Smoke Taint 2020 Northern California.

[Ben_M_a_n_d_l_e_r]

I believe Williams Selyem is also releasing several reds in a few weeks. The wines could be great, but it is interesting some producers didn’t feel they could put out pretty much any 2020 Sonoma Pinots and others are able to put out quite a few.

Pick dates vary so much both by site and by producer in Sonoma County. Williams Selyem pick some of their sites very early - the later picks come from the more coastal vineyards, which I believe is why those are the ones they decided not to go ahead with in 2020.

[JulianD]

edit-

[Peter_Shurman]

I’ve been a Sojourn fan and buyer for years. If that highlighted information in their brochure was included in their allocation email, I believe they would not have been mentioned in this thread.

[Rich_K0rz_nk0]

I’ve been a Sojourn fan and buyer for years. If that highlighted information in their brochure was included in their allocation email, I believe they would not have been mentioned in this thread.

Yuppers, that would have helped. I just got that same mailer today and the insight would have better been coupled with the allocation email earlier on. Spot on.

Rich, have you contacted them and asked? Might as well go to the source. Just a thought .

And Bruce, yes, that happened indirectly. A friend, also a long time buyer, had reached out to them and he shared what Sojourn replied with. It was the same as the newsletter, just buried, and supposedly sent out prior. I could not find it for the life of me within my inbox. I got busy neglecting to reply back to this thread. Your recommendation was very appropriate. Concurrently I happened to post my question out of curiosity if others knew more of their situation. Regardless, I did end up buying a case a day later after.

[JDavisRoby]

People may want to listen to the Bedrock Wine Co podcasts where MTP discusses all the testing they went through with their wines, including testing other vintages to get baselines.

Sure it’s still a developing area, but it’s not like everyone is guessing.

Do you recall which podcast episode this was? Would like to try and listen prior to Tuesday’s release.

[David_Bu3ker]

People may want to listen to the Bedrock Wine Co podcasts where MTP discusses all the testing they went through with their wines, including testing other vintages to get baselines.

Sure it’s still a developing area, but it’s not like everyone is guessing.

Do you recall which podcast episode this was? Would like to try and listen prior to Tuesday’s release.

It was the release podcast prior to this one.

[Sean_Corbett]

Remember - there does seem to be more of a push with 2020 to ‘characterize’ the smoky quality as a positive compared to 2017.

This happens a lot in the Okanagan as well, where forest fires mar seemingly 2 out of 3 vintages.

Tasting room staff and owners (and sometimes winemakers) often try that “toasted barrels” line, which is amusing since it seems they are constantly changing the amount of toast on their barrels to perfectly line up with smoky seasons. On top of that labs start telling owners things like “no discernible smoke taint”. I had an owner tell me that in front of the winemaker (who happens to be his daughter) and I said “I wouldn’t go back to that lab if I were you cos that wine was smoke tainted” and his daughter immediately said “yeah dad, it’s definitely a bit smoky.”

Do you get any of that ash tray character on any of those? That’s the killer. If it’s low level taint that shows the same as some barrel character, that gets into the preference zone.

I’ve had smoke tainted wines in blind tastings that the majority of tasters didn’t think was tainted. (But, um, I just called the vintage correctly because of the taint plus the varietal and regional character.)

Agree that lab is incompetent if they tell wineries that. They are testing for the right compounds, plus they’re drawing a false (self-evident) conclusion by being unconcerned with the benchmark unaffected level of guaiacol would be, for comparison.

Here’s an overview people may find helpful:
https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Sensory-impact-of-smoke-exposure.pdf

If you want to go deeper:
https://www.awri.com.au/industry_support/winemaking_resources/smoke-taint/

Interesting they don’t mention “peaty” as a descriptor, as I’ve gotten that in some wines (and seen/heard many others mention it). It directly recalls that (ugh) style of Scotch. Instead, they use the more general “medicinal”. In the extreme they mention “band-aid”, which I’ve gotten in some more extreme peaty Scotches. Bleh.

Note they use a 50% sensitivty marker for their threshold numbers, so that’s the point half of people discern taint and half don’t. They stress individuals vary greatly. So, that benchmark is good for study’s sake, but a winery would want to be much less lenient than that in anything they deem worthy of release, I’d think.

