wine drinkers, applauding the availability of affordable, quality wines. I’m going to end this post with a nod to her for writing an informed article, and also a plea to wine drinkers in the wine blogosphere to join me in visiting some of the gems of the supermarket, too. $15 is the new $25 and that change alone has changed the way we need to think about labels. And, I’m not too proud to save some money, either.
Posted in, Free Run: Field Notes From a Wine Life. Permalink | Comments (4) |
Everyone needs everyday wines that taste great. It’s promising to learn that there are some great buys that are almost universally available.
It would be super to see some roundup posts that spell out the options in this segment of the market with sufficient notes to help readers make choices. Maybe a suggestion for WBW?
Hey Leo, great suggestion. I think they may have used that theme in the past, but with so many nationally distributed brands winning medals I think it’s time to re-visit.
I’ll make the suggestion.
Thanks for reading,
Jeff
The most common use of platinum is as a catalyst in chemical reactions. It has been employed in this application since the early 1800s, when platinum powder was used to catalyze the ignition of hydrogen. The most important application of platinum is in automobiles as a catalytic converter, which allows the complete combustion of low concentrations of unburned hydrocarbon from the exhaust into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License
Design by The Blog Studio
Print
Very good post. I do think we wine bloggers can be a bit wine snobbish about supermarket wines, all the while touting wine democracy and everyday wine. That’s why the hue and cry in the blogosphere about the travesty of the Charles Shaw medals seemed a bit problematic to me. We should have been celebrating the fact that a wine under $50 won a prize. I’ve not had the Big Ass Zin, but will have to look for it.