French Boycott 2
Paul Clear
appreciate the French style which cleary has focus on terroir and not fruit
then you need to examine why you buy and enjoy wine.
French wines demand a high price tag because 1.most are hand harvested by
small families, 2. have strict regulations to control quality and ageability
unlike anywhere in the world 3. are a lifelong investment which still garner
more $$ than any other wines at auctions.
Additionally, most french wines are made to age. Not enjoy now. They do
not and CAN NOT add acids and tannins like many california and Aussie wines
do. Why do you think they are so good immediatly when they are on the
market? Instant turnover when all that tannin is added means instant $$ to
the winery.
Bill Spohn
>not and CAN NOT add acids and tannins like many california and Aussie wines
>do. Why do you think they are so good immediatly when they are on the
>market? Instant turnover when all that tannin is added means instant $$ to
>the winery.
What?? Balls!
Most French wines (and wines from everywhere else) are made to be consumed
young, not to age. Perhaps 5% of the wine production benefits from age, and
less than that ever get the chance - most consumers, and certainly the French
themselves are included in this, drink the wine soon after they buy it.
And much of the wine made in France wouldn't benefit from acidification, but so
what?
And I am at a loss to know what you mean by " Instant turnover when all that
tannin is added means instant $$ to the winery"
>French wines demand a high price tag because 1.most are hand harvested by
>small families, 2. have strict regulations to control quality and ageability
>unlike anywhere in the world 3. are a lifelong investment which still garner
>more $$ than any other wines at auctions.
No, _most_ French wines (in terms of volume) are made by large companies or
Co-ops, and are machine harvested. The artisanal operations are very much
alive, but represent a small fraction of the total output of France.
Many countries have regulation about what is, and is not permissable in
winemaking (compliance varies). France is certainly not unique there.
And as pointed out above, only a very small fraction of wine made in France(or
anywhere else, for that matter) is worthy of ageing, and even less is aged
before consuming.
I'm not sure where you get the 'lifelong investment' part either - Bordeaux,
for example, from good vintages in the 80s, can be purchased for less than the
current vintage. I always thought an investment meant it would be worth
more..... (I know he 80's wines are worth more than they were on release, but
with a few exceptions, not enough more to make it any sort of sensible
investment strategy)
Ian Hoare
le/on Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:39:13 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>Yes Yes, Our wines may be cheaper and more FRUITY, but if you cant
>appreciate the French style which cleary has focus on terroir and not fruit
>then you need to examine why you buy and enjoy wine.
I'm sorry, Paul, but I really can't go along with your analysis here. The
French claim to focus on terroir, certainly, and indeed a very few wines do
indeed reflect this. But the terroir/cepage question is very much tangled
up by the french insistance on using a particular (group of) cepage in any
one area. THEY say "Ah... the taste of Burgundy" but in fact it's 80% the
taste of Pinot Noir or Chardonnay, with the remaining 20% coming from the
winemaking techniques, the year and - yes - the terroir.
>French wines demand a high price tag because
>1.most are hand harvested by small families,
Wrong. Some is, and some of that is expensive. I buy a local wine, machine
picked by 7 families, it costs €3 or so a bottle. It's no worse for being
machine picked and is a lot better than some hand picked wines I've drunk.
But the vast majority of wines in France are owned by large conglomerates,
or and the very least made FOR them, and machine picked.
> 2. have strict regulations to control quality and ageability unlike anywhere in the world
The French wine industry is indeed hemmed in by a tissue of rules and
regulations which are the despair of many in the industry, and often give
great advantage to the big players. I'm not saying that NO rules are
needed, but when three of the best wines I've tasted recently have been
produced _outside_ the rules it shows there's something radically wrong
with the rule system. The top level of French wines is AOC (guaranteed
origin) and mainly guarantees that a wine comes from where it's supposed to
come from, and is made from the "right" cepages. It has nothing to do with
ageability and indeed I would claim that some of the worst wine in France
has gained AOC status.
> 3. are a lifelong investment which still garner more $$ than any other wines at auctions.