They note the different taint compounds have a cumulative effect, so you should be able to derive an overall sensitivity threshold for a wine, using all the precursor compounds plus the present ones. From that, one could come up with an actual number for what percent of the population would be able to detect smoke taint in a given wine once all the taint compounds are released. Then present that to consumers. So, if you know 5% of people will pick up taint in a wine, that can guide if you want to buy it or not.

Pardon the late reply; just seeing this.

Yes, dirty ashtray and burnt food is what is coming through. Gross.

To add insult to injury, I have had winemakers tell me that the spectrum of smoke taint and brett is the same. I may be poorly communicating this concept, but my takeaway is that – chemically – brett and smoke taint are hard to differentiate (their thrust, not mine).

Which, to me, is like saying a bowel movement and physical abuse are on the same spectrum. We may not be able to define it, but some of us can taste it. Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin’ taste buds (and nose)???

---

Among the importers up here in Canada, the word is “better buy such-and-such American wine cos they won’t release a 2020.” Which is actually refreshing and worthy of respect. Because the vast majority of wineries in BC just release and make excuses.

And the pitch is “well they can’t afford to not release a vintage.”

Well, how nice for the consumers and taxpayers to float them.

So for you Oregon, Washington, and California wineries not releasing the smoke-tainted years, I want to say at least SOME of us consumers will happily buy double of the clean vintages to make up for it. I realize that doesn’t totally solve the problem, and you’ll have to lean on marketing communication to bridge the gap, but know that it is very appreciated by those who plan to buy in the long run.

[Roy_Piper]

Having attended the Napa Premier Auction two weeks ago, the only thing I can say for sure is that bidders did not seem to notice… or care. That was a surprise to me. A third of the wines were 2020 reds, a third were 2021s and a third 2019s. No one was talking about taint. Except the winemakers. That does not mean there is not any. Just that a lot of people did not seem to think twice about it. I was surprised by that. But I think those worrying no one will buy them might be proven wrong.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

This happens a lot in the Okanagan as well, where forest fires mar seemingly 2 out of 3 vintages.

Tasting room staff and owners (and sometimes winemakers) often try that “toasted barrels” line, which is amusing since it seems they are constantly changing the amount of toast on their barrels to perfectly line up with smoky seasons. On top of that labs start telling owners things like “no discernible smoke taint”. I had an owner tell me that in front of the winemaker (who happens to be his daughter) and I said “I wouldn’t go back to that lab if I were you cos that wine was smoke tainted” and his daughter immediately said “yeah dad, it’s definitely a bit smoky.”

Do you get any of that ash tray character on any of those? That’s the killer. If it’s low level taint that shows the same as some barrel character, that gets into the preference zone.

I’ve had smoke tainted wines in blind tastings that the majority of tasters didn’t think was tainted. (But, um, I just called the vintage correctly because of the taint plus the varietal and regional character.)

Agree that lab is incompetent if they tell wineries that. They are testing for the right compounds, plus they’re drawing a false (self-evident) conclusion by being unconcerned with the benchmark unaffected level of guaiacol would be, for comparison.

Here’s an overview people may find helpful:
https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Sensory-impact-of-smoke-exposure.pdf

If you want to go deeper:
https://www.awri.com.au/industry_support/winemaking_resources/smoke-taint/

Interesting they don’t mention “peaty” as a descriptor, as I’ve gotten that in some wines (and seen/heard many others mention it). It directly recalls that (ugh) style of Scotch. Instead, they use the more general “medicinal”. In the extreme they mention “band-aid”, which I’ve gotten in some more extreme peaty Scotches. Bleh.

Note they use a 50% sensitivty marker for their threshold numbers, so that’s the point half of people discern taint and half don’t. They stress individuals vary greatly. So, that benchmark is good for study’s sake, but a winery would want to be much less lenient than that in anything they deem worthy of release, I’d think.

They note the different taint compounds have a cumulative effect, so you should be able to derive an overall sensitivity threshold for a wine, using all the precursor compounds plus the present ones. From that, one could come up with an actual number for what percent of the population would be able to detect smoke taint in a given wine once all the taint compounds are released. Then present that to consumers. So, if you know 5% of people will pick up taint in a wine, that can guide if you want to buy it or not.

