Baumard "hits back" vs Jim Budd

[Jim_Brennan]

Peter, whether you agree with him or not, Jim Budd definitely fancies himself as an investigative journalist, and his approach is similar. He’s also been involved in exposing Campogate, 1855.com futures non-delivery, several wine-related investment scams, etc.

[Z_A_c_s_a_n]

@Michael Powers

Everyone seems to take aim at Jim’s “agenda” but I don’t think he’s been unclear. He thinks that Baumard is using suspect or nonconforming methods and hiding it. Clearly he believes this to be a pattern, but I still find it odd that people are so quick to decry his investigation. He has presented the facts as he has them. Baumard has refuted as he sees fit as well. When an interested reporter explores what they think are suspect methods it’s odd that so many are antagonistic. If you disagree fine, but some if the quibbling over his presentation seem silly. For instance, if he only has rainfall stats from the nearest weather station, a commonly accepted measure, then how else could he reliably supplement this data? If he used a less accepted measure then he’d risk being called out for a lack of reliability.

Budd is clearly a wine blogger that fancies himself an investigative reporter. The accolades he trumpets at the top of his blog are for such things as: “investigations into Champagne for the Millennium investment scams” and “No Pay No Jay – best investigative wine story”. He states in a reply to a reader, “Writing about good wines etc. is only part of my job as a journalist it is also to try to expose malpractice.” He informs the reader, “I do not feature Baumard on the site as I’m not confident that the contents in the bottle always match what is on the label”. These are, of course, unsubstantiated allegations, but the man is entitled to his opinion. However, I do believe his ‘reporting’ should fairly disclose his personal bias against Baumard.

The more I read such things as the blog entry titled, “Horsemeat and Baumard’s Quarts de Chaume” [trying to draw a parallel between the horsemeat in processed food scandal] and “My ‘inquisitorial’ questions to Jean Baumard”, the more his pages start to read like tabloid journalism rather than serious wine reporting. He isn’t satisfied with with making a case for the 2012 rain-soaked vintage and the harvested sugars level, he takes it a step further by telling a reader, “Given the evidence the onus shoukd surely be on the Baumards to show that their 2012 Quarts de Chaume is the genuine article. Nor to I think that 2012 is an exception, I have doubts whether their 2011 and 2010 fully satisfied the décrets ripeness criteria – remembering that this would have been the previous décret and not the one that became law on 22nd November 2011.” [typos are by Budd]

Budd has yet to present any tangible evidence other than conjecture based on a few photos he took and his interpretation of weather data from a different sub-microclimate than the one he is drawing conclusions about. The photos prove nothing, but Budd assures us they, "demonstrate that it can only have been produced by using cryoextraction and this is confirmed by an unimpeachable and well–placed source. "It would have been far more credible to have information provided by named sources. This really has little to do with quibling over presentation quality, and everything to do with a blogger being reckless by reporting opinions as facts, with little consideration given for the reputation of the person being attacked and the potential impact that might have on their business.

Blog reader ‘Simon’ posted a reply that nicely sums much of what I’m trying to say here:

“Unless you were at the cellar door in 2012 to receive the harvest, armed with either a hydrometer or a refractometer then I’m not sure how you can be quite so determinedly certain of the potential alcohol of the grapes? You may have lots of photos taken before the harvest but were you actually at the cellar? You claim “it is not in dispute that the grapes that Baumard harvested for their 2012 Quarts de Chaume were below the 18.5% potential required by French law.” That seems pretty unequivocal for someone armed with a camera and no sugar level testing equipment don’t you think?”

[Peter_Chiu]

@Jim Brennan

Peter, whether you agree with him or not, Jim Budd definitely fancies himself as an investigative journalist, and his approach is similar. He’s also been involved in exposing Campogate, 1855.com futures non-delivery, several wine-related investment scams, etc.

Hmmm…interesting.

Peter - the Chiu.

[Bill_Boykin]

Peter,
Are you the hill,the Zhao,
Who follows the Tao?

[Alex_Rychlewski]

Doug,

You wrote:

“Many things are also done in French wine production that are illegal in France”.

Care to tell us what you actually know about this subject?
Seems like a low blow to me, and what makes you think that the French are any less law-abiding that the Americans, the Australians, the Germans, the Austrians, or anyone else?

