520366 Sun May 18 15:00:06 -0700 2008 34 34 Wine 0 3698999 What exactly is a "French" grape variety"? What is an "Italian" grape? a "German," "Spanish," "Australian," or "Californian" variety? These questions were playing around my head this afternoon: in part because I (as many of us do) use these terms reasonably often; in part because of the passing of Robert Mondavi has left me remembering the conversations we have shared in the past and realizing they were all too few in total; and, in part, because of the following interchange in other threads -- http://www.chowhound.com/topics/518892 >>> That said, no Italian varietals produced in California are very good. >> And I much prefer the French varietals from France to the California versions. >> If I feel like a Burgundy, I'm going to buy a Burgundy, not look for a[n alternative]. >> But Burgundy has long been a love of mine -- I just drink it less frequently now. But I don't look for a "cheaper substitute" -- in that I don't have a California, Oregon, or New Zealand Pinot Noir instead of a Burgundy. I might have a villages wine instead of a Premier Cru, but when I order a Pinot Noir from Central Otago, it's because I want a NZ PN! <<< I agree with all of these comments, by the way . . . well, OK, I'd better -- I wrote the last one. Clearly Cabernet Sauvignon, Sangiovese, and Riesling (for example) are most closely identified with France, Italy, and Germany, respectively, but they are grown all over the world. Indeed some may, at this point, more closely associate Cabernet Sauvignon with California and the Napa Valley than with the wines of the Bordeaux region of France. Let us agree, for the purposes of this topic, to limit the discussion to the grape varieties of the genus and species Vitis vinifera, and only speak of those varieties which developed outside the influence of Homo sapiens. That is, let's forget those grape varieties that were "developed" at agricultural research stations, such as Ruby Cabernet and Emerald Dry (UC Davis), Alicante Bouchet and Grand Noir de la Calmette (Domaine de la Calmette), and so on -- let us focus on the likes of the grape names we all readily know and (perhaps) love: Cabernet Sauvignon, Sauvignon Blanc, Chenin Blanc, Chardonnay, Syrah, Petite Sirah, Pinot Gris, Pinot Noir, Grenache Noir, Gamay Noir à jus blanc, Riesling, Gewürztraminer, Gruner Veltliner, and so on and so on and so on . . . . Clearly Vitis vinifera evolved in the Old World, so it's difficult to claim that ANY vinifera cultivar carries the "passport" of a New World country -- even Zinfandel, the most obvious example of a "California" grape variety, originated in Europe somewhere . . . AND it was first planted in the US in the greenhouses of Long Island and was then known as Black St. Peters, so -- whacha gonna do? And if you go back far enough in time . . . Cabernet Sauvignon has Cabernet Franc and Sauvignon Blanc as parents; Chardonnay is thought to have developed from Muscat Blanc à petits grains . . . there was, at one time, a single variety of Vitis vinifera, growing somewhere in the Middle East -- so is ANY grape truly a "French" variety? is any grape truly an "Italian" variety? Each of us has our own unique palate, our own personal palate preferences. And that may lead us to say "I love California wines," or "I love Italian wines" -- or to say the opposite. But one thing is very true, I think: California makes the best California wines in the world! France, on the other hand, makes the best French wines in the world. And Italy -- well they happen to produce the best Italian wines in the world! And so it goes . . . To my taste, there are more things that set a California Cabernet apart from a French Bordeaux, or a German Riesling apart from a Riesling produced in Washington State, or a red Northern Rhône from an Aussie Shriaz, then there are things that lump them together. Like I said, just my 2¢. Cheers, Jason Sun May 18 15:00:07 -0700 2008 28122 zin1953 1 3699007 I'll take Australian reds and German or Ontario whites. I'm no wine expert but I know what I like. Just my 2c DT Sun May 18 15:03:45 -0700 2008 3698999 11291 Davwud 1 3699082 Well Zin, one thing is for sure, pretty much, might be, most agree: California makes the best Zin in the World. IMO, anyway. Sun May 18 15:42:25 -0700 2008 3698999 14128 BN1 1 3699739 The world if wines would be greatly diminished if California were to stop producing wine. It makes very important contribution to wine making. I drink to that! Sun May 18 20:23:38 -0700 2008 3698999 118541 olasek 2 3704564 While I agree with your comment, I think you missed my point. Tue May 20 08:21:46 -0700 2008 3699739 28122 zin1953 1 3700273 I agree with everything you said Jason, but then it would be impossible for France to make California wines, just like California doesn't really make Champagne. I think it has almost as much to do with the practices of winemakers as it does with terroir. Of course, as any good winemaker will tell you, the wine is made in the vineyard, and the practices in California to limit yields to produce more extracted wines, along with the differences that are imparted by use of American vs French oak, make California wines distinctively different than those made in France. On the other hand, some of the wines from Argentina seem to be somewhere in the middle. One would almost never mistake a California Syrah for one from the Rhone, and Australian Shiraz is definitely different than both (although CA comes closer to Australia than France in this regard imho). And while the grapes are basicly the same, I have no problem telling a Cotes du Rhone from an Australian GSM, and enjoy both. At least we are lucky that all areas of the world of winemaking make good, wonderful to drink, distinctive wines. Mon May 19 05:23:18 -0700 2008 3698999 11814 dinwiddie 2 3700562 [[Of course, as any good winemaker will tell you, the wine is made in the vineyard, and the practices in California to limit yields to produce more extracted wines, along with the differences that are imparted by use of American vs French oak, make California wines distinctively different than those made in France]] As someone who once worked in production for a boutique Napa winery, I can say with absolute certainty that yields in Napa greatly exceed those of the top wine regions in France, Italy, Spain or Germany. The key to Napa (and other CA region) wines is a combination of warm (HOT) climate and overly fertile volcanic soil. This combination is perfect for getting high, almost raisined levels or ripeness and extract, which not coincidentally happens to coincide neatly with the preferences of a certain Baltimore based wine critic. If, however, one is looking for ageworthy, complex and table-friendly wines, this combination of hot weather and fertile soil falls far short. The lack of grace and ageability in top Napa Cabs was no better exemplified than in a 10 year tasting of high scoring (95+) Parker cabs from '97 that I attended last year. A majority of the wines were already falling apart and had little life ahead of them. Given their high Ph levels (and correspondingly low levels of acid--much of that artificially added out of a bag) and complete lack of balance, the wines' short lifespans was entirely expected. Mon May 19 07:13:21 -0700 2008 3700273 56341 Sam Harmon 3 3702048 [As someone who once worked in production for a boutique Napa winery, I can say with absolute certainty that yields in Napa greatly exceed those of the top wine regions in France, Italy, Spain or Germany.] I don't disagree, but I was alluding to the practice that many of the top botique wineries (and some of the others who are making great single vineyard wines) to limit yields thru agressive vineyard management inorder to produce great grapes. Of course, there are vineyards that produce huge yields, but they also produce mediocre wines. And many of the vines in the old French and Italian vineyards are very old, and as such have a natural tendency to produce less fruit. Mon May 19 12:48:04 -0700 2008 3700562 11814 dinwiddie 4 3714327 One more comment . . . >>> Of course, there are vineyards that produce huge yields, but they also produce mediocre wines. <<< Not always true at all. Let's limit the discussion to the Napa Valley for a moment, just to eliminate the topic of jug wines from the Central Valley. There is no set number, in terms of yield, that equals "goodness." The ratio of yield-to-quality (as measured in tons per acre) that will permit the highest possible quality varies with the specific site. For example, some of the most famous Napa Valley Cabernets are produced from vineyards that regularly produce 5-6 tons per acre; still more of the most famous Napa Valley Cabernets are produced from vineyards that regularly produce 3-4 tons per acre; while some of the most famous Napa Valley Cabernets are produced from vineyards that struggle to produce 1-1.25 tons per acre. What's the difference? As with all real estate, it's location, location, location. Planted east of Highway 29 and Rutherford, near the Napa River, one can obtain truly great Cabernet Sauvignon at a 5-6 ton-per-acre yield. Try that, however, on the benchlands west of 29, and you're in for disappointment -- yields need to be cropped at 3-4 tons per acre for optimum quality. Yet if you have Cabernet planted up on Mt. Veeder or Spring Mountain, 3-4 tons is a luxury you dream of -- and yields of 1-1.5 tons is much more likely to be the "best" you can do for maximum quality. The age of the vineyards, too, come into play, as younger vines can generally carry a heavier crop load than older vines with similar levels of quality. And given the AXR-1 ****up, there aren't as many old vines in the Napa Valley as one might hope for . . . Cheers, Jason Fri May 23 06:54:04 -0700 2008 3702048 28122 zin1953 3 3720250 Actually Sam, the entire central coast region of California does not fit your description and is entirely different in climate, geology and soils. Napa has volcanic origin soils, which result in the shallow hardpan that creates the flood plain in the valleys--one reason why the hillsides are superior. Napa also has an abundance of montmorollite clays--"shrinking clays" that can drown a vine when saturated or crack the vine roots in half if they dry too quickly. The central coast of California, however--the "pregnant belly" of California--is formed from the Pacific Plate ocean floor. As the Pacific Plate slides under the North American plate, shavings curl up like fresh Parmesan on a grater, forming the beaches and coastal interior. At one time, the central coast was a marine estuary similar to Washington's Puget Sound, and eons of marine sediment were built up on the soils that are now found from Santa Barbara to Santa Cruz. Although there are rare outcroppings of limestone in the north San Francisco area, it is only in the central coast that one consistently finds ribbons and rich deposits of limestone, calcareous soils layered with sedimentary or alluvial soils, "wet" lime in the substrates under and around the Estrella and Salinas River benches, and a Mediterranean climate . . . west Paso Robles is cooler than the southern Rhone and vies with the northern Rhone for average and diurnal temperatures. Sun May 25 19:31:22 -0700 2008 3700562 195145 MaryBaker 2 3704569 >>> . . . make California wines distinctively different than those made in France. <<< YES! Exactly! >>> At least we are lucky that all areas of the world of winemaking make good, wonderful to drink, distinctive wines. <<< Bravo. Well said. Tue May 20 08:23:21 -0700 2008 3700273 28122 zin1953 1 3700751 some of the best wines in the world are made in California. I agree. some of the best wines in the world are made in France. other of the best wines in the world are made in Italy, and definitely some of the best white wines in the world come from Germany and New Zealand. The climate and the viticultural practices are very different in California than they are in the other parts of the world where those same grapes are grown, cultivated and made into wine. This ensures that none of the wines are going to be the same. I'm very happy to dedicate myself to tasting them all and deciding which ones I like "best!" (You only have 2 Cents? I have 5! ) Mon May 19 08:10:40 -0700 2008 3698999 52499 ChefJune 1 3703395 -"Of course, as any good winemaker will tell you, the wine is made in the vineyard" is just another way to say that terroir reigns supreme. Man is just an accessory and when man tries to supress nature the results are invariably disastrous. -"If, however, one is looking for ageworthy, complex and table-friendly wines, this combination of hot weather and fertile soil falls far short" Agree 100%, Vitis Vinifera needs 4 critical elements to produce quality grapes and one of them is a temperate climate. Not exactly Australia, hot and arid and that's why France, Italy and Spain produce the best wines in the world. Mon May 19 19:24:25 -0700 2008 3698999 59907 froggio 2 3704561 >>> . . . and that's why France, Italy and Spain produce the best wines in the world. <<< Yeah, but see? That's precisely my point in starting this thread . . . Although I would agree with you completely were you to say, "and that's why France, Italy and Spain produce MY FAVORITE wines in the world," I DISAGREE with you that France, Italy and Spain produce the best wines in the world -- I think they produce the best French, Italian, and Spanish wines, respectively, in the world! No one makes French wines like the French . . . No one makes Italian wines like the Italians . . . No one makes Spanish wines like the Spanish . . . And no one makes California wines like the Californians -- they are DIFFERENT. They aren't better; they aren't worse; they are different. You and I may both PREFER European wines (generally, indeed overwhelmingly!) over those from California, Australia, and other locales, I have a very hard time saying one is better than the other. "Preferred"? Easy! "Better"? Uh, difficult. Cheers, Jason Tue May 20 08:21:03 -0700 2008 3703395 28122 zin1953 3 3705266 I have 2 thoughts: (1) Is what makes California wines "California wines" truly a function of what we'd call (if we were in the Old World) "terroir," or is it more a function of