After sending in last month’s column, I got to thinking that I was, perhaps, a bit harsh on the follies of COPIA. Then I read a column in the Press Democrat by George Rose, and I found out I wasn’t the only one to think the project was ridiculous. A couple of quotes from the article, and then I’ll drop the subject:
“Those doing the fund-raising also could have learned from the late Robert Mondavi’s extravagantly blurred vision that led to the closure of his Wine Center in Costa Mesa and the failure of his $12 million Disneyland venture.”
And the even less flattering, “Missteps have been many, leading to a loss of more than $4 million each year since opening. Never mind the black and white silhouetted COPIA logo of what appears to be a kneeling woman performing a sex act on a grapevine, or an art exhibit of figurines depicting the Pope stooped in the act of defecation, or the endless parade of highbrow wine tastings presided over by a cadre of snooty master sommeliers.” I guess that sums it up pretty well—certainly more colorful than I did. (Maybe I’m just glad somebody agrees with me.)
Blurry lines
Are you familiar with Gallo’s battle to expand the Russian River Valley appellation to inlcude parts of Cotati? Well, I just have to throw in my two cents’ worth. Without actually taking sides (since I don’t give a damn either way), I’d like to point out that at least Gallo isn’t afraid to put Sonoma County on its label—unlike most of the Russian River Valley wineries. A Gallo label might actually say “Russian River Valley, Sonoma County, California,” and then everyone would suddenly discover that the Russian River Valley is actually in Sonoma County and also in California (a fact you can’t discern from most RRV winery labels). Their cover would be blown.
Gallo wanting into the Russian River appellation is certainly no surprise, since its current Sonoma Coast appellation is probably one of the biggest boondoggles in the wine industry. It was developed as a very strange marketing tool for only one winery (Sonoma Cutrer) that spent the time and money just to be able to use the ridiculous term “Estate Bottled” on its label, which only means the winery has enough money to own some vineyards in the same appellation. They think no one can manage a vineyard as well as they can. If terroir is so important, then why is management so important?
The fear that Gallo, using the Russian River Valley name on its label, would lower the price of other Russian River Valley wines (as well as lowering property values) is best described as absurd. One winemaker stated that wine from each area tasted “different.” Was that difference better by any chance? Remember, wine quality is in the mouth of the beholder. The excuse that, “It could confuse consumers,” is a better joke than you would hear on “Saturday Night Live.” In my mind, not putting Sonoma County on your labels is far more confusing to the consumer.
Another argument by the Russian River Valley people is that their labels get an average of $6.24 more for their wines than those with Sonoma Coast on the label. Is it because Russian River Valley is better, or, more realistically, that Sonoma Coast (as a phony appellation anyway) is of lesser quality? I think this is a good time to remind you that price isn’t based on quality, since that’s a moving target, but more generally on availability. You don’t suppose the old game of “now that I have mine, I don’t want to share” is in effect?
Price lines
Since one of the arguments against Gallo joining the Russian River Valley with its Cotati vineyard is the price of the wine, it might be time to look at a study that was done last spring by a neurologist at the California Institute of Technology to determine the effect of price on the perceived quality of a wine. A group of people were asked to taste five different Cabernets from five different price ranges. In reality, there were only three different wines; two were repeated but marked with different prices. A $90 wine was also marked as $10, and a $5 wine was marked $45.
The report read, in part: “The testers’ brains showed more pleasure at the higher-priced wine than the lower one, even for the same wine. In other words, changes in the price of the wine changed the actual pleasure experienced by the drinkers.” And “on the other hand, when tasters didn’t know any price comparisons, they rated the $5 wine as better than any of the others sampled.”
As I’ve so often stated, price is more a function of availability than quality, which isn’t definable anyway. I’m not trying to say that every $5 bottle of wine is better than anything else, but that quality is a moving target and changes depending on circumstances. I’ve found myself very often really enjoying a wine in the barrel room or tasting room and then getting home, trying the same wine the next day, being very disappointed and wondering what I liked about it. Is it a case of mind over matter? Let’s hope we don’t have to charge $40 a bottle just so we can enjoy it…or do we charge $40 so we’ll think we enjoy it?
Tough times ahead?
Given the current economic downturn, will the local wine industry feel the pinch? It’s been said frequently that wine is recession-proof, but it’s beginning to seem like that may not be true this time around. With restaurants beginning to feel the downturn, wine sales have also fallen dramatically. That’s because restaurants, particularly high-end ones, are a major point of sale for expensive wines. Combine that with increased distribution and production costs and credit hard-to-get it, and it could be a long next year or two. It’s well documented that consumers are buying less expensive wines in the last few months because they have less disposable income. Luckily, there are still some wonderful $10 to $15 wines out there, so enjoy!
With the current economy, it’s even more imperative that you keep up on your homework, so get to work!
