My Wine Adventure at Moët & Chandon

A few years ago I visited the esteemed Moët & Chandon Champagne cellars in Epernay with a wine travel company called Wine Lovers Tours (a great company—check them out at http://www.vintagetours.com)/. Our group of about 20 people was in the middle of a fascinating private tour of the cellars. I was busily taking artsy-fartsy photos of the dusty bottles in the dark and deep vaulted chambers of this 33-mile labyrinth, when I turned around and realized that I was all alone.

I ran to a fro looking and listening or my group. I heard a sound and ran toward it. I came face to face with a cellar rat (the human kind) on a forklift. In my panic I couldn’t think of the right words in French to communicate my plight to the man. He looked amused and on his forklift began to chase me around a large stone pillar. As I tried to avoid being run over, I pleaded in English with the man to help me find my group. He just shrugged and motioned for me to go up a steep flight of stairs that I had not noticed before.
I ran up the stairs and found myself back in the reception area where we had begun our tour. It was only later, after I was reunited with my group and we completed the tour, that I realized what an amazing opportunity I had passed up. I could have stayed “lost” in the Moët & Chandon cellars with all of that wonderful Champagne until someone in the group noticed that I was missing. I doubt that the few bottles I could have consumed would have been missed!

Wine faults are subjective?

Earlier this week I attended a Burgundy tasting and dinner led by Allen Meadows, "Mr. Burghound." We tasted Burgundy wines all from the 2005 vintage, 8 wines before dinner and 3 with dinner. During the tasting portion of the program, Allen was talking about Brett, and how he enjoys some wines with "a little Brett," but that too much causes the wine to taste metallic, and he doesn't enjoy that. He went on to ask rhetorically, "Aren't all faults subjective?" This was part of his larger discussion about how wine tasting is subjective, and he tried to make the point that just as how we perceive the flavor of wine is subjective, so too is how we perceive wine faults.

I heartily disagree with this premise. While I do believe that so much of our perception of the flavors and aromas of wine is subjective, I think a faulty wine is faulty and there is nothing subjective about it. It is only the degree to which the fault is perceived from person to person that varies. For example, I am highly sensitive to TCA in wine ("corked wine"), so when I smell a wine that is corked, I smell the TCA and not much else. When a person less sensitive to TCA smells a corked wine, that person may only perceive that the wine smells flat and lacks aroma. The person is not perceiving the TCA, only the effects of the TCA on the wine. The TCA masks the other aromas and flavors of the wine.

On the other hand, Brett (Brettanomyces, a wild yeast that reacts with the chlorine with which corks are sterilized), has an additive effect on the wine. It adds aromas to the wine while leaving intact or even enhancing the other aromas. Indeed, some wine lovers feel that a certain amount of the "earthy," "barnyard" aromas of Brett are desirable in a wine, especially in Old World wines such as those from the Rhone Valley or Burgundy. But that does not mean that we perceive the Brett differently; it means that the degree to which we perceive the Brett and how we feel about it varies.

So how is this different from the subjective way in which we perceive a wine? Perhaps the best way to explain the difference is to use the explanation I give to "newbie" wine drinkers when they ask me, "How do you taste all the different flavors, like cherry and raspberry and currant, in a wine? Isn't that what wine tasting is all about, being able to discern the different flavors?" My response is no, even after tasting thousands of different wines, "wine tastes like wine to me. I don't try to figure out if I'm tasting cherry or raspberry or currant." I taste the wine and decide whether it's balanced, has good structure, is varietally or stylistically correct, and of course, whether it has any technical faults like TCA or Brett.

Do you agree with Allen Meadows that wine faults are subjective, or do you agree with me that they are not?

Wine Epiphany

Each of us wine lovers has had at least one "Wine Epiphany," where you suddenly "get" what wine is all about. For me, it was on Thursday, March 9, 1989, at Jean-Louis at the Watergate in Washington, DC. It was the "Graves Tasting Tour & Dinner with Jean-Louis" sponsored by Les Amis du Vin (the storied wine tasting group that warrants a post all its own!).

For those of you who don't know Jean-Louis Palladin, here's a little background from the Jean-Louis Palladin Foundation:

"In 1974, at 28 yrs old, Jean-Louis won 2 Michelin stars for his restaurant Tables Des Cordeliers in Gascony, France. At the time he was the youngest chef to have won 2 stars.

Always seeking a new challenge, in 1979 he came to America to open Jean-Louis at The Watergate, in the Watergate Hotel, Washington, DC.

He found little that was similar to the ingredients he knew in France and certainly few well trained cooks and servers. He plowed ahead with passion and fortitude."

The dinner was eight courses, paired with sixteen wines, all from the Graves region. My memory tells me they were all white wines, but it was so long ago and I was so new to wine that I am probably mistaken (if anybody reading this was at the dinner, please let me know). I have the menu and the actual fax registration form for the dinner, but of course there is no mention of the style of the wines, red or white.

The price was $160! A king's ransom for me at the time (and still rather pricey). But if the dinner were held today, I would guess it would cost at least $350. At the time I was a young database administrator, working at Coopers & Lybrand at an annual salary of $18K. The suggested attire was formal, and the dinner was limited to 60 people. We sat at round tables for 8, as I recall, and seated at each table was a representative from one of the chateaux. I was seated next to the representative of Domaine de Chevalier. He was about 60 years old and spoke no English, and my French was and is limited. But he was charming and was charmed, I think, by me.

The entire meal was sublime. Anybody who had the pleasure of tasting Jean-Louis' culinary creations will understand what I mean when I say that it was the best meal I had ever had up until that time, and even now it ranks in my memory among my top ten best meals.

But the one course that I still remember to this day is the sixth course:

Milk-fed Leg of Lamb in essence of Black Olives, Celery Root Mousseline
paired with Domaine de Chevalier 1976 and Chateau Haut-Bailly 1979

It's not the Leg of Lamb that I recall. No, when I tasted the silky, earthy, rich celery root puree paired with the herbaceous, flinty Domaine de Chevalier, it was truly an epiphany for me. It was at that moment that I truly understood what wine is all about. It's not about having an alcoholic beverage, it's not about having something to wash down your meal with, it's not even about how good a wine can be on its own. No, at that moment I understood that wine is meant to enhance a meal, and no matter how good a meal is, it's not complete without wine.

I believe that one experience has to this day influenced my approach to selecting from a restaurant menu. Before I even look at the menu, I study the wine list and see if there's anything interesting that I want to try. Then I look at the menu to find something that will go well with the wine. But I'm not really interested in whether there is steak or fish or lamb or chicken on the menu. No, for me the most interesting part of the menu is the side dishes, sauces and accompaniments. I look for polenta, mushrooms, grits, lentils, sweet potato, scalloped potatoes, risotto, barley, turnips, parsnips, beets...or celery root puree. I go back and forth from the wine list to the menu, until I find the "perfect" pairing.

So, that's my Wine Epiphany. Do you want to share yours?

Tasting etiquette at large, crowded walk-around tastings

I attend many so-called "walk-around" tastings and there are a few things that really annoy me about this type of event. This is one of my pet peeves: People who get a sample of wine to taste, and then just stand there tasting the wine and chatting with the person pouring the wines. If we all did that, nobody would have a chance to taste more than a mere fraction of the wines. When you are at a tasting where there are dozens or hundreds of wines being poured, don't just stand there; get out of the way so somebody else can taste some wines. You can do your learning and evaluation of the wine away from the table.

Here's how to do it properly: walk up to the table, and when it's "your turn," get the sample of wine, find out what it is, and ask one or two very quick questions. Then say thank you and step back away from the table so somebody else can get a taste. Depending on how quickly you are tasting, you should either stand clear of any tasting tables, or stand close but not so close that somebody else can't get in the queue. When you are ready to taste again, just repeat this process.

How to deal with the table monopolizers: stand behind them, stick out your tasting glass, and shout to be heard. The ones being rude will probably look back at you as if you are the rude one. Just smile and say, "Excuse me, I'm just trying to get a sample." When you get your sample, say "Thanks" and step away. Do this often enough, and they'll get the hint. If they don't, just elbow your way in and ignore them.

And you guys who are doing the pouring of the samples, you are just as guilty. What's the proper way? Look up and acknowledge anybody who is standing on the "second line" of tasters. Pour a taste over the heads or between the shoulders of people rude enough not to step back when they have received a taste. A good "pourer" will develop a little patter on each wine, and will be able to serve many people standing around the table, not just the ones right in front.

That's my biggest complaint about this type of event. What's yours?

Picnics, parks and wine

Today I attended an invitation-only picnic at a city-owned park. I was told when I accepted the invitation that alcoholic beverages are not allowed in the park. I was disappointed, but I went anyway. It's a beautiful day, the first full day of summer, and the weather is sunny and hot. A nice chilled rosé would have gone nicely with my hot dog and tomato and olive tapenade salad.

It's legal for adults to consume alcohol in this country. Why is it OK to ban alcohol in public parks? Why is this policy not challenged? There are already enough restrictions on when and where I can consume wine (see my previous post below about MADD). Do we really need another? There are laws against public drunkenness, against driving while impaired, and many other such laws; aren't they sufficient? Why can't I have a nice serving or two of wine when I'm at a picnic or a concert in the park?

I contend that there is no need for such laws and restrictions. If somebody consumes too much alcohol and is openly and noticeably drunk, then laws are in place whereby that person can and should be arrested. But let me enjoy some light and fruity Beaujolais with my curried chicken salad while I listen to some good live music in the park. I promise you won't even notice that I'm drinking wine...

MADD attempts to outlaw social drinking

This one has me seething mad! Mothers Against Drunk Drivers has come up with a diabolic way to prevent any adult in the US from enjoying a glass of wine in a bar, with dinner at a restaurant, or at a wine tasting or wine festival. This organization will not be satisfied until anyone who has consumed any alcohol can be arrested for "driving while impaired," aka "DUI" in many states. How do they plan to do this? By getting legislation passed to make Ignition Interlock Devices mandatory on all vehicles in the US, and by getting the maximum blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) set between .02 and .04 on these devices. This means that if you have a glass of wine at a restaurant with dinner, you willl not be able to drive home because the interlock will prevent your car from starting.

Towards this end MADD, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has launched a 5-year campaign for universal interlocks. "Contracting with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS), the agency has budgeted $10,000,000 to solicit research and development on the widespread use of in-vehicle technology to prevent alcohol-impaired driving."

Why am I mad about this? Because the facts just don't support the notion that "impaired" drivers are a danger. "Since 1997, the average BAC of a driver in a fatal crash has remained relatively stable at 0.18 percent—225 percent of the legal limit." And while MADD has succeeded in getting the legal limit for BAC reduced from .10 to .08, there is no evidence that the lower BAC rate has reduced fatality rates. In fact, "while drunk driving fatalities declined over the last 30 years, speeding and distracted driving deaths have steadily increased. And now negligent driving is the main cause of deaths on American highways."

MADD is no longer interested in traffic safety. The goal of this organization has become to make "impaired driving" illegal. I say that any organization that says it is interested in traffic safety should call for mandatory speed governors and technology to disable cell phones when a car is moving. Here are some other ways that drivers are distracted while driving: using a GPS navigation system, searching for stations on satellite radio, or programming an MP3 device. Why aren't these distractions being addressed? What about people who drive while sleep-deprived? And here's a radical idea: make automatic transmissions illegal. When you drive a car with a manual transmission, like I do, you have to concentrate on what you are doing, and you have to use both hands!

I'm so mad about this that I am seriously considering founding a counter-organization. I'll call it "DAMM"--Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Will you join it?

All about wine, not wines

Welcome to the first entry in the To Your Taste! blog. Like my product, the To Your Taste!® Wine Party Kit, this blog takes a decidedly diffferent approach to wine. Here I will write about topics ranging from the neo-prohibitionist efforts of MADD to outlaw social drinking (www.interlockfacts.com) to my take on the deplorable wines served at private catered events. What I will not write about is particular wines, except to give examples when I address specific topics.

To Your Taste!