Pardon the late reply; just seeing this.

Yes, dirty ashtray and burnt food is what is coming through. Gross.

To add insult to injury, I have had winemakers tell me that the spectrum of smoke taint and brett is the same. I may be poorly communicating this concept, but my takeaway is that – chemically – brett and smoke taint are hard to differentiate (their thrust, not mine).

Which, to me, is like saying a bowel movement and rape are on the same spectrum. We may not be able to define it, but some of us can taste it. Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin’ taste buds (and nose)???

---

Among the importers up here in Canada, the word is “better buy such-and-such American wine cos they won’t release a 2020.” Which is actually refreshing and worthy of respect. Because the vast majority of wineries in BC just release and make excuses.

And the pitch is “well they can’t afford to not release a vintage.”

Well, how nice for the consumers and taxpayers to float them.

So for you Oregon, Washington, and California wineries not releasing the smoke-tainted years, I want to say at least SOME of us consumers will happily buy double of the clean vintages to make up for it. I realize that doesn’t totally solve the problem, and you’ll have to lean on marketing communication to bridge the gap, but know that it is very appreciated by those who plan to buy in the long run.

Double at a 50% price increase, correct?

You should support who you want to, and buy what you’re interested in(and don’t buy what you don’t want to) but flippantly talking about people who are paying for a years worth of production, and probably losing a years worth of income, especially 3 years out of 5, these days(after investing in all of the infrastructure of a winery) shows a complete lack of understanding of what these people are going through.

It’s strange to see how many wineries had compassion for what restaurants went through with quarantine, and then see somm memes mocking wines with fire damage.

I doubt that I am bridging the gap on marketing “communication”…last time I checked my growers, suppliers, etc. all preferred real money.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

Having attended the Napa Premier Auction two weeks ago, the only thing I can say for sure is that bidders did not seem to notice… or care. That was a surprise to me. A third of the wines were 2020 reds, a third were 2021s and a third 2019s. No one was talking about taint. Except the winemakers. That does not mean there is not any. Just that a lot of people did not seem to think twice about it. I was surprised by that. But I think those worrying no one will buy them might be proven wrong.

I’ve been quite surprised to see some consumers don’t seem to mind wines with smoke. Dining out with non-wine industry friends, they’ll order 2020s btg and not bat an eye at wines I felt had some noticeable taint(while still not being the worst WV Pinot Noir I’ve ever had).

I’m not suggesting Berserkers should do the same, but a number of friends who released 2020s already have sold through most of it. Those consumers help bridge the gap for wineries that can’t afford to skip a vintage.

[Wes_Barton]

One winemaker friend was talking about a wine with low level taint that didn’t show any of the obvious markers, and tasted good, but just not “right”. “Another winemaker want it and I didn’t want to release that shit.” Easy choice. One gets a good wine to release that customers will enjoy and doesn’t show obvious taint. The other gets to avoid a loss and avoid releasing a wine that doesn’t show true.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

One winemaker friend was talking about a wine with low level taint that didn’t show any of the obvious markers, and tasted good, but just not “right”. “Another winemaker want it and I didn’t want to release that shit.” Easy choice. One gets a good wine to release that customers will enjoy and doesn’t show obvious taint. The other gets to avoid a loss and avoid releasing a wine that doesn’t show true.

I’d love to know the typical pricing structure of both of them?

But yes, that is the type of solution that businesses require.

Perhaps Mike Tyson’s most famous quote, “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face”. Funny how well that quote fits this situation/issue.

I have no disrespect for anyone who folded their hand and walked away. I definitely respect people like Jim Anderson beginning a whisky project on the fly(no mean feat), and, as I enjoy Mezcal, I definitely was/am considering distilling some of our barrels where the smokey nose is enjoyable and the palate is not. But most of all, I respect those who are finding ways to make something work. This is a lot like the vinous version of getting in the ring with Tyson in his youth. And if you can endure it, you deserve respect(IMO).

[Wes_Barton]

One winemaker friend was talking about a wine with low level taint that didn’t show any of the obvious markers, and tasted good, but just not “right”. “Another winemaker want it and I didn’t want to release that shit.” Easy choice. One gets a good wine to release that customers will enjoy and doesn’t show obvious taint. The other gets to avoid a loss and avoid releasing a wine that doesn’t show true.

I’d love to know the typical pricing structure of both of them?

No idea what the wine was, and that’s not the sort of thing that would’ve been disclosed. I’d assume the buyer is not disclosing the vineyard, so pricing and labeling it as an AVA wine, not SVD.

[Gary_Schulte]

A good friend at UC Santa Cruz recently published on the chemistry of smoke taint. Professor Phil Crews, who owns a winery in Santa Cruz, decided to use his organic and analytical chemistry experience to explore smoke taint chemistry in California and Oregon grapes/wines using the AWRI methods mentioned in the Aussie smoke taint studies.
Study is here … https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.2c00028 .

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

One winemaker friend was talking about a wine with low level taint that didn’t show any of the obvious markers, and tasted good, but just not “right”. “Another winemaker want it and I didn’t want to release that shit.” Easy choice. One gets a good wine to release that customers will enjoy and doesn’t show obvious taint. The other gets to avoid a loss and avoid releasing a wine that doesn’t show true.

I’d love to know the typical pricing structure of both of them?

No idea what the wine was, and that’s not the sort of thing that would’ve been disclosed. I’d assume the buyer is not disclosing the vineyard, so pricing and labeling it as an AVA wine, not SVD.

Sorry Wes, I should have been more clear. I wonder what their typical price structures are across all their wines, not the one in question.

A winery selling high end wines has both more to lose by releasing smoke affected wines and more opportunity to recoup losses to smoke.

[Marcus_Goodfellow]

A good friend at UC Santa Cruz recently published on the chemistry of smoke taint. Professor Phil Crews, who owns a winery in Santa Cruz, decided to use his organic and analytical chemistry experience to explore smoke taint chemistry in California and Oregon grapes/wines using the AWRI methods mentioned in the Aussie smoke taint studies.
Study is here … https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.2c00028 .

Interesting paper for sure, thanks for posting it.

[Al_Osterheld]

A lot of us in Northern California had our first broad experience with smoke taint in 2008 with Anderson Valley Pinot. But, it wasn’t confined to Anderson Valley in 2008 and I’ve run across smoke tainted wines in subsequent vintages that weren’t cited as smoke taint years, so it was probably around at some level earlier (from more localized fires).

Our experience in 2008 was that there were people who really weren’t very sensitive (as with any aroma or flavor) and others who could detect it but liked it. Most winemakers and winery workers pretty much hated it, though. Another approach some wineries used with mildly tainted wine was to blend with wine from another area and sell at a lower price, maybe under a different label. Still a big hit to the finances, though.

-Al

[Sean_Corbett]

Do you get any of that ash tray character on any of those? That’s the killer. If it’s low level taint that shows the same as some barrel character, that gets into the preference zone.

I’ve had smoke tainted wines in blind tastings that the majority of tasters didn’t think was tainted. (But, um, I just called the vintage correctly because of the taint plus the varietal and regional character.)

Agree that lab is incompetent if they tell wineries that. They are testing for the right compounds, plus they’re drawing a false (self-evident) conclusion by being unconcerned with the benchmark unaffected level of guaiacol would be, for comparison.

Here’s an overview people may find helpful:
https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Sensory-impact-of-smoke-exposure.pdf

If you want to go deeper:
https://www.awri.com.au/industry_support/winemaking_resources/smoke-taint/

Interesting they don’t mention “peaty” as a descriptor, as I’ve gotten that in some wines (and seen/heard many others mention it). It directly recalls that (ugh) style of Scotch. Instead, they use the more general “medicinal”. In the extreme they mention “band-aid”, which I’ve gotten in some more extreme peaty Scotches. Bleh.

Note they use a 50% sensitivty marker for their threshold numbers, so that’s the point half of people discern taint and half don’t. They stress individuals vary greatly. So, that benchmark is good for study’s sake, but a winery would want to be much less lenient than that in anything they deem worthy of release, I’d think.

They note the different taint compounds have a cumulative effect, so you should be able to derive an overall sensitivity threshold for a wine, using all the precursor compounds plus the present ones. From that, one could come up with an actual number for what percent of the population would be able to detect smoke taint in a given wine once all the taint compounds are released. Then present that to consumers. So, if you know 5% of people will pick up taint in a wine, that can guide if you want to buy it or not.

Pardon the late reply; just seeing this.

Yes, dirty ashtray and burnt food is what is coming through. Gross.

To add insult to injury, I have had winemakers tell me that the spectrum of smoke taint and brett is the same. I may be poorly communicating this concept, but my takeaway is that – chemically – brett and smoke taint are hard to differentiate (their thrust, not mine).

Which, to me, is like saying a bowel movement and rape are on the same spectrum. We may not be able to define it, but some of us can taste it. Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin’ taste buds (and nose)???

---

Among the importers up here in Canada, the word is “better buy such-and-such American wine cos they won’t release a 2020.” Which is actually refreshing and worthy of respect. Because the vast majority of wineries in BC just release and make excuses.

And the pitch is “well they can’t afford to not release a vintage.”

Well, how nice for the consumers and taxpayers to float them.

So for you Oregon, Washington, and California wineries not releasing the smoke-tainted years, I want to say at least SOME of us consumers will happily buy double of the clean vintages to make up for it. I realize that doesn’t totally solve the problem, and you’ll have to lean on marketing communication to bridge the gap, but know that it is very appreciated by those who plan to buy in the long run.

Double at a 50% price increase, correct?

You should support who you want to, and buy what you’re interested in(and don’t buy what you don’t want to) but flippantly talking about people who are paying for a years worth of production, and probably losing a years worth of income, especially 3 years out of 5, these days(after investing in all of the infrastructure of a winery) shows a complete lack of understanding of what these people are going through.

It’s strange to see how many wineries had compassion for what restaurants went through with quarantine, and then see somm memes mocking wines with fire damage.

I doubt that I am bridging the gap on marketing “communication”…last time I checked my growers, suppliers, etc. all preferred real money.

Clever.

Would you like to float my business during the fallow seasons, or does your largesse only apply to the wine trade?

Last time I checked, wine drinkers prefer product that is not flawed. Is it the consumer’s fault if someone enters the industry ignoring the caprices of nature and being under-financed?

[Brian_Tuite]

Pardon the late reply; just seeing this.

Yes, dirty ashtray and burnt food is what is coming through. Gross.

To add insult to injury, I have had winemakers tell me that the spectrum of smoke taint and brett is the same. I may be poorly communicating this concept, but my takeaway is that – chemically – brett and smoke taint are hard to differentiate (their thrust, not mine).

Which, to me, is like saying a bowel movement and rape are on the same spectrum. We may not be able to define it, but some of us can taste it. Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin’ taste buds (and nose)???

---

Among the importers up here in Canada, the word is “better buy such-and-such American wine cos they won’t release a 2020.” Which is actually refreshing and worthy of respect. Because the vast majority of wineries in BC just release and make excuses.

And the pitch is “well they can’t afford to not release a vintage.”

Well, how nice for the consumers and taxpayers to float them.

So for you Oregon, Washington, and California wineries not releasing the smoke-tainted years, I want to say at least SOME of us consumers will happily buy double of the clean vintages to make up for it. I realize that doesn’t totally solve the problem, and you’ll have to lean on marketing communication to bridge the gap, but know that it is very appreciated by those who plan to buy in the long run.

Double at a 50% price increase, correct?

You should support who you want to, and buy what you’re interested in(and don’t buy what you don’t want to) but flippantly talking about people who are paying for a years worth of production, and probably losing a years worth of income, especially 3 years out of 5, these days(after investing in all of the infrastructure of a winery) shows a complete lack of understanding of what these people are going through.

It’s strange to see how many wineries had compassion for what restaurants went through with quarantine, and then see somm memes mocking wines with fire damage.

I doubt that I am bridging the gap on marketing “communication”…last time I checked my growers, suppliers, etc. all preferred real money.

Clever.

Would you like to float my business during the fallow seasons, or does your largesse only apply to the wine trade?

Last time I checked, wine drinkers prefer product that is not flawed. Is it the consumer’s fault if someone enters the industry ignoring the caprices of nature and being under-financed?

Are you always a prick or do you just play one on the internet?

[S_Rose]

WHAT. THE. HELL.
Using rape as an analogy?! Classy /s

(It’s in one of the embedded quoted comments)