About .05% or less of french wines are of this quality. Some (not even all)
of the Cru Classe Bordeaux, a few top Burgundies, a few top Rhone wines and
that's all.
>
>Additionally, most french wines are made to age.
Rubbish. SOME is, certainly, and some (most) of the best is. But just as
elsewhere, I'd guess that 90% of French wines sold over the counter even in
France is going to be consumed within the week.
>not and CAN NOT add acids and tannins like many california and Aussie wines
>do.
Yes they can. In Burgundy, for example, the rule says that the SAME product
cannont be chaptalised and acidified, so when the chairman of the local
professional association was taken to Court, he claimed the he wasn't
_really_ treating the same product because he was sugaring the must and
acidifying the wine. What happens to the tannins in new oak barrels? Some
of it goes into the wine. That's adding tannins, though in a "politically
correct" way.
And careful winemaking and painstaking attention to detail doesn't need to
result in very expensive wines either. Ask Michael Pronay what he thought
of the Moulin des Dames I showed him recently at Vinexpo - better still,
look back at recent posts. Yet this wine is sold at retail at €15 a bottle.
I buy dry whites of that quality at around €11 and top class sweet wines at
well under €20.
If you wish to find the reason for the exhorbitant prices of top wines in
the USA, look to your lawmakers, and the three tier system, look to the
mickey mouse prices paid for top Californians. If Americans are _prepared_
to pay these prices, your suppliers will continue to gouge you.
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.
Vilco
> >French wines demand a high price tag because 1.... 2.... 3. are a
lifelong investment which still garner
> >more $$ than any other wines at auctions.
> No, _most_ French wines (in terms of volume) are made by large companies
or
> Co-ops, and are machine harvested. The artisanal operations are very much
> alive, but represent a small fraction of the total output of France.
>
> Many countries have regulation about what is, and is not permissable in
> winemaking (compliance varies). France is certainly not unique there.
Ayeah, Mister.
And France is not the most strict, with regard to winemaking rules.
Vilco
Mark Willstatter
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.
dick
Production cost. Opporunity lost on land. And many other factors to
consider.
Don't be short sighted. Its not all supply and demand.
"Mark Willstatter" <mwil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8374d54.03072...@posting.google.com...
Mike Tommasi
wrote:
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
Ian Hoare
le/on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:29:23 +0200, tu disais/you said:-
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:39:13 GMT, "Paul Clear" <pcl...@adelphia.net>
>wrote:
>>Yes Yes, Our wines may be cheaper and more FRUITY, but if you cant
>>appreciate the French style which clearly has focus on terroir and not fruit
>>then you need to examine why you buy and enjoy wine.
It should be said that Paul does at least have his heart in the right
place!!! It's as silly criticising french wines for not being Californian -
a regular occurrance on afw, I'm afraid, as it would be to criticise New
Zealand ones for not being South African. Each country is entitled to make
wines with its own philosophy - if a whole country can be said to have an
overall philosophy of winemaking, and is in my opinin entitled to be judged
by its own criteria. Just as I find it childish and silly to criticise
French wine for not being Australian, or Californian or Italian, so I find
it utterly intolerable for french journalists to be _proud_ of criticising
non french wines for not being made in a french way - you can explain,
Mike.
>What can I add, Bill and Ian said it all, and they are 100% right.
(Two immediate reactions - "Thanks", and "of course". ;-))))
>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.
And while french wine makers are only allowed to irrigate in the most
exceptional circumstances, it is relatively common in many other countries.
I say this without any intention of criticising the practice, but to point
out that if one points the finger at France for chaptalising, the French
can reasonably retaliate by criticising irrigation as "cheating".
> 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...
Don't take this as "slamming", it's not meant to be, but we do have quite a
deep difference over this. My feeling is that as long as the wine:-
1. tastes better
2. has no bad side effects
3. can be made without harm ot the environment
then I have no problems with "artificial" techniques. For example I don't
think Duperé & Barrera's wines are better _just because_ they're trodden,
though it may be that one reason they ARE better is for that reason. Do you
see the difference?
