My guess is that Hourglass’ wines will still sell just fine. They’ve been doing very well for a while, and have deep ins at restaurants, and a fair sized mailing list. Everyone has an off vintage at some point, and they can spin it as that. They also have an immediately recognizeable winemaker in Robert Foley. He has a fairly avid fan base, and a few lower-than-normal scores aren’t likely to deter his fans from buying, ESPECIALLY since they can rationalize the alleged decline in quality with the change of critical palate. Hourglass will probably stop submitting their wines for AG’s review now, considering Laube continues to give them respectable scores. All in all, they still got good press from at least one important-to-market source, have a big name, and a big fan base. That’s how they’ll sell out.
I agree with the sentiment that a baby project could be crippled by that press. A well established producer can survive. Plenty of big name bordeaux with garbage scores in off vintages.
I really can’t speak to the $150 a bottle wines, but one larger trend I’ve noticed is the established high production, high-end Cabs struggling more than I’ve noticed threads about price cuts among smaller, comparatively younger producers. Caymus SS, Mondavi Reserve, Dunn Howell, etc. are all available at or under $100.
The inference I draw is that, at least right now, scarcity can prop up a wine that is otherwise overpriced. I don’t fully get it, especially given that right now all one has to do is pick which low-production cab you want to buy, there are few real waiting lists left, but to each their own. Better people buy those wines that drive up prices on mine.
They’ll just figure out what it is that Galloni likes and rewards with high scores and start producing that. Then we’ll have a nice group of people complaining about how their favourite wine has been Gallonified…
Obviously this is going to be tough for any winery whose whole marketing strategy revolves around getting high points from critics (hint: they are not limited to Napa–I’m looking forward to the wave hitting Bordeaux and CdP).
Any winery with a decent track record can survive this because at least some of the clients are regulars who know they like the wine, regardless of what any critics says.
If the wine in question is, in fact, the Hourglass Cabernet, Galloni’s note on the 2009 is revealing: “These wines from Hourglass are made in an up-front, juicy style that emphasizes fruit. I found many of the wines distinctly sweet and alcoholic, with little to offer in the way of varietal definition.” In his review of the 2008 Parker had many of the same adjectives, without the “distinctly sweet and alcoholic” aspect. It’s clearly not something he’s sensitive to, or doesn’t care about, so he rated the wine 92. His review of the '07 was even more positive, and gave it 95 points. Two different critics, two different sets of values.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. I used to run a magazine that handed out subjective reviews (on hi-fi equipment) and I always advised manufacturers to develop their relationships with retailers and the distribution chain because if you depend on reviews you never know when they’re going to change. I suspect that Hourglass will have to change their style, lower their price, develop a different distribution model, or go out of business. Or maybe they can just fool consumers into believing that sweet alcoholic wines are worth $150/btl. Certainly many others have been able to!
That can only be done, I believe, when there is an influential critic pitching them as such. For them to convince a market on their own is next to impossible - the cost would be extremely prohibitive, even IF it could be done effectively. Because the ratings market has been created, and some companies chose to live by that sword, as you said, they may also die by the sword. Hope it was a fun ride!
How much of this wine is made? Is it just one wine, or a range of wines from this producer? Just curious, and not even sure I’ve ever heard of them before.
While I want all of this to be true I’m not sure it is. I think the part of the market driven by scores is smaller than we like to think it is. I do believe that scores helped feed that atmosphere of supposed scarcity and with it aggressive pricing. I think there are other factors at play though.
We tend to forget that this community is a small part of the buying public. Napa Cabs sell themselves in many ways in the non-wine geek market simply with their name. They are a luxury good in most ways so pricing equal quality for these products in buyers eyes. That being said I do think along with the greater economic factors that the top end in Napa(and maybe all of California) is going to have to take a hard look at their pricing at some point. The clamor for attaining their goods at nearly any cost has been taken away. It is probably not coming back in the foreseeable future. At least not before the housing market sees some sort of growth curve again. The ‘new sheriff in town’ of scoring only makes that worse for them. But they also have to stop and take a hard look at a different model for their businesses as a whole. That will have to include more sane pricing.
I also think that among the non-wine geek market that bigger styled, oakier wines are still the go to and will be for a long time. That segment is going to drive a lot of sales in California at all levels of the market. I think any trends towards more restrained wines are usually over stated amongst the somm and writer crowd. The foodies will buy into it but the average suburban wine drinker just wants something yummy with their yummy meal and doesn’t care how the acidity might affect the 3rd course. I do think there is a large pull back from the extreme big wines but the style will remain dominant in California in large part driven by the Napa market. The Napa dollars make for a lot of gravity in this market in more ways than one.
Good points Cris. But I wonder… yes, we’re a small part of the wine buying public. But are we really that small a part of the public that buys $150+ wines off mailing lists? Face it, the general wine buying public - the so-called suburban wine drinker - aren’t the people buying Maybach, Hourglass, Scarecrow and the like. They never hear of them because those wines don’t see shop shelves. Those people buy Silver Oak, Opus One etc. I bet there’s a segment of people who fit your profile, but I wonder… how big is it? For the people who are not really wine geeks but see these bottles as luxury goods, will they bottles have the same cachet for them if they can’t pull them out at dinner parties and serve “A 100 point wine”? in other words, is the attraction the price? The rarity (“I’m on The List”)? Or the idea of being able to pull out a 99 or 100 point wine? If it’s the latter, though, I can’t see how a 92 or 93 point score is any better than an 87 for these people.
Yes, a large segment of these people get on lists, write the check every year and show off those bottles to people. That will still be there because most of those people don’t really know which lists are full and which are looking for people. Being on the list is good enough for them. They are not scanning a board like this to judge is the next big one. They will take a recommendation from someone they trust or they will get on a list while visiting Napa. We have to remember that Napa is a HUGE tourist destination. More visitors than Disneyland every year making it #1 in California. A lot of that is in state tourism as well.
I don’t really lump point chasers into that crowd as much. There is cross over but I really think point chasers tend to be the people who are looking at wine more like a commodity than their next great bottle enjoyed. At least that has been my experience. I think this segment is dwindling along with the market.
I think an 87-point score will hurt just about any new winery that isn’t aiming at the grocery store bulk market. Not many people who pay $25+ for a bottle will buy an unknown that scores 87. If the winery can sell enough without relying on scores at all, then why are they even submitting their stuff for review? I’m not saying that NO winery could EVER survive, just that a mediocre score like that will make life more difficult.
While I don’t know for sure, I suspect you are right about this.
We have to remember that Napa is a HUGE tourist destination. More visitors than Disneyland every year making it #1 in California. A lot of that is in state tourism as well.
…
Aren’t many of these “mailing list” wineries not open to the public? (i.e.: your average Napa tourist is not going to taste at their winery, and therefore is not going to sign-up for the list). Maybe I’m way off-base on this, but I’m under the impression that most of the kind of Napa wineries being discussed at this point of this thread require an appointment to taste there at all, and I wouldn’t think many non-wine geeks go out of their way to make such appointments before visiting Napa (after all, one has to know about the winery before one makes an appointment at the winery).
Maybe. But I was talking about a general group of consumers that are not concerned with whether or not a list is hot and probably don’t care about scores. Those people represent a LOT of sales for Napa. A lot of those people visit Napa once a year, visit wineries and get on lists. Maybe they find out about other lists from their neighbor or friend or from someone they meet in Napa. I think we are really getting into slicing hairs here in the context of the points I was making.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Now all I can get it in is a jug