At a local wine store last week, I noticed a table with a Duckhorn rep pouring several wines from their broad lineup, such as their very nice SB and Cab, as well as wines from their Decoy and Goldeneye labels. One of the wines being poured was the Goldeneye 2008 Anderson Valley Pinot. Big surprise, it had clear smoke elements on the nose right off, with that all-too-familiar-by-now ashy flavor. Par for the course for 2008 AV pinots. I told him (in a friendly but frank way) that I felt they should not be selling it. He laughed and said that for every person who has that opinion, he has more people who love it and walk out with a case. By the way, the price of this admittedly flawed wine? 55 bucks!
The winery does not in any way dispute the fact that the wine is unquestionably flawed. Winemaker Zach Rasmuson said exactly that in the WSJ: “I still smell smoke. It’s like a scar.” (March 31, 2010) Obviously, that didn’t stop them from putting a premium price on the wine, and offering no mention of the overt flaws in the wine, which they knew about but still brazenly bottled under their own label.
I know that the issues with 2008 AV wines have been broadly discussed here, but what is one to think of a winery which shamelessly foists this wine onto the public, knowing that it is flawed, spoiled, abnormal, and then compounds it with absurdities such as “Despite frost and fire, 2008 was another great year for growing Pinot Noir in Anderson Valley” (web site)?
To each their own. Some people like smoky wines, I see it all of the time in positive tasting notes. If you like the wine then you like the wine.
Sometimes too much information is not good. For instance I like a little barnyard in my Loire cabernet francs, but I really do not want to know what was done to achieve this. Flaw or no flaw if it tastes good, drink it!!
Nate posted in the Wine Talk section of a Wine Board. Seems pretty relevent and appropriate given the forum, no? I don’t think he’s putting smoke taint on the same level as child abuse.
His note seems over the top and ‘the embodiment of evil’ is pretty extreme. Plus, the "everyone should live by MY rules and people who don’t are EVIL’ is just over for me. It’s one of the reason the world is so effed up, so when I see the logic used, esp about something as trivial as this, it sets me off.
Had he merely posted a note and voice disappointment that they’d sell what he felt is a flawed wine, fine. The screechy tone… eh.
It’s called hyperbole. It is a commonly employed literary device.
Sorry for the hyperbole. To clear the air, let me unequivocally state: Everyone should live by my rules and people who don’t are not evil, but rather knowingly or unknowingly working to further the cause of evil.
Also, people who sell a product which they know to be inherently flawed, and engage in marketing practices which seek to obscure that truth from the consumer, while charging a price commensurate with a product which the consumer would and should expect to be free of significant flaws, are the embodiment of evil.
If you found out that the manufacturer of a car, computer, or television you bought knew with 100% certainty that their product had a significant flaw (so much so that they openly admitted it in the Wall Street Journal), but put it on the market anyway with no caveat or disclosure to the purchaser, what would you think?
Community Tasting Notes (average 89.4 pts. and median of 88 pts. in 6 notes) - click to show notes with and without comments
Tasted by BigBoy_Sonoma on 10/1/2011 & rated 90 points: huge noise of smokiness and charcoal, which doesn’t impact flavors.
Subtle fruit, smokiness, fine tobacco, earth tones and cherries. A- (20 views) - report issue | favorite author
Tasted by Richard Jennings on 7/31/2011 & rated 88 points: Joseph George 71st Anniversary Tasting (Montalvo Arts Center, Saratoga, California): Medium dark cherry red color; tart cherry nose; tart cherry, red fruit palate with good acidity; medium-plus finish 88+ points (453 views) - report issue | favorite author
Tasted by wehouck on 1/30/2011 & rated 88 points: Full california pinot noir, fruity nose, slight bite on the tongue and finish. (661 views) - report issue | favorite author
Tasted by shaunalynn on 7/29/2010: Medium weight, structure, and balanced acidity with layered fruit an firm tannins. Aromas of mmushrooms and toasty oak to ripe berry and bittersweet chocolate, underscored by black licorice and truflle. (874 views) - report issue | favorite author
I don’t agree with your use of evil even given your explanations. But that’s opinion, so meh.
Well, there’s no accounting for taste, right? I personally didn’t detect a “huge noise of smokiness” or “aromas of mmushrooms,” but those dudes must be more sophisticated than I, or at least more sophisticated than their command of usage and spelling might indicate.
Again, as if this needed additional emphasis, if you charge 55 bucks for a wine with obvious flaws, from a vintage in which almost all wines from that area had those same flaws, to the degree that some wineries wouldn’t even lay claim to the juice being their own, and you don’t disclose that to the consumer, where does that leave you? Simply put, in what other area of business would it be considered acceptable for a manufacturer to charge top dollar for a defective product?
Heavy taint on the 08’s, just bad juice… However, they got it right on the 09’s. If you have a Las Vegas palate lusting for that new expensive French oak you’re gonna love the 2009’s.
Ever taste the 1996 Ponsot, Chambertin?
Green, stemmy and insipid.
And yet they still sold it at Grand Cru prices.
“Evil” is everywhere - caveat emptor.
Best, Jim
And more importantly, is smoke taint really a flaw? Or is it an exaggerated vintage characteristic? If consumers like it, then I think it’s the latter. I was at a tasting Saturday where people were loving a $9 Pinot Noir that to me tasted and smelled like liquid smoke. There’s definitely a market for Pinot that is smoke-driven.
Moreover, what of over-oaked wine? Few call that a flaw, though it does dominate the flavor profile. And there is a definite market for that.
If Duckhorn wants to put their name on a wine with extreme vintage influenced smoke, that is up to them to take the risk.
Off topic, but this disgusts me far more than any NCAA rules violation as it obviously should. There’s no question in my mind the PSU administration knew Sandusky was a pedophile and purposefully did not pursue the matter aggressively thinking it would go away if Sandusky got a few slaps on the wrist. Joe Paterno is going to get dragged through the mud whether he fully deserves it or not, but I have trouble believing he did all he could even if he did pass allegations up the chain.
Smoke taint is rather small in comparison. And maybe the price brand drinkers pay for buying a name instead of the wine vintage to vintage.
Oh this is the worst thread ever? I’m so tired of your hyperbolic vitriol Berry. Ughhhhhhh. You think this thread is worse than a thread about child molesters in Penn State? Get a grip. UGGGGHHHHHH (teenage girl pout).
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
