Commercializing regional character at Safeway is tricky. If the natural influences won’t cooperate with efforts to make wines blend in with the least-common-denominator style profiles for the expected Merlot or Chardonnay, shelf positions are hard to come by. On the other hand, those influences can, with time and effort, become the very reason your wines are sought out, just as Beaujolais and Chianti are.
We have entered a golden age in which regional character is getting attention and local styles are taking shape. Today’s most important winemakers are regional leaders cementing the unique styles of their regions, from the Dunns of Napa’s Howell Mountain to Johnny McPherson of Southern California’s Temecula to Murli Dharmadikari in Iowa. But we have yet to revamp the consumer’s experience to enable a transition from varietal to appellation thinking and buying. Competitions are supposed to provide a bridge, but they don’t.
A target-poor environment
Let’s face facts. Wine assessment in California competitions is a joke. Humboldt County winemaker and statistician Robert Hodgson created a well-deserved scandal with his recently published papers about judge unreliability and the inconsistency of awards in 13 U.S. wine competitions.
Having judged hundreds of competitions during the past 30 years, I was elated when Dr. Hodgson blew the whistle. Why? Because in truth, we saintly judges just make up our assessments. There’s no way for the consumer to tell if a “gold medal” Chardonnay is something he would wish actually to drink. It’s embarrassing.
In Europe, there are clear and well-known definitions of what a region’s wine is supposed to taste like. The French have known for centuries that varietals vary from region to region and must be marketed accordingly. We would never consider jumbling together a Graves, a Chinon and a St. Emilion into a grab bag Cabernet Franc category for judging, because consumers regard them differently. Why, then, should we blindly judge Merlots from Spring Mountain, Long Island and the Snake River side by side?
When I first began tasting and buying wines in the early 1970s, there were fewer than 250 wineries in California, and nearly half the wines on the shelf had technical flaws such as VA, aldehyde, sulfides or excessive SO2. Thus, it was easy to take 100 California Cabernets, discard the flawed wines and organize your favorites for recommendations. In other words: In this tiny world of long ago, varietals seemed to work as a judging category.
But in truth, this was never a good idea. Today there are thousands of Cabernets being grown in hundreds of AVAs scattered over dozens of states and provinces. And the percentage of seriously flawed wines has dropped considerably; almost everything is pretty good. Absent defining criteria, judges are left to choose among a wide variety of well-made wines with vastly different personalities—and of course they waffle, as any open-minded expert should.
Going to the dogs
It seems obvious to me that the primary problem is that judging cannot be effective without targeted profiles. Any of you who’ve seen Christopher Guest’s 2000 film “Best in Show” can attest that if we tried to judge dogs the way we judge wines, the breeders would murder us in our beds.
In dog competitions, thousands of entrants are judged according to exacting breed standards, and ribbons are awarded based on exacting criteria put forth by the breed clubs and documented by the American Kennel Club. There’s a book. An Irish Setter and a Cocker Spaniel, although they are both considered Sporting Dogs, are judged by completely different rules. It would be silly to hold them to the same criteria, and sillier still to have no standards at all.
The experiment
As an outgrowth of my work in defining regional varietal identities for the Best-of-Appellation evaluations panel at AppellationAmerica.com, this spring I received the cooperation of the Riverside International Wine Competition. Leaders agreed to experiment for the first time in any U.S. competition with the revolutionary concept of judging wines according to regional standards. For the Petite Sirah category only, judges were provided with the AVA stated on the label and, if available, regionally based style profile(s) for the AVA.
Petite Sirah was chosen for a number of reasons: wide regional planting, proven response to regional influences, and, most of all, a strong advocacy group (P.S. I Love You) that had supported the development of regional style profiles. We already had 21 definitions in the can, as well as two pieces I wrote about the varietal.
What happened?
Riverside received 54 Petite Sirahs for judging from 26 AVAs. We had profiles for 14 AVAs comprising 36 wines; thus, 67% of the wines were judged against standards, and the rest were thrown into a grab bag category as usual, except that they were identified by region.
Dan Berger seated me on a panel with winemakers Kerry Damskey and Linda Trotta, as well as journalist Mike Dunne. After some init ial confusion, the process flowed smoothly and naturally. As I have seen on so many BOA panels, these first-time participants in judging by AVA groupings were taken by surprise by the regional character consistency and how little difference winemaking choices made compared to the regional variations.
“This is a valuable route to take in evaluating wines,” Trotta reported. “The key to success is the work that’s been initiated with vintners in the appellations to describe the representative regional characteristics. Adjusting the way that I judged the wines to take these criteria into account was a surprisingly quick process.”
“The Petite Sirahs from Livermore Valley did have fairly consistent streaks of blackberry, blueberry, black pepper and sweet tannins,” Dunne offered. “The Petite Sirahs from Paso Robles tended to be characterized by candied fruit flavors offset against the smell of smoldering briars. Flowers, Bing cherries, lemon verbena and soft tannins ran through the Petite Sirahs of the Russian River Valley. Black fruit flavors, green herbs and white pepper seemed to distinguish the Petite Sirahs of Dry Creek Valley.”
| Off-Premise Sales » | Month | 12 Months | ||
| April 2012 | $386 million | 4% |
$4,842 million | 6% |
| April 2013 | $400 million | $5,128 million | ||
| Direct-to-Consumer Shipments » | Month | 12 Months | ||
| April 2012 | $141 million | 1% |
$1,347 million | 10% |
| April 2013 | $142 million | $1,484 million | ||
| Winery Job Index » | Month | 12 Months | ||
| April 2012 | 173 | 59% |
147 | 18% |
| April 2013 | 275 | 174 | ||



|
Wine Shop And Wine Bar... | |
| Napa, CA Sales and Marketing | |
|
Skilled Cellar Worker | |
| Santa Rosa, CA Winemaking and Production | |
|
Assistant Winemaker | |
| Santa Rosa, CA Winemaking and Production | |
|
Tasting Room Associate | |
| St. Helena, CA DTC, Tasting Room and Retai | |
|
Wine Data Specialist | |
| San Francisco, CA Sales and Marketing | |
|
Central Region Manager | |
| Napa, CA Sales and Marketing | |
|
Strategic Account Mana... | |
| Las Vegas, NV Sales and Marketing | |
|
Strategic Account Mana... | |
| Napa, CA Sales and Marketing | |
|
Portfolio Manager | |
| Benicia, CA Sales and Marketing | |
|
Desktop Support Specia... | |
| St. Helena, CA General Administration and | |
Follow Us On: