WS Harvey Steiman on CA wine styles

Lance_Smith · February 15, 2013, 7:28pm

Does anyone have Harvey’s address? I’d like to send him some of my unconsumed bottles of Kosta Browne.

I need to free up some rack space in the celler, its a win-win!

Glenn_L_e_v_i_n_e · February 15, 2013, 7:29pm

I blame this on ESPN. Can’t anyone write any longer without adding new words to the lexicon?

Corey_N · February 15, 2013, 7:32pm

Got that right Glenn. Booyah!

Bob_Wood · February 15, 2013, 7:34pm

Prolly not. Srsly.

Andy_Steinman · February 15, 2013, 7:39pm

Rich:

Steiman = WS Wine Writer who few of us bother to read; if we do, we heartily disagree

Steinman = Me; fellow fan of Burgs and OR PN whose palate has far more in common with your’s than his!

I really should try to get Harvey to change his last name to minimize confusion!

Chris_Seiber · February 15, 2013, 7:39pm

We all look for different things in wine, and what Harvey Steinman and Tom Hill want from wine is a bit different than what Kevin Harvey and David Bueker want.

Or, if you’re like me, you aren’t either/or about it, but instead one of the things you love about wine is the unlimited diversity of good wine, and the ability to enjoy good wines of different styles to fit your mood, company, food, time of day, weather, etc.

I don’t get the need for all the “everyone who doesn’t prefer Burgs or IPOB producers are status cocktail drinkers who like the taste of vodka Kool-Aid” (three different vodka Kool aid comments in just the first 18 posts of this thread!), but that’s Wine Burgzerkers for you, and I still love this place and most of the resident Anti Flavor Wine Elite.

Richard_T_r_i_m_p_i · February 15, 2013, 7:51pm

Andy,

See you this Summer for some Vodka/Koolaid shots, always someone pouring some. Balanced ones mind you.

RT

TomHill · February 15, 2013, 8:16pm

Chris Seiber:

We all look for different things in wine, and what Harvey Steinman and Tom Hill want from wine is a bit different than what Kevin Harvey and David Bueker want.
Or, if you’re like me, you aren’t either/or about it, but instead one of the things you love about wine is the unlimited diversity of good wine, and the ability to enjoy good wines of different styles to fit your mood, company, food, time of day, weather, etc.
I don’t get the need for all the “everyone who doesn’t prefer Burgs or IPOB producers are status cocktail drinkers who like the taste of vodka Kool-Aid” (three different vodka Kool aid comments in just the first 18 posts of this thread!), but that’s Wine Burgzerkers for you, and I still love this place and most of the resident Anti Flavor Wine Elite.

Uhhhh…not a pairing I quite agree w/ Chris.
Tom

Evan_Dawson · February 15, 2013, 8:20pm

Tom - Fair enough, and when I first read Kevin’s comments, I was a bit confused. But reading HS’s entire blog post, the straw men and strange stuff appear. Taking it rather point-by-point…

Harvey writes, “(IPOB) proponents also prefer a flavor profile with more savory flavors than mere fruit.”

What a clumsy construction. The locution “mere fruit” stands out to imply, “Most people just want FRUIT, but these guys like… savory elements, too!” I would hope HS has himself in that category, by the way.

Harvey writes, “frankly I resent the implication that richer, more fuller-bodied wines can’t be balanced.”

I don’t know anyone who says that a wine with body can’t be balanced. Well, maybe one or two extremists. But the IPOB crowd (of which I am not formally aligned, even if I’m sympathetic) would not strike “body” out as a sign the wine can’t be balanced, or good, or well made. This is over-simplifying the discussion to the point of meaninglessness, but it also makes it easier for both sides to shout without anyone hearing anything. Sigh.

Harvey writes, "my view is that there is a wide spectrum of legitimate approaches to the grape that can be called “balanced.” The word is not a synonym for “light and crisp.’”

Absolutely right. And I’ve tasted with plenty of winemakers who have produced light, weak efforts and tried to pass them off as “balanced” or “elegant” or “refined” or “old world.” Light doesn’t necessarily mean desirable, just as heavy does not necessarily mean problematic.

