Chris I totally agree with this. How many people have swooned over old burgundy’s that may have been “Hermitaged”? Meiomi pinot is a huge seller and it is “ok” for what it is but I would never call it pinot noir. BTW I saw a tech sheet on Meiomi a few years ago that broke down the blend by varieties-pretty interesting.
I think that it is important to have discussions like this here because, unbeknownst to many here, lots of folks on this board continue to enjoy wines like The Prisoner, Meimoi, Caymus, etc. It may not be my cup of tea, but that’s okay.
It also raises the question of what is and is not ‘allowed’ here in the US and what actually happens with these wines. And note that if things are ‘allowed’, they ‘can’ be employed by smaller boutique wineries as well (whether or not that happens is still up to much discussion.
There are plenty of tricks to make a wine ‘more marketable’ in addition to the use of Mega Purple - one can use varietally derived concentrates (yep, easily available in over 30 ‘flavors’), one can add gum arabic prior to bottling to ‘cover up’ rough edges; one can blend in other varieties to achieve this.
Here’s the ‘funny’ thing - I believe it’s becoming more and more difficult to clearly define ‘typicity’ of certain varieties in lower priced wines. I’ve mentioned this story before and will do so again now - when I worked for another winery, we made a sub $20 pinot that put us in direct competition with lots of wines from Monterrey, Sonoma and elsewhere (pre-Meiomi). We did a blind tasting and our head winemaker was so proud that he could pick ours out - to him, it had the ‘pinot funk’, tannin and acid that made the wine more ‘typical’. The problem - that is NOT what most consumers who are purchasing sub $20 pinots want - they want a ‘generic’ tasting red wine that they can say is a pinot. Strange? To many on this board it is, but not to others who understand that it’s a very big wine world out there . . .
Carry on, folks . . .
Larry brings up a good term, generic. A dumbing down to a common denominator.
Exactly - that’s the way the ‘general public’ tends to like things when it comes to ‘subjective’ things like art, music, movies, and obviously wine. It’s not a bad thing per se - other than what many are ‘missing out’ by not exploring more . . .
Cheers!
To my palate, the number of PN wines which “taste like PN” (again, to me) that cost under $30 can be counted without taking my shoes off. I compensate for this by not buying those wines, not by lobbing accusations at them.
All other food manufacturers are required to list the ingredients in their products. Why do winemakers get a pass on this? I would really like to know what is in the “wine” that I buy. It would also be nice to know the unfermented sugar content.
I’ve mentioned before that I got it on good authority (someone with first-hand knowledge) that a lot of well-regarded '11 Napa Cabs got a good dose of Mega Purple for style consistency. As in, to get those wines to show the typicity of all the previous vintages, which did not have Mega Purple. Don’t know the labels, so can’t judge the results.
The only wine I’ve had that I knew had Mega Purple was a Pinot Noir, though. It was some contracted fly-by-night grocery store type label that sold for something like $15. The winemaker was proud, because he took a hodgepodge of bulk Pinot and some of his own declassified PN and fixed it up, making a decent wine that really did taste like Pinot. Not sure if anyone could pick it out as having Mega Purple.
Someone we’ll call Alan graciously brought a bottle of Meiomi to an OL for us to try. To me, it was clearly Pinot. It tasted like late press Pinot, when it gets sweet, with a bunch of oak chips added. Who knows what they’re methodology is, but it would be easy to replicate. Maybe it is largely press wine, since Pinot makers tend to only use free run. It didn’t have over-ripe flavors, just sweet and extracted.
Honestly asking, which I know seems odd since it would seem that I should know but I really don’t, is this really the case on a large sample basis? I am not super-connected and I tend not to have the most detailed conversations about specific actions taken by individual winemakers. Certainly not the case at my winery. No problem with pressing here. Off topic, I know. Sorry.
Thanks, Jim. I remember there was some state standard that was higher than the federal ones, but I couldn’t remember what state or what the issue was.
It is one of our Great American Anachronisms (along with, e.g., the Mining Law of 1872.) Alcholic beverages fall under the purview of ATF, not FDA. This is why alcohol doesn't come with nutrition facts - Vox
Ridge voluntarily lists ingredients for its wines: Wine Ingredient Labeling - Ridge Vineyards
I don’t see what basis you have for that. There are so many ways to make characterless wines.
And ads for real drugs have to substantiate their health claims and disclose risks and side-effects, while “health supplements” can make completely unsubstantiated claims. (My brain is numb from repeated Prevagen ads!)
I think mega red is preferred as it is less traceable
With the key being “tend to”, that the impression I get. What we do, and what others I work with do (to the extent that I’d know) and what I’ve read and heard from others whose wines I like. It can vary by site, vintage, intended style, but generally the press wine will go into separate barrels. Some or all could later be blended back in, but much more likely to be used for topping wine and/or get declassified into the low-end Pinot and/or blended into an entry level odds and ends red wine.
Hmm. Have heard that as well. Never bought much into it. I find the pressed wine to be far more nutrient dense, healthier and better tasting than the free run which I find to be monochromatic in character. I don’t separate them, in fact I insist upon their combination while being pressed. I mean I taste and we cut it off if the load starts to go south but the press cycles I have set up generally are right for the musts that go into them. Different strokes.
On the ‘free run’, I’d be interested in hearing more about that. I’ve hung out with a lot of Cali Pinot producers and never heard such a thing before. I know sometimes the free run stuff can be held for a vin gris type of rose but I’ve never heard of it being exclusively used for the finished product. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to me. I’m sure someone has done it but I doubt it’s a majority of producers.
I’m ready to be proven wrong though. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Not at all Chris. I was going to straight out call the OP for trolling. Controversial topic and shallow top post, complaining and pointing fingers randomly without discussion, inquiry or more than cursory evidence. You’re nicer than I. 
Chris,
Remember: we are berserk!! You are right. Normal happy human beings don’t care if other people drink Ajax mixed with Listerine and/or if they blend and decant the mixture three hours in advance.
They have lives.
By the way, people don’t put Syrah in Pinot…they use petite syrah, mondeuse and charbono…Syrah is too expensive.
I’m going to attempt to ask this question without being a dick but I may fail.
But credit for making the attempt!
No troll here just a rant about a style of PN I do not like. Maybe somebody will actually taste one or preferably both of these wines and give their impressions.