The Wine Curmudgeon

When local wine isn't appropriate for a local food event

The Texas Hill Country Wine and Food Festival, in its 26 years of existence, has done epic work in bringing Texas wine to the people. At one time, it was about the only major wine festival in the state that paid attention to Texas wine, and its efforts have played a key role in improving the quality of Texas wine.

So why, for this weekend's Wine and Swine Culinary event, which is one of the festival's major fundraisers, are no Texas wines being served? There are Texas chefs. But the wines are from Australia, California and South Africa. I have an email in to the event organizers, and if I hear anything, I'll update this. Maybe there's a good reason, like no Texas winery wanted to participate. Yes, I'm being facetious.

Update: Erika White, the festival's executive director, replied to my email: "Peregrine Hill will be there and they are from Texas. We continue to support Texas wineries of course and are working on a few Texas Wine Signature events during the Festival."

Which is all well and good, of course, though it would have been be nice to see Peregrine Hill listed in the publicity. But it still doesn't address the question of why a major Texas food event is skimping on Texas wines.

Winebits 156: Direct shipping, expensive wine, 7-Eleven wine

• Retail shipping appeal: A group of American wine retailers is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that limited the ability of out-of-state retailers to sell wine over the Internet. The Specialty Wine Retailers Association wants the high court to decide if retailers enjoy the same protection the court gave to wineries in its landmark Granholm decision in 2005. The retailers are appealing Wine Country Gift Baskets v. Steen, in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said a non-Texas retailer could not sell wine in Texas.

• A $233,000 bottle of wine: From our friends at the Wine Spectator: A bottle of 1869 Château Lafite, estimated to fetch $8,000 at auction, sold for $233,972 -- making it the most expensive 750ml bottle of wine on the planet. The Spectator reports that an unnamed Asian bidder bought the bottle, and it's no wonder the bidder wanted to remain unnamed. That $233,972 would have bought 1,950 cases of $10 wine, or enough wine to last most of the rest of us about 150 years.

• New 7-Eleven wine: The convenience store chain, which sells the $4 Yosemite Road brand, is expanding its wine lineup. Look for Cherrywood Cellars, a private label wine that will sell for about $9 a bottle, and will come in three flavors -- chardonnay, cabernet sauvignon and merlot. I wasn't overwhelmed by the Yosemite Road, but it was a huge success with consumers, selling out quickly.

Wine names, lawsuits, and being silly

Last week's post about the Cristal lawsuit that forced Cristalino to change its label because of so-called confusion over the latter's name was hugely popular, and the Wine Curmudgeon is always happy to give his visitors more of what they want. So I called my old pal, the well-known trademark and trade dress attorney, A.M.B. Chaser, to ask her what else might be on the wine name litigation front.

"Frankly, Jeff," she said, "I'm jealous of the attorneys who worked the Cristalino case for Cristal. Talk about genius. To say nothing of the fees they generated from something as simple as that."

After the jump, Chaser's analysis of potential lawsuits:

Mini-reviews 19: Contra, William Hill, Beaujolais Nouveau, 181 Merlot

Reviews of wines that don't need their own post, but are worth noting for one reason or another. Look for it on the final Friday of each month. This month, a special all red wines edition.

• Bonny Doon Contra 2009 ($14, sample): This Rhone blend is not exactly an upscale version of the old Big House Red, but it's close enough. Lots of spice and fruit, though it does need food.

• William Hill Cabernet Sauvignon 2006 ($23, sample): A surprisingly well done and balanced Napa cabernet that is more or less affordable. It's a step up from more inexpensive cabernets like Avalon and 337, with more body and structure.

• Georges Dubœuf Beaujolais Nouveau 2010 ($8, purchased): Ripe bananas on the nose and a very thin and acidic body. Yet another in a long line of disappointing Nouveaus.

• 181 Merlot 2008 ($15, sample): A merlot from the same company that does the 337 cabernet sauvignon. Offers structure and substance for less than $25, which doesn't happen often. On the other hand, the tasting notes compare Lodi, where the grapes are from, to merlot's Garden of Eden in Pomerol, which is a bit much.

Happy Thanksgiving 2010

The Wine Curmudgeon hopes you enjoy the holiday -- and that you have better luck opening your wine bottle than these people had (courtesy of aaronetz on You Tube). The blog will return tomorrow with our regular features.

Wine of the week: Cristalino NV

Regular visitors here will notice that there is no picture of Cristalino. Welcome to the wonderful world of American jurisprudence and the foolishness of the wine business.

In August, a federal district court in Minneapolis ruled that Cristalino, which is a much beloved $7 Spanish sparkling wine, infringed on the trademark of Cristal, a Champagne that costs about $200 a bottle and is favored by people who drive Escalades. Or, as the attorneys for Champagne Louis Roederer, the French luxury brand that owns Cristal, wrote: "The Defendants’ use of CRISTALINO on their sparkling wine product is an illegitimate brand extension that trades on the reputation and image of the famous mark, CRISTAL. Consumers likely believe that CRISTALINO sparkling wine is associated with, sponsored by, or is in some way connected with the maker of the prestige champagne CRISTAL."

Sigh. And people wonder why the Wine Curmudgeon is so cranky. The Champagne business has been in tatters since the recession started, and Roederer decided to spend money on this lawsuit? The judge, in deciding the case, wrote that there was evidence that consumers could be confused, and if my reading of the law is correct, that was enough to decide in Roederer's favor. It didn't matter whether Cristal lost sales to Cristalino (which was unclear). Cristalino had to redesign and re-label its bottle, which is now white and includes a disclaimer that says it isn't affiliated with Roederer or Cristal.

So this is what I'm going to do: Never drink a bottle of Cristal (which isn't a problem, since I can't afford it). Never, after this moment, write about or review a Roederer product, which include Roederer and Scharffenberger sparkling wines in California, a half a dozen or so French still wine brands, and the Portuguese Ramos Pinto label. And, of course, welcome Cristalino (purchased) into the 2011 $10 Hall of Fame, because it offers everything Cristal doesn't -- quality and value. And, yes, it would quite nice at Thanksgiving.

Winebits 156: Wine headaches, wine writing, sweet wine

• No, it's not the sulfites: Finally, an answer to one of the most dread questions in the wine business: "I get these headaches from red wine, and I'm told they're from sulfites. Is that true?" No, of course, has always been the answer, and now scientists have a better explanation why (assuming the headache isn't hangover induced). It's a substance called glycoproteins, and it looks to be the culprit behind wine headaches, according to a report in the monthly Journal of Proteome Research.

• Wine writers are cranky: No, not shocking news, but it's part of the third Wine Writers Survey (link opens a PDF), conducted by wine publicist Tom Wark, who runs the top-rated Fermentation blog. The findings are a mixed bag, and I'm not sure the methodology is as rigorous as it could have been, but it's interesting to read nonetheless. Wark focuses on the blogger vs. traditional media angle, which I've never thought was the real point. Rather, the focus should be on professionals -- those of us who do it for a living, whether in print or in the cyber-ether -- as opposed to those who do it as sidelight. To me, that's the most interesting comparison, because that's been the biggest change over the past decade or so. It's not that technology has changed, but that changing technology has allowed people to write about wine who would not have been able to write about wine before. And, frankly, all those so-called amateurs are what drives so many in the wine business crazy. (And a tip 'o the Curmudgeon's fedora to Tom Johnson at Louisville Juice for sending this my way.)

• Sweet wine, better palate? Or so suggests a study conducted in conjunction with the Consumer Wine Awards in Lodi this year. It found that physiology plays a major role in determining wine preferences, and that sweet wine drinkers are often the most sensitive tasters, "shattering" the myth that sweet wine consumers don’t taste as well as those who love "better" wines. A nicely written piece by my old pal Paul Franson.