I think one thing that is worth calling out though is the fact that this is not overt manipulation in the sense that Maggie is practicing organic viticulture and she is not acidifying, chaptalizing or adding any of the crazy compounds that you technically can add to a wine in the US. She is blind blending from top parcels in the Willamette Valley. It is more akin to a 1er Cru or Village Level blend from Burgundy where she then declassifies the barrels she does not like down to her Corolis Pinot.
Many of us on this board have visited AT and I’m guessing the vast majority very much appreciate the blind blending approach. The author is being hyperbolic in the “War on Wine” statement. He’s also completely incorrect that her approach runs counter to how most think high end wine should be made. Bordeaux, Champagne, Barolo, etc. all traditionally make their wines as blends - at least in part because consistency was always heavily prioritized. Today, farming practices have improved and global warming means consistent ripening is less of an issue, so perhaps blending is less appreciated today than it has been historically…
Also, would we even be having this conversation if we weren’t talking about Pinot Noir?
9 Likes
Great post as always Rodrigo. Maggie makes a very unique set of wines in the Willamette Valley. Her approach is painstaking, detailed, and unquestionably an investment.
The story and presentation is larger than life and if that appeals to a person, it will probably really appeal to them.
While I do not consider AT to be the “premier Oregon winery”, IMO their tasting experience is quite probably the premier luxury tasting appointment in the Willamette Valley. They work extremely hard to offer an AMAZING tasting experience and, again IMO, typically pull it off.
The wines are a distinct style, but very well done for in that style. And Maggie is a charming, highly intelligent person who is very dedicated to her work.
That said, I’ve had about a thousand bottles of wines that inspired winemakers in what they do(industry events, peer group, and from working as a somm). Next to none of those winemakers made wines like the producers that inspired them.
I love Chave, LdH, Krug, Vatan, Dauvisaat, and a host of others, and have been inspired by them. But terroir is a real thing and while the AT winemaking may be more pushing and lesa coaxing, she’s still working with WV vineyards.
Possibly worst outcome of serious self promotion, and the resulting very expensive wines, is that one’s production can’t just be judged for what it actually is. It must either be unbelievably amazing or it fails. I don’t think Maggie’s actual wines are either of these things, but they are very valid expressions of what can be produced here in the Valley, and represent Maggie’s intelligence, talent, and vision as a winemaker. Which is substantial, as is the pricing for these wines.
And for some that will be magical. For others it will not match the value they find in other producers wines.
17 Likes
Very much agree Marcus.
I find Maggie’s wine enjoyable at times, but never quite what I want, it’s also a very different style of wine that I usually reach for. And as the prices climb, I find myself less and less interested in them.
That is the double edged sword of lavish over-the-top marketing—when it hit, it succeeds in spades, but for those where it doesn’t, one’s shortcomings are laid bare and cost of the product can seem almost offensive.
My childhood paediatrician was a big wine collector. As my parents were starting to learn about wine at some point they asked him something to the effect of what’s the best wine or what type of really nice wine they should buy. He replied something to the extent of, ‘there’s little merit to buying really expensive wine. If you’re paying that much, it should be great. The fun in wine is finding a great wine at a great value.’ While I think there’s probably a little more nuance there (I think there’s a reason some of the blue-chip wines of the world command the prices they do), I find a nugget of truth in the statement that if you’re spending a lot of money on a bottle of wine, it ought to taste great.
But as you noted, that’s often where some producers start having issues. The hype, limited availability and/or high prices around their wines is at times tough to live up to. To those that enjoy it, it may make sense, but for those that don’t, it’s often tough to justify and may feel like a waste to have spent that money. After all, as you climb up in price, more and more wine options become available.
I take less issue with Maggie making and promoting wines in the way that she does (it seems to work for her and her customer base) and more with the overly rhapsodical tone the NYT article took. It just made it seem effectively like a sponsored post by the NYT and in my view, just a touch bad journalism. There were so many other approaches one could have taken to write effectively the same article.
If they took out the war and Nabokov references and focused more on Maggie and her synesthesia, how it informs her winemaking, and widened the article to also dig into how wine can be this experience that touches on multiple sense, I feel like would have been a more interesting article. It might still read overly-gushing, but would seem much less like one big PR.
8 Likes
maybe…but there seems to be a coincident trend of downplaying/silencing real emotion and energy across the board. It’s like everything should be intellectualized instead of felt. Experience is now secondary. Wine criticism (or praise) is an easy exemplar.
It’s a fine line between plain old ‘bole’ and hyperbole.
The best part is that the wine maker tells us up front what her approach is, so, as a potential taster, I can go in eyes and palate open.
The only bummer, for me, is that’s she is not partnered with Lawrence D. Fairchild.
2 Likes
“a private world of wild luxury” — the press release it literally ends with this… not sure why they didn’t start with it?
1 Like
This is about where I sit, although I do buy the wines in very small quantities (usually 1-3 bottles of each in a mixed case format). They are typically not what I reach for either, but once or twice a year I do enjoy them. In the Willamette producers like Kelley Fox, Goodfellow, Morgen Long, and even Cristom are a better fit for my pallet and definitely from a QPR perspective. That said, Antica Terra Wines are 100% unique which has value to me. I’ll probably get roasted for saying this, but I can see some similar threads between Antica Terra and Dujac - spicy, tanic, whole cluster, and clear use of high end oak (especially with the Antykethra bottling which does show Terroir).
Marcus also brings up a good point about the larger than life marketing as something that either really appeals to you, or something that is revolting. It definitely appealed to me early on in my wine journey and Antica Terra was sort of a gateway for me in to fine wine which I am forever thankful for. Tasting there was a revelation, introducing me to some of my favorite producers like Fourrier, Benoit Marguet etc. Which, also to Marcus’s credit, taste nothing like Maggie’s wines. 
Ultimately though, this article reads like a puff piece that is targeted at people who really don’t know a ton about wine (hence why so many WB folks hate it haha). We can debate the semantics of Maggie’s motives and how she prices her wines all day long, but at the end of the day, you don’t need to buy them. If this convinces 100 people to visit the Willamette, they will inevitably taste at more wineries than Antica Terra which is good for the Willamette. Regardless of what you think about Maggie’s Wines, the tasting experience that she provides is truly special. Also, Dauvissat Les Clos at High Bar for $24/glass is insane - hard to be mad at that.
5 Likes
I opened an 05 Lillian Syrah a few weeks ago and decided it was not for me. It was wasted on me but I could that others would love it. Perhaps a case of waiting too long for a right occasion that never happened
Several points:
1/writers hate those who prattle on about tech stuff etc and love people who talk about Basquiat, Nabokov etc.
The Mouton people were the first to try to get people to look at wine as art…at least in recent memory
2/Maggie is right to say that terroir can be a bit of a shuck and that the winemaker deserves a little credit
3/Her opinion on blending is worth a lot of consideration. If we could make a better pinot by blending Eola Hills, Carneros and SLH…why not??
4/Clendenen would try --in his own way–to get people to adjust their palates by presenting his wines with European counterparts. Maggie seems to be better at it. Those of us who have sold wine know that order of presentation is crucial.
5/The idea of showing people $400 bottles…not so bad. It’s like the steak house that advertises a giant steak for $200…the $75 filet mignon becomes a bargain
6/$125 strikes me as a bargain, just for the experience.
1 Like
Same!
3 Likes
Maybe we could get Maggie to explain Basquiat!
2 Likes
His art tastes like raspberry and lemon.
2 Likes
I think Lilian is in the same style as SQN and Saxum, but a qualitative step down. For what it is, Antica Terra is a fun expression for Oregon pinot, but the prices don’t make sense.
3 Likes
I think terrior becomes important in the context of comparing wines, e.g. the same wine from different vintages or two different locations in the same vintage. There is something interesting and intellectually stimulating as well as outside the qualitative comparision associated with ‘better’, is ‘Bluetrain’ better than ‘A Love Supreme’ (I’m sure glad I have both)? A blend may allow the winemaker to ‘create’ some plutonic ideal of a wine, but it does so by losing the direct connection to a time and a place. In the persuit of a more complete wine you lose some of the spontaneity and intricacy of nature. Terror is a romantic appeal, a glorification of nature over winemaker, how you feel about that appeal likely impacts your definition of ‘better’.
With that said, most of the Oregon producers making SVD wines don’t just take all the grapes from that vineyard and make one wine. They select parcels and fermenters that they feel have the quality they want for the SVD wine. In a real sense even the SVD wines have a selection process and even a blending process built in. So yes, fine wine must reflect choices made by the winemaker, the question for me as a consumer is to find producers dedicated to making high fidelity wines of a time and place, and if some are blended then so be it.
6 Likes
That article kinda reminded me of all the fuss and noise on Ghost Horse and “The Todd” some years back. High end wines, apparently well made by some accounts, questionable value perceived by some accounts, and a larger than life view on the “experience” and exclusivity therein.
Not saying they’re the same, just there’s a rhyme.
1 Like
Some really interesting and valid points here.
Taking price out the equation, my view is that wine is an art, and like art, there are a variety of styles and choices an artist can make. If terroir is “realism” then Maggie’s wines are perhaps something more akin to Impressionism. Each person will experience these differently, based on their own subjectives tastes, and there’s something to celebrate there.
Taking price into consideration, they are expensive wines. No question about it.
But hey, they’re selling and setting a high benchmark price for Oregon, so it may actually lift the market and giving more pricing power to the other great producers in the region (not great for our wallets, but I like to see these folks rewarded for their extraordinary efforts too).
And having recently tasted at Antica Terra, the hospitality offering is really unique and fun for wine novices and geeks alike (which is not easy to do!). I’d do it again in a heartbeat.
4 Likes
Wait, “The Todd” is not our Todd?
1 Like
I mean, it could be…
He could have shopped this
2 Likes
I love wines as expressions of place, even if with my modest tasting abilities that’s often more of a romantic notion than something I can perceive in the glass, especially when it comes to very fine divisions like the Grand Cru plot on one side of the stone wall and the Premier Cru plot on the other side.
But I’m also all for blending when it makes a wine better, and see no reason to be dogmatic about arbitrary limits on where the components come from. Sometimes, the blend just tastes better, at least to someone, be it the winemaker or otherwise. Gerard Chave’s and Paul Draper’s legendary blending talents across Hermitage and Monte Bello Ridge have already been mentioned. I also recall some Burgundian (I can’t remember who) being interviewed (probably by Levi on IDTT) and saying that he has two totally separate plots in a particular Grand Cru with different characteristics (vine age, slope, whatever, I can’t remember) and has often been encouraged and tempted to bottle them separately but he just finds that they make a better wine when blended.
I have some unsweetened chocolate, some sugar, some butter, some eggs, and some pork in my kitchen. All from different countries. Should I just serve each by itself so each can express its terroir? Or should I try some blending? My trials indicate that serving the pork by itself is best but combining the chocolate, sugar, eggs, and butter makes something better than any of the components alone.
By the same token, if someone can make a spectacular-tasting wine with 10% grape X from CA, 20% grape Y from Spain, and 70% grape Z from France, why not? I love my single-vineyard single-variety wines (as long as they smell and taste great), I love my single-vineyard multi-variety blends (as long as they smell and taste great), and I’m sure I’d love the international blend if it smelled and tasted great. When what’s in the glass speaks of a particular hillside along a particular river, great, I’ll wax rhapsodic about that. When it speaks to the blending talent of a bold and creative winemaker instead, OK, I’ll wax rhapsodic about that instead.
There is plenty of room for all approaches, it seems to me, as long as what’s in the glass delivers.
7 Likes
The Todd ≠ The Toddfather
1 Like