Quotulatiousness

March 3, 2010

Chilean earthquake damage may go above $30 billion

Filed under: Americas, Economics, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 17:00

In addition to the deaths and injuries caused by the massive earthquake, Chile is still assessing the wider damage to the economy. The Guardian reports on the damage:

With the death toll unchanged at about 800 and aid flowing to southern cities, Chile today began to assess the industrial and economic cost of its earthquake.

After meeting business leaders, President Michelle Bachelet announced a grim summary of damaged industrial plants, ports and destroyed bridges. The cost could be as high as $30bn.

Significant amounts of damage impacted the grape growing areas, as they were in the middle of harvesting the grapes when the quake struck:

Southern ports were closed and inside dozens of bodegas, or wine stores, a river of wine soaked into the soil, raising concerns about damage to the industry. Initial estimates put the quantity of lost wine at 100m bottles, or roughly a sixth of the country’s annual export. Antonio Larrain, general manager of the Chilean Wine Corporation, estimated that 20% of Chile’s stored wine may have been lost. He calculated the value at $300m, which did not include the widespread damage to infrastructure ranging from underground irrigation tubing to warehouses.

Wines of Chile, an industry group, held an emergency meeting today and announced that 12% of the country’s wine production had been lost. Reports from individual wineries suggest that does not represent the true scale of the disaster. “Many wineries that lost 80% of their production are publicly saying just 15% was lost,” said one wine executive who asked not be named, citing the fear that distributors would terminate distribution contracts with wineries most heavily damaged. “This is an incredibly touchy subject,” he said.

The Chilean wine export trade has been a huge growth sector over the last twenty years, and the potential lost revenues could make recovery even more difficult.

Update, 4 March: Ironically, the LCBO’s latest issue of their Vintages magazine features Chilean wine:

February 17, 2010

“Not a single American consumer complained”

Filed under: Europe, France, USA, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 17:26

French wine merchants scam US wine importer:

A dozen French winemakers and traders have been found guilty of a massive scam to sell 18 million bottles of fake Pinot Noir to a leading US buyer.

The judge in Carcassonne, south-west France, said the producers and traders had severely damaged the reputation of the Langedoc region.

The 12 more than doubled profits passing off the wine to E and J Gallo under its Red Bicyclette brand.

The case came to light when French Customs noticed that the winemakers were selling more Pinot Noir to Gallo than was grown within the Langedoc region. Don’t feel sorry for the fraudsters: along with suspended sentences ranging from 1-6 months and fines from $2,000 to $156,000. The swindle netted over $10 million. It’s not clear whether they had to repay those profits.

January 27, 2010

Where Virginia is headed, will Ontario follow?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Law, Wine — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:31

January 4, 2010

Ohio moves to protect wine drinkers from themselves

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, USA, Wine — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:10

Ah, those Ohio wine drinkers . . . they must be consuming wine at much higher than the national average. How else can you account for the state government legally imposing limits on how much wine you can buy each year?

As laws go, Ohio’s limit on wine purchases appears to be simple:

“No family household shall purchase more than 24 cases of 12 bottles of 750 milliliters of wine in one year.”

That’s 288 bottles per year — plenty for most people. But it raises questions if you’re a collector, entertain a lot or just prickle at the thought of another government regulation.

How do they know how much wine I buy? Why do they care? How many cases have I purchased this year?

Of course, the limit isn’t really a limit: there’s no mechanism to track your actual purchases from retailers, Ohio drinkers, it’s only to limit sales direct from wineries to consumers. This limit was introduced after the US Supreme Court decision a few years back which struck down state-level restrictions on shipments from out-of-state wineries.

In several ways, it’s a typical bureaucratic response to a non-issue, providing work for several new civil servants, requiring uncompensated form-filling and legal compliance on the part of the sellers (over and above the normal requirements for selling alcohol), and being remarkably ineffective, to boot:

All wineries or importers for wineries that produce fewer than 250,000 gallons per year pay the state $25 for a license that allows them to ship directly to customers here. They have to pay the state’s alcohol and sales taxes. They also have to tell the state who received the wine — and how much that person got.

The Ohio Division of Liquor Control, which receives the reports on wine sales from the S permit holders, uses the reports to determine whether someone might be violating the purchase limit, said Matt Mullins, a spokesman for the division. “It’s the division’s interpretation that it’s related to the amount of wine shipped from an S permit holder. That’s what we believe the intent (of the law) was.”

The reports are due each year in March, he said, and the first came last year. No one was flagged as a violator.

If the reports did show that someone had purchased too much wine by mail, Mullins said, the information would be turned over to the Ohio Department of Public Safety Investigative Unit, which enforces state alcohol laws. The law allows a fine of up to $100 if someone is found guilty.

I’m not at all in favour of this sort of legalistic bullshit, but if they’re going to go to the effort of setting up this system, it’s farcical to — a year or more after the fact — track down a “perpetrator” and then fine them “up to $100”. A hundred bucks wouldn’t pay the state for the time and effort to track down that criminal mastermind who legally ordered an extra case of wine . . .

Of course, the statist’s response would be to substantially increase the fines, rather than dismantle the whole ridiculous tracking system.

December 15, 2009

The rise of California wine

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Europe, France, USA, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:18

H/T to Jon, my former virtual landlord.

December 10, 2009

On a cosmic scale, this is still a bad idea

Filed under: Cancon, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 08:50

In the last Ontario Wine Review for 2009, Michael has a short rant on a rant-worthy topic:

South Africa has tar; Chile has mint; Australia, eucalyptus; Ontario: baby-poo . . . It’s quite possible that next time you wander into an Ontario winery you may be confronted by a ‘child-friendly-winery’ thanks to a website called JustTheFactsBaby.com. Now who really thinks having toddlers (or infants) along in a winery is a good idea? Honestly? There are so many reasons why not that I’m surprised that somebody has actually deemed this to be a good idea. For Godsakes, where’s MADD when you need them? I don’t have time to argue this one out again, especially in this short-rant forum, so I’ll begin here with my top three reasons and then you can input your views to me in an email. #1 — With all the talk about, and new laws against, drinking and driving and the safety of people and children on the road (heck you can’t smoke in a car with your child), I’m shocked somebody would offer up this idea that mom should get out there and sample wine with junior in tow (Is this the newest version of the Rolling Stones “Mother’s Little Helper”?) #2 — Who amongst us really wants to see toddlers running around playing tag in and amongst the bottles of wine and stemware displays; can you say ‘disaster waiting to happen’. #3 — With the whole world turning politically correct and wanting to include more people in more places, wineries should still be a sanctuary for adults. There are so many kid-centric and family oriented things to do in this world, shouldn’t a winery be a bastion where adults can congregate and still talk about adult things without hearing, “I’m sorry, did junior bump into you, I’m sure that won’t stain, at home we use …”

December 7, 2009

A wine sale for the well-heeled

Filed under: France, Randomness, Wine — Nicholas @ 12:30

Some very old (and one hopes, authentic) wines to be auctioned off by La Tour d’Argent in Paris:

A total of 18,000 bottles — including wine from Cognac, Champagne, Burgundy and Bordeaux — will be auctioned.

The sale is intended to raise 1m euros (£0.9m) to renew the cellar’s contents and ensure the restaurant keeps its multiple Michelin stars.

Its wine list is 400 pages long, with no fewer than 15,000 tipples.

November 13, 2009

Virginia to privatize their state-run liquor stores?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Law, Wine — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 00:35

Katherine Mangu-Ward on the prospect of Virginia selling off their state-owned liquor stores:

Virginia is one of 18 states where the government is the monopoly rumrunner. Supermarkets, gourmet shops, and corner stores are all forbidden to sell liquor. But Bob McDonnell, the newly-elected Republican governor, has promised to end the monopoly on liquor sales in the Old Dominion.

This bold gesture isn’t because McDonnell is an especially thoroughgoing libertarian; there are plenty of other areas where he’d like to see more state involvement in the private lives of citizens, not less. This isn’t a 12-step program to help the commonwealth go cold turkey on alcohol money either. McDonnell has no intention of letting Virginia’s bottle-based income fall below its current levels of more than $100 million a year. In fact, part of the reason McDonnell is considering privatization at all is that he is looking for cash to spend on transportation infrastructure. He predicts that selling off the state’s 334 liquor stores to private players and gathering licensing fees from more private sellers will bring in $500 million in the short run, while leaving long-run income intact. (The Washington Post remains unconvinced, noting that McDonnell’s figures may be too optimistic.)

