Comments on: Cadence Winery: Striving to hit the right note http://winepeeps.com/2008/11/14/cadence-winery-striving-to-hit-the-right-note/ Helping you get the most bang for your buck in wine Sun, 20 May 2012 15:51:41 +0000 hourly 1 By: Kori http://winepeeps.com/2008/11/14/cadence-winery-striving-to-hit-the-right-note/comment-page-1/#comment-1660 Kori Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:20:19 +0000 http://winepeeps.com/?p=465#comment-1660 J, Thanks for your comment. While you make some good points, here are my thoughts on the issues you raised. The average wine consumer does not know which wineries are trying to be “upscale” and which ones are “throwing the leftovers together.” And to try to separate those out into separate categories would be arbitrary and ultimately misleading. When a consumer walks into a wine shop, they are most often confronted with a shelf/aisle of Cabernet Sauvignon, a shelf/aisle of Merlot, a shelf/aisle of Red Blends, etc. Once they decide which shelf/aisle they are interested in, now they must decide which of those wines to buy. Our QPR rating is designed to help them with that decision. By using a calculation that takes into account the wine’s quality rating and price in relation to its peers, the QPR rating helps to determine which wine would deliver the most bang for their buck. It does not give preferential treatment to a wine or winery that is trying to be “upscale” not does it penalize a winery that “throws the leftovers together.” If an “upscale” red blend receives a 3.5 quality rating and costs $55 and a “leftovers” red blend also receives a 3.5 quality rating but costs $20, the QPR rating will clearly be higher for the $20 wine which I believe is a helpful statistic for the consumer. Why pay more for the same level of quality, especially in these tough economic times? Obviously it is up to the consumer to decide whether the price and QPR affect their buying decision. The reason that we do so many blind tastings is to take the label, price, and philosophy (such as “upscale” versus “leftovers”) out of the equation and simply judge a wine based on its merits as compared to its peers (Cabs vs. Cabs, Merlots vs. Merlots, Red Blends vs. Red Blends). As I said in my post, I think that Cadence is doing some great things, and they are clearly trying to produce premium blends. I just think that they might want to reconsider their market positioning especially since, at least from their first vintage, it appears that Cara Mia Vineyard has excellent potential as a Cabernet Sauvignon producer. And remember, to be labeled a Cab, a wine does not have to be 100% Cab (only 75%) so there is still room for some blending to be done to enhance a wine’s complexity. J,
Thanks for your comment. While you make some good points, here are my thoughts on the issues you raised. The average wine consumer does not know which wineries are trying to be “upscale” and which ones are “throwing the leftovers together.” And to try to separate those out into separate categories would be arbitrary and ultimately misleading. When a consumer walks into a wine shop, they are most often confronted with a shelf/aisle of Cabernet Sauvignon, a shelf/aisle of Merlot, a shelf/aisle of Red Blends, etc. Once they decide which shelf/aisle they are interested in, now they must decide which of those wines to buy. Our QPR rating is designed to help them with that decision. By using a calculation that takes into account the wine’s quality rating and price in relation to its peers, the QPR rating helps to determine which wine would deliver the most bang for their buck. It does not give preferential treatment to a wine or winery that is trying to be “upscale” not does it penalize a winery that “throws the leftovers together.” If an “upscale” red blend receives a 3.5 quality rating and costs $55 and a “leftovers” red blend also receives a 3.5 quality rating but costs $20, the QPR rating will clearly be higher for the $20 wine which I believe is a helpful statistic for the consumer. Why pay more for the same level of quality, especially in these tough economic times? Obviously it is up to the consumer to decide whether the price and QPR affect their buying decision.

The reason that we do so many blind tastings is to take the label, price, and philosophy (such as “upscale” versus “leftovers”) out of the equation and simply judge a wine based on its merits as compared to its peers (Cabs vs. Cabs, Merlots vs. Merlots, Red Blends vs. Red Blends).

As I said in my post, I think that Cadence is doing some great things, and they are clearly trying to produce premium blends. I just think that they might want to reconsider their market positioning especially since, at least from their first vintage, it appears that Cara Mia Vineyard has excellent potential as a Cabernet Sauvignon producer. And remember, to be labeled a Cab, a wine does not have to be 100% Cab (only 75%) so there is still room for some blending to be done to enhance a wine’s complexity.

]]> By: J Pagenkopf http://winepeeps.com/2008/11/14/cadence-winery-striving-to-hit-the-right-note/comment-page-1/#comment-1652 J Pagenkopf Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:35:41 +0000 http://winepeeps.com/?p=465#comment-1652 I think your current categorization of red blends is currently a bit unfair to those wine makes trying to produce a premium blend and certainly misleading to wine consumers. Perhaps some designation like "upscale" red blend vs "the throw all the leftovers together" red blend. This way you would be comparing apples to apples and not lumping everything together. Personally, I prefer the better blends rather than single variety as they generally produce a much more complex wine. I applaud Cadence for their efforts and their wines should be compared to peers (O-S, Note Bene, and DeLille come to mind). Not to be too disparaging to the "the throw all the leftovers together" red blend makers, as I've found some excellent value wines, e.g. Thurston Wolfe Family Red, Tamarack Firehouse Red and Cougar Crest Dedication, although there is no taste consistency from year to year (just interesting wines). I think your current categorization of red blends is currently a bit unfair to those wine makes trying to produce a premium blend and certainly misleading to wine consumers. Perhaps some designation like “upscale” red blend vs “the throw all the leftovers together” red blend. This way you would be comparing apples to apples and not lumping everything together. Personally, I prefer the better blends rather than single variety as they generally produce a much more complex wine. I applaud Cadence for their efforts and their wines should be compared to peers (O-S, Note Bene, and DeLille come to mind).

Not to be too disparaging to the “the throw all the leftovers together” red blend makers, as I’ve found some excellent value wines, e.g. Thurston Wolfe Family Red, Tamarack Firehouse Red and Cougar Crest Dedication, although there is no taste consistency from year to year (just interesting wines).

]]>