Comments on "Stalking the Wines of Washington"

The Wall Street Journal's July 10 "On Wine" column by Lettie Teague has left me somewhat perplexed. It seems as though Ms. Teague purports to have been "Stalking the Wines of Washington" while on a visit to the state (including the Wine Bloggers Conference which I attended) only to ferret out a handful of examples to illustrate the promises and problems of Washington Wines. The article, in my opinion, shows only part of the picture.

The picture that emerges from this article is that Washington wines enjoy high price-quality ratios., adding, "But thanks to the current global wine glut there are a lot of great deals around, at prices that make those of Washington's producers seem rather high - and this has put a crimp in many Washington producers' wine sales." Part of the problem is in the Washington State wine brand. Aside from Chateau Ste. Michelle and Columbia Crest (brands in themselves) few Washington wines are found in major markets like New York (I found this out myself on a visit to three Manhattan stores last June).

The article points to the scale of production of Washington Wines , in many instances a few hundred cases (I know a lot of these wineries) which make their wines more expensive to produce than their European or South American counterparts. But I know from experience that the overall quality level in our state is much higher. Of the diversity of varieties, the article says "... this seeming asset may be part of the problem." I, on the other hand, think the diversity of grapes is an asset. The ability to produce a multiplicity of varietals well stands in contrast to Oregon which is simply Pinot (Noir) and Pinot (Gris).

Ms. Teague points out that of the 700 registered wineries in the state, the actual number selling appreciable amounts of wine must be much smaller. "Perhaps their troubles were smaller as well.," Ms. Teague suggests. If so, why ask, "is all this growth actually good?" Why do tourists keep coming to Walla Walla, Woodinville and other areas? The article cites only three wineries having difficulty competing with the deep discounting of of high end California wines. (L'Ecole No.41's Marty Clubb is quoted as saying that the Napa Valley does a better job marketing itself.) I know of a substantial number of Washington wineries doing well selling $50+ wines. The two highly successful wineries mentioned are Quilceda Creek and Cayuse, the top two cult wineries in the state.

In conclusion, Lettie Teague's article is a well-written, illuminating column, but one which sheds light on only part of Washington's diverse wine scene.

An Outstanding New Viognier from aMaurice

This wine is not to be missed. It comes from the aMaurice winery's Estate vineyard which adjoins the winery on the hill above Mill Creek Road out of Walla Walla. Planted in 2006 on alluvial soils - 12 inches of topsoil, 20 feet of sandy loam, 60 feet of gravel, then basalt aquifer. I am reviewing it here as only 48 cases were made and likely will be sold out by the end of August.

2009 aMaurice Cellars "Sparrow" Viognier, Walla Walla Valley, Estate Vineyard ($33)

This wine exhibits a golden straw color and an exotic nose of pear, peach, lichee nuts, jasmine and orange blossoms, The stone fruit flavors are vibrant and resonate back and forth, with notes of stony minerals, anise and a twist of orange peel, followed by a squeeze of grapefruit juice and a hint of passion fruit on the lingering finish. Partially malolactic fermented, it steers a direct course that veers away from the tropical style of Viognier toward a firm cored North Rhone-like style (say, Condrieu). It is the finest Washington Viognier I've tasted so far. 19+/20 points.