In an effort to teach a group of international students in wine marketing for the OIV a week ago, I was asked about how I can define any area (Washington state in this case) as having "the t-word" or "there thereness" if it irrigates.  Not surprisingly, the questioner was from the Old World - historically a large frowner upon the practice.  And my answer was thus: unless the grape grows on its own in the middle of nowhere without any contact with human beings, then falls into a hole in the ground from a height needed to burst the skin and ferments from native yeast wafting on the wind, IT HAS BEEN MANIPULATED.  A given.

The question, then, is what is acceptable to us?  How is color different from sugar?  If  you utilize cultured yeast made specifically to work on certain levels of sugars with specific end product in mind, why can't  you spin some alcohol out?  At what point do we harm the initial essence of what nature gave us at the expense of what we think our customers want?  And did nature really give it to us if we trained canes in ways that would happen naturally oh, 1 in a million times?  Then did the many other things in the vineyard already mentioned?  

It seems to me that the call for exactly what happens and exactly what the effect is would be great - but not on any label.  Who, among even us, would really read it?  I like the idea to ask yourself...if there are practices that go overboard, make your stand personally and professionally and move on.  The market will then define itself.

Goofy thought on defining the line ofwhat manipulation goes too far so as to completely undo calling a bottle a "wine of place": that would be a cool study by some vit and eno program somewhere by simply taking the same wine grown the same way and put through the various winery manipulations listed above.  Taste them blind.  If they sense a turn in flavor profile which takes them away from what seems to be a "theme" or "terroir" or "thereness" in the wine overall, then, fine - call that "not in keeping with placeness-ness."  And boycott unless they put on the label "from a place, but you wouldn't recognize it or like it, so we changed it to something else."

Point: what if we do get the information?  What do we do then?  I am with Rod - I am sick to my stomach over Manny and Papi winning the 04 World Series for my long suffering Sox "manipulated."  But would I trade the feeling of beating the Yanks in The House That Ruth Built in Game 7 knowing what I know now?  More importantly, would I have felt the same if I had known back then?  I would make me cringe to think that the 82 Salon I beyond is manipulated to the point of construction to recall what I tasted as a creamsicle without the sugar and not just that way because of their vineyards.  It might not taste as good.

In an effort to teach a group of international students in wine marketing for the OIV a week ago, I was asked about how I can define any area (Washington state in this case) as having "the t-word" or "there thereness" if it irrigates.  Not surprisingly, the questioner was from the Old World - historically a large frowner upon the practice.  And my answer was thus: unless the grape grows on its own in the middle of nowhere without any contact with human beings, then falls into a hole in the ground from a height needed to burst the skin and ferments from native yeast wafting on the wind, IT HAS BEEN MANIPULATED.  A given.

The question, then, is what is acceptable to us?  How is color different from sugar?  If  you utilize cultured yeast made specifically to work on certain levels of sugars with specific end product in mind, why can't  you spin some alcohol out?  At what point do we harm the initial essence of what nature gave us at the expense of what we think our customers want?  And did nature really give it to us if we trained canes in ways that would happen naturally oh, 1 in a million times?  Then did the many other things in the vineyard already mentioned?  

It seems to me that the call for exactly what happens and exactly what the effect is would be great - but not on any label.  Who, among even us, would really read it?  I like the idea to ask yourself...if there are practices that go overboard, make your stand personally and professionally and move on.  The market will then define itself.

Goofy thought on defining the line ofwhat manipulation goes too far so as to completely undo calling a bottle a "wine of place": that would be a cool study by some vit and eno program somewhere by simply taking the same wine grown the same way and put through the various winery manipulations listed above.  Taste them blind.  If they sense a turn in flavor profile which takes them away from what seems to be a "theme" or "terroir" or "thereness" in the wine overall, then, fine - call that "not in keeping with placeness-ness."  And boycott unless they put on the label "from a place, but you wouldn't recognize it or like it, so we changed it to something else."

Point: what if we do get the information?  What do we do then?  I am with Rod - I am sick to my stomach over Manny and Papi winning the 04 World Series for my long suffering Sox "manipulated."  But would I trade the feeling of beating the Yanks in The House That Ruth Built in Game 7 knowing what I know now?  More importantly, would I have felt the same if I had known back then?  I would make me cringe to think that the 82 Salon I beyond is manipulated to the point of construction to recall what I tasted as a creamsicle without the sugar and not just that way because of their vineyards.  It might not taste as good.