Alex R.

[DougS]

@Alex Rychlewski

Doug,

You wrote:

“Many things are also done in French wine production that are illegal in France”.

Care to tell us what you actually know about this subject?
Seems like a low blow to me, and what makes you think that the French are any less law-abiding that the Americans, the Australians, the Germans, the Austrians, or anyone else?

Alex R.

Nothing. I did not say or imply that the French are less law-abiding than anyone else.

As far as what I actually know about the subject, here are some things that come to mind immediately:

Cane sugar is widely used as a tool for must enrichment, which is illegal.

Rosé de saignée is regularly made in Burgundy from wine that will then be bottled as village level or above, which is illegal.

In Champagne, red wine is added to white to make AOC rosé, which I believe is technically forbidden (EU regulation), but accepted.

Some Gamay finds its was into some Sancerre Rouge, which I am told is happening at several domaines and is illegal.

I’m sure there are people here who could add a lot of other things, and that a longer list could easily be compiled for Italy. Really, I have nothing against the French or their practices (at least no more against their practices than I have against the practices elsewhere). You have misunderstood my tone.

[Michae1_P0wers]

Z, we will just have to agree to disagree with what sort of evidence passes muster. After all, this isn’t court, it’s merely the court of public opinion.

Peter, I don’t think I understand your point at all. If you are a blogger, or not for that matter, believing yourself to be in possession of facts which indicate some misdeed within your chosen field of interest, you may or may not choose to notify the authorities, but wouldn’t you almost certainly also expose those facts to similarly interested individuals? Also it is probably an effective way or notifying relevant authorities who might otherwise ignore you. Plus, I’d expose someone to the public before ratting to authorities, but that is just me.

[Peter_Muto]

Michael, I think we just don’t see eye to eye on this.

I, for one, will be continuing to buy Baumard. In fact I recently just snagged some 08 Clos du Pappillon. I love their wines.

[Z_A_c_s_a_n]

@Michael Powers

Z, we will just have to agree to disagree with what sort of evidence passes muster. After all, this isn’t court, it’s merely the court of public opinion.

Peter, I don’t think I understand your point at all. If you are a blogger, or not for that matter, believing yourself to be in possession of facts which indicate some misdeed within your chosen field of interest, you may or may not choose to notify the authorities, but wouldn’t you almost certainly also expose those facts to similarly interested individuals? Also it is probably an effective way or notifying relevant authorities who might otherwise ignore you. Plus, I’d expose someone to the public before ratting to authorities, but that is just me.

No problem agreeing to disagree, but I do think we need to distiquish between stating something is fact and offering an opinion based on a supposition only believed to be true. The former is incontrovertible and the latter is debatable.

In the case of Mr. Budd, he could have offered up his observations to support an opinion that Baumard’s 2012 QdC shouldn’t qualify for AOC labeling, based on the rules that all QdC producers must abide by; but instead, he choose to proclaim that his observations were indisputable. His observations are open to debate by virtue of the subjective nature of what was provided to support his claim. If one holds themselves out to be an investigative reporter, I believe there is an implied obligation to offer an objective and unbiased account of an event. To do otherwise, marks an investigsative reporter as the ethical equal of a tabloid journalist.

I’m at a loss to understand why you would choose to “expose someone to the public before ratting to authorities”. If you’re in possesion of facts you only ‘believe’ indicate some misdeed, I think it makes greater sense to let the proper authorities have the first crack at righting the wrong; and if what you ‘believe’ to be true isn’t, then at least you haven’t made a fool of yourself publicy and damaged the reputation of someone undeserving of such treatment. If the authorities refuse to run with it, then perhaps offering up your information publicly would then be warranted. Had Mr. Budd simply shared his opinions and observations about Baumard on a wine forum (like this one), I would have viewed that as very different from posting the same information as fact on a wine blog where one holds themselves out to be an investigative reporter.

Like Peter, I’m also now inspired to seek out a few more bottles of Baumard for the cellar.

[Michae1_P0wers]

@Z. A c s a n

Like Peter, I’m also now inspired to seek out a few more bottles of Baumard for the cellar.

Thats funny, because reading that article makes me want to check out the producers who chose to declassify rather than manipulate.

[Michae1_P0wers]

@Michael Powers

@Z. A c s a n

@Michael Powers

Z, we will just have to agree to disagree with what sort of evidence passes muster. After all, this isn’t court, it’s merely the court of public opinion.

Peter, I don’t think I understand your point at all. If you are a blogger, or not for that matter, believing yourself to be in possession of facts which indicate some misdeed within your chosen field of interest, you may or may not choose to notify the authorities, but wouldn’t you almost certainly also expose those facts to similarly interested individuals? Also it is probably an effective way or notifying relevant authorities who might otherwise ignore you. Plus, I’d expose someone to the public before ratting to authorities, but that is just me.

No problem agreeing to disagree, but I do think we need to distiquish between stating something is fact and offering an opinion based on a supposition only believed to be true. The former is incontrovertible and the latter is debatable.

In the case of Mr. Budd, he could have offered up his observations to support an opinion that Baumard’s 2012 QdC shouldn’t qualify for AOC labeling, based on the rules that all QdC producers must abide by; but instead, he choose to proclaim that his observations were indisputable. His observations are open to debate by virtue of the subjective nature of what was provided to support his claim. If one holds themselves out to be an investigative reporter, I believe there is an implied obligation to offer an objective and unbiased account of an event. To do otherwise, marks an investigsative reporter as the ethical equal of a tabloid journalist.

I’m at a loss to understand why you would choose to “expose someone to the public before ratting to authorities”. If you’re in possesion of facts you only ‘believe’ indicate some misdeed, I think it makes greater sense to let the proper authorities have the first crack at righting the wrong; and if what you ‘believe’ to be true isn’t, then at least you haven’t made a fool of yourself publicy and damaged the reputation of someone undeserving of such treatment. If the authorities refuse to run with it, then perhaps offering up your information publicly would then be warranted. Had Mr. Budd simply shared his opinions and observations about Baumard on a wine forum (like this one), I would have viewed that as very different from posting the same information as fact on a wine blog where one holds themselves out to be an investigative reporter.

Like Peter, I’m also now inspired to seek out a few more bottles of Baumard for the cellar.

I like how you highlight the word “believe” as if it leaves some room for equivocation. If I say I believe something I mean that unequivocally. Clearly Mr. Budd believes what he is saying, whether or not you agree. As for the authorities, I don’t work for them. I don’t really agree with ratting someone out to the man, but YMMV. I do agree with informing an interested public of suspect practices. The idea that he should meekly report this to the INAO and wait on the result is hilarious to me. He’s a blogger, not an INAO inspector. He took to his medium, as one would expect.

And again, rainfall data is a fact. A picture is evidence. How you interpret that is for you to decide. In the end most things that one man or woman labels fact, another will call debatable.

[Jim_Brennan]

The conversation has gone into recursion.

Perhaps Z is doing his Rand Paul impersonation while drinking a cold glass of $70 manufactured-in-the-freezer Baumard with a delectable medium rare horse meat beef steak?

[Z_A_c_s_a_n]

@Michael Powers

I like how you highlight the word “believe” as if it leaves some room for equivocation. If I say I believe something I mean that unequivocally. Clearly Mr. Budd believes what he is saying, whether or not you agree. As for the authorities, I don’t work for them. I don’t really agree with ratting someone out to the man, but YMMV. I do agree with informing an interested public of suspect practices. The idea that he should meekly report this to the INAO and wait on the result is hilarious to me. He’s a blogger, not an INAO inspector. He took to his medium, as one would expect.

I highlighted the word ‘believe’ because it’s important to distinguish between merely believing something to be true and actually being able to prove the truth of a statement you proclaim as fact.

I’m likewise disinclined to rat someone out “to the man”. The AOC has demonstated they can respond forcefully when vignerons band together to complain about their winemaking neighbor’s competing product (e.g. Jean-Paul Brun in Beaujolais), but the complaint process would likely be less effective for Budd, who is not a vigneron; though he does play one on the Internet. Were I holding myself out to be an investigative reporter, I would be sure that I had more substantial ‘facts’ before I started shouting from the rooftops than another man is both a liar and a cheat. An English teacher from South London, turned wine blogger/investigative reporter, that has no formal education in enology (or even a degree in journalism) and takes free wine from anyone willing to provide and accepts accommodations “paid for by one of the official Loire wine organisations”, in my view, has a greater credibility problem than does Florent Baumard.