wine-making technique and style? It still seems we're only in the early stages of identifying truly unique regions or vineyards in CA, at least as compared to Europe. If it's style and technique rather than terroir, can we really be so sure that California makes the best "California wines"? European wines made in the "New World" style have plenty of fans as well. (2) *No one makes French wines like the French . . . No one makes Italian wines like the Italians . . . No one makes Spanish wines like the Spanish . . . * Actually, with the inreasing prevalence of the itinerant winemaker and international joint ventures, I'm not sure this premise is exactly true, at least as phrased. You've got folks like Michel Rolland producing wine in South America, South Africa, Spain, Chris Ringland from Australia making wine in Spain (Alto Moncayo, El Nido), Paul Hobbs making wine in Argentina (Vina Cobos) ... Not to lead this into a Mondovino-esque discussion, but I think the globalization, so to speak, of the wine industry, has the potential to obscure what, to use your descriptors, makes a California wine a "California wine" - at least to the extent that what you're talking about is the "New World" style. So what makes a California wine a "California wine"? Tue May 20 10:54:38 -0700 2008 3704561 35525 Frodnesor 4 3705464 It seems to me that the wine/wine making style of a particular country is directly related to the manner in which wine is consumed in each country. In the U.S., where more people drink Coke than wine with meals, wine is most often consumed as a cocktail and therefore must be "big" and fruity. In Europe, most people only consume wine with meals, therefore the wine must complement the food, not overwhelm it. Tue May 20 11:34:34 -0700 2008 3705266 15835 Husky 4 3707204 Frodnesor, To address your #1: I'd say that the resultant wine is a careful, or lucky, combination of all of the elements, that you cited. One can have great terroir (take Burgundy, for example), but that will not do it alone. It is a conglomeration of all - the land, the plants, the climate/vintage, the winemaker and a dose of luck. The better that all other aspects are, the less "luck" the winemaker needs. Tue May 20 21:24:08 -0700 2008 3705266 11329 Bill Hunt 4 3708039 >>> (1) Is what makes California wines "California wines" truly a function of what we'd call (if we were in the Old World) "terroir," or is it more a function of wine-making technique and style? It still seems we're only in the early stages of identifying truly unique regions or vineyards in CA, at least as compared to Europe. If it's style and technique rather than terroir, can we really be so sure that California makes the best "California wines"? European wines made in the "New World" style have plenty of fans as well. <<< Wine everywhere is the result of a convergence of a multitude of different factors. Whether it's France, California, Australia, Chile, Washington State, South Africa, or Missouri, terroir most definitely DOES come into play. So, too, does the winemaker and the decisions he or she takes in making the wine -- the decision of when to harvest; to use indigenous or cultured yeasts; the decision to use wood or not, and if so, what kind of wood, what size container, and from which cooper; how long to age the wine prior to bottling; to permit the wine to undergo malolactic fermentation or not; to fine, to filter (and if so, using what medium), to sterile filter . . . all these and more can have an impact upon the wine ranging from the subtle to the dramatic. It's EVERYTHINg, rather than an "either/or" choice between "style and technique rather than terroir." * * * * * >>>(2) *No one makes French wines like the French . . . No one makes Italian wines like the Italians . . . No one makes Spanish wines like the Spanish . . . * Actually, with the inreasing prevalence of the itinerant winemaker and international joint ventures, I'm not sure this premise is exactly true, at least as phrased. <<< I meant that in the most general of terms -- that is, Burgundy is NOT the same as California Pinot Noir/Chardonnay; Bordeaux is not the same California Cabernet/Merlot; Pouilly-Fumé is not the same as Fumé Blanc . . . The questions/issues which surround the Aussie "Flying Winemakers" or international consultants such as Michel Rolland have the seemingly contradictory effect of (to generalize -- of course, this entire thread is all generalizations) at once improving the overall quality of the wine, and making it less identifiable as to its "sense of place." * * * * * >>> Not to lead this into a Mondovino-esque discussion, but I think the globalization, so to speak, of the wine industry, has the potential to obscure what, to use your descriptors, makes a California wine a "California wine" - at least to the extent that what you're talking about is the "New World" style. So what makes a California wine a "California wine"? <<< I quite agree. Even what used to be quite recognizable as a "California" has become -- in many cases -- overpowered by "gobs of hedonistic fruit" and tons of new oak . . . Changes/Progress in California winemaking is not linear. It is more like a pendulum. One has to "swing out," to push the boundaries farther than needed, in order to figure out how far one should go . . . What makes a California wine a California wine is that it is different than a wine made anyplace else on the planet. Sadly, IMHO, the internationalization of styles all too often diminishes that unique distinction. Cheers, Jason Wed May 21 08:18:15 -0700 2008 3705266 28122 zin1953 5 3711491 Jason, I agree with your post in general with a few quibbles. First is the French term, terroir. My problem with that is the emphasis on soil, which is way less important that weather. That objection pairs with the ""gobs of hedonistic fruit" and tons of new oak". California has a long predictable growing season without much rain. It makes for fruit with gobs of flavor. Somehow, lots of flavor in making wine has gotten a bad rap. It amazes me. The oak thing is definitely something in which the pendulum is already swinging back. Perhaps the intense flavors of California wine do not pair with food as well as more restrained wines and the "gobs of fruit" thing shows up in tastings separate from dining. However, in that case, wine servers might offer California wines more for guests who are drinking wine as an aperitif. Let California be California and so with the other regions of the world. Free the winemakers from the European standards and let people drink what they like. Thu May 22 08:46:56 -0700 2008 3708039 65193 EdwardAdams 6 3712055 EA- I agree with some of your post, but I'd like to address this: "First is the French term, terroir. My problem with that is the emphasis on soil, which is way less important that weather. " Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the term terroir refers to more than just the soil. It encompasses the whole of the location in which the grapes are planted, from the microclimate surrounding the vine to the macroclimate of the vineyard/appellation and the mesoclimates in between. It takes the topography of the site into consideration, and the topography directly influences the weather surrounding the vines. I would not go so far as to say that the weather is more important than the soil, it's an important factor, but even if you have ideal weather, if the ground that your vines are planted on is not, you're not going to get very far. "Terroir" takes all this into consideration. To me, that's what makes it a fascinating concept. It also makes it challenging (read: nearly impossible) to define in hard terms. Thu May 22 11:08:04 -0700 2008 3711491 173261 winechik 7 3712926 >>> Correct me if I'm wrong here . . . <<< No need to correct you. You are already correct. ;^) Thu May 22 14:59:13 -0700 2008 3712055 28122 zin1953 1 3704624 To me, the most important thing to keep in mind about California or any other newer wine growing region of the world is just that. It is newer. While the variety and climate matching has matured to a great extent in Europe over the course of centuries, that just not has happened yet in the rest of the world. It's an evolving situation but the mature market in Europe has set the standard. Meanwhile, drink what you like and can afford. Not everyone likes chocolate ice cream either. Tue May 20 08:39:10 -0700 2008 3698999 65193 EdwardAdams 2 3705579 I used to sell coffee and often I would be asked "which is your best coffee" ? To which I would reply, "which ever one you like best". Personally, I am not going to limit my tastes to one region or country. I will pick and choose among the bounty that is out there and drink according to my mood, what is beng served, whom I am drinking with, the weather, the occassion and so on. To write off any area because it is "inferior" is being unfair to yourself. My guess is some people avoid certain wines based on their view of that country (which certainly includes the United States). Remember the "boycott" of French wines a few years ago ? Kind of silly although I wouldn't buy a 96point wine from a Taliban winery for 2 cents. Tue May 20 12:02:06 -0700 2008 3704624 50082 TonyO 3 3705665 >>> I used to sell coffee and often I would be asked "which is your best coffee" ? To which I would reply, "which ever one you like best". <<< EXACTLY! Tue May 20 12:19:43 -0700 2008 3705579 28122 zin1953 4 3706258 Wine is constantly evolving just like people.Take a Frenchman and send him to California and his progeny become Californians.Great thread.There are many noteworthy thoughts here, it's terroir, and technique, pragmatics, but it is also about how we feel about wine, and what place it has in our culture. All these things influence the production and consumption of wine, making California wine the best Californian wine, and Georgian wine the best Georgian wine............ WHen I'm in the mood for Saperavi and some dried fruit, nothing is better for me at that moment.So, the best wine is the one I just sat on the table in front of me, as long as it's not corked! Tue May 20 14:53:32 -0700 2008 3705665 128722 streetgourmetla 2 3719560 Edward, you are correct that the market there is mature, and it has certainly set a standard for pricing, as well as quality in some areas. An interesting but outdated view that many people have (not referring to you, but this is something I would like to address in general), is of the supposed sophistication of the French agricultural system and that their varietal/site matching is perfect. Just ask the French families (Perrin, Asseo) who have planted grapes in Paso Robles--they will tell you that it is not difficult at all to choose the right varietal for the right sites (although it does require experience and intelligence), and American wineries do not have to deal with antiquated and frequently muddle-brained rules. Also, ask the French why they ripped out carmenere instead of planting it properly, in regions like the Rhone where it would have thrived. And why did they export it to Chile mis-identified as merlot? Anyone in this business knows that there is always a hill somewhere ahead in the learning curve. ;^) Sun May 25 12:37:36 -0700 2008 3704624 195145 MaryBaker 3 3719643 Hey, Mary -- nice to "see" you here . . . Cheers, Jason Sun May 25 13:40:48 -0700 2008 3719560 28122 zin1953 4 3720098 Thanks, JBL. I've been lurking for awhile. Hope to achieve "pest" status soon! Sun May 25 18:01:28 -0700 2008 3719643 195145 MaryBaker 1 3706207 True that! Tue May 20 14:41:09 -0700 2008 3698999 128722 streetgourmetla 1 3713206 All this is moot since Washington State makes the best wines in the world... Thu May 22 16:48:35 -0700 2008 3698999 11158 Leper 2 3714296 ;^) Fri May 23 06:41:10 -0700 2008 3713206 28122 zin1953 1 3714886 Thank you Jason for tackling a complex subject and articulating it extremely well. I agree with you 110%. Obviously you are speaking from experience, education and a well developed palate. This is a subject I am constantly trying to get people to understand. A Napa Cab can be equal to a Bordeaux (or vice versa). They are as unique as each of us are. Perhaps the question should be... why do we always have to have a "best"? I personally like to discover things and learn what they are about. Sometimes I like to have a wine that is loud and outspoken and other times I need a soft and elegant companion. What country I find that from is not the goal. The fact that I have a choice and can find it amazes me. Fri May 23 09:42:46 -0700 2008 3698999 180467 WineUnleashed 2 3714957 There is a HUGE difference between the "objective" and the "subjective." I used to (attempt to) teach my students back in the 1970s that the Ernest & Julio Gallo Winery of Modesto was OBjectively the best winery in the world -- no one else was producing, at the time, 200 million gallons of wine per year, every drop of which was nothing short of technically PERECT -- no one else could even touch that record. On the other hand, whether you LIKED the wine or not was an entirely separate, SUBjective issue . . . after all, technically perfect wine can be really boring! The word "best" is purely SUBjective in the world of wine. I like this wine because I like it. I like the way it tastes. Others may agree with me, in that they like it too; or they may disagree with me, in that they don't like the way it tastes. But their like or dislike of the wine doesn't directly affect whether or not I like the wine. The "best" wine in the world -- or rather, the "best" wine in MY world -- is the one I like the most. The "best" wine in YOUR world may not be, and indeed probably isn't, the same as in mine . . . or in his or hers or theirs or . . . . In the world of wine, there is no equivalent of a 100m sprint that can determine the "fastest man in the world"; no equal to a Super Bowl that can determine who the best team is in the NFL; no NCAA final game to determine the #1 team in college basketball . . . and all those really prove is that on THAT day, THIS runner was faster than the others, THIS team beat the other -- on another day, the results may very well be different. In the world of wine, there is no "the best" -- there is only "my favorite" . . . Cheers, Jason Fri May 23 10:04:04 -0700 2008 3714886 28122 zin1953 3 3715128 "The "best" wine in the world -- or rather, the "best" wine in MY world -- is the one I like the most. The "best" wine in YOUR world may not be, and indeed probably isn't, the same as in mine . . . or in his or hers or theirs or . . . ." Jason - I agree with this statement completely. I would add, that I am not sure I could name the one "best" wine in my own world, because a lot depends on "best for what". I could probably select a "best" Merlot, a "best" Cali Cab, a "best" Malbec from among the ones I have tried, but they would not be the "best" wine if I were having a dinner of sole or flounder. Also, "best" in this context only indicates my current favorites, and that could change as I tried other wines, it could change from vintage to vintage, and it could change as I change and my palate develops further. My current favorites are not the same as my favorites from 5, 10 or more years ago. One of the things that keeps me interested in wine and willing to always try something new is the hope that the "best" wine lies ahead of me and I have not already tried it. In some small way, the "best" wine is always the next new (to me) wine. Because I cannot define my own personal "best" wine, I would never argue with someone else's choice of "best". On the other hand, if I like a particular wine, I am never overly concerned how any other person rates a wine, included respected and /or reviled wine critics. I drink what I like and I like what I drink. I like hearing other's opinions on wines, particularly in helping me find new wines to try, and particularly if they tell me "why", in addition to the fact that they like or dislike a certain wine. (This is one of the reasons I read this board.) But whether I agree with them or not, no one else's opinion can be wrong, because it is simply, as you state, their opinion. Fri May 23 10:47:30 -0700 2008 3714957 78406 scrappydog 1 3717502 Jason, I see your point when you say that a French pinot is distinctive from an Oregon pinot, not better but different, but it should be tempered by the fact that it took centuries for Cistercian monks to figure out that, as an example, La Tâche should be separate from Les Gaudichots in the vineyards of Vosne Romanée. That is one of many reasons that European countries make such good wines: time, time to sort out what works best where and when. Technology just can't replace time. Frodnesor asks a relevant question "Is what makes California wines "California wines" truly a function of what we'd call (if we were in the Old World) "terroir" or is it more a function of wine-making technique and style?" I think these wines are in large part a product of technology and style (flattering and uniform). There is progress in CA but it's slow and uneven. Wine is undergoing a global homogenization of style spurred by, in part, mega-star wine critics and monthly magazines with easy to understand rating systems, traveling wine consultants (like Michel Rolland as described by Fredsnor) who spread that universal flattering and anonymous style like a bad weed, and the pressure of market forces. Take Clos de La Siete made under M. Rolland: it's a pot-pourri of malbec, merlot, cab, syrah (lucky they didn't throw pinot in there) that upon tasting could be traced to any new world region. There is little if any tipicity in that wine, not that it's bad just massive and concentrated. You write that "terroir most definitely DOES come into play. So, too, does the winemaker and the decisions he or she takes in making the wine" true to a certain degree but all were not created equal. Some of the most fertile soils in the world are in the plains of the Ukraine and yet no one is making wine there (and the cost of land and labor must be fractional compared to CA’s). You could send J-F Coche-Dury or Henri Jayer there and still they probably wouldn't be able to extract anything more than table grape. And that brings me to what EdwardAdams wrote: "My problem with that is the emphasis on soil, which is way less important that weather.". I think that the importance of one over the other is so marginal that it doesn't really matter. Again, why are great wines always produced in ‘difficult’ soils and not rich soils? Because limestone is a critical element just like a temperate climate is. Wine is a school of patience. Patience because nature moves slowly, because it took centuries for man to achieve La Tâche, because it takes patience to get the perfect harvest, because it takes decades for it to mature in the bottle, and anyone who doesn’t understand that wine and patience are inextricably linked is not serious about wine. But that has nothing to do with our topic California. Sat May 24 10:33:59 -0700 2008 3698999 59907 froggio