Let’s Not Judge a Wine by Its Title : Consumers Ought to Be Relying on Their Own Tastes, Vintner Says

David Lake, an English master of wine and wine maker for Columbia Winery in Washington, set a sobering and serious tone as the keynote speaker for a wine symposium by declaring that all wine titles claiming connoisseurship are pretentious, including his own.

“Consumers,” he told the Fifth Annual Wine Symposium held at Kapalua Bay Hotel in Maui, “ought to rely on their own taste and not be intimidated by such titles, as frequently they represent false peaks, and no one ever really is a master of wine.”

Wine drinkers should take heart at Lake’s statement. The English-conferred Master of Wine credential certification is the most sought-after in the wine world, but Lake still believes he is not a super authority, nor does he think he ever will be.

“Wine (tasting) is a never-ending search for knowledge, competency, pleasure and passion,” he added, “and I never expected to achieve all, only to continue to strive. My title is a useful discipline, and whether you strive for it or any other, the only way to qualify yourself is by uncorking bottles and tasting diligently.”

Watchdogs for Wine Trade

Apparently, there is an attempt to bring the Master of Wine examination to the United States. The program was begun in 1952 to sharpen skills, establish ethics and otherwise qualify so-called watchdogs for the wine trade.

It seems that after World War II, the British wine industry was changing, with many family entities being taken over by big breweries and distilleries. With so many new people coming into the trade, it was believed that knowledgeable, competent, new and up-to-date wine authorities were essential.

Only after five years in the trade can one qualify to take the test. It requires a study of viticulture, enology and the handling and service of wine as well as its sales. It is not open to the public, and only now are wine writers admitted.

“I was lucky to pass the tasting examination” Lake admitted. “It was really a combination of 90% luck and 10% skill in zeroing in on characteristics of origin, wine character, soundness and estimate as to price. While it sounds difficult, it is the kind of thing most consumers, if they put their minds and palates to it, could probably do.”

Lake is modest. Besides his title, since 1979 he has been the wine maker at Columbia. While he worked in the British wine trade for 10 years, he also studied viticulture and enology at the University of California, Davis. For six years he has served as a panel chairman at the Los Angeles County Fair wine competition.

Another serious note at the symposium was the question of the sale and promotion of California wine futures. Panel member Robert Mondavi claimed that this Bordeaux practice of offering and selling wine before release will soon become a California wine sales technique, too.

“If the French do it, there is no reason why we cannot do it, too,” Mondavi emphasized, “as I feel our wines have arrived and are of world-class status. I am considering offering some of my Reserve Cabernets in this fashion. I believe only California wineries with specially improved wines should offer futures. This will bring the kind of attention these wines deserve, as well as lower prices, guarantees of quality and, in the long run, raise per-capita consumption of our best.”

Claims of Greatness

Some of the panel members, including me, disagreed. My concern is that the futures game will be played much like that in Bordeaux, where consumers slavishly purchase big-name claret of the 1855 Grand Cru Classe classification, especially when vintages are artificially hyped by claims of greatness. Some consumers, including Americans, never buy any other way, and obviously do not rely on taste but only on the degree of promotion. Moreover, futures hype has turned off a sizable number of a new generation of French wine drinkers who believe they ought not to bother with sensationalized wines that are not affordable anyway.

The establishment of annual future California offerings, in my opinion, would be a financial trap for American wine consumers. The key question, as always, is a wine’s taste. To buy untasted wines in quantity frequently leads to disappointment, disenchantment and needlessly high expense. It is better to wait for a wine’s release, buy a bottle and ascertain whether the wine is worthy of purchase and large-quantity cellaring. Is it not better to pay a bit more for the luxury of a single taste than to count on hyped commercial claims, which may be without any validity? Buying futures is useful if money is no object, but the questions of taste and quality still remain.

A classic personal illustration makes the point. When the 1959 claret vintage was offered and hailed as unequivocally one of the finest, I fell for the hype and quickly purchased 30 cases, at $3,000 per case, of a third-growth Grand Cru Claret that in my opinion turned out to be nothing more than light, insipid, dull mouth-wash. Since I made the commitment to purchase, I was stuck with a wine that was not even close to being reflective of the apparent quality of the vintage. Fortunately, I found 29 supportive friends who each took a case off my hands for cooking and marinating use.

Heavy Foreign Investment

During the futures discussion the symposium took on another controversy--whether it is beneficial for California wine to permit heavy foreign wine investment here. Simply, should French, German, Spanish and Italian wine conglomerates be allowed to further acquire California vineyards and wineries for the making of wines that may be in a European style rather than accurately reflecting what the state’s soils are capable of producing?

When a European makes wine here, the taste and style are likely to be more consistent with the wine-making traditions of the Continent. Is that really what is best for California wine? Note that the state’s great and classic tastes have evolved during the last quarter of a century based upon the science and technology of exuberant and eager California-trained enologists who are familiar with local soils and American styles that consumers seem to like. Will all of that be changed with the current invasion of foreign wine makers and entrepreneurs?

For the last decade or so, more and more Europeans, for one reason or another, have come to California to make wine. Many are successful, such as Moet Chandon, with its Domaine Chandon sparkling wine; Mondavi-Rothschild and its Opus One claret-styled red table wine; Dominus, a red table wine too, in conjunction with Chateau Petrus of Pomerol; Roederer Champagne, a yet-unnamed Mendocino sparkler to be released next year; Maison Deutz made in Santa Barbara County by Deutz Champagne and currently in release; Freixenet of Spain with a newly released Sonoma sparkler, and Domaine Mumm, by Mumm of France, yet another sparkler. Even brandy with a French touch is produced from the joint venture of Schramsberg Vineyards and Remy Martin Cognac. Also gearing up for future production are Italy’s House of Antinori and Champagnes’ Bollinger in a new Napa Valley wine venture.

Some panel members believed that all this would benefit American consumers who ultimately would enjoy the various styles and the long-term crystallization of a blend of European and American wine-making concepts. Out of this, they claimed, new traditions would surface and American wine-making as a whole would benefit from the infusion of new capital and technology.

Extensions of European Wines

Others contended that American wines are nothing more or less than extensions of European tastes anyway. Many of the early California wine emigres came from European roots, such as Beaulieu’s founder, Georges de Latour, from France, the Sebastianis from Italy, the Wentes from Germany and Buena Vista’s Agoston Haraszthy, acclaimed as the father of California viticulture, from Hungary. It is only a new era of foreign influence, they emphasized.

I wonder if this is too much of a good thing. While I respect and indeed love European wines, I believe in California and American tastes as they have evolved, in a harvest-by-harvest search for domestic style and perfection. At last year’s symposium Dr. Maynard Amerine, professor emeritus and former dean of the Department of Enology, UC Davis, said it best: “We make the best California wines in the world.” American wine lovers and consumers ought not to permit deviation from that concept nor blindly accept as a heady compliment that European wines are now being made on American soils.