And again, rainfall data is a fact. A picture is evidence. How you interpret that is for you to decide. In the end most things that one man or woman labels fact, another will call debatable.

Yes, the rainfall data is a fact – at a weather station some 20 kilomters away. While the data _may_suggest possible rainfall over a broader area, it remains true that it’s not factual relative to the rainfall specific to Baumard’s QdC property.

[Z_A_c_s_a_n]

@Jim Brennan

The conversation has gone into recursion.

Perhaps Z is doing his Rand Paul impersonation while drinking a cold glass of $70 manufactured-in-the-freezer Baumard with a delectable medium rare horse meat beef steak?

Recursion? Circular maybe, but hardly the same thing as a computer progamming reference would suggest.

Yeah, really a bitch not having people send me free wine. [Note to self: start a wine blog]

No problem here with ice wine, Sauternes or any other tasty wine produced with the aid of cryoextration/cryoselection. I’ll let my taste buds decide if something is worth the asking price.

While I’ve never knowingly tried horsemeat, I did meet the French bodybuilder, Serge Nubret, who spoke of eating six pounds of the stuff each day.

The only impersonation that comes to mind here, is the one I think of when trying try to look past Jim Budd’s blog photo…

I can’t decide if he’s trying to make himself look like Paul Teutul Sr. or the Biker guy from the Village People.

[Pierre-Yves]

@Doug Schulman

In Champagne, red wine is added to white to make AOC rosé, which I believe is technically forbidden (EU regulation), but accepted.

I believe Champage is the only region in France that you are allowed to do that. That is why some champagne rosé explicitly put rosé de saignée on their label to distinguish from their counterpart.
As for EU regulation, last I heard they were trying to authorize Rosé as a Red and white blend, but I am not sure the legislation went through.

[Tran_Bronstein]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that the specialty sweet wines of the Loire are created by select picking of late harvesting and botrytis affected grape berries. If you freeze the grapes, then you have icewine/freezer wine. Period. Doesn’t matter what the label says on the bottle, this is what science gives you.

The main concern I have with this is that as the resident icewine lover I’ll be the first to admit the stuff just doesn’t age very well and freezer wine is the worst for this. I really can’t see how this Quarts de Chaume could possibly be long-lived if the majority of it is frozen and that would be an even bigger concern for me if I was laying it down to age.

So yes, while perhaps overly wine geeky, I would be somewhat concerned about this producer making Q de C in a year where most if not all producers chose not to. I love freezer wine and I love Q de C as well – I’d just like to know which of the two I’m getting.

This said, at least Baumard is completely honest and open about what they are doing and falling within AOC regulations even if you don’t agree with them. I know that Sauternes makers, OTOH, have been sneaky about using cryo-extraction themselves and blending the resulting juice into regular boytrtised juice.

Why they don’t just make freezer wine right out is beyond me. I think the stuff would sell like gangbusters.

[Z_A_c_s_a_n]

@Tran Bronstein

Please correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that the specialty sweet wines of the Loire are created by select picking of late harvesting and botrytis affected grape berries. If you freeze the grapes, then you have icewine/freezer wine. Period. Doesn’t matter what the label says on the bottle, this is what science gives you.

The main concern I have with this is that as the resident icewine lover I’ll be the first to admit the stuff just doesn’t age very well and freezer wine is the worst for this. I really can’t see how this Quarts de Chaume could possibly be long-lived if the majority of it is frozen and that would be an even bigger concern for me if I was laying it down to age.

So yes, while perhaps overly wine geeky, I would be somewhat concerned about this producer making Q de C in a year where most if not all producers chose not to. I love freezer wine and I love Q de C as well – I’d just like to know which of the two I’m getting.

This said, at least Baumard is completely honest and open about what they are doing and falling within AOC regulations even if you don’t agree with them. I know that Sauternes makers, OTOH, have been sneaky about using cryo-extraction themselves and blending the resulting juice into regular boytrtised juice.

Why they don’t just make freezer wine right out is beyond me. I think the stuff would sell like gangbusters.

In an interview with Chris Kissack for his winedoctor blog, Florent Baumard explains that he makes a distinction in what he does with using temperature control in the winemaking process. Florent refers to his process as cryo-selection and not cryo-extraction.

@the winedoctor

The major difference here comes in the use of freezing in the production of the wine. I once described this freezing process as cryo-extraction, a term with which I am reasonably familiar, but was subsequently corrected by Florent; this is, says Florent, not cryo-extraction but cryo-selection. It is not a concentration (which is how I originally described it) but a selection. In fact Florent regards it simply as an additional tri, no different to workers passing through the vineyard, selecting ripe or botrytised fruit, leaving unripe or non-botrytised fruit on the vine. In cooling the fruit he looks for less ripe, less sugar-rich grapes to freeze first, and when this is achieved he presses the fruit, thereby extracting juice from the ripe and richer grapes, whereas those less ripe berries which have frozen solid contribute nothing. He describes the juice obtained when pressing the frozen fruit as particularly clear, filtered, says Florent, by its passage through the pressed cake of fruit-solids and ice, the gateau de marc as he puts it. So according to Florent the process not only selects, it seems it purifies as well. Once finished the marc, complete with many unpressed frozen berries, is removed from the press and discarded.

So the Baumard Quarts de Chaume is made using cryo-selection, not cryo-extraction, and the purpose of freezing is, says Florent, not to concentrate but to select, and indeed to purify. On these points Florent seems determined and quite particular. The cynic in me wonders how certain Florent can be that the process purely selects, and whether or not the richer, pressed grapes yield just a little less water, thanks to the formation of ice crystals at these low temperatures, but I certainly have no evidence to suggest that this is the case. But then, you might ask, why would that matter, and why is Florent so concerned about the semantics of this technique anyway? It is, I believe, because he sees it as a natural process (selection), just like the manual tri to which he likens it, and not a technological one (concentration) that merely removes water, and he wishes others to see it this way also. Indeed, Florent specifically indicated to me that his cryo-selection is not to be “placed in the same bag” as other technologies which concentrate the must and “repair initial bad work”, such as reverse osmosis.

Full blog entry found here: http://www.thewinedoctor.com/loire/baumard.shtml

[DougS]

@Pierre-Yves

@Doug Schulman

In Champagne, red wine is added to white to make AOC rosé, which I believe is technically forbidden (EU regulation), but accepted.

I believe Champage is the only region in France that you are allowed to do that. That is why some champagne rosé explicitly put rosé de saignée on their label to distinguish from their counterpart.
As for EU regulation, last I heard they were trying to authorize Rosé as a Red and white blend, but I am not sure the legislation went through.

Fair enough, Pierre-Yves. I know that it is basically allowed, but am unaware of any official documentation of that permission, in the absence of which it would be technically illegal. It is quite possible that there is an official allowance for it. I have also read about the proposal you mention, but as far as I know, it has not been passed. I might not have current information there.

Alex, if there is such a document, feel free to disregard that one point of three that I made, but I don’t think that really detracts from the strength of my point since my other examples stand.

[W_Leonard]

@Z. A c s a n

@the winedoctor

So the Baumard Quarts de Chaume is made using cryo-selection, not cryo-extraction, and the purpose of freezing is, says Florent, not to concentrate but to select, and indeed to purify. On these points Florent seems determined and quite particular. The cynic in me wonders how certain Florent can be that the process purely selects, and whether or not the richer, pressed grapes yield just a little less water, thanks to the formation of ice crystals at these low temperatures, but I certainly have no evidence to suggest that this is the case. But then, you might ask, why would that matter, and why is Florent so concerned about the semantics of this technique anyway? It is, I believe, because he sees it as a natural process (selection), just like the manual tri to which he likens it, and not a technological one (concentration) that merely removes water, and he wishes others to see it this way also. Indeed, Florent specifically indicated to me that his cryo-selection is not to be “placed in the same bag” as other technologies which concentrate the must and “repair initial bad work”, such as reverse osmosis.

Calling something by a different name doesn’t mean you are not doing it

[Jim_Brennan]

@Tran Bronstein

Please correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that the specialty sweet wines of the Loire are created by select picking of late harvesting and botrytis affected grape berries. If you freeze the grapes, then you have icewine/freezer wine. Period. Doesn’t matter what the label says on the bottle, this is what science gives you.

Or it allows you to overcrop, flood the market with wine that nature wouldn’t quite let you produce on the vine, and crowd out your peers.