WS Harvey Steiman on CA wine styles

Maybe I just woke on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but when I read the recent blog from Harvey Steiman on the wines at IPOB, I had steam coming out of my ears. Rather than debate the name of the event (unfortunate I agree), I am focused on the content and style commentary in Harvey’s blog. Since the article requires a subscription to the WS website, I realize that not everyone can read it but the title is “On balance it’s not so easy”. Here is a link - On Balance, It's Not So Easy | Wine Spectator

Here are a few of Harvey’s quotes in bold (amended with my thoughts):
“It is not lost on the balance mongers that they are struggling against a tide.” Sorry but that tide receded years ago…

“In the IPOB tasting, I kept looking for the kind of flavor intensity, texture and depth that I seek in Pinot Noir. I searched for Chardonnays that offered more than a tart pucker and some flavor complexity.”
I guess “complexity” is somehow linked to the number of tropical fruit flavors rather than any soil driven nuance?

“much of what I tasted simply lacked depth and persistence, attributes I believe wines must show to be considered outstanding.”
I really can’t imagine someone outside the Napanoma echo chamber thinking these wines lack “depth and persistence”. Compared to just about any other world region’s wines they are concentrated and intense.

“Ripe flavors are easier to drink, even if they often come with higher alcohols and lower acid levels.”
This may accurately reflect Harvey’s palate but for many of us the bitter burn of vodka accentuated by sharp Kool aid-like tartaric additions is much harder to drink.

My overall reaction was basic shock that a wine writer with a national platform could be so out of touch…

That’s what you get for reading WS!

Given that we’ve copiously trashed Harvey in one of the Oregon pinot threads I don’t think there’s much more to say here . . . except that I’m not the least bit surprised.

Most disappointing is his constant use of straw men. He resents the notion that rich wines can’t be balanced. Who ever said they can’t? What Harvey doesn’t understand, it seems, is that the IPOB crowd tends to find balance much less often in heavier wines; folks like Harvey like the heavy stuff, so they rationalize that those wines are all balanced.

And balance is, of course, a subjective term and different for everyone. So I agree with Kevin that the name is unfortunate.

But Harvey’s post reflects a dismissive attitude from the start, and by erecting straw men about the movement, I fear he’s not listening to what its adherents are saying.

He is speaking for the masses. The rest of us are still among the minority.

That statement forced me to reset.

I’m shocked, shocked to find that Steinman can so keenly perceive the flaws of Cali’s IPOB Pinots.

RT

I don’t think he’s speaking for the masses any more. I think he was speaking for the masses in 2002-2007. But around that time the market for huge aussie junkers fell out. Right about that time a few california producers starting easing back on malo and new oak in whites. Winemakers at places like Kistler even started to tone down the size and weight of their wines. Cooler Sonoma appelations began to grow more popular. The market began to drive a trend, and that trend is overtaking the market. When producers of famously huge wines like Kosta Browne and Kistler began to shift to a slightly more restrained style, the market tide has changed. Those producers were THE leaders of the massive wine = excellence group.

Harvey is a disservice to wine critics. He is the Big Jay Miller of wine spectator. Bigger is better, and there is little room for acceptance different styles. It’s shocking that he can cover Oregon given his take on many of the wines presented at IPOB. It also strikes me as odd that he’s issued some of the gross generalizations above, since he routinely encounters acid and low ABV on his tasting beats. It seems, though, that he’s arguing something along the lines of, if it doesn’t club you over the head with rich, bold flavors, then it isn’t a complex or complete wine. A sad take from an experienced critic.

(very ripe fruit) + (lots of wood flavor) = high HS Score

It’s true though

He was tasting different wines than I did. I remarked to a few people that if you told me even a year ago that I would walk into a room and taste so many CA wines of such high quality and interest, I would have laughed in your face.

My only complaint would be that there was a “sameness” to the wines, but that could be because many of the vineyards are still young and the group has a lot of overlap in sourcing. That shouldn’t take away from the fact that the overall quality level was very, very high. I didn’t taste everything, but there wasn’t a single dog.

The market for elegance and balance is still smaller than the market for flavored vodka substitutes.

I don’t have a subscription, so can’t read the article, but the above comments on Steiman’s palate preferences seem correct. So what would James Laube say about these wines? Same thing, I suspect. I think those who taste CA wines in search of site-derived nuance are still a minority… so Kevin, when you say “that tide receded years ago”, I disagree. The mainstream has not changed so much, IMO, although there certainly have been gains among the minority. Just my $0.02.

Funny, Kevin, but my overall reaction is basic shock that, in a country where 20% of the adults account for 91% of the wine consumed, you as a winery owner find it beneficial to describe wines that you don’t care for as “the bitter burn of vodka accentuated by sharp Kool aid-like tartaric additions.” Isn’t that pretty short-sighted and harmful to the very business we all participate in? Take Harvey to task all you want for his other comments, but being egregiously insulting to other wines doesn’t lend credence, IMO, to your comments.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

Old people cant taste subtle flavors? [smileyvault-ban.gif]

You guys are making Howard Cooper look bad with all the vodka Kool Aid comments.

neener

Yes, “balance” strikes me as an odd rallying cry here. It is possible to “balance” high alcohol with huge fruit, but the result tastes bad, so who cares about balance? Likewise, there are plenty of balanced wines with lighter-style aspirations that come from unremarkable sites, so I don’t care if the result is “Burgundian” if it’s Burgundian in the sense of a $60 generic AOC Bourgogne rouge.

The rest of Steiman’s quoted comments are just manifestly dumb. “the kind of flavor intensity, texture and depth that I seek in Pinot Noir.” He gets paid to write stuff like this? What “kind of flavor intensity, texture and depth” do you seek in pinot noir? Maybe it would behoove you to spell that out so people can evaluate whether you’re worth paying attention to.

Kevin, you forgot the best part of the blog post, Steiman’s coining of a new term Balancians to describe the anti-vodka koolaid crowd, as if they were some sort of alien species.

To most of us perhaps. To a shockingly large number of people who view wine as a status cocktail the results are different.

Evan,
I’m not sure I agree w/ your comments about Harvey’s article. Based on what Kevin posted…I can’t read the original article.
First, the IPoB movement (if you call it that), was (by & large) a RajParr movement seeking wines (mostly Pinot/Chard…Parr’s sorta passion) when he banned Calif Pinots
from his wine list based solely on their being above 14% alcohol. He got plenty of heat over that choice because most people thought (and rightfully so) that it was way too simplistic
to base that choice simply on a number on the label. So he changed tack…and said it wasn’t only about the alcohol, but it was (now) about the balance…which he,
and some others, feel is closely correlated w/ the alcohol level. In fact, when they chose the wine’s for this yr’s IPoB tasting, their manifesto made it clear that the choice was not only
about the alcohol. Fair enough. But basing it on “balance” presents a much more nebulous target and who on gawd’s green earth would be against “balance” in their wines??
I think that we all pretty much agree that you can find balance in a Pinot (or whatever) that is above 14%. Even 15% I would claim. I didn’t get that from Kevin’s excerpts that Harvey
stated, or implied, that all “heavy” wines are balanced. Or that Harvey claims that none (or few) of the IPoB wines.
To my taste, I oftentimes find some (not all) of the lower alcohol wines, presumably “wines of balance”, are woefully out of balance. They occasionally/sometimes have a strident/screechy acidity
on the palate (which I don’t particularly object to…I like Chablis…and I think they will age well) that I wouldn’t call in “balance”. They occasionally/sometimes have a vapid/eviscerated flavor on the palate
that I find a bit boring…though maybe in “balance”.
A month ago, we tasted a bunch of Calif Pinots. I pontificated (as I am wont to do) in the BP:

  1. These first seven Pinots were selected because thay are the poster children for the In Pursuit of Balance crowd.
    At least based on their alcohol levels. Which, we are told, is not the sole criteria for selection of the IPoB
    crowd. Save for the A-R, I liked these first seven Pinots and thought them rather pretty wines. “Balanced”…
    yeah, I guess you could call them that. But after I tasted thru them, I just had this vaguely unsatisfied
    feeling that I’d like a bit more richness and impact on the palate. Maybe w/ more age, they’ll develop some
    interesting aromatics that will make up for that. Certainly the balance should carry all of them out another 3-6 yrs.
    But I’m not at all sure how they will evolve.

In fact, my favorite wine of the tasting was a BryanHarrington Pinot that clocked in at a (whopping) 14.2%. Not “in balance”, prolly,
to RajParr. But it was light/elegant/bright/nimble/graceful/textured/flavorful example of Calif Pinot, everything my doofus palate would call balance.

Returning to Kevin’s OP, I think HarveySteiman’s blog comments are probably a bit like MattKramer’s blog often is, just overstating
their case just to [stirthepothal.gif] .

As to Kevin’s comment:

This may accurately reflect Harvey’s palate but for many of us the bitter burn of vodka accentuated by sharp Kool aid-like tartaric additions is much harder to drink.

That may reflect Kevin’s palate and appreciation of Pinot (an appreciation much greater than mine, for sure). I, too, don’t like the bitter burn of Vodka, especially if accompained w/ overly-agressive
acid aditions…but, to tell the truth, I don’t often find that character in many Calif Pinots (don’t drink K-B or Marcassin or Martinelli, I admit), even those Syrah-laced Pinots from the SteRitaHills!! [stirthepothal.gif]
But, then, in favor of full disclosure, I love the Zins of Carlisle and Bedrock and Ridge…which tells you where my doofus palate lies!!! But, OTOH, I like the wines of Friuli/AltoAdige/Loire/Germany.
So perhaps I’m a bit schizophrenic in my wine predelictions. [scratch.gif]

I’m in full suport of wines being made in Calif with more balance. There are some that are woefully out of balance, especially in some yrs that give that. But it’s high time
that we quit looking at that % alcohol on the label. Enough is enough.
Tom

Did I say the right things, Adam??? :slight_smile: