We all know that there will be smoke tainted wine from the 2017 vintage in the pipeline. So I guess that it just comes down to where the producer is willing to take a hit: economically or reputation.
17 will be an interesting vintage. Quantities will be down and I suspect quality quite variable (at least for CA). A good vintage to stick with producers you know and trust.
Uh, let’s not rate the wines before they’ve been tasted, or even in bottle!
Eric, not rating any wines, just commenting on a vintage that was very challenging (as I recall) even prior to the fires.
Good decision, although I’m a little surprised he could tell by tasting the fruit on Monday morning when the fires started late Sunday.
-Al
Early set-up for a price increase for the ‘limited’ 2016. lol
The stalwarts who picked before the fires will produce wines comparable to the 2016 vintage. Those stalwarts who picked after the fires will probably filter and if they don’t trust it, they will sell it bulk.
My worry is the corporate wineries. Even if it has a stalwart name, once it’s a holding of a corporation, production is expected not negotiable.
I would like to see them make it…I’d buy it, of course at declassified pricing. Maybe some proceeds going to local charities? It tells of the vinetage, the history of what went on in that year…good or bad, that’s what makes vintage wine intriguing…tells a story. Not all wine has to be perfect to be enjoyed.
Cmeron Hghes Lot 5000
2017 Napa Valley Cabernet
“Fire Sale” ($44/btl)
…You wish! 
this is spot on. shitty vintage before the fires.
Clearly the right decision to forgo the 2017. Frankly I am surprised that the grapes were still on the vines as late as October 8?
Yeah, sadly, you are right. There are people who can “fix” the wine, but it strips out a ton of character and life out of the wine.
wow…i guess i will be saving some $$$ next year…
And one more year of waiting to possibly make the list .
I wonder if SE bought crop insurance. If so, then the claim is most likely already paid out for 2017 vintage.
That was my thought.
SE made no wine in 2000 either (can’t recall the reason), although interestingly, on CT 21 people claim to have bottles in their cellars. Wonder what those bottles are worth …
You certainly sound certain of “damaged or smoke tainted” - inference is damaged, lessor or quality,
I’ve spoken with some NAPA Cult winery owners and wine makers for the more prominent names, or CULT who all told me,
“what is these rumors in the market of people who do not know from what they speak.” “We are finding no more smoke flavor added to the grape then we smoke our barrels.”
and some in Sonoma, who are happy to try and collect for the entire vintage damaged from fires.
Dollars to donuts (what that means I’m not quite sure it just seemed a good moment to add) there will be no established winery with a premium reputation who tries to sneak a vintage by the public if the wine is found lacking.
As has been stated in this thread, it simply is not worth it to the owners of fine wine.
There is no winery that can risk the reputational hit. The competitive pressure is enormous.
We are a small distributor and we receive 20 - 30 requests every week from wineries to represent their wines.
This week alone 2 ‘Cult’ wineries asked us to explore. Times are getting harder and harder on these guys.
Dollars to ‘insert relatively worthless item’ were common phrases in the 1800’s (dollars to buttons, dollars to donuts, etc). Dollars to donuts was the version that won out.
It refers to a hypothetical bet and that you’re so sure of your position you’d willing to bet a dollar against someone’s donut (or a button, etc).
Thread drift! Always welcome!
Word was that something like 90% of vineyards were already harvested when the Tubbs fire started on Oct 8. That’s already fairly late in a warm vintage like 2017. Surprised they hadn’t already picked.
They were going for that extra two points from the critics.