Harvey writes, “Balancians hate it that most wine drinkers seem to believe that a delicious wine ought to taste of ripe fruit, feel rich in the mouth and need not tingle with extra-sharp acidity.”

Now he wants to speak for the movement? Silly. Again, I haven’t heard “balance-mongers” (his term) call for “extra-sharp” acidity. They simply view some wines as fat, while Harvey views them as delicious. Different strokes. And “balancians” don’t “hate it” that most consumers like richer wines. They’re simply making points in favor of elegance and, often enough, wines of place. They’re realistic about the marketplace, and are not driven by “hate.”

Harvey writes, “Balancians believe in what they are doing, and that’s a big part of what it takes to make compelling wines. They just need to get more consistent at getting the depth of flavor and length on the palate that distinguishes great wines made from any grape anywhere.”

Length on the palate is a nice goal, but he’s giving up the game. He adds, “Making wines in their preferred style also involves a higher degree of difficulty, like a diver adding extra somersaults and twists. Ripe flavors are easier to drink, even if they often come with higher alcohols and lower acid levels.” That statement is true, in general, and indicative of why so many winemakers have followed Parker and his ilk: They like what’s easy, tasty, unchallenging. Wine isn’t all about hedonism, though; it can be about reflecting a place and a time and a people. That can be more difficult than making blueberry compote, yes. I’m not sure why it seems so threatening.

By the way, Raj Parr made this entire debate more difficult with his early obsession with alcohol. Adam Lee and others have effectively turned that discussion on its head, and it’s given Raj a handicap in this arena. Too bad.

Ed_Murray · February 15, 2013, 8:25pm

Who’s Harvey Steiman?

TomHill · February 15, 2013, 8:45pm

Evan Dawson:

Tom - Fair enough, and when I first read Kevin’s comments, I was a bit confused. But reading HS’s entire blog post, the straw men and strange stuff appear. Taking it rather point-by-point…

Harvey writes, “(IPOB) proponents also prefer a flavor profile with more savory flavors than mere fruit.”

What a clumsy construction. The locution “mere fruit” stands out to imply, “Most people just want FRUIT, but these guys like… savory elements, too!” I would hope HS has himself in that category, by the way.

Harvey writes, “frankly I resent the implication that richer, more fuller-bodied wines can’t be balanced.”

I don’t know anyone who says that a wine with body can’t be balanced. Well, maybe one or two extremists. But the IPOB crowd (of which I am not formally aligned, even if I’m sympathetic) would not strike “body” out as a sign the wine can’t be balanced, or good, or well made. This is over-simplifying the discussion to the point of meaninglessness, but it also makes it easier for both sides to shout without anyone hearing anything. Sigh.

Harvey writes, "my view is that there is a wide spectrum of legitimate approaches to the grape that can be called “balanced.” The word is not a synonym for “light and crisp.’”

Absolutely right. And I’ve tasted with plenty of winemakers who have produced light, weak efforts and tried to pass them off as “balanced” or “elegant” or “refined” or “old world.” Light doesn’t necessarily mean desirable, just as heavy does not necessarily mean problematic.

Harvey writes, “Balancians hate it that most wine drinkers seem to believe that a delicious wine ought to taste of ripe fruit, feel rich in the mouth and need not tingle with extra-sharp acidity.”

Now he wants to speak for the movement? Silly. Again, I haven’t heard “balance-mongers” (his term) call for “extra-sharp” acidity. They simply view some wines as fat, while Harvey views them as delicious. Different strokes. And “balancians” don’t “hate it” that most consumers like richer wines. They’re simply making points in favor of elegance and, often enough, wines of place. They’re realistic about the marketplace, and are not driven by “hate.”

Harvey writes, “Balancians believe in what they are doing, and that’s a big part of what it takes to make compelling wines. They just need to get more consistent at getting the depth of flavor and length on the palate that distinguishes great wines made from any grape anywhere.”

