From Antonio Galloni’s 2017 Napa Valley First impressions article…
“…For some winemakers, the vintage was immediately compromised. “I got to the vineyard early on Monday morning [the first morning of the fires] and started tasting through the fruit. I knew right away it was gone,” Screaming Eagle’s Nic Gislason told me. At Screaming Eagle, only the Merlot-based The Flight will be bottled, while there will be no commercial release of the flagship wine…”
Shocked to see this. A little premature to call this out don’t you think?
Tell me it taint so.
Sorry to learn of another fire loss, it has been too much for so many people and businesses.
The suffering continues more so in Sonoma, where wine loving tourists have not returned in usual Spring numbers.
Word was that something like 90% of vineyards were already harvested when the Tubbs fire started on Oct 8. That’s already fairly late in a warm vintage like 2017. Surprised they hadn’t already picked.
If he tasted through the fruit and found the grapes compromised due to smoke taint, what’s the point of spending the time and effort to make top-end wine and then having to throw it out (or bulk it out)
when the final product is just as tainted as the fruit you tasted from the vineyards?
I don’t know that it’s admirable or taking the high road if you think your customers won’t like the wine. It’s just a costly, necessary decision. “Taking the high road” implies that they did something beyond what they had to do.
Most of them. The lessons of 2008, esp Anderson Valley, are still fresh in enough producer minds. The lessons both on the limitations of filtering out or otherwise removing smoke taint (it’ll remove some, but the problem will come back) and the problems for the winery & brand.
I’d bet most of the affected folks will make the wine, filter it out and either bulk it out or put a secret/whisper label on it. Or do what Littorai, Navarro and a few others did in 08, which was to remove the taint as best they could, make it into an early drinking wine and sell it directly with a ‘Cuvee Taint’ label for early drinking. Gotta move it all quickly tho. But as Alan said, most fruit was picked before the fires, thankfully.
As Eric said, lots of wineries didn’t bottle 2008s because the smoke effect could be quite dramatic. And some that did sell it regretted doing so.
Luckily, in '17 the fires came after many people had picked, so fewer people will be faced with this difficult choice. But if other people could taste the smoke immediately, as Gislason said he did at SE, I can’t imagine they’ll bottle the wine under their name. It’s just the most basic quality control, not a decision that requires great moral fortitude.
Not selling a clearly defective product doesn’t take moral fortitude, particularly if – as you said – selling it could damage the brand. Moral fortitude entails doing things that are clearly not in your own interest for the sake of principle.
People do nefarious things frequently. Moral fortitude also is necessary when choosing not to do something that is in one’s interest, but to the detriment of others.
? It seems like you’re agreeing with me – the test of moral fortitude is doing the morally right thing even if it’s not in your own best interests.
But it would not be in SE’s interest to sell a wine that was tainted. They would damage the brand and customers right demand refunds. So not bottling it clearly looks like the right decision commercially. Ergo, no test of their moral capacities.
SE did not bottle flagship wine in 2000 either (think it was smoke then also). Interesting though Cellar Tracker shows 21 bottles of this wine in cellars and 4 consumed??