“So, you’re a wine expert.”
If you write of wine regularly, that’s the first comment you likely hear from a new acquaintance.
After four decades at this gig, I’ve become fairly adept at deflecting it, eager to move to a more compelling topic, like the wine in the glasses we hold.
There are no experts in the world of wine, if by “expert” we mean someone as knowledgeable about the wines of Jura as he or she is of the wines of Clarksburg. The field is too scattered, varied and evolving for anyone to be an expert.
Never miss a local story.
The best a wine enthusiast can hope for in seeking guidance is to get it from someone inquisitive, open-minded, and eager to learn of wine –how it came to be, and the people responsible for it. That’s the standard I hope to meet in these columns.
With the start of a new year, the timing is right to address other comments and questions this wine columnist hears:
So what’s your goal?
Wine writing long has appealed to me because it provides so many angles of approach. A wine may be the inspiration, but the story it has to tell can be as much of agriculture, people, history, conflict, science, business, politics and trends as the aesthetic rewards of what’s in the bottle.
So that’s the goal – to put wine in context, to tell a story that is informative, timely, helpful, diverse and hopefully entertaining.
How do you pick the wines you write about?
First, I look for quality and value – a wine that expresses cleanly, clearly and confidently its heritage. Beyond that, again, I select wines on the stories they have to tell.
I believe in blind tastings, and look to them for subject matter; as a consequence, I eagerly judge at wine competitions – 15 over the past year.
Because this column focuses largely on wines from the immediate Sacramento area – the Sierra foothills, the Delta and Lodi – I visit local appellations, generally focusing on a vintner who is generating buzz or who otherwise I’ve been tipped to.
I attend trade tastings, occasionally meet with winemakers traveling through Sacramento, browse local wine shops and grocery stores in search of material, and almost nightly taste one or two wines with dinner, jotting notes on each.
All those judgings, all that travel, wine writing must be fun, no?
It is fun. Whether in California or elsewhere, wine regions tend to be in the world’s more historic, dynamic and scenic areas, with food as accomplished and vital as the local wines.
No, I won’t whine, though wine writing has a couple of drawbacks. Wine competitions can be brutal. They demand a degree of concentration that is exhausting, at least for me.
And the impact of alcohol, tannin and acid from tasting 70 to 100 wines a day can be felt for more than a week afterward.
And at some point, you have to write.
That can be fun, too, until I get to the tasting notes. To make them fresh and relevant without slipping into obscurity and silliness is the biggest challenge in writing of wine.
Why not just rate wines by points?
I’m not comfortable with the widespread scheme of rating wine on a 100-point or similar numerical scale, despite its popularity. It’s a shorthand way that implies that complex quality can be reduced to a number. It also suggests a scientific exactitude that is impossible, given the subjectivity of wine.
Rather than cut to the chase with a number, I’d rather give readers a grounding in why a particular wine impressed me, hoping to provide them with information that helps them make their own informed buying decisions.
Aside from its story, what most impresses you in a wine?
My preference runs to a wine that tastes alive. I like it to have lift, tension, a kind of electrical current. It can be light or it can be heavy, but it can’t be listless. It should evolve in the glass, unfolding with each subsequent sip, revealing something new. I put a priority on a wine’s finish; I want it to linger with brightness and spunk.
Many years ago, I joined the era’s most prominent wine writer, Hugh Johnson, for lunch in San Francisco. This gave me the chance to ask him what he felt made a great wine. He replied:
“A great wine is a wine that makes an impression you can’t ignore, and it always leaves questions unanswered. Great wines never end in an exclamation mark. They always end in a question mark. They tease you. The way they do that is because they are very, very long.
“The greatest test of a wine’s quality is how long it lasts on the palate. Short wines just say what they have to say and shut up, but all great wines stay with you. They keep asking you to come back, try me again, see what’s happening to me.”
That’s stuck with me.