Equally, If Luc de Conti's top dry white wines are only as good as they are
because he picks at night by machine, then I'll not criticise him for not
hand picking, EVEN if it may be compulsory (rightly so IMO) for sweet wine
in the area to be hand picked. I suspect - forgive me and correct me if I'm
wrong - that you may sometimes allow your philosophical position re natural
wines to influence your opinion as to a wine's excellence. That's perfectly
legitimate, of course - as long as you let people know.
As for sugaring sweet wines, I agree that it's an obscenity.
>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...
Exactly, and it is done for exactly the same chemical reasons - to increase
alcohol content. However in Italy, it MAY be that it is done for different
oenological reasons than in France. In France, sugar is added to increase
alcohol content, because there looks as if there's little chance of the
grapes developing enough _natural_ sugar before bad weather ruins the crop.
In Italy, I suspect they may feel they need to pick early in order to have
adequate acid levels and fruit balance, and then need to "bump up" the
alcohol. I apply the criteria I've stated above as to whether I approve or
not. All other things being equal, if the wine is a better balanced wine
because of it, then I don't really have a great problem. After all, they
need to sell their wines in a tough and highly competitive market. Flabby
ripe wines, picked when the grapes have adequate sugar to be "legal", are
no great pleasure even if they ARE traditional in some parts. One could
argue that italian wine makers should content themselves with vinifying to
whatever alcohol levels result if it will allow a white wine to be
agreeably balanced,but I feel that's unnecessarily autere as a policy.
>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.
I don't agree. I know you're being sarcastic, but I think your premise is
incorrect in two opposed directions
1. The pressures at which reverse osmosis machines run is enormous. I am
uneasy as to the possibly adverse side effects of this.
2. Unlike sugaring, reverse osmosis _removes water_ thus concentrating all
the elements of the wine. Sugar (the only thing increased in
chaptalisation) acidity, tannins, trace-elements and everything. It may
very well improve a wine, if that wine had been at fault in being too
dilute. I think that I jib at sweet wines being concentrated by reverse
osmosis, but would want to taste a range before deciding.
As for side effects, I'd make the same kind of caustious judgement as I do
over genetically modified crops. I'd not want to partake until they are
PROVED beyond reasonable doubt to have NO long term deleterious effect, not
just on MY organism, which is trivial, but on the entire eco-system.
Mark Willstatter
> 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.
>
> Don't be short sighted. Its not all supply and demand.
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.
dick
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
"Mark Willstatter" <mwil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8374d54.03072...@posting.google.com...
Mike Tommasi
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:46:48 +0200, Ian Hoare
<ianhoare...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>Don't take this as "slamming", it's not meant to be, but we do have quite a
>deep difference over this. My feeling is that as long as the wine:-
>
>1. tastes better
>2. has no bad side effects
>3. can be made without harm ot the environment
Chaptalized wines are often inferior in taste. This is not due to the
chaptalization of course, but to the reason for chaptalizing in the
first place: making up for poor grape material... any wine that has
reasonably high alcohol content yet still feels likes it is missing in
"matiere" is immediately a prime suspect for me...
If only people stopped making wine in such unsuitable climates as
Bordeaux... ;-)))))
>Exactly, and it is done for exactly the same chemical reasons - to increase
>alcohol content. However in Italy, it MAY be that it is done for different
>oenological reasons than in France. In France, sugar is added to increase
>alcohol content, because there looks as if there's little chance of the
>grapes developing enough _natural_ sugar before bad weather ruins the crop.
>In Italy, I suspect they may feel they need to pick early in order to have
>adequate acid levels and fruit balance, and then need to "bump up" the
>alcohol.
Interesting, I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense.
Mind you, northern Italy may be at Lyon latitude, but the climate is
closer to Loire... so it may be for alcohol boost after all.
In the south, I suspect adding MCR is to make up for ridiculously high
yields and the subsequent thinness.
>
>>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.
>
>I don't agree. I know you're being sarcastic,
Yes
>
>1. The pressures at which reverse osmosis machines run is enormous. I am
>uneasy as to the possibly adverse side effects of this.