Length on the palate is a nice goal, but he’s giving up the game. He adds, “Making wines in their preferred style also involves a higher degree of difficulty, like a diver adding extra somersaults and twists. Ripe flavors are easier to drink, even if they often come with higher alcohols and lower acid levels.” That statement is true, in general, and indicative of why so many winemakers have followed Parker and his ilk: They like what’s easy, tasty, unchallenging. Wine isn’t all about hedonism, though; it can be about reflecting a place and a time and a people. That can be more difficult than making blueberry compote, yes. I’m not sure why it seems so threatening.

By the way, Raj Parr made this entire debate more difficult with his early obsession with alcohol. Adam Lee and others have effectively turned that discussion on its head, and it’s given Raj a handicap in this arena. Too bad.

Thanks, Evan…that makes things a whole lot clearer and the stupidity of his (Steiman’s) blog post. No wonder Kevin felt so incensed.
Though I’m not sure it’s “too bad” he (Parr) has a handicap in the area w/ a focus on the alcohol.
Some of the IPoB folks that I know are not particularly strident in their denouncement of the “alternative” style. They are just simply interested in providing drinkers w/ an alternative style.
Which I fully support and will continue to try their efforts. As you originally pointed, HarveySteiman is setting up a bunch of strawmen.
Tom

PeterH · February 15, 2013, 8:59pm

For those of us familiar with Harvey’s WS reviews, his exposition of his own preferences is no surprise.
To bad he feels threatened by those whose tastes differ.
A strange thing is that he is also a food writer, and not a bad one at that. I would think he could appreciate wines
with crackling acidity and flavors beyond mere fruit.
In another irony, during his long term at WS the pendulum of approval has swung from rich to restrained several times.
He and Laube forget the past easily. In a couple of years they could both be holding up subtlety and elegance as the highest virtue in wine and acting like they had always been there.

P Hickner

P_Intag · February 15, 2013, 9:04pm

I tried an Aussie Shiraz a few years ago that Steiman gave a score of 91. It tasted like liquid cotton candy. That guy has burned out taste buds.

Evan_Dawson · February 15, 2013, 9:20pm

That’s more than a little harsh, based on one review.

Mike_During · February 15, 2013, 9:38pm

From a NZ perspective I am surprised, he seems to be promoting a style we remember and learned to move on from about 10 years ago.

Neal.Mollen · February 15, 2013, 9:54pm

“Balance mongers?” Seriously? He thinks “balance” can be overdone?

I have no idea what an IPOB is supposed to be, and I don’t know what he was tasting, but good god what a load of horseshit

Chris_Seiber · February 15, 2013, 10:37pm

I just read the article, and it’s quite a bit more “balanced” than I had assumed from having read this thread. He singled out quite a few wines and producers from the event that he liked (Kutch, Wind Gap, Calera, Sandhi, Failla, Red Car, Lioco), and I think his summary statement was a lot fairer than all the “vodka Kool aid” type statements on this thread and characteristically used around this board.

In Pursuit of Balance is very much a reaction to what its adherents characterize as overripe, overblown wines. From the top, I can say that I have liked my share of Pinot Noirs and Chardonnays in that more delicate or savory style, but my view is that there is a wide spectrum of legitimate approaches to the grape that can be called “balanced.” The word is not a synonym for “light and crisp,” and frankly I resent the implication that richer, more fuller-bodied wines can’t be balanced.

And then he concludes:

Balancians believe in what they are doing, and that’s a big part of what it takes to make compelling wines. They just need to get more consistent at getting the depth of flavor and length on the palate that distinguishes great wines made from any grape anywhere. Making wines in their preferred style also involves a higher degree of difficulty, like a diver adding extra somersaults and twists. Ripe flavors are easier to drink, even if they often come with higher alcohols and lower acid levels.

I hope the Balancians get better at it, though. It’s a style worth cultivating, when it works.

I’m not particularly familiar with Steinman and his body of work, so I don’t have an opinion about him generally, but I thought that article was pretty honest as far as revealing what his personal stylistic preferences are and in discussing the IPOB wines from his personal perspective. I’m certain that an IPOB person discussing “other” California pinots and styles in that same fashion would be deemed to have been exceedingly fair on this board.

Evan_Dawson · February 15, 2013, 10:52pm

Chris Seiber:

I just read the article, and it’s quite a bit more “balanced” than I had assumed from having read this thread. He singled out quite a few wines and producers from the event that he liked (Kutch, Wind Gap, Calera, Sandhi, Failla, Red Car, Lioco), and I think his summary statement was a lot fairer than all the “vodka Kool aid” type statements on this thread and characteristically used around this board.

In Pursuit of Balance is very much a reaction to what its adherents characterize as overripe, overblown wines. From the top, I can say that I have liked my share of Pinot Noirs and Chardonnays in that more delicate or savory style, but my view is that there is a wide spectrum of legitimate approaches to the grape that can be called “balanced.” The word is not a synonym for “light and crisp,” and frankly I resent the implication that richer, more fuller-bodied wines can’t be balanced.

And then he concludes:

Balancians believe in what they are doing, and that’s a big part of what it takes to make compelling wines. They just need to get more consistent at getting the depth of flavor and length on the palate that distinguishes great wines made from any grape anywhere. Making wines in their preferred style also involves a higher degree of difficulty, like a diver adding extra somersaults and twists. Ripe flavors are easier to drink, even if they often come with higher alcohols and lower acid levels.

I hope the Balancians get better at it, though. It’s a style worth cultivating, when it works.

I’m not particularly familiar with Steinman and his body of work, so I don’t have an opinion about him generally, but I thought that article was pretty honest as far as revealing what his personal stylistic preferences are and in discussing the IPOB wines from his personal perspective. I’m certain that an IPOB person discussing “other” California pinots and styles in that same fashion would be deemed to have been exceedingly fair on this board.

It’s the implied idea in his close: Power is good. Elegance CAN be good, but darn it’s tough, and you better know what you’re doing if you’re going to try.

And c’mon, using loaded words like “hate”? That doesn’t move any discussion forward.

Adam_Lee · February 15, 2013, 11:13pm

From Raj Parr over at W. Blake Gray’s website, “Hopefully one day we won’t have a tasting because everyone’s going to be thinking the same way. We’re just starting a conversation. This is about making wines that work on the table with food. Wines with texture. Wines with balance. We’ll never change everyone.”

Evan, do you believe that hoping that everyone thinks the same way is simply different strokes? Do you believe that Kevin comparing wines in a style he doesn’t like to “vodka” is simply “different strokes?”

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

Evan_Dawson · February 16, 2013, 12:46am

Adam Lee:

Evan Dawson:

Harvey writes, “Balancians hate it that most wine drinkers seem to believe that a delicious wine ought to taste of ripe fruit, feel rich in the mouth and need not tingle with extra-sharp acidity.”

Now he wants to speak for the movement? Silly. Again, I haven’t heard “balance-mongers” (his term) call for “extra-sharp” acidity. They simply view some wines as fat, while Harvey views them as delicious. Different strokes. And “balancians” don’t “hate it” that most consumers like richer wines. They’re simply making points in favor of elegance and, often enough, wines of place. They’re realistic about the marketplace, and are not driven by “hate.”

From Raj Parr over at W. Blake Gray’s website, “Hopefully one day we won’t have a tasting because everyone’s going to be thinking the same way. We’re just starting a conversation. This is about making wines that work on the table with food. Wines with texture. Wines with balance. We’ll never change everyone.”

Evan, do you believe that hoping that everyone thinks the same way is simply different strokes? Do you believe that Kevin comparing wines in a style he doesn’t like to “vodka” is simply “different strokes?”

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

I think Kevin was hyperbolic, and he admitted he was feeling perturbed when he wrote the post. I take your point, and I respect Kevin – I understand where he was coming from. He had some self awareness about it. And you’re right: the vodka line is too much.

Raj is correct in saying “we’ll never change everyone,” and some will interpret that as an arrogant comment: People need changing? But I think that speaks to the desire to bring more intellectualism to the consumption of wine. That won’t lead to uniform opinions, and that’s not a worthwhile goal, anyway.