36 YEARS & BIGGER THAN EVER

            About this time last year, I got the SOMM Journal issue with the results of the San Francisco International Wine Competition. I wrote a blog piece questioning the scale and value of such an event (see archive). Not to pick on this particular judging but the intrinsic worth of large panel judging resulting in questionable rewards. There are so many such events, though rarely of the size and scope of SFIWC, that every tasting room you visit has medals hanging from bottles on display.

Bigger and better than ever may not be necessarily so. The magazine only had room for the Best of Show, Double Gold & Gold winners (13 pages alone), The wasn't space for winners of lesser medals in the magazine. In his introduction to the listing, the respected Anthony Dias Blue, Executive Director of the event and Editor in Chief of SOMM, noted re: the 2016 event, that the judges had tasted 4,618 wines in four days. And the Double Gold category saw a 9% increase over 2015. Is giving such prestige to 279 wines a good thing? On a typical 100 point judging rank, is it possible that the number of wines scored at 96 or above should actually grow? And what does such largesse say for the value of the medal, having become more common?

Moreover, what does it say that $125 Cabernets are considered in the same realm as $16 ones? Or that many well thought of wineries avoid these judgings ?  The most egregious Double Gold example from last year being a $10 bottle of  mass produced, bubbles added, sparkler was given the same award as a $400 bottle of  true Champagne. In what universe would this happen if not one full of palate fatigue from doing over a thousand wines per day.

That said, there were some gems in small production wineries seeking some marketing clout. Sadly but frankly, to the average tourist wine imbiber, a medal is a medal. Be it Orange County, LA the Mid State Fair or the Fresno Wine & Folk Festival (which I made up I think), medals are impressive. So buyer beware. In some cases the award may be a shot to the foot. The B.R. Cohn winery, for example, submitted  its 2014 N. Coast Cabernet ($25) and the 2013 Olive Hill Estate version ($58). Both received a Double Gold award, giving prospective buyers a choice of equally judged wines for $300 or $700 a case. Vintage and stylistic preferences aside, kind of a no-brainer. Likely not the marketing three pointer for which Mr. Cohn was shooting.

A similar situation involved Hall Wines, a Napa vintner that won Best of Varietal with their $80 "Ellie's" '13 Cabernet along with the Double Gold. But both the "Coeur" ($70) and the Napa appellation ($55) from that vintage were also given the Double. This may not be a bad thing as it certainly establishes a pattern of well crafted wines from the brand, across a spectrum of pricing. But the Halls are an exception to my general hypothesis. Risking what is already an exceptionally well thought of  and award winning maker of Cabernet by tossing their hats into this immense ring. In this case it may have added to the icing already on the cake.

Given the Cab categories' price spread of winners, $10 for Cypress '14 Central Coast to a ZD '12 Reserve at $190, I question why allegedly superior brands with a reputation supporting their price point would chance comparisons.  One fix would be to judge the wines in the current manner but report the results in price tiers. Perhaps even taste them in that manner but not disclose pricing to the panel to avoid dollar envy.

Another problem I've experienced when judging wines is the fairness of comparing the same varietal from unfamiliar regions. There can be significant variation in what the locals find attractive in an emerging New World, South American version of the same grape versus what those in an Old World region may expect. And with all the factors of weather and soils or degree days etc., I find it difficult to make a fair distinction between Pinot Noir from the NW to those from Central Coast. Plus one must allow for personal preferences, which is nearly impossible to overcome, that puts some bias. Most serious judging events realize that and attempt to mitigate it by having a panel that can kick out the high & low scores and use the average for the rest in rating the wines.

I enjoy being on such panels and you generally find consensus on most wines, so I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here.  It is also educational to pit a group of, for example, Sangiovese from Tuscany vs. ones made in a California AVA, thus expanding you palate as well. People often ask me about my favorite wine. I tell them it should be the one in your glass that you are enjoying at the moment. Salute!