I don’t think there is anything all that special about what the first group is doing, other than dispensing with pretenses. They are making commercially oriented wines, and targeting them toward a specific niche. I’m just surprised they they think there is so much vig in undercutting a $10 KJ chard.
Picking off $22 Santa Margaherita seems like an easier ploy.
The second effort seems much harder, and the founders seem much less clueful. I don’t think that will work.
But in a way it’s where Rudy went wrong. He made wine for one guy who could spend $10,000 a bottle, whereas he could have made wine for a hundred guys who would have spent $100/bottle and he might not be in prison today.
As far as fooling “experts”, that’s no big feat. What is the certification for being named an expert anyway?
Re: Rudy, I think one difference is the scale and logistics required to pull off the “$100 bottles for 100 guys” is substantially higher than that required for a single $10,000 bottle.
It would still only require one sale on Rudy’s part, but he’d be selling to someone other than an auction house. Look at the huge amount of fake yellowtail that was found in China, as well as many other inexpensive wines. I actually think forging 1000, $10 bottles would be the even easier scam to pull off than either of the ones mentioned above. Who would know the difference? Most of the people selling the wine would never taste it.
“Lee argues that Ava is much more transparent than the “vast majority of the wine industry,” where additives are used, but kept out of the limelight.” hmmm…Winemakers, wanna chime in?
Using the tools of a craft for a specific singular occurrence of nature is a WORLD away from a recipe process for making wine from fruit, with all of it’s varied flavors, taste the same year in and out.
Additives in traditional winemaking are pretty varied and to some extent winemakers make their own choices and have to answer to their own consciences in what they use. It is definitely my belief that a good winemaker must be both a poet and a mechanic, and able to discern when to use which skill set. One of my mantras in the cellar is Renee Lafon’s advice to his son Dominique, “sometimes you must have the courage to do nothing”. It’s a brilliant summation of the winemakers art, but it’s also imperative to recognize that the first word in the quote is “sometimes”.
There are some “additives” I would never use, and many I don’t, and a few that I do.
For example: I do not EVER consider using Mega-purple. It’s basically a grape concentrate, and from grapes grown in the Languedoc. Since site expression is more meaningful to me than big fruit, adding mega-purple to Pinot Noir is an anathema.
And, in my not very humble opinion, if a winemaker uses mega-purple, they may be a “great” winemaker but they CAN NOT be even a good Pinot Noir producer. Part of my set of rules/ethics is fruit comes only from the site, not from a tube or bucket and if you need deeper color and fruit for your wine, you’re either an insecure score hunter(lame) or have a crap site. Not a lot of compromise for me here.
Additives I have no issue with, would be the use of Sulpher in the cellar. The low Sulpher thing seems a bit foolish to me. I don’t use more than I need, and quality is my first focus. I use very little at processing but that’s just because, after several years of experimentation, it doesn’t seem necessary. After malo finishes though I definitely make a Sulpher addition for elevage.
There are also lots of enzymes, powdered tannins, and assorted fining agents. I kind of feel these are neutral for my ethics, but I really do not think most of these help me showcase the vineyard, so they don’t get much use in my cellar.
Using the tools of a craft for a specific singular occurrence of nature is a WORLD away from a recipe process for making wine from fruit, with all of it’s varied flavors, taste the same year in and out.
Additives in traditional winemaking are pretty varied and to some extent winemakers make their own choices and have to answer to their own consciences in what they use. It is definitely my belief that a good winemaker must be both a poet and a mechanic, and able to discern when to use which skill set. One of my mantras in the cellar is Renee Lafon’s advice to his son Dominique, “sometimes you must have the courage to do nothing”. It’s a brilliant summation of the winemakers art, but it’s also imperative to recognize that the first word in the quote is “sometimes”.
There are some “additives” I would never use, and many I don’t, and a few that I do.
For example: I do not EVER consider using Mega-purple. It’s basically a grape concentrate, and from grapes grown in the Languedoc. Since site expression is more meaningful to me than big fruit, adding mega-purple to Pinot Noir is an anathema.
And, in my not very humble opinion, if a winemaker uses mega-purple, they may be a “great” winemaker but they CAN NOT be even a good Pinot Noir producer. Part of my set of rules/ethics is fruit comes only from the site, not from a tube or bucket and if you need deeper color and fruit for your wine, you’re either an insecure score hunter(lame) or have a crap site. Not a lot of compromise for me here.
Additives I have no issue with, would be the use of Sulpher in the cellar. The low Sulpher thing seems a bit foolish to me. I don’t use more than I need, and quality is my first focus. I use very little at processing but that’s just because, after several years of experimentation, it doesn’t seem necessary. After malo finishes though I definitely make a Sulpher addition for elevage.
There are also lots of enzymes, powdered tannins, and assorted fining agents. I kind of feel these are neutral for my ethics, but I really do not think most of these help me showcase the vineyard, so they don’t get much use in my cellar.