“Great Wine” by the Numbers?
I was thinking about an interview I did with my friend Jeff Booth, of Pepi-Booth Consulting (they consult for Goosecross and have clients as far away as China!). It was for an upcoming episode on our podcast, Napa Valley Wine Radio, and one of the questions I asked him was if he thought the day would ever come when great wine could be made in a lab. He didn’t exactly answer my question; he just replied with “That would be a drag” and went on to talk about the joys of working with nature and how formulaic winemaking would take all the fun and surprise out of it.
I suspect he was probably sidestepping the issue because he didn’t want to get into talking about things like the techniques used by a company called Enologix – that’s fodder for a whole episode of its own! I read about them awhile back, and it’s pretty interesting stuff. They use software developed in-house to measure things far beyond the usual sugar, acid, pH and alcohol in a quest to match the profile of wines that get 100 point scores from Parker or the Wine Spectator. And tasting? How quaint. Why bother? It appears to be all about the numbers. The owner of Enologix, Leo McCloskey, says he’s identified about 100 chemical compounds that can affect our perception and uses them to compute a “quality index” for the wine. It kind of boils down to analyzing wines that have received the high scores for their chemical breakdown and then advising winemakers regarding when to pick, when to press, etc, based upon his analysis in order to create a wine of similar structure. He claims that winemakers can improve their scores by 5-6 points in one year by using his system. Evidently, he can even take a vineyard that’s naturally disposed to produce a restrained style and can time the pressing and blend in order to produce that unctuous, 99-point style that’s currently in vogue. His market is mainly high-end Cabs.
Who wouldn’t want 99 points? You can’t blame a businessman for trying to make a product that sells. As long as there’s been commercial winemaking there’s been that push and pull between the drive to bottle a unique artistic expression and keeping food on the table. But you’ve got to have a killer vineyard to even begin approaching these scores (I don’t think they’ve figured out a way to fake the fruit yet – stay tuned). It may be an antiquated concept, but would that vineyard make more interesting wine if the winemaker simply attuned himself to it by walking it frequently and making harvest decisions by tasting as well as testing? And used the same approach to winemaking? One of McCloskey’s clients referred to “babysitting the fermentation tank”. Well, conscientious winemakers should be doing that anyway.
And how does that producer feel if he’s made a wine of distinction that languishes on the shelf because it got an 87 from the Wine Spectator? Wine as art/wine as business. What a dilemma!
Critics of McCloskey and proponents of terroir say his methods erase the sense of place and the charming quirkiness that has been inherent to wine. The objection is that they offer us only one style: the highly extracted, so-called fruit-bombs and that we may as well make a box of Cheerios if we’re going to go by the numbers. I think McCloskey would probably say that he’s giving his clients and their customers what they want.
I just keep wondering if the industry and we, as consumers, are going through a phase. Last night I had a glass of Dolcetto with my pasta and it was 14% alcohol (no, it wasn’t a 2003). That can’t be the historic norm for Dolcetto. Sure, I enjoyed it, and it still had that nice little zing of acid you expect, but it’s kind of too bad when a producer in Piemonte feels he has to mimic the California style in order to survive. I’m waiting for the backlash when we all get tired of the huge reds just the way we got tired of fat, over-oaked, overwrought Chardonnays.
If we do, operations like McCloskey’s can simply adjust their parameters. Science marches on. And science has done a whole lot to improve wine over the years. But I think I agree with my buddy, Jeff. If I want a glass of white Burgundy, I want that unmistakable minerality, bright acidity and hint of soy you don’t find in most Napa Valley Chardonnays. If I’m in the mood for a glass of Napa Valley Cab, I want the ripe, luscious black fruit that isn’t (or wasn’t) so evident in a typical Bordeaux equivalent. It would truly be a drag if science and globalization blur the lines beyond recognition.
To read about a great man who was diametrically opposed to Enologix in his approach to winemaking, and still managed to make rich, satisfying wine that also reflects the local terroir, read about Henri Jayer, may he rest in peace.
There is another side to the story. Artists who have pushed the boundaries, Picasso, Warhol, or technologies that simulate the artist form what Harvard’s Clayton Christenson describe as ‘disruptive new technologies’. In the case of the great technologies, software programs, they all model the artist’s activity. Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, Computer Assisted Design and the original Apple computer they ran on were classic cases. More recently it was digital photography. My sense is that Enologix ability to model style, quality, aging potential, terroir, appellation, bottle price, and more are very disruptive to institutional winemaking. What happens when the “artist” is out of the loop? They have a choice, slam the technology,new art forms, or put it to work protecting the art. In the case of wine, we believe we are protecting California wine-farm.
Thanks for writing! One thing we can agree upon is that lively debate about things that matter is good for the future health of the industry.
I hope not to come across as a Luddite or as trying to demonize Enologix, but I think this sameness-of- wine-profile thing is worthy of discussion. And global sameness is a real risk if winemakers knuckle under to a handful of powerful wine writers and rely on metrics to get that sacred 99 and the inflated bottle price that goes along with it.
Enologix can’t be blamed for the fact that the wine writers are so powerful. We have to blame ourselves, as consumers, for being sheep. But I still have a problem with numbers as art when it comes to wine (and most things). My instinct is that it’s more about commerce than art.
Business analysts tells me that the only reason critics ratings exist at all is because of a culture of the cover up in the California wine industry. No one will deny that winemaker are against the ratings. On the other hand this created an information void, and like all voids they get filled. In the case of wine by the critics. In essence winemakers created the ratings in the mid-1980s when they decided to work against quality ratings of their own products. They all wanted a chance to be number one. At the end of the day the consumer want the ratings.
Why not give consumers what they want?
Oh, I think winemakers love the ratings as long as they’re good
I can’t resist quoting myself from the original entry, “Great Wine By the Numbers?”: “I think McCloskey would probably say that he’s giving his clients and their customers what they want.”
Absolutely, give the customers what they want. We surely try to do that at Goosecross in our style of winemaking and customer service. I’m glad, though, that we’re small enough to hand-sell our wines direct to consumer (98%), mainly to our Wine Club members, and we don’t have to spend our time submitting wine to critics or to worry about what they say and what it might do to our retail and restaurant sales.
The industry is stuck with the ratings systems, for better or for worse. I just hope it doesn’t take all of the fun out of it by creating cookie-cutter wines.
That’s a bit of a slam.
It sounds like you are saying that unless a given winemaker sells direct to consumers that winemaker is making cookie-cutter wines. OK, we could reverse the slam and say unless you are making batches of over 2,000 cases, you are not under any pressure to please the consumer and run the risk of being out of touch with fine-wine.
I see three types of fine wine businesses, all divided by size. Size One is the small winery, selling under 2,000 cases. It is also true that many tiny producers make some pretty awful wines, especially those with price points. Size Two is the winery selling single vineyard batches of over 2,000 cases. These wineries are very interested in consumers. They have decided to become consumer action orientated in the vineyards, winery and retail stores. Size Three is the large winery, which sells more than 2,000 cases in a hundred US cities. these companies simply cannot live without pleasing consumers of every stripe.
At the end of the day, I have never heard a professional winemaker say he or she is interested in making cookie-cutter wines.
I propose that California’s fine winemakers are establishing the New World’s benchmarks by which your wines are judged by consumers.
I could name 50 who are my customers.
No slam intended, I merely expressed gratitude that we don’t have to worry about what the writers say, nor do we have to spend time and money getting their attention. Goosecross makes about 9000 cases a year.
I think we’re in basic agreement that it’s about consumer preference. All I’ve been trying to say is that it’s too bad that so many consumers allow themselves to be instructed as to what they like by a handful of powerful wine writers. The fact that you’ve developed this software is a testament to the influence of these publications. I wish consumers who rely on the point system would experiment more and trust their palates.
But when there’s software that can measure the breakdown of components that make up a 99-point wine and can help any number of producers to replicate that structure, it begins to come off as something akin to cookie-cutter winemaking or however you’d prefer to characterize it.
You provide a service that helps your clients reach their goal. Nothing wrong there. Others of us have the right to look on with concern for the trend toward homogenization and globalization.
This was just an observation or perhaps a lament. Obviously we see things differently, and that’s what makes the world go around. I’ve been enjoying the point-counterpoint!
As an out of control home wine maker who also purchases wine at stores and wineries I find the point system very confusing at best. Competitions, magazines, writers, ect. should be on a strict system for the benefit of all. If even the once a month buyer wants to spring for a 90 pointer that should be what they get. If a winemaker (commercial or home)receives 90 points it should be a 90 pointer on any list. Do my gold medals rate 94 points or better? I have no clue.
Hi, Ozzie! Thanks for writing and congratulations on the gold medals. The problem is that it’s so subjective and that’s why the numeric system bugs me. I’d rather just have descriptions.
I guess wine ratings are kind of like movie ratings. We’ve all gone to some movie that was highly acclaimed by respected critics and walked away going “Huh???”
I’ve always thought it’s great that we don’t all appreciate the same things, you know, “vive la difference,” but when it comes to ratings you’re right, it’s confusing. Cheers! Nancy
Why not accept Enologix successful contribution for what it is, one of the most significant contributions to California winemaking. What really rattle us all, is that Enologix is a consumer score, and one that may affect our businesses. The smartest this one can do is get on the consumer wagon. Afterall, we all buy our cars with consumer ratings, whether directly or indirectly.
Business Week: 2006 Best and Worst Ideas
Enologix made the “Best” list,
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/12/1207_bestideas/source/12.htm
Well, Sandiegoman, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
We have to accept Enologix because it exists successfully, but we don’t have to agree that McCloskey is using his considerable intellect in the way that best serves the industry over the long term.
Thank you for sending the article link. I love the fact that they chose to use the word “mimic” as in: “California consultant Enologix is using algorithms to mimic the chemistry of wines ranked highly by critic Robert Parker. Online advertisers are using math to optimize the efficiency of campaigns. And the National Security Agency uses quantitative means to find patterns in phone and Net traffic to identify potential terrorist threats.”
I guess “mimic” pretty well sums up my concern with this the Enologix approach. McCloskey replied by comparing himself to Picasso. You’re talking about business. You have the right idea–it’s about business. Thanks for writing!
Q&A.
Are you quality orientated, in the sense that you would approve of the European systems, i.e. AOC, DOCG, etc?
Do you have benchmarks by which you judge wines, and if so what are they?
Will you name the best five producers based north of Monterey for the following varietals, Cabernet Sauvignon and Zinfandel to communicate your sense of taste?
Sandiegoman, winemaker.
Are you hoping I’d name some of your clients, Sandiegoman, winemaker??? Boy, that would set me straight! It’s not nice not to reveal that you’re with Enologix up front.
To answer your other questions, being thorougly American, I’m not a big fan of AOC-type regulations. I like to think that ultimately the consumer regulates us: if we over-crop the vineyard or cut corners in some other way it will show up in the bottle and we’ll lose customers.
I’m not sure if you’re asking Goosecross or Nancy about benchmarks, but we certainly have staff tastings and discuss what we like and don’t like about different representations of a particular type. I’m not a winemaker, but besides wanting to know what’s going on with those we consider our competitors, it probably helps our winemaker to hone our house style.
Nancy, wine educator, consumer
This topic is at the nexus of aesthetics and business. Too bad the dialogue ended, I’d love to know how Goosecross manage winemaking. We need you name names, brands, of benchmarks by which N. or Goosecross judges wines, nothing else makes sense. N., are you saying that Goosecross is above being judged, or that you are driving consumer tastes already, or what? I sell my wines based on their aesthetics which is just a hop-skip-and-a-jump from saying I’m selling quality. How do manage aesthetics without putting yourself up to the world, peers, and other winemakers.
Hi, 1NewWinemaker. I can’t help but wonder if I’m actually replying to Sandiegoman in disguise by your manner. But, we’ll take it at face value.
Who needs me to name names? Didn’t we already talk about staff tastings? I could list the wines we tasted last time, but it’s tedious, plus the tasting before it and the next tasting will be completely different because there are soooo many brands to admire and respect. We do this to educate ourselves and to explore what we like and don’t like about the other brands.
How we manage: We have a winemaker/co-owner with over 20 years of experience. He works in concert with Pepi-Booth consulting to be sure we’re not making wine in a vaccuum.
We have no ambition or hope of driving consumer tastes at 9000 cases/year. We’re pretty happy “flying under the radar” as David Topper, the other partner, likes to say. We’re making our customers happy, having some fun and making a profit. That’s good enough for us.
“Above being judged”? The only reason we don’t submit our wines for judging is it’s expensive and time consuming and, as long as sales are strong and our customers continue to be happy, we don’t find it necessary. Each company has to find its own way and this works for us.
Hey, thanks for the candid response. It says that winemakers are making do without ratings, and are going around the system of consumer scores. Which is news, real news.
Let me state this as simply as possible… We’re not above being judged. We just couldn’t care less about scores, awards, or ratings. At Goosecross, the only “judges” we care about are the consumers that purchase our wines. If the consumers that purchase our wines have something constructive to say, we’re here to listen and respond. The consumers that purchase our wines have our full attention. End of story. Simple enough?
David Topper
Owner/President & CEO
I don’t know if anyone still cares about this particular thread anymore but I smell a distinct odour of bullshit.
Nancy, you have essentially argued that quality is immaterial to the consumer because they don’t know or deserve better. Your sly criticism of Enologix as mimicry is seated in the idea that your experience somehow supercedes technology and that a good tasting room location/mailing list excuses middling wines.
Downstream information improves the process of winegrowing and allows a more informed approach to creae natural wine. Dictating style is what winegrowers do. Intervention begins when you cut the first tree to take advantage of an improved exposure for your vines. You do accurately point out the fact that no amount of information can replace a superior vineyard. That said I think your frustration is misplaced, Leos’ clients are largely the wineries who are setting the pace for the industry. He has helped Chappellet, Ridge and Joseph Phelps (amongst others) to improve their methodology and practices in order to consistently produce better and better wines. Wines that people want to drink every day. You would be hard pressed to take these players down for a lack of individuality or a cookie-cutter approach.
Why do you employ Bob Pepi: if you are not interested in making wines that are au courant. Does Pepi-Booth suggest when to pick, when to press, what to do with your press fractions and finally your oak choices and blends. Enologix simply expands the universe of choice. No amount of number crunching will replace site selection, planting decisions, deft farming or smart- sensitive winemaking, tasting and blending choices.
What really blows me away is your idea that there is a disconnect between the critics scores and wine-quality. With the explosion of the blogosphere the whole game has changed. Populist wine criticism is the norm not the exception. Isn’t that where you come in?
I pose the question to you, what defines wine quality. It has nothing to do with the marketing vernacular employed to describe it.
It has evrything to do with the wine drinker, who defines quality in the glass.
Dear Vigneron,
Thanks for writing. I agree that the consumer ultimately defines quality, as does our CEO, who indicated this very clearly in his comments above.
What you describe as BS is simply my opinion, to which I have a right. And you have a right to yours. I think we’ve gone back and forth enough that the opposing opinions and the reasoning behind them has been made clear to those who are following the conversation.
The only thing I feel compelled to respond to is this statement: “Nancy, you have essentially argued that quality is immaterial to the consumer because they don’t know or deserve better.” After re-reading the post, I can’t figure out how you reached that conclusion. I have the greatest respect for consumers. Besides the fact that they sign my paycheck, they have been an important and delightful part of my life through all these years. And as I said above I agree that it is the consumer, and that includes you and me, who decides how to define good and great wine. Cheers!
Simple enough? Not if your favorite solo artist, athlete, vigneron, or winemaker uses action, banzai, can-do, energetic, enthusiastic, fanatical, fired up, intense, proactive, take-charge behavior to score. The rhetoric simple enought reads bang, bash, blast, ding, pound, smack, smash, whack the score. Hmmmmm… Consumers who use the score might interpret that Goose Cross discredits the ratings because it is not rated highly. I propose we band together, form a team, cabal, group, troupe to score California fine wine.
Hi, Pinot Noir Winemaker! Well, different strokes for different folks.
I believe David was speaking for us, not for others, when he said “We’re not above being judged. We just couldn’t care less about scores, awards, or ratings.” It’s hard to get rated, high or low, when you don’t submit your wines to the wine writers
and we’re pursuing what works for us.
Cheers! Nancy
I don’t discredit the rating system for wine (or any product for that matter). I only care about what our customers think about our wines as I see our customer (those that purchase our wines) as the ultimate judge.
Since we sell through about 9,000-10,000 cases direct-to-consumer each year, that’s all the judging we need. We have one distributor in the country and they don’t seem to need scores or awards to sell our wines through either. So, why should we submit our wines for scores and awards? Our egos don’t need them, our customers don’t need them, our distributor doesn’t need them, so nobody cares. Good enough for me.
David