Category:Wine rants

A hollow leg: How did Winston Churchill drink all that wine?

by Wine Curmudgeon Posted On

Winston Churchill statue
No,  I don’t own this. But it is kind of cool.

A look at the myths surrounding Churchill’s drinking

What better time to discuss Winston Churchill, as the British government and its ruling Conservative Party engage in a variety of face slaps, eye gouges and yuk yuks – none of which are even remotely funny,

Churchill, for all of his failings (and he had them, including a blind spot towards giving women the vote), usually realized his mistakes, rarely held a grudge, and rallied the world to stop Adolf Hitler. So yes, much more than a head of lettuce.

And, as we have noted on the blog, Churchill loved wine. This is worth writing about again because a couple of social media types recently tried to recreate a Churchill drinking day and got past sloppy. This was followed up Ayun Halliday on the Open Culture blog, who did a bit more research but came to the same conclusion: How could Churchill stop the Nazis when he was smashed all of the time?

Which, of course, he wasn’t. The point here is not to decide whether Churchill was an alcoholic; Andrew Roberts, a leading biographer, says he probably wasn’t, and medical opinion tends to agree. And this is not about making sport of the myth to get a few giggles.

Rather, it’s to note two things:

First, that we look at Churchill’s drinking through the prism of the last 20 years, when wine with dinner has been turned into binge drinking and when drinking any alcohol, according to the experts, is part of a “Reefer Madness” lifestyle. After all, don’t I suffer from “alcohol use disorder?” So anyone who has a cocktail before dinner, drinks wine with dinner, and then has brandy afterwards – as Churchill did routinely — must attend the nearest Alcoholics Anonymous meeting immediately. Or else.

Second, much of the evidence supporting Churchill’s mythic drinking is hardly convincing. Halliday quotes a prodigious liquor list from one day in March 1937. What she doesn’t seem to understand is that the tally comes from Chartwell, Churchill’s country residence, where he not only entertained but where several members of his family usually stayed with him. So to assume that he drank all of that booze is silly.

In addition, Churchill ate meals – courses and courses of them that took hours and hours. He grew up as an upper class Victorian, and that was what upper class Victorians did. Remember Mrs. Bridges? So drinking wine with dinner over two or three hours is much different than two glasses of 14.5 percent red with a 15-minute takeout sandwich – a popular 21st century American dinner.

So yes, Churchill drank. Who knew, all those years ago, that it would turn into such a big deal today?

Update: Cutting prices boosts sales, profits

by Wine Curmudgeon Posted On

Crowd in movie theater
“I never realized how much more I would like this movie when the tickets were half off.”

Movie theaters – hard hit by the pandemic – have discovered that discounts will bring customers back

A business hard-hit by the pandemic, changing demographics, and an indifferent product has discovered that cutting prices will bring customers back.

No, unfortunately, we’re not talking about wine.

The latest industry to recognize its problems is the move theater business, whose financial position is so precarious that one analysis says it has lost 8 percent of its customers forever. Which is even worse than wine’s shrinking market share.

So what did the industry’s trade group do? Cut prices, of course.

Are you listening, wine business?

The results were staggeringly good: A $3 movie ticket promotion in early September attracted 8.1 million customers, a nine percent increase from the previous week. And why did it work so well?

Because the No. 1 reason people are reluctant to return to movie theaters, according to one study, is not the pandemic, but the high cost of tickets – as much as $13 on average in New York City and even $12 in Omaha, Neb. To offer a little perspective, that’s almost twice the cost of a monthly subscription to Hulu and more or less what one month of Netflix costs.

It’s also worth noting that the high prices study found that almost two-thirds of movie-goers don’t go any more because “I’m not interested in films currently in theaters.”

Sound familiar, wine business?

We’ve written a lot on the blog about premiumization’s death grip on wine and how wine’s continuing decline in popularity can be linked to the steady increase of prices since the end of the recession. Which has happened despite the drop in demand and the seeming contradiction of one of the most basic laws of economics.

And, as also noted many times, other industries – faced with the same problem – cut prices to stimulate demand. And it usually works, doesn’t it, Walmart?

But not wine. Which explains why I have to keep writing these reminders and why I’ll keep doing it until it makes a difference. I’m not the Wine Curmudgeon for nothing.

One more reason why wine scores are useless, 2022 explanation

by Wine Curmudgeon Posted On

Three reporters at typewriter
“I don’t care if the wine did taste sweet — don’t call it sweet. Or else.”

Sweet cabernet sauvignon? Give it 90 points!

How does this wine sound?

“Moderate tannins and a touch of crisp acidity add to its appeal. … 90 points.”

“Gentle tannins meld with spiced plum and powdery mocha in this easy drinking, uncomplicated red. … 89 points.”

In other words, value and quality – and especially for $15, which we haven’t seen much of in the past couple of years.

I wish.

The only thing those two blurbs shows is that wine scores remain useless — utterly and completely without merit.

This red is a California cabernet sauvignon and it’s sweet. It’s not white Zinfandel sweet, but closer to red blend sweet, so noticeable but not overwhelming. In fact, taste this wine, as I did a couple of weeks ago, and you’ll get that cotton candy feeling in the back of your mouth that shows residual sugar is lurking in the shadows.

So how does the wine get such good scores without anyone noting that it’s sweet and not especially cabernet-like? A wine that gets 90 points is supposed to be “Outstanding: a wine of superior character and style.” This wine? It’s about as ordinary as these things get, regardless of its sweetness and un-cabernet-ness.

Call it the Winestream Media’s wink and a nod that sweet exists and that sweet sells a lot of wine. There are a couple of keys here, though, for those of us who are paying attention. The phrases “adds to its appeal” in the first score and “easy drinking, uncomplicated” in the second. Call each winespeak for sweet when the reviewer doesn’t want to use the word “smooth.” Because this wine goes out of its way to be smooth – front, middle, and back.

Know, too, that this is not a rant against against sweet wines — red, white, pink, or otherwise. Everyone should be able to drink whatever they want, and my job is to point them in various directions so they can find what they like.

But the scores don’t do that. Let’s say I’m looking for a $15 cabernet that tastes like cabernet (which pains me to write, but I do recognize how the wine business works these days). I see 90 points and figure, “Wow, I’ve got a winner here.” So I buy it, get it home, take a sip, maybe wash it around my mouth. “Ooo.. what’s that?” and then I spit it out and get a beer. (Which is more less what happened.)

So wine notes, yes, as long as they contain a bit of directness. But wine scores? Never, and this is just one more reason why.

More about wine scores:
• Wine scores not only refuse to die, but seem to be increasing like the spawn of the devil
• Wine scores rant: Top-notch cava gets 86 points, about the same as a crummy supermarket wine
• Chateau Bonnet Blanc and why scores are useless

 

WC health alert: Beware the Pumpkin Spice Latte

by Wine Curmudgeon Posted On

Researcerhs standing at computer screens
“Oh my God, just as we feared — evidence of latte use disorder!”

Don’t the Neo-Prohibitionists know that the coffee drink could be even deadlier than wine with dinner?

Dear Neo-Prohibitionists:

Your argument, in trying to bring back abstinence, is that any amount of alcohol is unhealthy and that we’re addicted to booze as if it was heroin or Oxycontin – Mommy Juice and all of that.

So my question: If you’re so concerned about our health, why aren’t you doing studies and issuing warnings about something that is even deadlier than wine?

The return of the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte.

Because, frankly, that thing scares me to death:

• One serving contains 390 calories, about three times as much as a glass of wine.

• It also has almost half of the recommended daily allowance of saturated fat, about one-fifth of the cholesterol and carbohydrates, 1/10th of the sodium, and more than a third of a day’s safe intake of caffeine.

• Wine, by comparison, contains no fat, no cholesterol, no caffeine, and almost no carbohydrates.

And, since you are so concerned with health, I am sure you know that fat, cholesterol, sodium, and too much sugar (carbs!) are the quickest way to heart disease. Which, as I am also sure you know, is the leading cause of death in the U.S., some 700,000 people each year.

No doubt this has been an oversight on your part, and that we can soon expect studies that say drinking one Pumpkin Spice Latte is the equivalent of smoking a couple of cigarettes, or that two lattes a day is the equivalent of binge drinking. Perhaps you can even coin a term like latte use disorder, based on the wonderfully terrifying “alcohol use disorder.”

So please ponder this the next time you’re in the Starbucks drive-thru, engine idling (and killing the planet), waiting to order your Pumpkin Spice Latte.

Sincerely,
The Wine Curmudgeon

Count ‘em: There’s almost one wine drinking “holiday” for every week of the year

by Wine Curmudgeon Posted On

man looking at calendar
“Let’s see. When can we fit in Cranky Wine Writer Wine Day?”

Be sure not to overlook National Mulled Wine Day – as well as almost 50 others

The Wine Curmudgeon has discovered why – despite the evidence – so many people think Americans get drunk on wine very night.

That’s because there are at least 49 days, weeks, and months designated as some sort of wine drinking occasion. I write “at least” because searching for them and counting them was a bit overwhelming. As near as I can tell, there is at least one wine “holiday” every week, more or less. There’s even a Google wine calendar, just like those for religious and national holidays..

That would include National Wine Day, Idaho wine month, and sparkling wine week. Most common varietals, as well as those almost no one has ever heard of, have their day. That includes furmint and marselan.

Most of these occasions, obviously, are marketing gimmicks. They’re cheap and easy to do, don’t require purchasing expensive ads, and usually need nothing more than emailing a news release. I must have gotten a dozen or so for “National Red Wine Day” last month.

And why not? Get an influencer to post a picture to Instagram — #LanguedocDay, baby! — and you can boast to the client that their campaign was a big hit.

Full disclosure: We used this tactic for Drink Local Wine when we were getting the organization started in 2008. We “designated” the second week of October as “Drink Local Wine” week, and though the organization hasn’t been active in years, the week remains on the Google calendar. So I guess it must have worked.

Do these other things work? Who knows? But given the way wine marketing doesn’t do much these days save irritate me, it’s probably not any worse than anything else. And I did write about Furmint Day on Feb. 1, didn’t I?

Update: Wine availability, and why it makes so many people angry

by Wine Curmudgeon Posted On

Man in wine store
“That bleeping wine writer. Why doesn’t she write about wine that I can buy in the store next to my house?”

Once again, the WC tries to parse this availability thing and restore calm to the wine drinking universe

The following is mostly a true story. The names were changed to protect the guilty (though I doubt they would even notice):

Big-time wine writer (not me): “So, you have a question about wine availability?”

Reader: “Yes, and I am furious. You never list any wine shops in my city. What’s wrong with you?”

Wine writer: “Well, there could be a lot of reasons for that. What city do you live in?”

Reader: “I live in City A. Are you being paid not to list any shops in my city?”

Wine writer: “Of course not. No one in City A carried the most recent wine. But there are shops listed in City B. That’s right next to City A, isn’t it?”

Reader: “Why should I have to drive there? This is all your fault.”

Ain’t wine availability grand?

I’ve been grappling with this subject since I did my first wine story in the 1990s. It almost wrecked a friendship with one editor, who refused to believe that every store didn’t carry every wine – because that’s how it worked for everything else. And I did lose a wine writing gig because another editor never understood that, and just assumed I was lazy.

So if I had trouble explaining the concept to editors, the above-detailed story should come as no surprise. I’m a wine drinker. I go to a wine shop. So where the hell is the damned wine?

Would that it were that easy.

The most important thing to understand about wine availability? Just because a wine is in one shop in one city in one state doesn’t mean it will be anywhere else in the world. There are a variety of reasons for that – three-tier, the whims of shop owners, how much of each wine is made each year, and the politics and foolishness that are inherent in wine. But regardless of the reason, it’s about the only absolute in wine availability.

My job as a wine writer is to find and write about wines that are – all together now – generally available. Otherwise, what’s the point? Many of my colleagues write about wine that almost no one can buy. This might make them feel special, but they’re doing a disservice to their readers.

And – all together now – generally available means that a decent independent wine shop in a medium-sized city should be able to find the wine. I won’t write about a wine unless I get the sense that’s the case.

Because, as much as I would like to, I can’t guarantee the wine will be in a shop in City A. No one can. Given the flaws in the system, be glad if you can drive to City B to buy it.

More about wine availability:
• The dilemma of wine availability, why you’re so angry about it, and why it just won’t go away
• Ask the WC 14: The wine availability edition
• Eric Asimov and wine availability

Walmart: An example for the wine business

by Wine Curmudgeon Posted On

Walmart store front
Walmart’s formula: Increased volume, lower prices, more profit

Retailer holds the line on prices, focuses on less expensive items, and makes more money

What does one of the world’s most successful companies do when faced with inflation, declining sales, and all the rest that is going on today?

Find a way to make more money, of course – without raising prices.

Are you paying attention, wine business?

The company is Walmart, and for all of its many failings as a corporate citizen, it knows how to boost the bottom line – over and over and over. The rest of U.S. retailing may be running around in a panic, but not Walmart. To quote one news report: “Walmart topped analysts’ expectations for earnings and revenue in the fiscal second quarter, even as consumers pulled back in discretionary categories like apparel.”

The company did it by holding the line on prices – even cutting some and taking smaller margins — and focusing on less expensive items. Its reward was not only more profit, but a 5 percent jump in its stock price.

In other words, it did exactly the opposite of what the wine business is doing.

Now, before some of you start saying this isn’t exactly an apples to apples comparison, that’s true. But there are enough similarities to make the comparison worthwhile:

• Walmart has noticed many customers, even high-end ones, “trading down” — buying less expensive products as inflation bites. This, of course, is anathema to the wine business, which insists we buy more and more expensive products because it wants us to.

• Demand at Walmart has remained steady, if not a little higher. It is seeing an increase in wealthier customers looking for bargains. The wine business, as we know all too well, hasn’t seen an increase in demand in years.

• Wine is a discretionary product; we don’t need to buy it. Walmart found a way to make more money despite a decline in the sales of discretionary products. What does that say about wine’s near-term health?

I don’t write these things to be spiteful or vindictive, and I wish I didn’t have to to write them at all. But someone needs to remind the wine business that it’s not 1995 anymore – and hasn’t been for a long time.