Agreed
>
>2. Unlike sugaring, reverse osmosis _removes water_ thus concentrating all
>the elements of the wine. Sugar (the only thing increased in
>chaptalisation) acidity, tannins, trace-elements and everything. It may
>very well improve a wine, if that wine had been at fault in being too
>dilute. I think that I jib at sweet wines being concentrated by reverse
>osmosis, but would want to taste a range before deciding.
That is what I implied by "more concentrated". Everything gets
concentrated, not just the good bits...
Bye for now Ian (how's the tourist season?)
Mike
Mark Lipton
Ian Hoare wrote:
> And while french wine makers are only allowed to irrigate in the most
> exceptional circumstances, it is relatively common in many other countries.
> I say this without any intention of criticising the practice, but to point
> out that if one points the finger at France for chaptalising, the French
> can reasonably retaliate by criticising irrigation as "cheating".
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 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...
>
> Don't take this as "slamming", it's not meant to be, but we do have quite a
> deep difference over this. My feeling is that as long as the wine:-
>
> 1. tastes better
> 2. has no bad side effects
> 3. can be made without harm ot the environment
>
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.
>
>
> As for sugaring sweet wines, I agree that it's an obscenity.
Hear, hear.
>
>
> >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...
>
> Exactly, and it is done for exactly the same chemical reasons - to increase
> alcohol content. However in Italy, it MAY be that it is done for different
> oenological reasons than in France. In France, sugar is added to increase
> alcohol content, because there looks as if there's little chance of the
> grapes developing enough _natural_ sugar before bad weather ruins the crop.
> In Italy, I suspect they may feel they need to pick early in order to have
> adequate acid levels and fruit balance, and then need to "bump up" the
> alcohol. I apply the criteria I've stated above as to whether I approve or
> not. All other things being equal, if the wine is a better balanced wine
> because of it, then I don't really have a great problem. After all, they
> need to sell their wines in a tough and highly competitive market. Flabby
> ripe wines, picked when the grapes have adequate sugar to be "legal", are
> no great pleasure even if they ARE traditional in some parts. One could
> argue that italian wine makers should content themselves with vinifying to
> whatever alcohol levels result if it will allow a white wine to be
> agreeably balanced,but I feel that's unnecessarily autere as a policy.
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
Mark Willstatter
> 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
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.
Mark Willstatter
> 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
Mike, we're in violent agreement. I was only making the point to the
Mark Willstatter
> 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
>
Sonoma. But that only determines the price they need to get for the
wine in order to be profitable; it has nothing whatever to do with the
market price of the wine. The market price of wine (or anything else)
is that number at which a seller is willing to part with his product
and a buyer is willing to buy. Period. But I do agree with your last
statement - in fact, I already wrote that myself, twice - to quote
from my last two posts on the subject: "Those production costs set a
price minimum below which a winery would after a time go out of
and picks them by hand but yet make wine not good enough to recover
needs to make in order to stay in business and what price he is able
to get for his wine are two separate questions: the former is
determined by his costs, the latter by normal market forces.
I suspect if we broke down Opus One's production costs, we'd find that
Mondavi & Co. could profitably sell Opus One for $10-15 a bottle.
That would make $20-30 retail. If it sold for less than that, Mondavi
would lose money. Obviously it sells for much more than that, so they
don't. But the price has *nothing* whatever to do with production
costs. It costs what it does because Mondavi asks a price and enough
consumers are willing to pay it. That's what happens every time you
purchase anything, wine or otherwise. You see a price tag (the
offering price) and decide whether the item is worth that price. If
not, there is no sale. It's the same with Opus One as anything else;
as a consumer, I generally don't know (or care about) the production
price or take on the responsibility of making a charitable
contribution in order to keep the producer in business.
As a final test, ask yourself this: would *you* willing to spend a
lot of money on wine you don't like merely because the producer claims
they have high production costs? Of course not, and neither would
anyone else. Production costs influence price only in setting the
minimum a producer needs to get in order to make a profit; if he is
unable to get that price, he goes out of business. But it has little
or no bearing on the price the consumer is willing to pay, which in
the end is what defines the market price.
- Mark W.
dick
"Mark Willstatter" <mwil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8374d54.03072...@posting.google.com...
Mike Tommasi
wrote:
>
>Mike, we're in violent agreement.
Alright then
>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.
OK, but I was referring to MCR (rectified must concentrate) which has
no colour. It is almost pure sugar and water.
>
>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.
The Midi is very dry, comparable to California. In Bandol it rarely
rains between end of may and harvest time.
Cheers
Mike
Ian Hoare
le/on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:34:27 +0200, tu disais/you said:-
>>Don't take this as "slamming", it's not meant to be, but we do have quite a
>>deep difference over this. My feeling is that as long as the wine:-
>>
>>1. tastes better
>>2. has no bad side effects
>>3. can be made without harm ot the environment
>
>Chaptalized wines are often inferior in taste.
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.
>chaptalization of course, but to the reason for chaptalizing in the
>first place: making up for poor grape material... any wine that has
>reasonably high alcohol content yet still feels likes it is missing in
>"matiere" is immediately a prime suspect for me...
agreed.
>
>If only people stopped making wine in such unsuitable climates as
>Bordeaux... ;-)))))
Grin!!!
>>In Italy, I suspect they may feel they need to pick early in order to have
>>adequate acid levels and fruit balance, and then need to "bump up" the
>>alcohol.
>
>Interesting, I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense.
>Mind you, northern Italy may be at Lyon latitude, but the climate is
>closer to Loire... so it may be for alcohol boost after all.
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.
>In the south, I suspect adding MCR is to make up for ridiculously high
>yields and the subsequent thinness.
Could be that too, of course.
>>2. Unlike sugaring, reverse osmosis _removes water_ thus concentrating all
>>the elements of the wine. Sugar (the only thing increased in
>>chaptalisation) acidity, tannins, trace-elements and everything. It may
>>very well improve a wine, if that wine had been at fault in being too
>>dilute. I think that I jib at sweet wines being concentrated by reverse
>>osmosis, but would want to taste a range before deciding.
>
>That is what I implied by "more concentrated". Everything gets
>concentrated, not just the good bits...
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.
>
>Bye for now Ian (how's the tourist season?)
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.
Ian Hoare
le/on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:13:39 -0500, tu disais/you said:-
>
>
>Ian Hoare wrote:
>
>> And while french wine makers are only allowed to irrigate in the most
>> exceptional circumstances, it is relatively common in many other countries.
>> I say this without any intention of criticising the practice, but to point
>> out that if one points the finger at France for chaptalising, the French
>> can reasonably retaliate by criticising irrigation as "cheating".
>
>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...
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 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'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"
>> no great pleasure even if they ARE traditional in some parts. One could
>> argue that italian wine makers should content themselves with vinifying to
>> whatever alcohol levels result if it will allow a white wine to be
>> agreeably balanced,but I feel that's unnecessarily autere as a policy.
>
>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%???
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 Tommasi
<ianhoare...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 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.
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?
>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.
Let me get it straight, you put 18% of your guests to sleep in the
garden, and Australians are lower maintenance tourists? ;-))
Mike
Dale Williams
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 J Svereika
: 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
Dale Williams
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!).
Mark J Svereika
: 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 <g> 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
Ian Hoare
le/on Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:32:58 +0200, tu disais/you said:-
>> 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.
>
>Oh yes, still plenty of that around, especially Provence and Central
>Italy. But things are changing.
Yes, I know. And I was wondering if that isn't the kind of wine where
modern techniques may not need early picking.
>place. Did you have a chance to taste the new whites from Preceptorie
>de Centernach while in Bouliac?
Nope. We were just about to start tasting after an early supper, when the
first drops started falling - and we scuttled off.
>>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.
>
>Let me get it straight, you put 18% of your guests to sleep in the
>garden, and Australians are lower maintenance tourists? ;-))
Teehee. bit like that. We've got a friend from frc staying with his lady in
our own spare room , and when we have people staying a whole week, we don't
have to welcome new people every evening, not cook for them nor wash sheets
every day! We spent most of the morning touring around getting some new and
better photos of some of the finer sights/sites.
Mark Willstatter
> I have to ask the question...what book did you write?
>
dick
for incoming Freshmen at UNC-Chapel Hill.
It shows how capitalists will ruin the world.
Hey, supply and demand is a major factor when creating any product. If
there is no demand and no need there will be no sales. If the supply is
abundant the pricing typically declines. This is not just for wine.
Do you think Harley Davidson Motorcycles really can't make more bikes. No
this is how you romance a market. Create demand by limiting supply.
However again there is a cost that also determines the minimum pricing.
To say that all wine pricing is set on supply and demand would be slightly
inaccurate in my opinion. However it too plays a factor along with issues
such as raw materials, packaging, production labor, managment fees,
advertising and promotion, land use fees, admin fees, return to
shareholders, taxes, employee benefits...don't forget taxes and a margin
above all to make a fair return and have retained earnings to invest back
into the company for future growth or replantings....its more than just
supply and demand.
"Mark Willstatter" <mwil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8374d54.03072...@posting.google.com...
Mark Willstatter
> Thought you were going to say Nickeled and Dimed which is a required reading
> for incoming Freshmen at UNC-Chapel Hill.
>
> It shows how capitalists will ruin the world.
>
> Hey, supply and demand is a major factor when creating any product. If
> there is no demand and no need there will be no sales. If the supply is
> abundant the pricing typically declines. This is not just for wine.
>
> Do you think Harley Davidson Motorcycles really can't make more bikes. No
> this is how you romance a market. Create demand by limiting supply.
> However again there is a cost that also determines the minimum pricing.
>
> To say that all wine pricing is set on supply and demand would be slightly
> inaccurate in my opinion. However it too plays a factor along with issues
> such as raw materials, packaging, production labor, managment fees,
> advertising and promotion, land use fees, admin fees, return to
> shareholders, taxes, employee benefits...don't forget taxes and a margin
> above all to make a fair return and have retained earnings to invest back
> into the company for future growth or replantings....its more than just
> supply and demand.
>
>
It seems to me your Harley Davidson example better makes my point
than yours. Of course Harley can make more bikes - Screaming Eagle
could make also more wine but in both cases abundance would hurt their
perceived scarcity, a commodity some customers are willing to pay
extra for. And I've already said that cost sets a minimum price below
which a producer can't make money. But I still think very few
customers would be willing to pay Harley extra money for their bikes
because they want to ensure Harley's profitability by reimbursing
their production costs. Instead, they are willin to pay Harley's
asking price for the looks, for that Harley rumble, because Harleys
are scarce and they will be the only Harley owners on their block, and
so on. If Harley's marketers couldn't convince potential customers of
one or more of those, the customer wouldn't pay Harley's price.
Harley would go out of business, as they already almost have. In
other words, Harley's production costs don't set the market price for
a Harley.
What I've said about market pricing only applies in an efficient
market. Defense contractors, for example, in their very distorted
market with few buyers and even fewer sellers, often *do* seem to get
away with charging the government based on their costs. But with many
consumers and many producers, the wine business is extremely
competitive. There are so many choices out there, a consumer has to
be convinced he is getting value for their money. Every consumer
judges for himself what constitutes value, just as in the case of the
Harley - they like the label, they like the wine, they want to be the
only one on their block to own a case of Chateau Petrus. Granted, the
wine market isn't one hundred perfectly efficient but it's close. So
you're right, normal market forces don't *entirely* determine the
market price of wine - maybe only 99.5%. But if you don't mind, I'll
just round 99.5 to 100 and call it *all* supply and demand ;^)
- Mark W.
dick
100% of the pricing. I think its 40% of the pricing factor.
Production and Marketing costs are higher to achieve the image you are
seeking.
Therefore will will agree to disagree.
"Mark Willstatter" <mwil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8374d54.03072...@posting.google.com...
Xyzsch
>inaccurate in my opinion. However it too plays a factor along with issues
>such as raw materials, packaging, production labor, managment fees,
>advertising and promotion, land use fees, admin fees, return to
>margin
>above all to make a fair return and have retained earnings to invest back
>into the company for future growth or replantings....its more than just
>supply and demand
I think everyone is making this a little hard.
1. Supply and cost are really the same thing. If a producer can't cover its
(opportunity) costs, it will not supply the product. Sure, the producer may
guess wrong in the short run and take a loss, but not in the long run.
2. Demand and willingness to pay are also the same thing. If people are willing
to pay prices above the opportunity cost of production, the price will reflect
this and the producer will, by definition, earn economic rents. Of course, in
the long run, land values will reflect the premium prices paid for wines grown
on choice parcels of land in Napa and elsewhere.
So, of course, prices are determined by supply and demand.
Tom Schellberg
Xyzsch
>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.
The whole idea of dilution and increasing crop yeilds by irrigation seems a
little odd for desert climates. Without irrigation, nothing would grow in
eastern Washington. Overcropping and dilution can happen, but generally the
wines are quite well extracted. Just shows the problem of applying the
standards of one wine growing area to another.
I think the point made a while back that the regions wine laws are self-serving
is well taken. No sugar added in California, no irrigation in France. Of course
not.
Tom Schellberg
Ian Hoare
le/on 30 Jul 2003 20:51:06 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>>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.
>The whole idea of dilution and increasing crop yeilds by irrigation seems a
>little odd for desert climates. Without irrigation, nothing would grow in
>eastern Washington.
Quite true. And I understand that it is arguably true for the central
valley in California, as well as for great tracts of Australia and New
Zealand, and as Michael (P) has pointed out, in some parts of Austria as
well.
> Overcropping and dilution can happen, but generally the wines are quite well extracted.
In WA perhaps, but you and I both know that this isn't necessarily true
throughout the areas (both inside the USA and outside) where irrigation is
_essential_ to allow vines to grow. The temptation in areas where there is
loads of sun, and a shortage of water, must surely be to over crop the
vines "just a little" to increase yield and therefore increase the return
from the investment of land and work. I'd be the last to say that no-one
should ever do so, at the end of the day, it is the market that must
decide, but it is very easy to cheat - say by producing a wonderful wine
for several years and then perhaps bumping up the yield 5%, 10%, "no one
will notice".
>Just shows the problem of applying the standards of one wine growing area to another.
Absolutely. I have just had staying with me a guy who is passionate about
the quality of his ingredients, and food generally. He is VERY prone to say
things like "our "moules de bouchot (mussels grown on stakes in the
atlantic near the Brittany coast) are the best in the world." and believe
it with all his heart - until I asked him whether he had eaten New Zealand
green lipped mussels. Now he says with equal conviction, but more accuracy
"our moules de bouchot are the best mussels in France". One of the VERY
deep problems I have with life in France is the automatic assumption very
common here, that _everything_ French is the best, and that the French way
of getting quality is the only right way. It's due to a combination of
ignorance and nationalism which they share - I'm sorry to say - with many
in the USA as we've seen here from time to time. I've not met it in other
countries to the same degree, but it surely exists elsewhere too -
especially in countries where there is a relatively small proportion of
people who travel abroad. Thus it is that the French - faced with enough
water almost every year (don't talk about 2003 here) - forbid irrigation as
cheating - because HERE (certainly in the best wine growing areas) it would
only ever be a way of increasing yield at the expense of quality. On the
other hand, because many of the best wine growing areas here can sometimes
lack sun to ripen all the bunches that grow, they encourage reducing the
yield (green harvesting and de-leafing) and allow adding sugar in one way
or another. And because France produces (with Italy) the most wine of any
country in the world, their voice carries weight, in a way that -say- New
Zealand doesn't, in world wine making circles.
>I think the point made a while back that the regions wine laws are self-serving
>is well taken.
I wouldn't be quite a harsh as calling them self serving, so much as
adapted to local circumstances. Quite rightly too, of course.