Happiness is having your very favorite California Chardonnay cost $15. Or less. I kid you not. There are many, many California Chards I haven't tried yet, and there are many others that have impressed me extremely favorably until I saw the price tag, but nobody makes a long-lived, full-bodied, well-rounded, delicious and affordable Cal Chard like Josh Jensen. And, no, I'm not talking about the often over-oaked, flamboyant and sometimes quirky, sometimes awesome Mt. Harlan bottling.
I opened my last bottle of 1996 Calera Central Coast Chardonnay Friday night with a scrumpious grilled Steelhead salmon. While my $35 Wine Spectator-touted 96 Beringers have long since given up the ghost, this wine was still youthful, rambunctious and thoroughly tasty, with notes of pineapple and honeysuckle and a gorgeous mouthfeel that almost made me reluctant to swallow it. (Er ... anyway ... ) The 1998 is drinking beautifully, but is way short of showing its best stuff yet and I'm not opening my 2000s for a while yet. As you can see, I've somehow managed to miss the "best" vintages in these case purchases lately, but it really doesn't seem to matter. I had a few 94s and 95s and I have a few half bottles of the 97, and the wine is consistently great and greatly consistent, vintage to vintage. If I had to choose one California Chardonnay to stock my cellar with, this would be it. (Fortunately, though, I don't. Variety is indeed the spice of life.)
Sunday, February 22, 2004
The battle is pitched. And it looks like the next stop may very well be the Supreme Court. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined one other federal appeals court (the Seventh Circuit) in upholding state laws that effectively ban the direct interstate shipment of wine (Swedenburg v. Kelly). The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have already gone the other way.
It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. The Second Circuit is bucking the tide here, and the Supreme Court has already handed down at least one anti-protectionist ruling on interstate wine shipment. But that was twenty years ago, a different Court and a different issue (tariffs), and the decision is in any case (somewhat unconvincingly, IMO) distinguished by the Second Circuit.
There is a twist to Swedenburg that may make a difference, but it shouldn't. Rather than banning direct sales of wine from out-of-state, the New York law in question simply requires any out-of-state winery that wants to engage in direct shipment to "establish a presence" in New York. An office or warehouse is sufficient, along with production of the necessary paperwork and filing fees. And there's the rub -- and the error in the court's reasoning, as I see it. The Virginia winery that brought the suit apparently presented evidence that the costs of complying with the "presence" regulations were so burdensome as to negate the benefits of direct access to the market. To which the court's (wholly inadequate) response, in a footnote, was basically "too bad." In the absence of a serious analysis of whether the "presence" option is rendered nugatory by virtue of its economic impact, the court's reliance on this distinction is misplaced.
Moreover, the Second Circuit panel refused to see the New York regulations as economic protectionism but instead viewed them as a legitimate means of accountability. Perhaps their myopia on this score is is partly due to the fact that the real protagonist in the protectionist wine wars isn't really the "state," but rather the league of dishonorable wholesalers and retailers hiding behind its skirts. But reading the Swedenburg opinion, you'd get the impression that New York is the only state in the Union that has a substantial interest in regulating the conduct of the producers and purveyors of alcoholic beverages within its borders. The "presence" requirement, says the court, is reasonable because New York regulators can't be expected to travel to Virginia (or California, or Oregon or Washington) to make sure that wineries are adhering to New York's high standards of cleanliness, record-keeping and social responsibility. That argument is absurd on its face, unless it can be demonstrated that there is something lacking in Virginia's (or any other wine exporting state's) own regulatory aparatus. A law restricting the import of wine from any state that didn't satisfy certain basic regulatory standards would be a horse of a different color. But that's not what this case was about.
Again, it's an interesting battle that's far from over. Stay tuned.
(For the full text of Swedenburg v. Kelly, click here, then on the "Current Month" link under "Decisions" (left hand column) and then on 02-9511 under "Docket" -- it's about halfway down.)
It's going to be interesting to see where this ends up. The Second Circuit is bucking the tide here, and the Supreme Court has already handed down at least one anti-protectionist ruling on interstate wine shipment. But that was twenty years ago, a different Court and a different issue (tariffs), and the decision is in any case (somewhat unconvincingly, IMO) distinguished by the Second Circuit.
There is a twist to Swedenburg that may make a difference, but it shouldn't. Rather than banning direct sales of wine from out-of-state, the New York law in question simply requires any out-of-state winery that wants to engage in direct shipment to "establish a presence" in New York. An office or warehouse is sufficient, along with production of the necessary paperwork and filing fees. And there's the rub -- and the error in the court's reasoning, as I see it. The Virginia winery that brought the suit apparently presented evidence that the costs of complying with the "presence" regulations were so burdensome as to negate the benefits of direct access to the market. To which the court's (wholly inadequate) response, in a footnote, was basically "too bad." In the absence of a serious analysis of whether the "presence" option is rendered nugatory by virtue of its economic impact, the court's reliance on this distinction is misplaced.
Moreover, the Second Circuit panel refused to see the New York regulations as economic protectionism but instead viewed them as a legitimate means of accountability. Perhaps their myopia on this score is is partly due to the fact that the real protagonist in the protectionist wine wars isn't really the "state," but rather the league of dishonorable wholesalers and retailers hiding behind its skirts. But reading the Swedenburg opinion, you'd get the impression that New York is the only state in the Union that has a substantial interest in regulating the conduct of the producers and purveyors of alcoholic beverages within its borders. The "presence" requirement, says the court, is reasonable because New York regulators can't be expected to travel to Virginia (or California, or Oregon or Washington) to make sure that wineries are adhering to New York's high standards of cleanliness, record-keeping and social responsibility. That argument is absurd on its face, unless it can be demonstrated that there is something lacking in Virginia's (or any other wine exporting state's) own regulatory aparatus. A law restricting the import of wine from any state that didn't satisfy certain basic regulatory standards would be a horse of a different color. But that's not what this case was about.
Again, it's an interesting battle that's far from over. Stay tuned.
(For the full text of Swedenburg v. Kelly, click here, then on the "Current Month" link under "Decisions" (left hand column) and then on 02-9511 under "Docket" -- it's about halfway down.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)