Thursday, August 27, 2009

I’m in the death throes of book writing, so forgive the short posts. Here’s a link to my column on Washington zins in yesterday’s Spokesman-Review:



Wawineman said...

Zinfandel has the stigma of a true "California" grape. What's worse is I only see the too-high alcohol content along with a lack of high ratings. Too unfamiliar to try...yes, even worse than a saperavi.

Petite sirah has a spelling problem...petit and syrah. If it's a Durif grape, then call it such! How about fume sirah?

And tell me this, since you report only the Northwest wines for WE, is a wine you rate a 95 the equivalent of Joe Czerwinski's California "95s"? Basically, is the tasting panel "standardized"?

PaulG said...

The Wine Enthusiast divides the globe into regions, each with a tasting panel member assigned to it. Joe C. is the man in charge of everything, but his areas of specialization (Australia, NZ, parts of France, Germany) do not include California. That is Steve Heimoff's territory.

So no, there is no standardization. There is an individual palate behind all W/E ratings that carry someone's initials (eg, PG). If no initials, the wines have been rated by a group tasting, generally at the home office in New York.

Wawineman said...

Thanks for the news!

Hey uh...Chateau Montelena 2002 estate cab...reviewed by J.C. on 9/1/06. Guess he got tired of Napa wines?

Interesting thought on "no standardization". Wouldn't the public be better served through standardization? There's Master of Wine and Master Sommelier...how about Master Wine Taster??

And one final thought...why aren't zins treated like cabs in California, in terms of "that buku-bucks bottle"?

Post a Comment

Your comment is awaiting moderation and will be posted ASAP. Thanks!