With the wine drinking (oops!) tasting season in full swing and as people flock to lovely Wine Country to keep our overpriced restaurants and lodging in business, we as locals only need to learn how to avoid bicycles on the narrow country roads and stay away from downtown on the weekends. My cousin, as well as my son-in-law, are very avid bikers and assure me it’s not the true bikers who are the problem but the city-dwelling riders who love the scenery but don’t know the rules of the road—like the phrase “single-file.” This may well be true, but it doesn’t really solve the problem.
So along comes an NBCBayArea.com investigation titled “Driving Drunk in Wine Country.” No need to bore you with a lot of figures, but Napa and Sonoma lead the Bay Area counties in DUIs, with 1.2 and .9 arrests per 100 licensed drivers, respectfully. These numbers don’t seem high but are certainly food for thought. Now that we all feel righteous, I’ll toss out the fact that the majority of those arrested were local residents and not tourists! (We have found the enemy, and it is us!) The study also found that one-third of those arrested had their last drink at a bar or tasting room.
Two solutions to this problem of drunk driving while wine tasting are as follows. There’s currently a “Responsible Beverage Service Program” available to train tasting room staff how to recognize and deal with patrons who’ve had too much, and second is the idea I’ve thrown out several times over the past couple of years—to no avail—having breathalyzers available at all tasting rooms for customers to use (mind you, not mandatory, but voluntary). The cost would be small and the self-education great. I haven’t heard a single argument against this idea but I certainly have not seen it instituted either. Can my wine drinking friends start asking the employees at tasting rooms about it? Aren’t you just a little bit curious? Maybe a breathalyzer can save the life of a biker who’s riding triple wide on West Dry Creek Road.
Training of tasting room staff seems to be a very important element in this equation, but not as easy to accomplish. Tasting room jobs are virtually always low paying and the turnover is great. Mandating training to work 10 hours per week seems ridiculous from the workers’ standpoint and, until the wineries really believe their tasting room people are very important to their business, I don’t see much important improvement.
I’ve never said working in a tasting room isn’t fun, but it is becoming a more serious position as crowds get bigger. Also, let’s not forget the battle of the ages where us old fogies want a little peace and quiet while imbibing and the younger generations want a good time—and that includes a lot of noise. Now the tasting room personnel have to play referee. Do you suppose the job will ever evolve into a truly recognized position that will pay more than half-priced wine (or a third off if the boss is a real tightwad) and $10 per hour? (Hell hath no fury like an owner having to pay even minimum benefits.) Or will we run out of retirees trying to bolster the Social Security check or moms who finally got the last child in school and are in deep need of adult conversations? Without consulting my attorney friends, I wonder where the blame lies when someone leaves your tasting room and creates a fatality. There may be no solid answer to that other than the attorneys will get rich quick.
Every so often, I try to figure out why we all like different wines, and everyone has a theory. First, without question, is that wine is a very subjective substance and can’t really be objectively evaluated. I’ve stated many times in the past that, if we could objectively evaluate wine, we’d only have one winery in the world. A newer theory is being proposed by George Taber in his new book, A Toast to Bargain Wines. It’s based on research by Tim Hanni and Virginia Utermohlen, who’ve identified four phenotypes (or categories) that wine drinkers fall into based on their taste preferences [See “If the Shoe Fits,” Special Wine Issue 2008]. First is “sweet”—people with the most taste buds and who like White Zinfandel, Riesling, Chenin Blanc and Moscato. They figure about 30 percent of the population fits here. This might explain the continued popularity of White Zinfandel and the skyrocketing popularity of Moscato. (It’s the hottest thing on the market today.) Second is “hypersensitive”—people who are very sensitive to bitterness and prefer elegance and finesse. Chardonnay—no oak please—and lower alcohol levels are fine as is Pinot Grigio, Pinot Noir and sparkling wines. This group makes up about 25 percent of wine lovers. Third is “sensitive” or “smooth.” This 25 percent tends to be more adventurous and likes variety as well as Sauvignon Blanc, Syrah, red Zinfandel and red blends. Fourth is “tolerant” or “intense.” Hello Robert Parker! About 20 percent of wine lovers fall into this category and like big, powerful wines with strong tannins and intense flavors.
What’s interesting about this is that, if true, it can explain people’s different opinions about any given wine and also why some people like wines from a given winery and not from another. What’s more important is that, if you have a favorite wine critic whom you agree with most of the time, it may well mean you’re both in the same group. So what does this all say? If you like a wine, drink it, and if you don’t like it, don’t drink it. Wines are being made according to the “style” of the winemaker, and that might not match yours. To heck with whether it costs $5 or $50. If you like it, drink it! (Small reminder—price is a function of availability, not quality, so be careful.)
