Poly want a . . . phenol? Part Two

So there I was (see my last post for the full context of this post), up on the dais, famous winemakers to the left of me, PhD chemists to the right of me, and the floor was mine . . . all mine . . . did I succeed—or fail?

Mostly, I think I failed . . . at least in the key reason for my being on this technical tasting panel.

I began my portion of the panel by confirming the suspicions of the audience: “A lot of you are wondering why there’s a wine writer sitting on the technical tasting panel . . .” I could see the confirming nods of some audience members, their eyebrows raised in query, pointed in my direction.

“I’m here because what I do is translate the phenolic character of Oregon wines into terms the consumer can understand.” That was my story, and I was sticking to it. Luckily, it was true.

Now, I’ll admit that “translating phenolic character” is not the normal way that I think about my job, but when you get down to it, it wasn’t a bad description. I taste and review Northwest wines for the general public. I tell them what my impressions are of the myriad smells, tastes, and experiential—what is rightly known as the “organoleptic” characteristics of a wine—are to my palate. This is to a good degree the province of phenolics.

My role in the technical tasting panel, was to bridge the gap between the winemaking technique/technology and the chemical/scientific theory, with the actual results the consumer experiences in the glass. To validate that end, I had chosen 6 Oregon Pinot noir wines, bought at normal commercial outlets, to present to the assembled Northwest wine industry experts as examples of how Oregon Pinot noirs from he 2006 vintage illustrated different expressions of polyphenolic character (if you are dubious about polyphenolics, please see my previous post).

But here was the unfortunate rub: while I made it clear that the wines I had chosen were to be presented blind to the assembled 250-or-so winemakers, I apparently did not make it clear that their identities would NOT be revealed (under pain of death). This was a critical point.

The object of my presentation of these wines was to encourage a full and complete discussion by the assembled winemaking audience without fear of insulting what turned out to be a friend’s wine (or worse, their own wine.) We wanted a vigorous discussion, and to get it we were guaranteeing the anonymity of the wines I was presenting. Only I knew the identities of the wines, and that identity would not be revealed.

But I didn’t make that clear.

After what seemed like a lukewarm discussion—with me covering up the lack of discourse with my own diarrhea-of-the-mouth ramblings—the panel concluded and we all began to disassemble.

“So what are the wines?” shouted one winemaker from the audience.

“I’m not telling!” I replied.

Another winemaker . . . an important one . . . came up to me and told me that if he had understood that the wines would not be identified he would have said much more (especially about how wine #2 was made with enzymes and dry ice . . .), and there would have been much more discussion.

Ooops. That was the goal: more discussion.

I had blown it.

OK, so it wasn’t a disaster. There was reasonable interchange, the wines were varied, the rest of the panel had cogent things to say . . . but in the end the principal goal of my participation on the panel had not been achieved.

Bummer.

Perhaps I’ll have a chance to redeem myself at some future Oregon Wine Industry Symposium.

Comments

[Jerry Murray]

Cole,

Don't be so hard on yourself! It was the last event on the last day of the Symposium, most folks were thinking about thier long drive home.
I thought it was interesting to have your comments on an otherwise 'technical'panel. You claimed in your post that you represented " the consumer perspective". I have a bit of a problem with that statement. The notion that a wine writer 'represents' anyone is a bit misleading. Wine writers convey thier thoughts about a wine, through words, to thier readers. Though they may respect your opinion and follow advice, I seriously doubt that they have given you permission to speak on thier behalf.
I suspect that this was part of the reason that you percieved yourself as having failed; what you actually represented on the panel was the perspective of wine critic. The relationships between winemakers, not marketing types, and critics is tenuous at best. I think this is because each of our professions require us to approach, analyze and describe wine from very different points of view. The result is, I believe, a low degree of correlation between a winemakers thoughts on a wine ( regardless of who made it ) and a critics thoughts on the same wine. I think many winemakers had a difficult time relating to your comments because they had a difficult time relating to the direction you approach wine from.
In my opinion then is that it was not you that failed, it was us ( the winemakers ). Winemakers mostly discuss wines with other winemakers which, I beleive, creates a rather isolated environment from which to think about wines. Though we spend most of our time trying to make wines that impress our peers ( ie other winemakers ) in reality we make the wines for consumers. As I stated above, I don't believe you represent "the consumer perspective" but you do represent the perspective of someone who approaches the intellectual rigors of wine from a very different place.
I think more winemakers, myself very much included, need to approach wine from a greater diversity of perspectives. I think your place on that 'tech' panel was just as valuable to the experience as the scientists presence was. You were talking, we just weren't talking back.

[Cole Danehower]

Thanks, Jerry, for the insightful comment!

You make a good point that I really shouldn't claim to be representing the consumer . . . I overstated that. But at the same time, I am a consumer of wine (sometimes too much of a consumer . . .) and I do try to consider the point of view of the consumer in much of what I write. Unlike most winemakers, I tend not to taste from a technical standpoint, but from a more generic "organoleptic" standpoint, i.e., how a wine overall appeals to the senses of my palate. I've tasted with winemakers who can pick apart a wine in great detail, detecting enzymes, dry ice, teensy levels of VA or EA, and so forth . . . while I look at the same wine and think "that's pretty nice, I'd buy that." At that level, I think I am more of a consumer than a winemaker is.

In a fundamental way, all of us taste in an isolated environment: our own head! My challenge as a wine writer/critic is to communicate my perceptions in a way that is meaningful to others. I'm not sure many winemakers approach their tasting with that attitude. On a more realistic scale, we all are susceptible to developing a restricted palate when it comes to wine. Certainly, I realize I've developed an "Oregon" palate for Pinot noir . . . my taste bias is pretty clear to me whenever I taste a batch of California Pinots. And I'm sure the same can be said of winemakers who tend to taste within a fairly barrow band: either to compare their wines to those of their peers, or to taste for technical flaws, or whatever.

I REALLY agree with your point that all of us, winemakers, critics, consumers "need to approach wine from a greater diversity of perspectives." Hear, hear!! And if we can all open our minds to do that more often, we'd all benefit.

Once again, thanks very much for your comment, I very much appreciate it.

-Cole