Several threads here and elsewhere bring up wine region visits as somehow fundamental to understanding a region’s wines – at least in terms of professional tasters or – ohmygod! – bloggers. I understand that there are advantages; for example visiting is the only way to taste barrel samples and unreleased wines. Talking with winemakers might help one understand the wine-making process better. I’m sure that it gives one perspective to see a place, its ecosystem and geology. In the best of situations one would prefer to have visited.
But does the fact that I haven’t visited Paso Robles mean I can’t reasonably evaluate Dusi Vineyard zins that I’ve been drinking for the last 25 years? Do I have to eat Riesling off the vine to be a connoisseur of a German kabinett? Would Jay Miller have been tasting 500 different wines (or doing a poorer job) if he’d have done that marathon tasting in Pittsburgh rather Chile? And exactly how many visits are necessary for someone to have a “right” to judge the wines of the Finger Lakes? One? Ten?
If Helen Keller had been a wine critic would visiting Bordeaux have made a difference? Does Frank Bruni need to visit the ranch to judge the steak at Delmonico’s?
I never “got” Refosco till we visited a producer whose wife served it to us with rabbit grilled over a fire fueled with giant pine cones that were falling from a prehistoric looking tree in their front yard. Now I know when to reach for a bottle (and than includes OTHER scenarios than the one above but with similar intensities of flavor).
Ditto Lambrusco: once you have been to Emilia-Romagna, you crave the stuff…
I completely understand the “context” issue. Wine is always better in the place it’s grown and made. I once wrote a note to Gerald Asher because I loved the way he wrote about wine in Gourmet. One got such a feel from reading his mixture of history, architecture, geology, food and the way wine fit into that place. He wrote me a kind letter that I still have around here somewhere.
What I am talking about is the independent sensory evaluation that one expects from a wine critic who is in some sense comparing and describing wines objectively.
If someone purports to be a wine critic they should:
-Be an expert on the wines they report on
-Be familiar with the histories, house styles, and bottlings of the best known and the best reputed producers in their region(s)
-Be familiar with the context of the wines (cultural, culinary, etc) so they are informed in reporting on the wines.
If they can do that without visiting the region more power to them. However I think that you gain a much greater understanding of anything by seeing it face to face.
If you want a wine to be ONLY about what is in the glass and have nothing to do with food, history or culture, then I guess it wouldn’t be necessary for your critic(s) to have boned up on the backstory.
Good points Josh. Playing a devil’s advocate (which is really the whole point of my question – I absolutely love the culture, history, and place of wine), your last sentence suggests that it would be disingenuous to compare, say, Napa Cabs to Bordeaux Cabs. They are from different places, cultures, histories, climates. Yet virtually everybody here does side-by-side tastings like that. We may all know that there are differences between Napa and Bordeaux but the reality is that, time after time, people mix up the wines in blind tastings particularly as the wines age a bit.
Furthermore, people study the “food, history or culture” of early 20th century Boston, 17th century Paris and 200 BC Athens all the time and have a deep understanding of the backstory. And I think they haven’t visited that place and time.
Chris I know you were just being Devil’s advocate, and I was (mostly) agreeing. Blind tasting can be instructional and everyone gets fooled for sure. I love blind tasting and I am constantly learning from it. I don’t mean to say you have to visit a place to understand it, far from it, but I gain a huge appreciation for wines when I’ve been in the vineyards and cellars and spoken with the winemakers and eaten the food from the local restaurants. Whether it has any bearing on the ultimate quality of their critical writing, I don’t think there are any top flight critics who don’t visit the regions they cover, so perhaps it’s a moot point. Clearly visiting the regions doesn’t help a lot of critics write notes that are of any value whatsoever.
Just to stir the pot, I’d also venture to say that that has more impact to eat the local food and drink the local wine in a place with hundreds of years of tradition and food/wine integration than when you drink some cocktail wines with the hospitality staff in Napa then hit up In-N-Out on the way home.
As an aside I most definitely, without question, all the time want wine importers to be onsite. That Eric Solomon imported a wine means a bunch to me. Whether Jay Miller tasted wines in Chile or Brooklyn makes no difference to me. Actually with him I think I’d prefer Brooklyn!
Most people here take the non-professional tasting notes that are posted seriously yet virtually no one has visited (much less seriously visited) all the places their wines come from. I also agree that if I’m paying for a service, whether WS, CG, TWA, etc., I prefer that the reviewer is knowledgeable about the wines they report on. I’m not so insistent that they actually go to Italy, Germany, New Zealand every damn time they review a wine from there.
And how many times must the blogger visit the Finger Lakes before he/she is allowed to talk about the wines?
“Furthermore, people study the “food, history or culture” of early 20th century Boston, 17th century Paris and 200 BC Athens all the time and have a deep understanding of the backstory.”
I don’t know about 20th century Bean Town but, without the SMELLS (read brain numbing stench punctuated with incredible food aromas and WAY too much perfume) of 17th century Paris or ancient Greece, you really could NEVER have a real understanding…
Since my father has been drinking Bdx and Burg (among others) for as long as I remember, I grew up drinking the same thing - many, many years before ever having visited said areas. Even before visiting those places (which I now do as often as I can - so much so that my wife is beginning to complain), I was already quite conversant with Bdx and Burgs.
However, after taking my first trip to those areas years ago upon the urging of one of my friends from Bdx, I felt that my appreciation and understanding of the wines gained a lot more depth. When I go visiting wine regions, I spend at least 3 weeks at a time in France, setting aside at least a week for each wine region I happen to be going to, soaking up the place, people, food and wine as much as I can. I plan my own trips and, except for when in Bdx where I have a regular host and some local friends, I make all my own arrangements for visiting wineries, accommodations, restaurant reservations/choices, etc. so I get to go to only the wineries whose wines I regularly drink or want to learn more about.
That said, in all honesty, though I believe and feel that my knowledge/appreciation has deepened due to repeated trips, I cannot really say with confidence that my tasting notes have likewise “improved”, proportinately or otherwise.
I can now add more details on the history, geography, weather, people, regional/traditional pairings, etc., but, whether or not a reader of my notes will find that more helpful may be a different story altogether.
I never truly appreciated German rieslings until I toured through the different regions, and really listening to the winemakers, their history, and why the wines have their uniqueness to that particular region. If I were in a warehouse in Atlanta with hundreds of different wines in front of me, I would not have the associations I could attach to each wine without having visited that winery or region. I just think it’s that important to be an “expert” on something.
Do you think that Hunter S. Thompson never left his house?
That’s because I’m drinking Bourbon Whiskey…gotta be Big Sur.
On that note, great call on the Herencia Mexicana mini’s for Dave Matthews in Vegas two weeks back…awesome! Love that tequila. I’ll have to stop by your shop sometime.
Gonzo journalism requires many different types of trips, Grasshopper.
BTW I haven’t heard any opinions/thoughts in the thread on how many visits are needed to make one an expert and, after one is an expert, whether revisiting (outside of the barrel tasting bit) is necessary to evaluate wines as they are released.
I think it is borderline snobbery to say that you need to visit an area to be an expert. however, visiting does convey advantages:
Getting to know the region, weather, which vineyard is close to what and who, etc.
Meet the people, not just winemakers but the people in town
They are jingoistic about their wines, and usually you can try things you normally don’t get to try. Anyone can visit Sauternes and drink a yquem. Boring. Try something you’ll never see again.
Instills a love: My visit to Sauternes ensured that I will always love that wine, that region.
bottom line:
you don’t NEED to visit. it certainly helps, though. Most importantly, a visit is…
I would rather a street smart side-kick at my side than a book-smart one. And yes, you can know every factual piece of information just by reading a book, but unless you sink your hands in the “terroir”…I’m not gonna be 100% convinced.
I personally don’t care much for critics, if by that we mean people who “assess” wines during a blind tasting in a scientifically controlled environment, etc. This type of exercise is pointless to me. Blind tasting is useful only as a mental, recreational exercise. It has nothing to do with the pleasure of drinking wine - and yes, that also comes from the label - why would I hide a label if my viewing it actually enhances my experience?!? I’m not a “critic”, my aim is to maximize the pleasure I get, not to try to “get it right” (yeah, right). In this context I guess it makes as much difference if a “critic” is tasting wines on the moon or in the winemaker’s cellar (although in the latter case it might be harder to get the scientifically controlled environment ).
Now if we talk about writers, that’s a different story, read Kermit Lynch again and his adventures, are like all adventures I know of, i.e. they revolve around the people, not the product.
And if we’re talking about a mere wine drinker such as I, then visits to wine regions are a must. It helps me to understand what they are trying to do, how it matches with local food (extremely important) and culture (how they drink it), it helps me associate fond memories of the visits (and of the whole experience) with wines and bottles, that will enhance my drinking experience (again, for me this is what it’s all about) when I open one of the bottles. And yes, I’m the kind of guy who stopped buying some wines after meeting the winemaker… or the reverse.
).