But no matter what the political and budgetary machinations, Virginians are unlikely to wind up paying more for their rotgut, and they are very likely to wind up with a better selection and a relatively skeeze-free shopping experience. Commonwealth officials can focus on governing a large landmass without having to fuss with the details of running a liquor empire. And the move may even represent a net gain for the state budget in the future when the state sheds responsibility for ABC employee benefits and pensions, and starts bringing in real estate and other tax revenue from the privatized stores.

I’ve written about Ontario’s LCBO and the (dim) hopes of privatization at the old blog. In 2004, there was a brief flurry of discussion on privatizing the LCBO:

For those of you who don’t live in Ontario, the LCBO is the government-run monopoly provider of almost all alcoholic beverages except beer and wine, which are sold through the Brewers Retail, now operating under the name “The Beer Store” and through individual winery-owned wine stores, respectively. Both the LCBO and the Brewers Retail were set up after the repeal of prohibition in Ontario to control the sale and distribution of alcohol in the province. The LCBO is government-owned, while the Brewers Retail is owned by the major breweries (Labatt, Molson, & Sleeman).

A few elections ago, the Ontario government under Premier Mike Harris started talking about getting the government out of the liquor business. The LCBO, which up until that point had operated like a sluggish version of the Post Office, suddenly had plenty of incentive to try appealing to their customers. Until the threat of privatization, the LCBO was notorious for poor service, lousy retail practices, and surly staff. Until the 1980’s, many LCBO outlets were run exactly like a warehouse: you didn’t actually get to see what was for sale, you only had a grubby list of current stock from which to write down your selections on pick tickets, which were then (eventually) filled by the staff.

If the intent was to make buying a bottle of wine feel grubby, seamy, and uncomfortable, they were masters of the craft. No shopper freshly arrived from behind the Iron Curtain would fail to recognize the atmosphere in an old LCBO outlet.

During the 1980’s, most LCBO stores finally became self-service, which required some attempt by the staff to stock shelves, mop the floors, and generally behave a bit more like a normal retail operation. It took quite some time for the atmosphere to become any more congenial or welcoming, as the staff were all unionized and most had worked there for years under the old regime — you might almost say that they had to die off and be replaced by younger employees who didn’t remember the “good old days”.

To return to the early 1990’s, the LCBO had gone through massive changes (from their own point of view), but were still far behind the times. The threat of being sold to the private sector seems to have operated as a massive injection of adrenalin to the corporate heart: the LCBO suddenly became serious about serving the customer, expanding their services, making themselves more customer-friendly and providing their staff with proper training.

In the end, the Tory government decided that they preferred the direct stream of profits from the LCBO monopoly and backed away from their privatization plans. To my amazement (and probably that of most impartial observers), the LCBO did not immediately fall back into their bad old habits: they continued the modernization that had already taken them so far from their roots.

Today, the LCBO is almost unrecognizable as the Stalinist bureaucracy of the 1960s and 70s. Their staff are generally friendly, helpful, and (mirabile dictu) know far more about their products than ever before.

All that being said, I still am happy to hear that the current government is talking about privatization again. The LCBO is better than it used to be, and continues to improve, but they are still a monopoly provider with little real competition. I don’t pretend that a badly run sale might well end up (in the short-to-medium term) reducing the variety of alcoholic products for sale in Ontario, but having competing retailing channels would (in the long term) produce a healthier market with the competitors striving to attract more customers by better service, wider selection or even (dare we say it) lower prices.

Of course, 2005 came and went, with no movement in the direction of privatization, and it won’t happen under the current provincial government. The revenue stream is still too good for the province to give up.

November 12, 2009

Hoping for a rational decision from the Wine Council of Ontario

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Wine — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:46

Michael Pinkus thinks there’s going to be a good chance that the bait-and-switch mechanism known as “Cellared in Canada” wine will be forced to adopt accurate labelling:

There’s a new chair over at the Wine Council, and while I don’t want to pat him on the back quite yet, or give him all the credit, he is making some sense. Why should the Wine Council of ONTARIO be lobbying for wines that aren’t 100% Ontario product? The answer is as plain and simple as you believe it is: they shouldn’t; and that’s why it’s nice to see the Wine Council finally putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with the right number (for those on the wine council reading this, and still not getting it, the right number is 4; as in the Wine Council should stand 4 Ontario wines only). Now this is only a “proposal” and one that will be voted on November 17 (which, if approved, does not take effect until April 1, 2010). I strongly urge the Wine Council of Ontario to adopt this proposal, and let the makers of Cellared product fight their own battles, instead of lumping their interests in with the other 70+ wineries you represent who can’t make ANY Cellared product. For the record, the only 7 wineries (by my count) making CiC wines are Jackson-Triggs, Peller, Pillitteri, Colio, Pelee Island, Kittling Ridge and Magnotta, and if they were smart they’d take a page out of the Gabe Magnotta book of labeling. You might have noticed that Magnotta has faired pretty well through this whole Cellared in Canada issue, in fact they’ve come out unscathed in this whole mess. That’s because they have their labeling done right. Need a refresher on their labels? Visit a Magnotta retail outlet near you. Those big bold letters that spell out other countries tells the consumer exactly where the grapes/wines comes from — so simple it’s ingenious, and honest.

Might I also offer the Wine Council another little piece of advice: the idea floated recently about including fruit wineries and those that make 100% Ontario wine, but not necessarily VQA wines, is also a good one. You are the Wine Council of ONTARIO, you should speak for all the wineries of Ontario. Speaking as one voice is much better and more productive than the cacophony of many and maybe, just maybe, more can be accomplished and achieved as an all encompassing unit. The right track for Ontario’s wineries starts on November 17 . . . will the Wine Council finally take on the role of an Ontario wine group — we’ll have to wait and see, I for one remain hopeful.

November 5, 2009

Background on those “Cellared in Canada” wines

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Law, Wine — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:03

In his November Frugal Oenophile newsletter, Richard Best looks at the evolution of that blight on the Ontario wine industry, the “Cellared in Canada” designation:

For some time (since 1973 in fact), Ontario wineries have been allowed to import juice or wine from other countries and then bottle it as their own. Bottles containing mostly foreign wine were originally labeled Product of Canada. Then in 1993 Product of Canada was replaced by Cellared in Canada (CIC). So, what you’ve been reading and hearing about lately is that people don’t get it, and that in an effort to support the local wine industry, they’ve been buying CIC wines and unknowingly underwriting wine factories in California, Chile and elsewhere.

Why Did This Come About

In the beginning, Niagara had thousands of hectares of north American Labrusca grapes the likes of Concord and Niagara and even one called President (“President Champagne” anyone?) When better grapes came along, the Ontario government encouraged growers to grub up their Labrusca vines and replant with French-American hybrids, mostly Vidal, Seyval Blanc, Marechal Foch, and Baco Noir. Then in 1989 the government launched another grubbing up program when some die-hard wineries started planting European Vinifera grapes: Chardonnay, the Cabernets, and especially Riesling. (It’s interesting to note that government experts insisted for decades that Vinifera vines could never succeed in Ontario.)

So, what do you do when you’ve ripped out your vineyard and now must wait 3-5 years to harvest grapes? The simplest solution is to allow wineries to import even more wine with which to “extend” their remaining harvest. Now, the original plan was to phase out the imported wine, with a “sunset” in the year 2000. But by then a few large wineries had shifted their business plan from Canadian fine wine to cheap and cheerful jug wines (but without the jug, at least). It’s pretty hard to change a law that has allowed a few companies to grow rich and dominate the market, so the plan was carved in stone . . . soapstone, as it turns out.

In 1993, when Canada signed the Free Trade Agreement, Ontario put a cap on the entire wine business. Only wineries establish before NAFTA would be allowed to import wine for blending. Moreover, only these wineries could own multiple site licenses. So we now have a two-tiered system: wineries that can do pretty much what they want, and those that can do little more than pay the bills.

It’s hard to pretend that it’s a level playing field for the domestic wine producers when there clearly are two distinct classes enshrined in law.

To subscribe to Richard’s newsletter, send him an email at frugalwine@sympatico.ca with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.

