Wine Talk by Robert Whitley

I am a denizen of the wine competition world. I run five major international wine competitions and firmly believe the results provide a useful tool for consumers dazed and confused by the ocean of wine options at virtually every price point.

So, I was keenly interested in a recent report in the Los Angeles Times that raised the issue of "inconsistent" results. The article was based on a study by retired Cal State Humboldt professor Robert Hodgson that was published in the Journal of Wine Economics.

Hodgson, who owns a small winery in northern California, embarked upon the study after noticing the inconsistency in awards as his own wines competed in numerous competitions. He looked at more than 2,000 wines that had been entered in more than three competitions.

"Of the wines that entered five competitions and got at least one gold, about 75 percent also received no award in at least one of the remaining competitions," Hodgson told the Times. "How can you explain this huge discrepancy? Either the wineries are sending nonuniform samples to competitions or the judges are simply unreliable instruments for assessing quality. What is the consumer to think?"

I have no quarrel with Hodgson's analysis. It is his conclusion that bears scrutiny. Allow me to explain.

First, a true story. A few years ago a winery entered a sauvignon blanc in the Monterey Wine Competition, which is staged in late winter and is one of the competitions I oversee. The wine received no award, a result that surprised me based on the track record of previous vintages.

I tasted the wine myself. It was thin and watery, lacking any identifiable fruit, and utterly bereft of personality. I concluded the panel of judges was on the money when it turned thumbs down on this particular wine.

A few weeks later the same wine was entered in the San Diego International Wine Competition, another of my children. There it medaled. I believe it was a gold, but the larger point is that a different panel of judges found the wine to its liking. Again I was curious, and I tasted the wine.

It had changed. The nose exhibited an abundance of fruit, and the palate was fresh and alive. The wine now had plenty of zing and it was easy to understand the judging panel's decision. Once again the judges nailed it.

Now I was really curious when the same wine showed up at the Critics Challenge a couple of months later. In this competition, all of the judges are renowned wine journalists with tasting experience across a broad spectrum of styles. I wondered what would happen. It was pure platinum, the highest award given at the Critics Challenge, and it very nearly won the vote for Best of Show white wine.

Yet again I tasted it, and yet again the wine was different. It had found another gear, becoming weightier, fleshier, and all with a seductive backnote of minerality that I always find attractive in a sauvignon.

How can this be, you might ask? Fair question. The answer is quite simple, and I am fairly certain the notorious Hodgson knows it better than I, for he owns a winery and should be an expert witness on the subject by now.

A bottle of wine is a living thing. It isn't Pepsi Cola or Sprite, chemical beverages that are made by recipe and meant to taste the same no matter when they are consumed.

Wine evolves from the time the grapes are pressed and the alcoholic fermentation begins. It changes in the tank; it changes in the barrel. It certainly changes in the bottle. Ask any winemaker, and he or she will tell you their tasting notes are anything but consistent as they assess a wine's progress prior to bottling.

Winemakers decide to bottle only after they determine a wine is ready. If wine didn't change, what in the world would they be waiting for? What's more, the evolution doesn't end at the bottling line.

There is a point at which every wine reaches its peak. The path to that pinnacle of pleasure is anything but a straight line.

There isn't a winemaker alive who hasn't bottled a wine and then tasted it a couple of months later only to wonder what the heck went wrong. Most of the time that's a temporary condition and the wine — if it is well-made and from quality grapes — will come around with time.

Sometimes that's a matter of years, sometimes a matter or months and often only a matter of weeks. And that's my point. At the early stages of a wine's life, it is the wines more often than the judges that are inconsistent.

Savvy vintners know this. Professor Hodgson should know this. It is precisely the reason so many wine companies enter multiple wine competitions. Winemakers have no way to predict how their wines will behave — perform if you will — from week to week. So to some extent it is a crapshoot.

Smart vintners know a quality wine will eventually emerge under close scrutiny, and that it will eventually impress someone. They also know that sometimes even a quality wine fails to shine.

They enter these competitions because they realize they can't always count on the most influential wine publications to taste and evaluate their wines, let alone bestow a rating that will drive sales.

Gary Eberle of Paso Robles, Calif., actually prefers medals to ratings. His wines consistently do well on the wine competition circuit, and Eberle knows from experience that a gold medal will cause a run on a wine at his jam-packed tasting room on Highway 46.

V. Sattui, a Napa Valley winery that only sells its wines at its Highway 29 tasting room in St. Helena, Calif., posts its big competition wins on a billboard in front of the winery. The winners fly off the shelf.

None of this is to imply that competition judges don't sometimes blow it. I constantly assess those who judge at the competitions I manage, and replace judges I observe making lousy decisions.

Any competent wine competition director would do the same. After all, we are only as good as the wines we recommend. And you, ultimately, are the best judge of that.

BEST BUY

Wines are rated on a 100-point scale. Wines are chosen for review because they represent outstanding quality or value.

MacMurray Ranch 2008 Pinot Gris, Sonoma Coast ($20): Always consistent, the MacMurray Ranch pinot gris serves up aromas of melon and pear, with juicy acidity and a clean finish. Perfect for raw shellfish, goat cheese or light pasta dishes. Rating: 89.

TASTING NOTES

Patz & Hall 2007 Jenkins Ranch Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast ($55): This lovely pinot from Patz & Hall shows earthy forest floor aromas, a full and generous palate and seamless tannins to make for an exquisite package. I would expect the finish to lengthen with time and improve the overall impression, so another year or so in the cellar may well be in order. Rating: 93.

Patz & Hall 2007 Hudson Vineyard Chardonnay, Carneros ($55): Although the acidity is somewhat soft for this wine, the flavors are exceptional. Fresh lemon, brioche and spice combine for a mouthful of chardonnay goodness that will no doubt be crowd pleasing. The finish is dry and clean, with good persistence of flavor, and the overall impression is of balance and elegance. Rating: 92.

Patz & Hall 2007 Dutton Ranch Chardonnay, Russian River Valley ($39): Patz & Hall's Dutton Ranch chard exhibits oily richness and power without losing its edge, a mean feat to be sure. Aromas of pear, yellow citrus, caramel and brioche are penetrating and intense, and carry all the way through the long, lingering finish. Great bang for the buck in high-end California chardonnay. Rating: 91.

Whitehaven 2008 Sauvignon Blanc, Marlborough, New Zealand ($23): This vintage of Whitehaven sauvignon is typical of the Marlborough region — fresh, pungent and crisp. It shows a green herbal nose, with hints of gooseberry, weight and persistence on the palate, good acid backbone and an attractive mineral backnote. Rating: 90.

Patz & Hall 2007 Pinot Noir, Sonoma Coast ($42): Patz & Hall's renown is built upon its vineyard-designate wines, so there may be a tendency to dismiss its appellation wines. That would be a mistake. The '07 Sonoma Coast offers generous aromas of raspberry and pomegranate, firm acid backbone and subtle nuances of cinnamon and tea leaf, with good minerality. Rating: 90.

To find out more about Robert Whitley and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM.