TN: Sierra Car Crash tasting at Grapes

WINE TALK
61

Thanks very much for the notes. From what I can tell, it appears that there are TWO VERY DIFFERENT wines in what has been labelled “Lot 8114.” It also appears from the tasting notes that the “bad bottles” in Lot 8114 were not caused by heat or TCA. Based on what I’ve read so far, it seems the two most likely causes were (a) some sort of severe bacterial contamination that affected part of the lot and not the other, or (b) completely different wine bottled under the same label.

Bruce

62

Davis:

While there is little doubt that there has been an incredible amount of Internet commentary on this issue, perhaps that’s because the issue at hand is undeniably important to many, many people. Leave aside the people who have a personality issue with the critic(s). That’s not what this is about in my opinion.

Jay Miller tasted something in a bottle labeled a wine called Sierra Carche 2005. Clearly, he liked it. A lot. He gave it a high score and wrote about it. I do not doubt that Mr. Miller liked the wine and felt it had substantial merit. As a result of his score, by their own commentary, retailers bought the wine and sold it. In selling it, they promoted it to their customers with Mr. Miller’s rating and commentary. The wine effectively sold out. Everyone in the supply chain credits Mr. Miller’s review with the success of this wine and its marekting. NO ONE DISPUTES THIS.

It is now readily apparent that some, most or virtually all of the Sierra Carche sold in the US was NOT the wine Mr. Miller initially tasted and rated. Mr. Miller, albeit belatedly, said so himself with reference to a bottle that Rob Kenney sent him. He specifically mentioned that he felt he had been de-frauded.

Yesterday a group of wine lovers and ITB’s tasted four different bottles of this wine from three different sources. All were uniformly (14 x 4) awful, undrinkable, junk. While some people at this tasting may not personally care for Mr. Miller or his preference in wines, the wines were tasted DOUBLE BLIND, the only true way to taste, and no one could have had an agenda. Brown bags are a very effective leveler of perception and reputation in the wine world. Most of the people at the tasting had never met before.

So why does this matter?

Walk into any wine store. Walk into any Costco. Read any email wine offering. Read any auction catolog. WINE REVIEWS AND RATINGS SELL WINE! Wine critics have immense leverage and impact on the market. Wine critics can make or break a wine. When Robert Parker was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Steve Kroft years ago, Kroft asked him about this. About the power RMP has. About winemakers hiring consultants to help them craft wines that would garner high scores for RMP. I vividly remember traveling to the Rhone in 1992 and meeting Marc Sorrel. In the corner of his cave was a copy of TWA. At the time Mr. Sorrel could not speak or read English! He had someone come over who read it to him!!! Here was a simple man, a farmer really, and a truly exceptional wine maker. Look at the lengths he went to even then to figure out how to garner a higher rating because he knew how much it mattered to him. To his family. Wines are developed specifically for the Parker Palette. This is a fact, and RMP has said as much on national TV.

Millions (perhaps Billions) of dollars are at stake. Who’s money is that? It’s the money spent by people like the ones who are commenting now. Wine buyers frequently buy wines based on ratings and reviews. In some parts of the market (pre-arrival, futures, etc.), the ratings are ALL 99% of the consumers have to go on. The role of the critic is incredibly important…and POWERFUL.

RMP in TWA clearly states that he believes his role is to work for the Wine Consumer. It’s on the cover of every issue. It is the benchmark ethic upon which he based his business when he started. It has served him well. He is an exceptionally lucky man. He gets to do what he loves, and he has profited handsomely at the same time. If that’s the case, and if the critic understands their power and impact, THEN THE CRITIC HAS A MORAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO INSURE THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE TASTING AND RATING PROCESS IS MAINTAINED. What prompts so much commentary at the end of the day is that many consumers believe that in this instance (and potentially others) neither the critic nor his publication, did as much as they could, should, or profess to do to protect the consumer (and their own reputation). The critic is uniquely in a position to protect the consumer. Can they be perfect? Obviously not. I’m not expecting them to. Mistakes happen, and people can be conned. However, I believe that at a minimum, a critic can employ a series of best practices to create the highest possible probability that they have defended the consumer in the marketplace.

RMP has stated on his own Board that this has been a rare experience in his career as a wine critic. I have followed his work for over 20 years and take him at his word. However, it only takes one regrettably. RMP has an exceptional brand that clearly has great enterprise value. The question he must ask himself is whether or not he has met his own self-stated burden to his customers - the wine consumer. I know that he has also said that the importer will take the wine back and refund people if they wish. While that is all well and good, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the self-imposed burden on the cover of TWA has been met. Only RMP can ask and answer that for himself. It also doesn’t go to where do we go from here? What can you trust in wine ratings? Isn’t it a little like the impact of Steroids in sports? Are we going to get to a place where every rating is questioned? As an avid consumer who relies in part on TWA reviews for guiding some of my wine purchases that would be a shame.

Many, many wine consumers (myself included) have placed immense faith in RMP and his reviews over many, many years. If people feel as if that confidence has been broken, and that the response they get when they question it is evasive, defensive, and inconclusive. I think it’s safe to assume (sicne they effectively LOST money) that they are going to speak up. A Lot.

For the record, I didn’t buy any of this wine. I have no issue with Mr. Miller, and have the utmost respect for RMP. I can re-count many instances where I read his reviews, bought the wine sight unseen and had years of incredible drinking pleasure as a result ('86 Mouton comes to mind). I suspect many of the people commenting now have had similar experiences, and that makes what has gone on (or not gone on) so upsetting to so many.

63

Davis,

So for you, have the explanations been satisfactory? Instead if asking me the questions, I would prefer you answer that.

I seek a full investigation on this matter.

Investigate the wine, the winery, the importer, everyone. Fraud occurred. The critic said so. That demands an investigation. It does not demand Parker tasting a consumer’s btl (he rejected wine from Robert Kenney but was okay with someone else’s btl) and having his wife score it 93 points.

Does it?

64

Forgive me, but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would buy a wine in quantity that they did not at least try a bottle or a sip of first. I’ve never operated that way myself, as I think it’s the easiest way to be duped regardless of how much respect is or has been given to Mr. Parker.

65

Adam
Excellent summation, thank you [welldone.gif]

66

Daniel,

The explanation as I read it was that there was a switch in the wine at the winery, either inadvertently or intentionally (nobody will ever know the intent since we are unable to peer into others’ minds). I fail to see how Mr. Parker can ascertain more information unless the winery is willing to give it. Perhaps the Spanish authorities might glean some additional information, but I doubt it.

As I said in my most recent post, I think the herd mentality of buying based on some critic’s score is just asking to be deceived either intentionally or unintentionally - regardless of the critic.

67

Davis–If there is fraud in the market, then the same thing could happen to you as a consumer. If you buy a bottle of Wine A when the first shipment comes in and love it, you still need to be worried that the next shipment of the wine labeled “Wine A” is what you first tasted and loved.

The potential for fraud is simply magnified if someone presents a well-known critic with a sample that is great if that sample does not accurately represent what wine in fact is being bottled and presented with the same label…

Every wine consumer ought to be concerned about fraud in the wine market, regardless of what you think about Sierra Carche, Spanish wines in general, or even the Wine Advocate in general.

Bruce

68

Two questions, and forgive me if they were answered:

  1. How many different sources for the four bottles?
  2. Can we put the “heat damage by irresponsible handling by the trade” excuse to bed?
69

Jim,

I believe there were three sources, but at least two.

As for the heat damage excuse, that has ZERO credibility to me. Bacterial is a definite maybe, as the wines (3) that I had a year ago sucked, but were drinkable and had a wine profile. These wines were disgusting. Undrinkable, and unrecognizable profiles of a wine that is sound.

70

And I want to make it clear, and I think I speak for everyone at the tasting (and beyond), that in no way do any of us believe that Jay Miller gave a 96 pts score to the wines we tasted. He was handed a mickey. Plain and simple. The only other explanation is that the wine DID have bacterial matter in it and QUICKLY turned into swamp wine. Those are the only two explanations that I can swallow.

Davis…you have any other thoughts?

71

Steve,

Thanks. I called the heat damage thing out over there as a red herring - I have had heat damaged wine, and NEVER seen a classic 96 point wine turned undrinkable in such a short period of time. Glad to see blind tastings support that notion.

72

i am so glad i was never a fan of Mr Parker or his band. never found a use for professional wine criticism myself and always suspected payola was rampant.

73

c’mon, you can’t tease like that, we need some manzi quotes [cheers.gif]

74

Steve – I’m not 100% convinced he was given a different wine, though that’s certainly possible.

I found these wines awful, but I have a had a lot of Jumillas that I found not too different and nearly undrinkable. I think it might just be a big, fat wine that had a little too much VA to begin with that went over the hill quickly. The off aromas all seemed to me in the VA family – varnish, shoe polish. I didn’t get anything I thought was swampy.

It’s not inconceivable to me – and this is speculation – that this tasted enough better two years ago that someone who likes this style of wine might have gone ga-ga over it and that it just hasn’t turned out that nice. A lot of wines this ripe have VA problems and crack up fast. I would certainly entertain the possibility that that happened here.

75

Davis – It was Miller who suggested a switch had been pulled, but then he has his reputation [sic] to defend. Given Miller’s track record of grade inflation, I don’t give a lot of weight to his claim that he was duped. This isn’t the first time people have been dumbfounded when they tasted some of his 95+ point wines. And, after all, he’s not going to say, “Gee, I got suckered by a big fat wine that seemed to have a lot of fruit when I tasted it for 45 seconds it amid a couple dozen other wines sitting across the table from the importer. If I’d paid more attention, I might have realized that it was a big fat ugly mess with a worrisome amount of VA that was destined to get even worse.”

I’ve certainly had the experience of being seduced by a wine that, with a little time in the glass, I realized was a disaster. The risk of that kind of mistake rises as you taste through long flights, as critics often do.

On your second point, I utterly agree.

76

John,

Not sure what to say, other than “in my views”, these SC wines that we tasted THURSDSAY, were SO flawed that they are undrinkable. I cannot imagine that Jay tasted something even remotely close the the wines we drank. I won’t say for sure that they were infected with some bacteria, because I HAVE drank worse…remember, I have spent many tastings with Kenney…the lover of all that Jay Miller is. But those wines were disgusting. And they were nothing like I drank a year ago. Those wines were drinkable, but BAD wines. Which makes me think that bacteria MIGHT be the issue here. Nothing corked or cooked. I would bet my …KENNEY’s life on it. [swoon.gif]

77

Well, VA is the product of the aceto bacteria. That could explain the change over time.

78

I’d get the thread moved to NSFW if I posted them. [shock.gif]

79

btw - I’m in complete agreement with Steve Manzi, no way did Miller or Parker for that matter, drink what we had at Grapes or what I had when I opened two bottles at two different wine dinners. They were undrinkable sewer water.

I know that Kenney brought one of the bottles, I brought one of the bottles and Dan procured the other two from retail. I had bought my bottles in July of last year and stored them in my vinotemp at 56degrees since.

80

Daniel Posner got the other two direct from the PA State Liquor Store Retail Division I believe.