Notes From The Winemaker

Pinot Noir "EXTENDERS"?!!

(Note: I first pulished this article in another blog, written under the pseudonym "John Falstaff.")

What is the world coming to? Falstaff was having a nice lunch with Falstaff, Sr. at Boon Fly Cafe in Napa the other day. Sitting next to us were folks working for a couple of large-volume wine companies - one a producer and the other a negociant. The tables are a bit cramped and so it was impossible not to hear their conversation. Most of it was "blah-blah-blah" but Falstaff's ears perked a bit when they started discussing the short 2005 Pinot Noir crop.

Pinot Noir is near-and-dear to Falstaff's coeur gourmandise, and the short Pinot crop in 2005 has been discussed in the industry for months, but this was the first I had heard - even inadvertently - from the perspective of the large bottler. Well, even for this cynic it was a bit of a shock.

These two were blithely discussing how they expected to deal with the shortfall by blending in what they both called "extenders". The gist of it was something along the lines of "Syrah certainly works better than Cabernet, but anything light and bland will do..." I would have laughed out loud except that it would have been rude, and that these guys were absolutely serious.

Oh goodness. You see, dear reader, Pinot Noir does not blend well with anything. Nada, nichts, zilch, zip. If it did, believe me there would be more red Burgundy in the world and prices for these wines would not be what they are, alas. But five hundred years of accumulated experience is not wrong. Oh sure, centuries ago - maybe even a few times last century - some of the strong wines of the Rhône would sneak up north to fortify the weaker Pinot in poor vintages, but even then everyone knew that the vintage in question was poor.

The 2005 vintage here in California was not poor - far be it - it may be great. But if one purchases 2005 Pinot from some of the bigger players one may never know it. Yesterday Falstaff was tasting a great Pinot from the 1999 vintage with a lady, who was a bit taken aback by the $50 price tag [OK, it was Westwood]. However, she said she tended not to drink much Pinot Noir, because her budget tends to the $15 range and the $15 Pinot Noirs out there just don't taste like Pinot to her.

I asked her for a specific example and she mentioned that the night before she had had a bottle from - wait for it - one of the two producers whose conversation I had overheard. (Wasn't Jung such a genius?). In her exact words, "...it tasted like a generic red wine, without much aroma or interest, and pretty dead and flabby in the mouth; not at all like this..." (indicating the glass we were sharing).

Big guys, pay attention. This was a damning indictment. Here was a hot, urbanite, twenty-something, working in the restaurant industry, who is laughing at the "Sideways" hype because the wines labeled as "Pinot Noir" which she can afford do not meet her educated expectations for the varietal.

Word to the wise - you get what you pay for. A while back Falstaff wrote about the caveats associated with inexpensive - cheap - wines, and shared a few tips on how to drink well for less. Do yourself a favor and drink real Pinot, not the "wine-derived beverages" that large producers should be apologizing for.

posted 2/11/2006 03:47:00 PM