As linked in WineTerroirist, a fascinated read by AdamGopnik on RandallGrahm: Gopnik:Randall ,
sort of retelling Randall’s life in wine. It’s a pretty long article, so you’ll want to print it out & read it at your leisure…or buy the magazine.
I have, of course, followed Randall from the very start and count him as a good friend. Is mom&dad, Ruth & Allan, were two of the finest people I’ve met and have shared several meals together. I always ask about Ruth when I see him & occasionally exchange notes with her. A real live-wire.
When I listen to a presentation by Randall, I always time him to his first usage of “counter-intuitive”, one of his favorite words. His record is 3 min/17 sec here in SantaFe.
For those of you who have followed Randall, you’ll find this a very entertaining read. For those of you who haven’t, you’ll just dismiss him as a nut-case…or a very clever marketeer. That would be a mistake.
The Zinfandel grape, which came to California as a variant of the Primitivo grape of southern Italy—though the shared precursor seems to have originated in Croatia—has been cultivated here for more than a century, and has a right to be taken as California’s native grape. But, in Grahm’s view, “it’s a holiday wine. Cranberry-sauce wine. It makes a rich wine, but never a complicated one.”
I look forward to that. Gopnik is one of my favorite writers. He’s a master of analogies, like this one:
[Grahm] hopes to produce an entirely new American varietal by growing and crossing unlikely pairs of grapes from seed—which is a bit like an ambitious Yankees general manager trying to raise starting shortstops from embryos.
Actually, according to Sullivan’s book, or Darlington’s, Zin came to Calif from hot–houses on the East coast, where it cam by way of Vienna (Hapsburg Empire).
It apparently showed up in Apulia after that, probably taken back from Calif by returning Italians after the GoldRush.
Randal’s disdain of Zin has always been a bit of a puzzle to me.
Tom
Tom–It’s a good article–there’s a lot to chew on–and it does a good job of capturing Mr. Grahm’s personality and perspective.
But his first name is spelled “Randall,” with two “l’s.” Unless he changed it.
Anyway. his disdain for Zinfandel shouldn’t be surprising given his wine perspective. And he’s certainly not the only person to claim that Zinfandel tends not to be very complex (whether he’s correct is a different matter).
That was a fun article to read and stirred up different emotions.
My favorite part was the following. It seemed ironic that the “practical and analytical friend” was saying this.
“You don’t want it to be solved,” Locke urged. “What would that feel like? ‘The great wine mystery solved! Let’s move on to Cheddar cheese.’ ” He swirled and, this time, downed his glass.
I read the article. Not sure I agree with everything he says, but I give him a lot of credit for trying to come up with new grapes. Why not? It could turn out to be his greatest legacy.
I’d be shocked if anyone did. The whole notion of trying to make Burgundy in California, to borrow his phrase, seems counter-intuitive. He seems to be intentionally polarizing. I bet he’s fun and infuriating to hang out with.
He definitely has reinvented his “character” a couple of times, which is going to happen in life when you are out there on a limb, trying to single-handedly pioneer certain aspects of viticulture/winemaking.
According to Patrick Comiskey’s book, Mr Grahm set out to create “Burgundian” Pinot Noir in California, only to stumble upon awesome Rhône-inspired reds from David Bruce. His path deviated, and he ultimately became a cover model for the early “Rhône Rangers” movement.
From there, he played with a little bit of everything, until “novelty labelling” became a national phenomenon, eclipsing his own niche.
The Da Vino Commedia: Vinferno booklets gave the winemaker a chance to get some jabs in against the changing wine world. IMHO, the poetic work seemed to exhibit a hint of desperation, as if he was frustrated by the way good juice was replaced with clever bottle designs, instead of serving as a visual lure for consumers to buy a high-quality, if obscure, wine.
The sale of the Pacific Rim, Big House, Cardinal Zin, etc, brands and the subsequent “Popelouchum” project are further chapters in this powerful personality’s attempt to chase an ever-moving target. I respect his work, but I don’t know what to make of his case of “night terroirs”.
BTW, every time I read “Randall Grahm”, I have to fight off Doon & Out’s cartoon image of him standing naked in front of a mirror in a moment of tremendous self-doubt!
The backstory, allegedly, is that he was inspired to get into the business by a wine that was doing exactly that. Bought land and planted next to them. Named his winery after what they were calling their vineyard.
A question: Has anyone ever had a really great Bonny Doon wine?
I love Grahm’s experimental attitude, his passion and his sense of fun. He’s contributed a lot to the industry, I think – and to consumers. But, while I’ve had a number of good Old Telegrams and Cigare Volants over three decades, I’ve never had a Bonny Doon wine that I’d rank in the first tier of California wines.
Yup, John…his BienNacido Syrah.
He (and Bob Lindquist) pretty much take all the Syrah from X-Block, 2’nd oldest planting of Syrah in SBC.
I’ve had several over the last 10 yrs that I would rank as good as any Syrah in Calif.
Ooops…just noticed that the 2014 is his last vintage from X-Block. But he has several vintages available on his Site at $50.00. Worth it, I think.
Tom
Prompted by this thread, I watched a couple of interviews with him. I was interested to hear him say in this 2011 interview (starting around 2:50) that he came to a point where he felt Bonny Doon had gotten too big and that none of the wines he was making really mattered, and that he wanted to return to his roots and try to make those wines.
This, 100%. I love Randall’s writing and thinking, but I have never had a Bonny Doon wine that really impressed me. Of course there is the usual issue that if you aren’t that into a winery you tend not to drink it too much so you may miss the great wines they did make. So I’ll freely admit that I probably haven’t had enough Bonny Doon to make any comprehensive judgement.
Read the article. Adam Gopnik is a great writer, but not sure how much there is there. I find Graham’s insistence on dismissing everything done in California to be irritating to say the least. You can’t just wave your hands and deny the importance of Zinfandel. And while I agree that Napa is generally speaking inferior to French wines in terms of interest and complexity with age (had numerous experiences of tasting Bordeaux up against very good Napas that confirm that), there have still been some plenty of very good ageworthy wines made in Napa. I had a 1992 Togni last summer that was definitively California but that was easily competitive with high level aged Bordeaux in terms of complexity, subtlety, and interest.
Really, there is a giant, weird contradiction in constantly saying that France is a unique expression of culture and place but you want to reproduce it in California.
I did end up loving that guy Locke who is quoted in the article though. He came off better than Graham in some ways, who seemed kind of mopey. This was hilarious:
“Chablis, champagne, Sancerre—minerality is chalk.” Locke tasted, and then said, “That’s my second most hated word in the wine world right now, ‘minerality.’ ” He paused, and waited. “My most hated is ‘Burgundian.’ ‘Minerality’ means something. Maybe. ‘Burgundian’ means: something to sell.”