October 17, 2009

Niagara’s wines

Filed under: Cancon, Wine — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:10

Richard Best was at the last Cuvée event and had these observations (in his Frugal Oenophile Wine Newsletter) about the current and potential values coming from Ontario’s wineries in the Niagara peninsula:

Niagara has the perfect terroir for Gamay, and yet only one Gamay appeared at this tasting. Every Gamay I’ve had from Niagara has easily bettered its counterparts from Beaujolais, and at a much better price. Attention grape growers: Please plant more Gamay.

Despite the hype and rumours, Niagara is still a bit of a way from consistently producing world-class Pinot Noir. There are occasional stellar wines, but too often I find Ontario Pinot underpowered, almost skeletal, and disappointingly tasteless.

Cabernet is still hit-and-miss. Our climate may be too cold, and the growing season is definitely too short to always ripen this demanding grape. It can be done, but ripe Cab in Niagara is the exception, not the rule.

An interesting marker for Niagara Chardonnay is “skunk”. Like cat’s pee in Sauv Blanc, coal oil in Riesling and barnyard in Pinot, a bit of skunk in a high quality Chard is quite appealing.

Speaking of Chard, Niagara is a great Chardonnay region. Not good; not very good; GREAT. Our winemakers routinely turn out Chardonnay that rivals the best in the world, and they do it year after year.

I certainly agree with Richard on the Gamay: I’ve never had a Beaujolais that was better than Chateau des Charmes’ Gamay Droit (in any vintage). He’s also spot-on with the Pinot observations, as there have been some amazing Pinot Noir values, but it’s still not consistently great . . . Flat Rock and Cave Springs seem to be able to produce the most consistent quality at the moment.

Ontario Cabernet Franc, with the slightly earlier harvest time, is more likely to be fully ripe than the Cabernet Sauvignon, especially in a year like this, with only a brief hot spell at the end of the growing season. With Cabernet blends and Meritages, you do tend to get what you pay for, at least in the $15-$30 range . . . there’s not much available under that price that’s worth the money. Kacaba, Strewn, and Daniel Lenko have some excellent wine (although Lenko tends to be at the higher end of the price scale).

Even though it’s out of style, I still love well-oaked Chardonnay. There’s something magical about what oak does to good quality Chardonnay grapes. I’m not fond of unoaked Chardonnay, but put that same grape juice into oak barrels and I’m interested. Most of the wineries in Niagara and on the Beamsville Bench can produce excellent Chardonnay pretty much every year. You can’t go too far wrong . . . and perhaps because it’s common, the wineries don’t mark up the price as much as they sometimes do with their Cabernet-based wines.

To subscribe to Richard’s newsletter, send an email to “newsletter@frugal-wine.com” with the word “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.

October 15, 2009

Remember: “Cellared in Canada” means it’s not Canadian wine

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Wine — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:02

Michael Pinkus has a couple of anecdotes about the marketing sleight-of-hand that allows certain Canadian wineries to sell foreign-sourced wines as if they were Canadian:

Picture, if you will, a classroom of about 30 adult students. Teacher stands up at the front and writes the words “Cellared in Canada” on the blackboard, he then asks, “Who has heard this term?” Head nods of agreement, they have heard of this. The teacher then writes these three letters “V-Q-A” on the board, “Who’s heard this term?” he asks. Everyone again nods accession. “What’s the difference?” Silence ensues. There are then some attempts to explain the difference, but there always seems to be a little confusion in the definition. The words, “no, but thanks for playing,” escaped my lips on more than one occasion. Yes I was that teacher and this happened less than 2 weeks ago. With all the media hype surrounding Cellared in Canada the only thing anyone knows for sure is that somehow cellared wines are bad; but VQA, has somehow been lumped in there too, the term has gotten lost in all the hype. Truth is, these two terms should be as clear as night and day to Ontario wine drinkers.

Now picture this. A man driving down the road, his cell phone rings, he answers, pleasantries are exchanged, then the question is posed, “What’s up?” The person on the other end of the phone is a winery owner with a very real concern, “We’re getting hammered here by irate customers telling us that they are disappointed with us and angry about being duped over our use of foreign grapes and off shore wines.” He pauses for dramatic effect, “We don’t make cellared wines, we’re strictly VQA, always have been always will be. Mike is there anything you can do?” Oh how I wish I could. My worst fears are now being realized; all Ontario wine is being painted with the sloppy broad-brush strokes of Cellared in Canada.

The two stories above are true and have come about due to the continuing controversy surrounding Cellared in Canada wine. Let’s be crystal clear about these two products: Cellared in Canada and VQA. Cellared in Canada is the foreign blend with 30% Ontario content (0% in B.C.); it is a bastard child with no home, an orphan with no earthly parentage. VQA, on the other hand is a purebred, it is 100% from the province it states, Ontario or B.C., currently the only 2 provinces with VQA regulations in place. A VQA wine has the flavour of its origin, it has a home, it has that aspect of “Terroir” the French so rightly hype. Terroir means soil, but it means more than that when talking about wine, it’s a combination, a culmination if you will, of everything mother nature brings to the table in any given year that goes into making that wine — the soil, the climate, the environment. VQA is Ontario wine — 100% — always has been, always will be — if it says VQA, it’s A-OK.

The Billionaire’s vinegar-scented legal decision

Filed under: Britain, Law, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:06

Following up on an item posted a couple of months ago (“The Billionaire’s Vinegar-scented lawsuit“), Michael Broadbent wins his lawsuit against the publisher of The Billionaire’s Vinegar:

This week, the man who authenticated the Lafite and presided over its auction won an apology and damages from the publisher Random House over a bestselling book, which, he argued, had suggested he had sold the wine knowing its provenance to be suspect. Michael Broadbent has retired as the senior director of Christie’s wine department but remains, according to Adam Lechmere, editor of decanter.com, “among the top three most respected wine critics in the world”.

Broadbent described the ruling as a “great relief”, adding that he planned to celebrate with a magnum of Mouton 1990 over dinner at his club.

The settlement relates to a book called The Billionaire’s Vinegar by American journalist Benjamin Wallace, which outlines the now notorious case of “the Jefferson bottles” – and which Random House, according to Broadbent’s lawyer, Sarah Webb, must now remove from bookshop shelves in Britain.

September 29, 2009

Calling it “bubbly” is highly appropriate

Filed under: Science, Wine — Tags: — Nicholas @ 12:48

According to a recent study, the bubbles in Champagne do more than just tickle your nose:

Research shows there are up to 30 times more flavour-enhancing chemicals in the bubbles than in the rest of the drink.

Wine experts say the finding changes completely our understanding of the role of bubbles in sparkling drinks.

The study is reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Commenting on the research, Dr Jamie Goode, founder of wineanorak.com, said: “In the past, we thought that the carbon dioxide in the bubbles just gave the wine an acidic bite and a little tingle on the tongue, but this study shows that it is much more than this.”

September 17, 2009

The Ontario wine scene

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Wine — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:36

Michael Pinkus doesn’t pull punches as he reports on some of the big names in the Ontario wine arena:

As you can see, the Cellared in Canada problem has not waned one little bit, in fact, this summer I watched the debate intensify. I even saw the train wreck known as Hillary Dawson, president of the Wine Council of Ontario, defend the practice as “[allowing] Ontario growers and winemakers to compete with low-priced foreign wines”. I really do wonder about this woman sometimes, she says some pretty asinine things and you’d better believe I’m keeping her press clipping cause you can always count on at least one, juicy piece of inanity. The more she opens her mouth, the further she sticks her foot into it. Many have wondered out loud whether she is just a lackey (or mouthpiece) for the larger wineries, those that currently make Cellared product. Hillary, if I could have given you any advice this summer, it would have been to take a vacation, put away the pens, don’t write another word to a newspaper and for God’s sake don’t give another interview. If the topic of Cellared wine comes up, run the other way. Her vacation mate should be my favourite whipping boy Bruce Walker of Vincor. He was at it again, blaming the lack of a winery home for grapes, both this year and last on the growers (“I would suggest less grapes be grown in Canada …”) and not on the thousands of litres his company brings in to make Cellared in Canada CRAP (Cheap Readily Available Plonk).

I also found myself embroiled in the Buckhorn debate , as organizers try to figure out the direction of the festival for next year. Something tells me I’ve probably given my last seminar at Buckhorn, unless they want me to talk about VQA. They should talk to the Shores of Erie organizers about that one. But hopefully, finding their focus will make the festival better in the long run.

Here’s an earlier post on the whole wretched Cellared in Canada mess.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress