Because when you really look at it, the science isn’t romantic at all.

Even the most ageworthy wines — the ones built to go the distance — are all heading the same way. You just don’t notice it at first.

Oxidation. Slow, constant exposure to oxygen, gradually breaking things down.

In wine, it softens structure, dulls aromatics, and eventually the wine can’t hold itself together.

In us, it shows up as oxidative stress — the same idea, just playing out in living systems. Cells don’t repair as cleanly. Systems lose efficiency over time.

Different forms. Same direction.

The wine doesn’t feel as tightly held.
Fruit that once felt bright and precise starts to blur… then soften.
Aromatics don’t quite lift the same way.
And over time, you see it — sediment collecting, the wine literally letting things go that it can’t hold anymore.

It’s not a failure. It’s just… what happens. To every wine.

And that’s the part that caught me.
Because it didn’t stay about wine for long.
We age through the same kind of slow unravelling.

There isn’t one moment you can point to. It’s not like something breaks and that’s it.
It’s more subtle than that.

The body changes first, maybe. Or maybe you just notice it there first. Things take longer. Recovery isn’t what it used to be. There’s a kind of background effort that wasn’t there before.

But it’s not just physical.

The mind shifts in its own way.
You hold less at once. Or differently.
Some edges soften, which isn’t always a bad thing… but it’s noticeable.

It’s not decline in the dramatic sense. Not yet.
It’s more like… the system isn’t as tightly wound as it once was.

And the more I thought about it, the more the wine parallel kept holding.
Because what gives a wine longevity isn’t just strength.
It’s how everything sits together.

Acidity keeps it upright.
Tannin gives it shape and resistance.
Sugar, sometimes, helps carry it further.
And then there’s everything around it — how it’s stored, how steady the conditions are, whether it’s protected or exposed.

The wines that last aren’t just powerful. They’re composed.
They hold.

So naturally, the question turns back.
What does that look like for us?
Not in a self-help way. Just… structurally.

What keeps us steady over time?

Physical health, yes. That’s the frame.
But also how we think. How we process.
What we carry emotionally — and how tightly we grip it.
And the conditions we live in. The people around us. The pace we set without really questioning it.

None of this stops the ending.
Wine doesn’t escape oxidation. It just moves through it for as long as it can.

Same with us.
At some point, things do give way. In both.

But before that, there’s a long stretch where the wine is still very much alive. Changing, yes. But also deepening. Becoming something else.

Or not.
Some wines fall apart early. You open them and there’s nothing really there anymore.

Others… even as they soften, they stay coherent. There’s a kind of quiet integrity to them. You can feel that they’ve held together well for a long time.
That part stays with you more than the peak ever does.

And maybe that’s the whole thing.
Not about avoiding ageing — that’s not possible in either case.

But about whether the years leading up to that final pour…
were lived in balance.

And whether, when the sediment settles…
what remains was worth the wait.

Subscribe now

I still believe that deeply.

But over the past year, as I have judged across multiple wine competitions, I have come to see more clearly that honesty alone is not enough to protect fairness in blind tasting. There is another quality judging demands of us — quieter, less discussed, but equally essential:

Discipline.

Blind judging is one of wine’s most carefully designed systems of fairness. Labels are removed. Prices disappear. Reputation is stripped away. In principle, every wine enters the room equal, asking only to be understood for what it is in the glass.

That fairness, however, depends not only on anonymity.
It depends on how judges behave around one another.

This is precisely why wines are judged in small panels — usually two or three judges at a table, sometimes more in larger competitions. The purpose is not to create instant agreement. It is to protect independent perception before consensus begins.

Each judge is meant to taste the wine first in silence.
Assess it privately.
Record notes and provisional scores without outside influence.

Only after that independent work is done should discussion begin.
That discussion exists for calibration, not persuasion.

Calibration sounds like:
“I’m finding mustiness here — are you getting the same?”

Persuasion sounds like:
“This wine is corked.”

The difference between those two approaches is subtle, but profound.

One preserves inquiry.
The other closes it too early.

And this is where blind judging becomes more fragile than many realize.

In judging rooms everywhere — competitions, critic panels, certification tastings, professional reviews — one dynamic repeats itself with surprising ease: a confident voice speaks first, and the room begins to bend around it.

An experienced judge calls a fault quickly.
A vivid descriptor is declared before others have completed their own assessment.
A conclusion enters the air with certainty, and suddenly every palate in the room must work harder to remain independent.

This is rarely malicious.
More often, it happens in complete good faith — the natural byproduct of experience, confidence, and the human tendency to trust certainty.

But good faith does not eliminate influence.

Wine tasting is interpretive before it becomes definitive. Aromas often begin in ambiguity.

Take mustiness, for example.

A musty note in a glass is not automatically cork taint. It may indeed signal TCA, but it may also arise from bottle age, reductive handling, muted fruit expression, damp cellar character, bottle variation, oxidative development, or simply a wine that needs time to open. Certain earthy tertiary notes can initially seem closed or stale before resolving into something more nuanced.

The problem begins when ambiguity is rushed into certainty.

When one judge declares a wine flawed before interpretive space has been allowed to breathe, alternative readings disappear too soon. Independent sensory work is interrupted. And the panel risks shifting from collective discernment into unconscious conformity.

I have felt this pressure myself.
Even trained tasters are human. Confidence has gravity. Reputation carries weight. A strong early opinion can pull others toward it before they have fully listened to their own glass.

That is why I believe wine judging needs not only scoring systems, but shared behavioral principles — standards that protect the integrity of the room itself.

These are the principles I believe every judge should hold:
Taste fully before speaking.
No verbal framing should begin before each judge has had sufficient quiet time to assess independently.

Describe before declaring.
“I’m finding mustiness” invites inquiry.
“This wine is corked” ends inquiry too soon.

Authority must create space.
The more experienced the judge, the greater their responsibility not to dominate first impressions.

Fault calls require humility.
TCA, oxidation, reduction, VA — these should be raised carefully, and always with openness to reassessment.

Silence protects fairness.
Quiet before discussion is not inefficiency; it is integrity.

Language should clarify, not perform.
Descriptors should illuminate what is in the glass, not display cleverness or command the room.

Always return to the wine after discussion.
Once others have spoken, every judge owes the wine a second independent reading.

None of these principles are dramatic.
That is precisely their strength.

The integrity of blind judging is rarely lost in spectacular ways.
It is lost in small moments:
a premature declaration,
an overconfident certainty,
a room that stops listening to the wine and starts listening to the loudest palate.

This is not about one judge, one panel, or one tasting.
It is a dynamic that exists in judging rooms everywhere.

And because it is universal, it deserves to be named.

A year ago, I argued for gentle honesty in wine judging — truth without cruelty, clarity without ego.

Today, I would add one more layer:

Wine deserves gentle honesty.
But judging rooms also require gentle discipline.

Because in the end, the loudest voice in the room should never become the final verdict.

That privilege belongs only to the wine.

Subscribe now

It doesn’t.

The vessel is not a container. It is a system.
It governs oxygen exposure, temperature, extraction, microbial behavior, lees movement, and ultimately how a wine feels, develops, and where it sits in the market.

Change the vessel, and you do not just tweak the wine.
You change the pathway it takes.

Material is not neutral. It is a redox decision.

At the simplest level, vessel choice is about oxygen.

Stainless steel sits at one end. It is effectively impermeable: no oxygen ingress, full control, clean reductive conditions.

That is why Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc looks the way it does. Producers such as Cloudy Bay rely on stainless steel not because it is modern, but because it preserves volatile thiols and esters. Lose oxygen control here, and you lose the wine’s defining aromatics.

Oak sits at the other end.

And oak is not just flavor.

Its slow oxygen ingress drives polymerization: tannins link, anthocyanins stabilize, structure softens. Ellagitannins from the wood act as oxidative and structural buffers. Oak therefore shapes not only aroma, but the tempo of a wine’s evolution.

This is why a Barolo aged in large botti behaves so differently from one raised in barrique, even when overt oak flavor is restrained.

Between these poles sit concrete, amphora, and now increasingly, engineered hybrids.

Concrete allows low, steady oxygen transfer without flavor contribution. Amphora, especially unlined, permits greater oxygen exposure and introduces more microbial variability.

In Kakheti, qvevri fermentation is not rustic tradition for its own sake.
It is a deliberate acceptance of oxygen, solids, porosity, and microbial complexity working together.

Material is not neutral.
It is a redox framework.

Oxygen does not come from one place.

It is tempting to think oxygen is determined by vessel material alone.

It isn’t.

Closure systems, headspace management, topping, racking, and handling all affect oxygen ingress. The vessel establishes the baseline, but the winemaker still controls exposure.

Which is why two wines in identical barrels can evolve differently.

Temperature is not just control. It is direction.

Fermentation temperature shapes yeast metabolism. That much is familiar.

What matters more deeply is how vessel material determines thermal behavior.

Stainless steel allows precise temperature regulation. Cool ferments preserve esters and thiols, producing wines that are linear, aromatic, and immediate.

Concrete and large oak behave differently. They retain heat.
They create slower, more stable fermentations, often yielding wines with less aromatic volatility but greater textural cohesion.

Temperature is not just about speed.
It determines which fermentation pathway dominates: primary fruit expression or early structural integration.

Shape does not just hold wine. It moves it.

Shape matters because shape affects movement.

In conventional cylindrical tanks, circulation depends largely on intervention: pump-overs, punch-downs, bâtonnage.

In ovoid vessels, gentle temperature gradients can encourage slow internal circulation. Not dramatic, but enough to keep fine lees in suspension and maintain continuous contact between wine and solids.

This principle is visible in many modern egg-shaped systems, from concrete eggs in white winemaking to more experimental oak egg vessels.

At Champagne Drappier, the Éclose project demonstrates this at its most refined: malolactic fermentation takes place inside a wooden egg with fine lees present, allowing simultaneous interaction between wine, lees, oak, and oxygen. The curved geometry prevents stagnation points, encouraging passive circulation and gradual mannoprotein release without mechanical intervention.

What this creates is effectively bâtonnage without bâtonnage.

Shape is not decorative.
It is internal kinetics.

Read more

Four years ago, I walked away from a life that made sense on paper.

Two decades in technology.
Global teams. Constant travel.
A version of success that was structured, predictable… respected.

And then I left.

Not because I had a perfect plan.
I didn’t.

I just knew I couldn’t keep going the way I was.

When I stepped into wine, I didn’t step into it as an expert.
I stepped into it as a beginner.

I started in restaurants in Temecula.
Hosting. Back of house.
Learning how service actually works… how bottles move… how a cellar breathes.

It was humbling in a way I wasn’t prepared for.

After years of leading rooms…
I was now learning how to stand at the backest of the back of one, polishing glasses.
Quiet work. Repetitive. Invisible.

At the same time, I was studying.

Level 1. Level 2. Level 3.
CSW. French Wine Scholar. Diploma.

It sounds fast when you list it out like that.
It didn’t feel fast.

It felt like rebuilding my brain.

What I wasn’t expecting—
wine education isn’t just about learning facts.

It’s about learning how to think differently.
And for a long time… I didn’t know how to do that.

I could read a chapter and understand it.

But when I had to write…
when I had to explain…
when I had to sit in front of three wines and make a call…

something slipped.
Not everything. Just enough to make you question yourself.

And I stayed there longer than I needed to.
Because no one really teaches you how to bridge that gap.

You’re given information.
You’re told to “understand.”
But the structure… the translation… the way through…

you’re expected to figure that out on your own.

So I did.
Slowly.

Not by learning more…
but by stripping things back.

What actually matters here?

Cause → effect.
What is driving this wine to taste the way it does?
What is noise… and what is signal?

It wasn’t elegant.

There were weeks where nothing landed.
Essays that went nowhere.
Tastings where everything felt uncertain.

But then… small shifts.
One connection.
Then another.

Until eventually… it held.

And somewhere in that process, something else happened.

People started reaching out.
At first, just questions.

Then regular sessions.
Then study circles.

And I started hearing things I didn’t expect.

“This is the first time this makes sense.”
“I don’t feel lost anymore.”
“I finally know how to approach this.”

I keep those messages.
Not as validation.

But as reminders.
Of exactly where I was not too long ago.

The Sommpour may have started as a business in 2022.
But it didn’t stay that way.

It evolved as a response.

To confusion.
To scattered learning.
To doing the work and still feeling like something wasn’t clicking.

If I strip everything down… it comes back to three things.

Structure.
Clarity.
Community.

Structure — because without it, knowledge doesn’t become answers.
Clarity — because most people aren’t struggling with effort, they’re struggling with what actually matters.
Community — because this journey, done alone, is heavier than it needs to be.

There’s another layer to this too.
One I don’t always say.

I come from a place where wine wasn’t part of everyday life.
Where access — to knowledge, to bottles, to the industry itself — isn’t a given.

And I’ve carried that with me.

This quiet awareness that what feels normal in some parts of the world
is still out of reach in others.

So when I teach…
it’s not just about exams.

It’s about making this world feel a little more open.
A little more reachable.

I didn’t shape The Sommpour because I had everything figured out.
It became what it is because I didn’t.

Even now…

I’m still studying.
Still refining.
Still getting things wrong.

But I’m not lost anymore.

And more importantly…
the people who come into this space don’t have to stay lost as long as I did.

That’s the work.
Quiet. Repetitive.
Week after week.
Watching something click.

That’s why I teach.

Subscribe now

Not loud. Not Napa. Not polished into submission.

Just… a room full of bottles that don’t quite belong anywhere else.

You walk into the Festival of Undiscovered Grapes and the first thing that hits you isn’t prestige — it’s range.

Producers from everywhere.
Bakersfield. Sierra Foothills. Lodi. Central Coast.
Not the usual suspects. Not the usual script.

And the wines…

Kerner. Bourboulenc. Picpoul. Assyrtiko. Souzao. Dornfelder. Cabernet Pfeffer — which, it turns out, isn’t even what we thought it was. DNA says Mourtaou. A near-extinct French variety, quietly alive again.

You look at the order sheet and it reads less like a wine list and more like a map of forgotten Europe… replanted in California soil.

Over a hundred varieties.
All sitting in the shadow of nine.

Because those nine grapes still account for 93% of California plantings.

This room?
The other 7%.

What it feels like to taste the 7%

I tasted over 35 wines.

At some point you stop writing full notes. You start writing impressions. Arrows. Half-thoughts.

But a few stood out.

A blend from Markus Wine Co — Kerner, Grüner Veltliner, Gewürztraminer, Vermentino.
It shouldn’t work on paper.
But in the glass? Pale lemon, lifted aromatics — stone fruit, lychee — clean, fresh, quietly confident.

A Bourboulenc from Acquiesce.
A grape you almost never see on its own.
But here — restrained, citrus-led, a slight waxy texture, held together by clean acidity. Simple, but precise.

An old vine Carignan from Maley Brothers.
126 years old. Dry farmed.
And you could feel it — that depth, that calm concentration. Not loud. Just… settled.

An Orange Muscat blend from Heleje. Dry. Aromatic. Slightly more expressive than the first white, but still held together.

A Nero d’Avola rosé — deeper color than expected, a bit of phenolic grip, but it held its acidity well.

And then that Carbonic Nouveau from Vino Tahoe — Souzao and Primitivo.
Deep, almost deceptive color. Fruit-forward, yes. But there was still tannin underneath. Like it hadn’t fully let go of itself.

And Cabernet Pfeffer… bright red fruit, pepper, a kind of angular energy. Not trying to be anything else.

The pattern that starts to emerge

After a while, something clicks.

Not about the grapes.
About the winemaking.

Almost everything leaned the same way.

Clean.
Precise.
Stainless steel.
Early picked.
Minimal oak — if any, older barrels, short élevage.
Released young.

These weren’t wines asking for time.
They were ready. Now.

Fresh, food-friendly, easy to drink. The kind of wines you chill without overthinking. The kind you open on a Tuesday and finish without ceremony.

And that’s not accidental.
That’s exactly where the market is right now.

Why this works (and why it matters)

Here’s the interesting part.

These wines do something the classics often don’t.
They lower the barrier.

Someone who would never pick up a Grüner Veltliner… or a Picpoul… suddenly will.
Not because they understand it.
Because it’s approachable.

Because it doesn’t demand anything from them.

And slowly, almost without realizing it, they’re drinking outside the usual nine.
That matters.

Because discovery rarely starts with complexity.
It starts with comfort.

But there’s a tension you can’t ignore

And this is where it gets complicated.

Because alongside that freshness, that accessibility — something else is happening.
Some of these grapes… feel softened.

Nebbiolo without its grip.
Tempranillo without its structure.
Portuguese blends — Touriga Nacional, Tinta Roriz — softened into something far more immediate, far less age-worthy.
Tannat without its defiance.

You understand why.
Early picking. Short extraction. Neutral vessels.

You’re shaping the wine for drinkability.
But in doing that… you’re also reshaping the grape.

And if you’ve tasted these varieties in their natural homes — Piedmont, Ribera, the Douro — there’s a quiet disconnect.

They don’t quite land as “classic.”

Not wrong.
Just… changed.

Sometimes beautifully.
Sometimes a little too polished.

Price, too, tells a story

Another thing that stood out.

The range.

Some wines sitting comfortably at everyday pricing.
Others pushing into premium territory.

And that raises a quiet question.

If a wine is positioned as fresh, early-drinking, varietally exploratory… how far can price stretch before expectation shifts?

It’s not a criticism. Just something that sits there, unresolved.

So what is this festival really about?

At first glance, it’s about grapes.

But it’s not.
It’s about direction.

California has always been capable of growing almost anything.
That’s not new.

What’s new… is what it chooses to do with that capability.

This festival shows a version of California that is:
Less varietally rigid
Less stylistically heavy
More experimental
More immediate

And maybe… more aligned with how people actually drink today.

And somewhere in the middle of all that…

I found myself doing something I didn’t expect.

I placed an order.
Six bottles. For my mother-in-love.

Because I know exactly how she drinks.
And these wines — chilled, easy, expressive — fit her perfectly… and quietly open her palate to varietals she may not otherwise reach for.

Which, in its own way, says everything.

Final thought

The Festival of Undiscovered Grapes doesn’t try to replace the classics.

It sits beside them.

But it does raise a question that lingers long after the tasting ends:

Are we discovering new grapes…
or redefining them to fit who we’ve become as drinkers?

And maybe the answer is both.

Subscribe now

It repeats itself. Deliberately.
The same course. The same green jacket. The same slow build toward Sunday afternoon, where history feels less like something that happened… and more like something that keeps happening.

And tucked inside that week, almost quietly, is another ritual.

On Tuesday evening, past champions gather for what’s known as the Champions Dinner.

It dates back to 1952. Each year, the defending champion hosts. He chooses the menu. He pays for it. And for one night, the room bends—just slightly—around his idea of home.

At first glance, it feels like one of the more human traditions in a very controlled world.

But if you sit with it long enough… something else starts to come through.

Because the Champions Dinner is not really about food.
It’s about memory.

Tiger Woods went back to his Southern California childhood—fajitas, sushi, things that made sense long before they became global staples.

Jordan Spieth didn’t try to elevate anything. Texas barbecue. Direct. Unapologetic.

Angel Cabrera brought Argentina to the table—chorizo, blood sausage, short ribs, the full weight of asado.

Hideki Matsuyama brought Japan.
Jon Rahm brought Spain.
Phil Mickelson, at one point, brought a quiet nod to Seve.

Even Bubba Watson… that almost disarmingly simple plate—chicken, mac and cheese—still holds.

Because it says something honest.
This is me. This is mine.

Over time, the table becomes a map.
Not of technique. Not of culinary ambition.
But of identity.

You can trace where each man comes from without needing a single explanation.
The food does that work on its own.

And then, somewhere along the way, you start to notice the glass.
Or rather… how little it changes.

The food moves.
The wine doesn’t.

For decades, wine was present… but rarely intentional. It sat in the background, assumed rather than articulated.

And when it does come into focus, it follows a very particular line.
Bordeaux. Burgundy. Champagne. Sauternes.

The same names. The same regions. The same quiet agreement about what counts.

Which brings us to Rory McIlroy.

His 2026 Champions Dinner menu reads, at first, like a natural extension of everything that came before.

A Champagne from Salon.
A white Burgundy from Domaine Leflaive—Bâtard-Montrachet 2022.
A mature Bordeaux—Château Lafite Rothschild 1990.
And to close, Château d’Yquem 1989.

It’s a list that doesn’t ask questions.
It doesn’t need to.

Because what Rory has done here isn’t introduce something new.
He’s clarified something that’s always been there.

For much of the dinner’s history, wine was present but rarely intentional.
Rory’s list changes that—not by introducing wine, but by making it speak.

His food still holds that personal thread—wild game, elk, something grounded in what he’s been drawn to recently.

But the wine?

The wine doesn’t point inward.
It points outward.

Toward a shared, global understanding of what greatness looks like.

And that’s where the shift becomes visible.

Because if you look at the Champions Dinner across decades, two stories are running at the same time.

On the plate, there is freedom.

Champions bring their culture, their upbringing, their comfort. The table expands to hold those differences.

But in the glass…
The choices narrow.

Rory’s selection is not just expensive. That’s the easy read.
It’s resolved.

Salon.
Leflaive.
Lafite.
Yquem.

There is nothing uncertain here.
And that’s exactly the point.

Because this is not a list built to express where someone comes from.
It’s built to align with what everyone in that room already understands.

No need to explain. No risk of misreading.
Just recognition.

And once you see that, the dinner shifts.
It’s no longer just a celebration of individuality.
It’s a negotiation.
Between expression… and belonging.

The Masters, as an institution, has always evolved carefully.
It allows movement—but only to a degree that doesn’t disturb its center.

You can bring your food. Your culture. Your story.
But when it comes to the symbols of status—of seriousness, of permanence—the boundaries hold.

They always have.

Outside Augusta, wine has moved.

New regions have stepped forward. Styles have shifted. The conversation has widened in ways that would have been unthinkable even twenty years ago.

But inside that room…
The language remains familiar.
Deliberately so.

And maybe that’s not a flaw.
Maybe that’s the design.

Because the Masters is not trying to reflect the world as it is.
It’s trying to preserve a version of it that still feels stable.

Which is why this dinner matters more than it seems.
Not because of what’s served,
but because of what repeats.

The Champions Dinner tells two stories at once.
On the plate, you see where each champion comes from.
In the glass, you see what the institution still believes in.

And the distance between those two things…
is where the real story lives.

Postscript: After the Dinner Was Served

Now that Rory McIlroy’s Champions Dinner has taken place, something quietly revealing has emerged.

In post-dinner coverage, McIlroy described the wines as “my favorite part of the menu,” adding: “I wanted to be really intentional with the wines.”

That one sentence changes the texture of the table.

When I first wrote this piece, the observation was interpretive: Rory’s selections felt different because they moved wine from background presence into deliberate expression.

Now we know that was not projection. It was intention.

And perhaps that is what makes this year’s dinner such a defining moment in the history of the Champions Table.

For decades, the wines at Augusta have existed as part of the setting—rarely foregrounded, rarely discussed as narrative choices in themselves.

Rory changed that.
Not by choosing more expensive bottles, though the reported US$65,800 bill certainly underscores the scale.

But by treating wine not as accompaniment…
and not even as luxury…

But as authorship.

The plate still spoke of home.
The glass, this year, spoke because he meant it to.

And that makes the story at Augusta just a little harder to ignore.

Subscribe now

The detail that travels is where it was found.
But that’s not the point.

The point is that nothing has changed.

Continuity is a choice

Wine leans heavily on the language of tradition.
But tradition is often interpretive — shaped by style, by region, by people.

This is different.

The study confirms that growers in 15th-century France were cultivating the same genetic material that defines Pinot Noir today. Not a predecessor. Not a close relative.

The same vine, carried forward through cuttings.

Clonal propagation is usually framed as technique — a way to lock in desirable traits, ensure consistency, manage risk.

In practice, it is something else.
It is a decision, repeated over generations, to continue rather than replace.

Each cutting carries that decision forward.

A vine that remembers

Wine is one of the few agricultural products where time accumulates inside the material itself.

The vine in the ground today is not just similar to what came before.

It is materially continuous with it.

That continuity is not passive. It is maintained.

Movement, not stillness

The broader research complicates the idea of a fixed past.

Across centuries, vines moved.

Domesticated varieties travelled between regions — from the Mediterranean through France, into Central and Northern Europe. They crossed with local wild populations. They adapted, shifted, recombined.

Wine was never static.

And yet, within that movement, certain varieties were held in place.

Not because change was impossible.

Because it was resisted.

The break in the pattern

For centuries, continuity has felt stable.

Pinot Noir behaves within a known range.
Regions express themselves within understood boundaries.

That assumption is now under pressure.

Higher temperatures accelerate ripening.
Acidity falls. Alcohol rises. Phenolic development shifts.

The same clone, planted in the same site, no longer produces the same outcome.
Continuity at the level of genetics no longer guarantees continuity of style.

Where continuity starts to bend

Clonal propagation has always been selective.

But selection does not have to mean preservation alone.
It can also mean adjustment.

Growers are already responding:

• shifting picking decisions to manage sugar and acid balance

• adapting canopy to protect against heat and sunburn

• reconsidering site suitability, even within historically stable regions

• exploring clonal diversity rather than relying on narrow selections

None of these break continuity outright.

But they stretch it.

Quietly.

A seed preserved by accident confirms that Pinot Noir has remained genetically continuous for at least six centuries.

That continuity was never inevitable.

It was maintained, deliberately, one cutting at a time.

What happens next will be decided the same way…
but under very different conditions.

Subscribe now

I’ve been part of the Lone Wolf project since 2023. Long enough that it’s no longer a visit. It’s a responsibility. A return.

Lone Wolf sits on the Pechanga Reservation near Temecula, Southern California. Before it is a vineyard, it is tribal land. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians have stewarded this place long before vines were planted here in the late 1800s. Every time we step among those old trunks, we are guests. That awareness changes how you move. How you cut. How you speak.

The vineyard itself was planted in the late nineteenth century and largely abandoned in the 1960s. Many vines went unpruned for decades. They grew wild. Feral. Collapsing inward. Competing with themselves.

When Abe Schoener and Raj Parr began rehabilitating the site, it wasn’t revival for spectacle. It was stewardship. Careful pruning. Gradually guiding goblet vines back toward an open core. Reducing stress instead of forcing control.

The first serious pruning quintupled fruit compared to the unpruned state. Not because more was demanded. Because balance was restored.

I’ve taught that principle in structured wine education.
But I learned it with shears in my hand.

Brutal cold. Brutal heat.

Pruning doesn’t happen in comfort.

One year we pruned in 38°F, windswept rain. Fingers numb. Secateurs slipping. Trying to make precise cuts while the weather works against you. And yet the food and wine tasting that followed — the circle of tired, wet humans learning together — made every cut worth it.

Other years it’s the opposite.

Harsh California heat. Wasps everywhere. Or that strange harvest tension when rain is threatening and fruit has to come off now. Your shoulders tighten. Decisions feel heavier.

This is not academic learning.
This is embodied learning.

What the vines actually taught us

In classrooms we read about vine structure, sap flow, wound management.
At Lone Wolf we practice it.

We learn to nurture the core vine structure and shut down the “wildlings” — identifying the true trunk among several, respecting the vine’s natural architecture instead of imposing symmetry.

We think about sap flow — protecting the vascular continuity of the plant instead of interrupting it carelessly.

We learn to avoid big cuts near the crown to prevent internal corking and disease entry.

We leave protective wood, understanding that every cut creates dry-back.

And most importantly, we are told again and again: trust your observations. Trust your common sense.

Clean out satellites. Remove weak canes even if they’re perfectly positioned. Avoid downward-facing spurs.

Wine education gives you language.
Vineyard work gives you judgement.

The two are not interchangeable.

Coyote watch

One year, coyotes took a serious portion of the crop. Drought makes fruit irresistible.

I live closest to the Pechanga site.
So close to harvest, I go up at night with a torch and a stick.
Coyote watch.

You stand among vines planted in 1896, listening. Sometimes you see eyes flash in the beam. Sometimes just movement in the brush.

My husband is on the phone with me while I patrol. Sometimes we barely speak. He just listens through the line. Sometimes he’s ready to come if needed. It’s simple. Practical. Quiet. Thankfully, we haven’t lost fruit to coyotes since.

During the day, I test Brix. Walk rows. Sample clusters from different sections. Track sugar accumulation, yes — but also flavour, seed texture, skin resistance. Check if numbers align with what the berries are saying. Letting Abe know so he can schedule picking.

In one part of my life, I teach ripeness parameters for certification exams.
In another, I decide whether we harvest at dawn.
The difference is weight.

The Wolf Pack

This is what I struggle to describe without sounding sentimental.
Every year we gather again.

Some seasoned. Some new. Forty people sometimes. Many who had never held pruning shears before their first winter.

We sweat together. We make mistakes together. We learn together.
And when the sun goes down, something shifts.

We chop vegetables. Grill lamb. Open bottles. Sit at community style tables. Abe talks through why a cut was wrong last year — sometimes laughing, “probably done by me.” Raj discusses harvest timing. Kaeley walks us through fermentation choices. We taste the vintage and understand what our labor shaped.

This is not performance.
This is shared agricultural literacy.

There is a kind of family that forms when people return to the same place year after year to work. Not a sentimental family. A functional one. Built on repetition, trust, and shared responsibility.

We call ourselves the Wolf Pack half jokingly.
But we come back.

The balance

I believe deeply in wine education. In certifications. In academic structure. In understanding systems clearly.

But Lone Wolf keeps that knowledge honest.

Education without land can become abstract.
Land without reflection can become romantic.

The balance is the point.

Pruning in freezing rain. Harvesting in heat and wasps. Guarding fruit at night. Testing Brix. Listening to winemakers explain why philosophy shifts when the cellar demands it.

Then returning to my students and my own studies with sharper judgement. With soil under my fingernails.

Lone Wolf is not separate from my wine education.
It is what makes it real.

We show up. We cut carefully. We guard what we grow. We taste what we made. And we return the next year.

That’s the community.
That’s the learning.
That’s why I stay.

Subscribe now

The black belt only holds your uniform closed.

That’s its practical function. The color is simply an indicator of progress. Not proof of mastery. Not a shield against error. Just a marker of time and training.

Wine education can start to look like a ladder.
Level 1.
Level 2.
Level 3.
Diploma.
Master of Wine.

Each rung heavier than the last. More demanding. More visible.
And if we’re honest, a little intoxicating.

In wine, we don’t wear belts. We wear letters.
DipWSET.
MW.
MS.

They matter. The work behind them is real. The discipline is real. The sacrifice is real.
But the letters don’t taste the wine. You do.

At the beginning, you are all questions.

Why does this acidity feel sharper than that?
Why does this slope matter?
Why does this region taste warmer than the latitude suggests?
What am I missing?

There is no ego yet. Just curiosity. You are not protecting an identity because you do not have one.

Then something shifts.

You pass an exam. You begin teaching. People start asking you for answers instead of offering corrections. Confidence grows, as it should. But so does the temptation to defend what you know.

That is where the white belt problem begins.

Not because being a beginner is a flaw.

But because advanced students sometimes forget how to remain one.

In higher levels of wine education, the risk is not ignorance. It is certainty. The quiet belief that typicity is fixed. That climate behaves as it did in the textbook. That your palate is now reliable enough to be final.

Wine does not reward that mindset.

Vineyards warm. Classifications adapt. Markets shift. Styles evolve. The map keeps moving under our feet. If your identity is anchored too tightly to your last exam success, you start protecting knowledge instead of updating it.

And that protection slows you down.

The white belt mindset is not about pretending you know nothing. It is about remembering that you never know everything. It is tasting to understand, not to impress. It is asking better questions even when you could deliver faster answers.

It is intellectual vulnerability.

After earning the Diploma, I felt the tension myself. The outside world treats you differently. The congratulations are generous. The expectations rise. And internally, you know how much you still do not know.

That gap is healthy.

It keeps you studying when no one is watching. It keeps you revisiting regions you have already covered. It keeps you open to being wrong in a tasting room full of confident voices.

If I am fortunate enough to pursue the Master of Wine, I do not want the title to harden me. I do not want it to become something I defend.

I want it to hold the uniform together.
Nothing more.

Because mastery in wine is not about collecting belts.
It is about remaining a student long after the world decides you are not one anymore.

Subscribe now

Médoc Blanc is formally recognized.
A lighter Bordeaux Claret is validated.
And in France more broadly, post-fermentation balance adjustment at AOC level is now permitted under defined conditions.

If you read each development in isolation, it sounds technical. Administrative. Minor.
Read together, they reveal something more structural.
Bordeaux is negotiating with itself.

Bordeaux has always been a region built on architecture. Classifications. Defined blends. Clear hierarchies. Stability is not incidental here. It is engineered. That stability underpins global trust, pricing, and identity.

Climate, however, does not respect architecture.

Recent vintages have swung between excess heat and excessive rain. Alcohol levels rise in some years. In others, dilution and disease pressure complicate ripening. Producers are already adapting in the vineyard and cellar: lighter extraction, more precise harvest decisions, gentler handling to preserve freshness. Style has been edging somewhere new long before any decree was signed.

The validation of Bordeaux Claret does not feel like rebellion. It feels like codification. A lighter, earlier-drinking red, often designed to be served slightly chilled. Less extraction. More immediacy. It is framed as revival of a historic export style, but it is equally a response to modern consumption habits and red wine fatigue in key markets.

Médoc Blanc follows similar logic. White wine in the Médoc is not revolutionary. What is new is the formal recognition. Rather than leaving quality whites submerged under broader Bordeaux Blanc labelling, the appellation creates defined space. It absorbs evolution without dismantling identity.

At the same time, France has taken a further step. Post-fermentation addition of grape-derived must is now permitted in AOC wines under specific conditions. This is not chaptalization. It does not increase alcohol. It adjusts balance at the end, softening tannin or easing acidity while remaining legally dry.

Technically compliant.
Legally tidy.
Philosophically significant.

Because once balance becomes something adjustable after fermentation, the visible chain of cause and effect shifts. Historically, austerity or roundness pointed upstream — to site, season, harvest timing, extraction decisions. Now, under defined conditions, final texture may be tuned downstream.

These moves are not chaotic. They are pressure responses.

Bordeaux is flexible on category. It can validate lighter reds. It can create space for whites in red territory. It can refine rulebooks. But it has been slower to redefine the core logic of typicity itself.

That is where the real tension lies.

Typicity is built on consistency. Climate volatility undermines consistency. Market fatigue pressures style. And regulatory systems must decide whether to protect expectation or reinterpret it.

Is the goal to preserve a familiar sensory profile at all costs?
Or to allow the profile itself to evolve in full view?

Bordeaux’s strength has always been its architecture. But architecture under stress does not collapse immediately. It stretches. It redistributes load. It reinforces certain beams while quietly adjusting others.

We are watching that redistribution now.
Not rebellion.
Not abandonment of tradition.
But a region calibrating how far it can bend before the definition of typicity itself begins to move.

That negotiation is already underway.
And it may ultimately determine not whether Bordeaux changes — but how honestly that change is expressed.

Subscribe now

Europe’s appellation systems were designed to prevent opportunistic change. They protect identity through constraint. In a stable climate and a stable market, constraint creates meaning. In a volatile climate and a contracting market, it can create inertia.

The question is no longer whether EU appellations — particularly France’s AOC system — are adapting. They are. The question is whether they are adapting at the speed required by physics, economics, and consumption patterns that have shifted structurally over half a century.

The evidence suggests they are not.

Part I — What “Slow” Actually Means

To argue that appellations are slow, we must measure the clocks they operate against.

The Climate Clock

France’s 2025 harvest forecast shifted within weeks.

On 9 September, output was estimated at 37.4 million hectoliters — already 13% below the five-year average. By early October, after late-season heat, that estimate was revised down to 36.0 million hectoliters — 16% below the five-year average (Reuters; Reuters).

Weather revises projections within 30–60 days.

The Economic Clock

French wine consumption has halved since the 1970s, reshaping demand for everyday wines (Le Monde).

Structural overproduction has been estimated at up to 5 million hectoliters annually. Bordeaux has already uprooted around 9,500 hectares, while a broader French restructuring plan targets up to 35,000 hectares with €130 million in state support (Le Monde; Le Monde).

Margins adjust within a vintage.

The Regulatory Clock

Even after national approval, a PDO amendment faces:

• A three-month opposition period,

• Followed by up to six months of EU scrutiny (EU regulation reference).

That is before accounting for ODG deliberation, technical dossiers, and national publication procedures.

When harvest estimates shift in weeks and hectares are uprooted within seasons, a 9–18 month regulatory pathway is not neutral. It is consequential.

Recent EU wine reform packages acknowledge the dual pressures of climate volatility and declining consumption; the question now is whether implementation speed matches those ambitions.

Part II — Why the System Moves Slowly

Rigidity is not an accident of the AOC system. It is its design.

1. Many Veto Players

Appellations contain diverse producers with unequal exposure to heat, water stress, and market risk. A rule that benefits one segment may disadvantage another. Consensus therefore becomes political, not merely technical.

2. Layered Governance

Local agreement is only the first step. Amendments pass through national validation and EU-level procedures, including formal opposition windows and scrutiny periods. The structure exists to protect names from dilution. It also embeds delay.

3. Typicity Anxiety

Cahiers des charges codify identity. Altering planting density, irrigation rules, or grape lists is perceived not only as technical adjustment but as symbolic retreat. Resistance slows reform even where agronomic logic supports it.

4. Input-Based Protection

Many European GIs protect identity by controlling inputs — varieties, densities, irrigation prohibitions — rather than regulating outcomes.

A recent study examining 1,085 European PDOs found that restricted varietal diversity and lengthy amendment procedures can limit adaptive capacity under warming scenarios (SevenFifty summary of Nature Communications study).

When climate alters the relationship between input and outcome, rigid input rules can reduce resilience.

5. Contraction Moves Faster Than Reform

France has mobilized uprooting schemes and financial aid at measurable scale — thousands of hectares removed and €130 million committed (Le Monde).

Shrinking moves quickly.
Redesigning rules moves slowly.

Part III — Evidence That Adaptation Is Bounded

France has not ignored climate pressure. It has created adaptation channels — but deliberately constrained ones.

The INAO’s VIFA experimental programme allows:

• Up to 10 experimental varieties per PDO,

• Limited to 5% of a holding’s vineyard area,

• Representing no more than 10% of the final blend,

• For a period of 10 years (INAO VIFA).

This is reform with guardrails.

In Alto Adige, where 98% of production is DOC, climate projections of +2°C to +5°C by 2100 have prompted exploration of higher-altitude vineyards between 800 and 1,100 metres, including sites around 1,150 metres (Eurac Research).

Geography offers adaptation space. Regulatory ceilings limit the pace at which it can be used.

Germany illustrates another trajectory. Eiswein production has fallen from around 40 producers in 2012 to 7 in 2022, with one recent vintage yielding only 600–700 liters (SevenFifty Daily).

Meanwhile, disease-resistant PIWI varieties have reached measurable acreage:

• Souvignier Gris: 2,098 hectares

• Cabernet Blanc: 585 hectares

• Cabernet Cortis: 378 hectares

• Cabernet Jura: 92 hectares
  (Bundessortenamt vineyard register)

Adaptation here is planted, not theoretical.

The most symbolic signal comes from Bordeaux. Château Lafleur will leave the Pomerol and Bordeaux AOCs from the 2025 vintage, bottling as Vin de France (Decanter).

When the viticultural adjustments required to preserve estate identity exceed what the appellation permits, friction becomes exit.

Part IV — Modernizing Without Losing Integrity

Modernization does not mean standardization.

The objective is not stylistic smoothing or commercial convenience. It is agronomic and economic viability. Without viable vines and viable markets, typicity becomes archival rather than lived.

Reform must therefore address two realities simultaneously: climate volatility and structural demand decline.

I. Climate Governance Reform

1. Create a fast-track climate amendment lane.
   Establish a defined maximum timeline for narrowly scoped resilience adjustments within existing EU structures. Climate-driven amendments should not move more slowly than the risks they seek to address.

2. Expand experimental ceilings under objective stress thresholds.
   Where measurable heat or water stress exceeds defined benchmarks, temporarily raise VIFA area or blend limits, with sunset clauses and transparent evaluation.

3. Embed automatic climate clauses in cahiers des charges.
   Pre-authorized tools — canopy shading, targeted irrigation from captured water, adjusted planting densities — should activate when clearly defined climatic indicators are met. Flexibility should be pre-designed, not improvised mid-crisis.

4. Protect outcomes rather than prohibiting inputs.
   Maintain yield limits, analytical parameters, and typicity benchmarks while allowing producers controlled flexibility in method. Identity should be safeguarded through results, not frozen techniques.

5. Mandate adaptation transparency.
   Require PDOs to publish climate exposure assessments, permitted adaptation tools, and amendment timelines. Governance credibility strengthens when process is visible.

These measures preserve integrity by ensuring that regulation can respond to environmental reality without abandoning typicity.

But climate reform alone is insufficient.

II. Market Governance Reform

Even a perfectly adapted vineyard cannot survive without demand.

French consumption has structurally declined. Surplus volumes persist. Vine-pull schemes are accelerating. Without addressing market viability, adaptation risks becoming technical survival in an economically shrinking sector.

Modernization therefore also requires:

6. Rebalance funding toward adaptation, not only contraction.
   France has mobilized significant public funds for uprooting. Equivalent urgency must support rootstock shifts, water infrastructure, canopy redesign, and resilience investment. Contraction should not be the primary adaptation strategy.

7. Align restructuring with quality and positioning outcomes.
   Public support for restructuring should incentivize style shifts aligned with contemporary demand — lower-alcohol options where appropriate, premium positioning, and clearer differentiation — rather than reproducing existing surplus structures.

8. Strengthen value-chain transparency and fairness.
   Growers operating at thin margins remain vulnerable to pricing pressure. Market modernization must include fair-contract frameworks, collective bottling pathways, and support for direct-to-consumer models that increase producer share of value.

9. Refocus promotion toward future growth segments.
   EU-supported promotion should prioritize export markets and segments with resilience potential, including premium wines, sparkling categories, and clearly regulated lower-alcohol styles.

Adaptation without demand discipline stabilizes vineyards but not livelihoods. Demand reform without climate adaptation stabilizes markets but not vines.

Both clocks must be aligned.

The Choice Ahead

The AOC system built global trust by linking place to practice. That trust remains an extraordinary asset.

But climate volatility is compressing time. Harvest projections revise within weeks. Economic margins collapse within vintages. Regulatory amendments require years. Demand patterns continue to shift.

If governance cannot evolve at climate speed — and at market speed — appellations risk protecting an image of place rather than the place itself.

Integrity is preserved not by freezing rules, but by ensuring they remain capable of sustaining the living landscapes — and the people — they were created to defend.

Subscribe now

This week, it was stripped of legal protection.

The Trump administration has revoked the 2009 “endangerment finding” — the scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health. For 17 years, that finding was the legal backbone of federal climate regulation. It allowed the government to limit carbon dioxide and methane from vehicles, power plants, and oil and gas operations.

Without it, the federal government no longer recognizes carbon pollution as a threat to human health.

That sentence should give us pause.

Because this is no longer about tone or rhetoric. It is about removing the guardrails.

For wine, the implications are not abstract.

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture — including viticulture — sits directly in the path of rising heat, drought, wildfire, and water stress. The planet has already warmed about 1.4°C since the Industrial Revolution. At current rates, scientists expect around 2.6°C by century’s end.

That difference is not academic. In vineyards, it looks like:

• Budbreak arriving earlier and more vulnerable to frost
• Sugar accumulating faster than phenolics
• Acidity falling before flavor develops
• Harvest windows collapsing into chaotic weeks
• Smoke becoming seasonal instead of exceptional
• Water becoming negotiation instead of assumption

You cannot deregulate thermodynamics.

The White House frames this as consumer relief — cheaper cars, fewer regulatory burdens, “restoring choice.” But climate doesn’t negotiate with campaign slogans. And markets don’t exist in isolation.

If federal regulation retreats, pressure doesn’t disappear. It shifts.

States will regulate. California already has.
The EU will regulate — and American wine is exported there.
Insurance companies will price climate risk regardless of politics.
Buyers will increasingly demand sustainability disclosures.

Wine is a global product grown in a local climate.

And then there is the part we don’t talk about enough.

Climate policy is also health policy.

Air pollution and heat disproportionately harm low-income and Black communities. Rising heat waves, wildfire smoke, asthma attacks, flood zones — these are not evenly distributed. When the government removes its duty to curb greenhouse gases, it isn’t just adjusting an economic model. It is withdrawing protection from the most vulnerable.

That should matter to us as an industry that depends on land, labor, and community.

This move will almost certainly be challenged in court. It may reach the Supreme Court. It may succeed. It may fail. But the attempt itself signals something larger: a willingness to permanently step back from climate governance.

For those of us in wine, that leaves a question:

If federal leadership recedes, what responsibility does the industry assume?

Because the vineyard is still there.

It still records every heat spike.
It still responds to every drought.
It still suffers smoke without asking who voted for whom.

Policy can withdraw.

The atmosphere does not.

Part 1 asked: WTF do we do when climate is called fake?

This piece asks something quieter and harder:

What do we do when the guardrails are removed?

Subscribe now

To plant ungrafted vines today is therefore not accidental. It is a choice made with open eyes — a deliberate trade between vulnerability and belief. Between security and something harder to define, often described as purity, authenticity, or truth of place.

This is not an argument for ungrafted vines. It is an attempt to understand why, knowing the risks, some growers still choose them — and what they believe is worth losing in the process.

After phylloxera, certainty became the goal

The nineteenth-century phylloxera epidemic did more than devastate vineyards; it reshaped the priorities of global viticulture. European vines, helpless against the root-feeding louse, collapsed. Salvation came through grafting Vitis vinifera scions onto American rootstocks whose roots could tolerate the pest.

The solution worked — decisively. Grafting restored vineyards and delivered additional benefits: tolerance to lime, improved drought resilience, resistance to nematodes, yield control. Over time, it became not merely best practice, but moral obligation. Biosecurity, after all, is collective.

Ungrafted vines persisted only where phylloxera could not thrive — not because growers clung to the past, but because conditions allowed it. Over time, those surviving vineyards came to represent something else entirely: a living pre-phylloxera memory.

Planting ungrafted vines today is therefore not continuity. It is deviation.

The appeal: fewer buffers between soil and vine

Ask advocates why they choose ungrafted vines and a familiar idea emerges: fewer intermediaries. Rootstocks, while lifesaving, introduce a biological buffer between soil and vine. Remove them, and root growth, nutrient uptake, and microbial relationships respond directly to the site.

Whether this produces measurable differences is debated. Whether it produces perceived difference is not.

In places such as Santorini, Etna, the Canary Islands, Maule, or parts of Barossa, wines from ungrafted vines often show a striking combination of intensity and balance — not power, but coherence. Acidity sits naturally. Alcohol rarely dominates. Fruit feels anchored rather than pushed.

These vineyards also challenge the assumption that ungrafted vines are fragile. In deep sands or volcanic soils, many are remarkably long-lived. A century or more is not unusual. Their consistency suggests that, under the right conditions, own-rooted vines are not a regression; they are operating under a different set of rules.

There are practical advantages too. Without a graft union, there is no incompatibility point. In dry regions, own-rooted vines can regenerate from buried wood after trunk loss. Deep, unrestricted rooting can support natural water regulation without irrigation.

And then there is narrative. “Own-rooted” carries emotional weight. It signals rarity, continuity, resistance to standardisation. In markets that reward provenance and story, that alone can justify the risk.

The reality: risk doesn’t disappear — it waits

For all of this, the central vulnerability remains absolute. If phylloxera arrives, ungrafted vines die — not slowly, not selectively. Entire vineyards can collapse within seasons.

The insect travels easily — on boots, machinery, plant material — and can persist unseen in soils for years. In regions where phylloxera is present, choosing to plant ungrafted vines is not brave. It is reckless.

Even in safer zones, suitability is narrow. Sandy and volcanic soils that suppress phylloxera often impose other constraints: poor water retention, nutrient scarcity, wind exposure. Ungrafted vines also forgo the advantages modern rootstocks provide — lime tolerance, salinity management, drought adaptation tailored to site.

Climate change adds another layer of complexity. While deep-rooting own-rooted vines may cope well in certain dry soils, warming temperatures also expand pest pressure and increase stress where buffering would help.

Economically, the stakes are high. Premature vineyard failure wipes out decades of investment. Insurance is limited. Certification and quarantine rules are unforgiving. For most growers, the romance does not pencil out.

So why do it at all?

Because not all decisions in wine are about optimisation.

Ungrafted vines survive today less as a scalable model and more as a counter-argument. They ask whether resilience should always trump expression. Whether uniform safety slowly erases difference. Whether some risks are worth carrying precisely because they cannot be insured away.

Some producers take this further and argue that grafting did more than rescue vineyards — it quietly reshaped vine biology itself. After phylloxera, safety became universal, and with it came new root systems, new growth cycles, and the disappearance of varieties that resisted grafting. Even in places where ungrafted vines might plausibly have persisted — such as deep sandy soils in Bordeaux — vineyards were replanted onto rootstock not because they had to be, but because uniform resilience became the rule.

From this perspective, planting ungrafted vines today is less about nostalgia than about reopening a biological and sensory question that was closed more than a century ago.

Modern rootstocks continue to improve. Breeding increasingly aims for neutrality as well as resistance. Science may one day replicate what growers once attributed to own roots. But replication is not the same as memory.

Ungrafted vineyards are not better vineyards. They are rarer ones — and rarity sharpens attention.

A necessary distinction: practice is not price

At this point, it is important to separate viticultural practice from market spectacle. Ungrafted vines, old vineyards, native varieties, and low yields do not inherently produce expensive wines. Across regions such as the Canary Islands, Greece, southern Italy, Spain, and parts of Chile, growers work quietly with ancient or own-rooted vines to preserve genetic diversity and local expression — often at modest, accessible price points.

When wines associated with these practices command extreme prices, the explanation lies elsewhere. In cases such as Liber Pater, price is not set by vine age or rootstock choice, nor by quality alone. It is set by arithmetic rather than poetry: microscopic production, deliberate incomparability, and allocation to a narrowly defined buyer base. At that scale, wine functions less as an agricultural product and more as a symbolic object, where scarcity and access determine value.

Some producers articulate this logic explicitly, framing price as experiential rather than agricultural — suggesting that the relevant question is not what the wine costs, but what one would be willing to pay for proximity to a moment in history. Seen this way, the bottle becomes less a drink than a symbolic encounter, valued for what it claims to resurrect rather than what it delivers in the glass. This perspective helps explain extreme prices, but it also makes clear that such pricing reflects a philosophy of rarity and access, not a universal truth about ungrafted vines.

Conflating these dynamics risks obscuring the broader point. Ungrafted vines are not luxury goods by definition, nor are old vines a shortcut to prestige pricing. They are viticultural choices — sometimes practical, sometimes philosophical — whose meaning exists independently of the markets that may later amplify them.

A measured conclusion

Planting ungrafted vines today offers the reward of heritage, narrative, and, in specific conditions, remarkable balance and longevity. But it carries a non-negotiable risk: total loss if phylloxera intervenes. Their survival depends on rare soils, vigilant isolation, and an acceptance of vulnerability.

For most regions, the trade-off favors grafted vines — not because romance is foolish, but because responsibility matters. Where environmental conditions themselves limit phylloxera pressure, ungrafted vines persist as deliberate outliers rather than templates to follow.

This perspective is echoed by producers who have attempted to reconstruct pre-phylloxera viticulture through ungrafted plantings, including work undertaken at Liber Pater. Their work does not argue against grafting, but against forgetting that viticulture once operated under different biological assumptions.

Ungrafted vines endure not because they are safer, but because they remind us that some of wine’s most meaningful choices are made in full awareness of risk.

Subscribe now

When I began my WSET Diploma journey, I expected tough exams, endless tasting practice, and sustained pressure. What I didn’t expect was how much energy I would spend navigating the social dynamics that shape this world: a mix of encouragement, protectiveness, and — at times — plain old gatekeeping.

Most of the time, the experience was deeply rewarding. I met peers and mentors who engaged with thoughtfulness, kindness, and genuine curiosity, generously sharing ideas and perspectives. But there were also moments — both on social media and within my study group — where tone mattered more than substance: passive-aggressive remarks, vague critiques without specifics, unverified claims treated as fact, and discomfort when a student found their voice in a public space.

The pattern became clear. Not constructive engagement, but passive aggression. Not dialogue, but dominance disguised as feedback — noise dressed up as authority.

Early on, I also noticed how often advice in our field stays abstract. “Create linkages.” “Read more carefully.” “It will make sense later.” None of it wrong — but rarely accompanied by an example, a worked-through explanation, or the generosity of slowing down. Somewhere along the way, I decided that if I ever understood something clearly, I would explain it clearly. If I could draw the line between cause and effect, I would show the line — not just name it.

Those experiences forced me to think seriously about leadership. About the kind of wine professional I want to be now that I’ve completed the Diploma and earned the DipWSET title with Merit.

So I wrote this down — as a guide for myself.

What I will not do as a DipWSET

• I will not police sincere efforts made in good faith.

• I will not critique vaguely, without specificity or constructive purpose.

• I will not discourage peer-to-peer support when it is transparent and responsibly framed.

• I will not let superiority masquerade as rigor.

• I will not create spaces where curiosity feels risky.

• I will not overlook the importance of shared commitment — collaboration only works when everyone brings seriousness, generosity, and respect.

Instead, I will aim to embody

• Generosity

• Grace

• Precision

• A spirit of lifelong learning

Wine teaches humility. The more we learn, the more we realize how much we still don’t know. These moments — from passive aggression to misinformation — were not setbacks. They were reminders.

In learning this way, I didn’t just become a better student — I became a better teacher.

When I lead, I will lead differently.

Because we rise not by guarding gates, but by holding them open.

This is a promise to myself. I’m writing it here so I’m held to it — when my voice carries more weight, when my advice is sought, when others are watching.

And if you’re reading this — student, educator, future leader — I hope you’ll hold the gate open too.

Subscribe now

France has quietly crossed a line it spent decades insisting should never be crossed.

Not in IGP wines.
Not in table wine.
But in AOC wines — the category built to express place through constraint, not correction.

Post-fermentation sweetening of AOC wines is now permitted under specific conditions, using grape-derived sugar from the same appellation. Residual sugar may reach up to 9 g/L, with Bordeaux signaling a lower ceiling of 7 g/L. Each appellation must amend its own rulebook to allow it. This is not an emergency measure. It is structural, permanent, and optional.

And that is precisely why it matters.

What actually changed

Let’s clear the fog.

This is not chaptalization.
No sucrose. No alcohol boost. No pre-fermentation correction.

What is now allowed is the addition of grape must or rectified concentrated grape must (RCGM) after fermentation, explicitly to adjust balance — softening tannins, easing acidity, rounding the wine — while keeping it legally “dry” under EU definitions.

Technically compliant.
Legally tidy.
Philosophically disruptive.

Because until now, AOC wines were not supposed to be finished this way.

Why this breaks with AOC logic

AOC has never been about purity for its own sake. It has been about cause and effect.

If a wine is austere, the explanation is meant to sit upstream:
site, season, yield, harvest timing, extraction choices.

Balance was something earned — or missed — through decisions anchored in place.

Once balance becomes something you can dial in at the end, that logic shifts. The wine may remain traceable. The must may still be local. But the visible chain of cause and effect quietly weakens.

Why Bordeaux is pushing this — and why that matters

This reform did not emerge from stylistic curiosity. It emerged from pressure.

Bordeaux is grappling with:
declining red-wine demand, unsold volumes, falling prices, vineyard grubbing-up.

The wines most exposed are entry-level and mid-tier reds — wines consumed increasingly without food, by drinkers less tolerant of firm tannin and acidity, in markets crowded with smoother alternatives.

A few grams of residual sugar:
soften phenolic edges, mask underripe bitterness, accelerate drinkability.

That makes this a commercial smoothing tool.

There is nothing inherently immoral about that.
But it should be named honestly.

The youth narrative doesn’t hold

This reform is being framed as a response to younger consumers. That framing is convenient — and misleading.

Younger drinkers are not leaving wine because it isn’t sweet enough. If anything, many already believe wine contains too much sugar, often confusing fruitiness with residual sweetness.

The real barriers sit elsewhere:
alcohol moderation, price sensitivity, lack of cultural entry points, fewer food-anchored drinking occasions, competition from RTDs and flavored beverages.

Adding sugar does not solve those problems. It risks confirming a misconception rather than correcting it.

The Italian contrast is where the difference becomes shocking

Italy’s ban on post-fermentation sweetening for DOC and DOCG wines isn’t about moral superiority. It reflects a different response to pressure.

When roundness is desired, Italian regions lean upstream:
viticultural adaptation, harvest timing, yield management, drying techniques such as appassimento — methods where concentration happens before fermentation and remains structurally legible in the wine.

The wine may be softer. It may be rounder.
But the why is still visible.

That contrast matters.

Because once AOC balance becomes something adjusted at the end, the meaning of typicity quietly shifts. To see France — the system that taught the world how appellations work — cross this line at AOC level is not just surprising. It signals how acute the pressure has become.

Not innovation born of confidence, but reform driven by distress.

What is actually needed

What’s needed is not another technical permission.

It’s a recommitment to visible cause and effect, paired with reforms that address the real market problem.

Stop fixing balance at the end.
Earlier harvests, acceptance of lower alcohol, firmer acidity, lighter body — wines that are structurally lean but honest.

Rebuild typicity around drinkability, not power.
Freshness, texture, digestibility, food-friendliness — these are not flaws. They can be expressions of place.

Make production choices legible again.
If wines are softer, the reason should be readable in how they were grown and made, not corrected after the fact.

Fix the market problem honestly.
Smaller formats, clearer pricing ladders, wines designed for non-ritual consumption without pretending to be something else.

Sugar is a shortcut around harder conversations.

The uncomfortable truth

France does not need sweeter AOC wines.

It needs the confidence to let its wines be lighter, less polished, less universally flattering — and still worthy of protection.

That would be adaptation with integrity.

What we are seeing instead feels like fear dressed up as modernization.

And that, more than the sugar itself, is the quiet shock of this moment.

Subscribe now

Large enough to attract global attention.
Constrained enough to disappoint everyone who enters it.

The EU–India Free Trade Agreement changes that — not overnight, not evenly, and not painlessly — but materially. For the first time, wine is no longer a symbolic line item in trade talks. It is explicitly included, with a defined trajectory: tariffs on EU wines falling from as high as 150% today to around 30% over time.

On paper, this looks transformative.
In reality, it is destabilizing — and that matters.

Because disruption is not the same thing as damage. And discomfort is not the same thing as decline.

Why Europe Is Looking East — And Why India Matters

European producers are not looking to India out of curiosity. They are looking out of necessity.

Wine consumption across the EU has fallen sharply over the past two decades. Traditional export markets — the US and the UK — are softening. Even premium categories are under pressure as drinking occasions narrow and consumers recalibrate.

India, by contrast, remains one of the few large markets where wine consumption is not falling — largely because it has barely begun.

Per-capita consumption remains under one liter.
The middle class continues to expand.
Sparkling wine already accounts for nearly half of wine consumed.

India does not need to become a wine-drinking nation to matter. Even modest growth here moves the needle for producers facing contraction elsewhere.

From Europe’s perspective, this deal is not opportunistic. It is strategic oxygen.

The Anxiety at Home: Will Imports Overwhelm Indian Wineries?

Indian producers’ concern is real — and historically grounded.

For two decades, domestic wineries have grown inside a policy environment shaped by state excise preferences, protectionist logic, and the language of the “infant industry.” That shelter enabled vineyards to establish, brands to form, and wine to gain a foothold in a spirits-led culture.

So when tariffs begin to fall, the instinctive fear is flooding — particularly at the lower end of the market.

But that fear needs precision, not amplification.

Because not all competition competes with everything. And not all price points collide.

What Will Actually Change — And What Will Not

A reduction of tariffs to around 30% does not mean European wine suddenly becomes cheap in India.

State excise remains.
MRP-linked fees remain.
Distribution costs remain fragmented and high.

Imported wine will become less distorted, not inexpensive.

What changes is the middle — the long-suppressed segment between ultra-cheap bulk imports (never viable) and trophy bottles for the ultra-rich (always viable). This is precisely where Indian consumers are already moving — and where choice has been artificially narrow for years.

Domestic wineries are not fragile participants in this space.

They dominate the ₹400–₹800 segment.
They understand local logistics and taxation better than any importer.
They are no longer protected novices — they are established market actors.

If this segment is pressured, it is not because it is weak. It is because it is finally being asked to prove itself.

Why Competition Is Not the Threat — Complacency Is

Every mature wine market shares one trait: sustained pressure.

Pressure sharpens viticulture.
Pressure clarifies style.
Pressure forces the separation of volume from value.

Well-priced European wines do not erase Indian wine culture. They deepen it. We have already seen this at the top end: Champagne and Prosecco did not suppress domestic producers — they expanded vocabulary, expectation, and confidence.

The same dynamic now arrives in the middle.

If Indian wineries are confident in their footing — and many should be — then this is not a death knell. It is a reckoning.

The Structural Risk Still Sits Elsewhere

This trade agreement meaningfully addresses one rung of the ladder: border tariffs. As I explored in Sleeping Giant, Shaky Ladder, India’s wine prices are built less at the border than inside state excise offices — where unpredictability still does the most damage.

It does not fix the deeper structural problem — state-level excise unpredictability.

Without reform there, the benefits of liberalization will remain uneven, delayed, and fragile. Imports may rise. So will complexity. Domestic producers may face competition, but they will still face policy whiplash.

If India wants this agreement to translate into a healthier wine ecosystem — not just higher import statistics — the next work must happen domestically:
predictable excise frameworks,
non-discriminatory treatment,
and transitions measured in years, not overnight shocks.

Otherwise, the ladder remains shaky — even if the door opens wider.

What This Moment Really Represents

This deal is not about Europe uncorking India.

It is about India deciding whether it believes in its own wine market.

One built on insulation — or on confidence.
One shielded by policy — or strengthened by competition.

India’s wine drinkers are already global.
Its producers are no longer infants.
Its market no longer needs protection to exist — only conditions to mature.

The door is opening.

What happens next will determine whether India’s wine market grows up — or simply grows louder.

Postscript — March 2026 Update

Shortly after this article was published, one of India’s largest alcohol markets offered an early glimpse of the kind of change discussed above.

In its 2026–27 state budget, Karnataka announced that it will scrap government-administered retail price controls on alcoholic beverages from April 2026, replacing a decades-old system in which manufacturers declared ex-factory prices and the state determined the final retail price.

Under the new framework, producers will be allowed to set prices themselves, while excise duty will gradually move toward an alcohol-in-beverage (AIB) model, linking taxation directly to the strength of the drink rather than rigid pricing bands. The number of price categories will also be reduced, and the reform will be phased in over the next three to four years to allow the market to adjust.

On paper, this may sound like a technical policy shift. In reality, it represents something more consequential: a move away from direct state control over pricing in one of India’s most dynamic alcohol markets.

Bengaluru and the wider Karnataka market are home to a large base of young professionals and multinational companies, making the state one of the country’s most important centers for premium alcohol consumption. Unsurprisingly, the announcement immediately caught the attention of global drinks companies and investors.

The details are still evolving, and reactions within the industry have been mixed. Some trade groups have warned that certain duty revisions could dampen sales in lower price segments, while others have noted that wineries may not benefit equally from the policy shift.

But the broader signal matters.

For decades, India’s alcohol market has been defined less by tariffs than by state-level excise systems that control pricing, distribution, and margins. Karnataka’s decision suggests that at least some states are beginning to reconsider that model.

Trade agreements can lower barriers at the border.
But the real architecture of India’s wine market is built inside state excise departments.

If Karnataka’s reform proves workable, other states will watch closely.

And if similar reforms spread, the future of Indian wine may be shaped as much by domestic regulatory evolution as by any international trade deal.

The ladder, it seems, may finally be shifting beneath our feet.

Subscribe now

One of the most common claims I hear today is that wine is “bad” because it contains too much sugar — or that sugar is added during winemaking. For the vast majority of wines people drink, neither is true.

So let’s slow this down and be specific.

First, a clear definition: what is residual sugar?

Residual sugar (RS) is the natural grape sugar that remains after fermentation.

During fermentation, yeast converts grape sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide. If fermentation runs to completion, nearly all the sugar is consumed. If fermentation is stopped early — deliberately, for certain styles — some sugar remains.

Residual sugar is not added sugar.
It is sugar that was already in the grapes.

That distinction matters.

How much sugar is actually in dry wine?

Most dry wines contain very little residual sugar.

• Typical dry still wines: 2–3 g/L RS

• Upper legal limit for “dry” in the EU:

  • Up to 4 g/L RS, or

  • Up to 9 g/L RS if total acidity is high enough to balance it

Put another way:
Even wines legally labeled “dry” may contain a trace of sugar — but in very small amounts.

What that means in real life

Here’s where numbers help.

So even at the upper edge of what’s considered dry, wine contains less sugar per glass than many everyday foods we don’t think twice about.

Why wine can taste sweet without being sugary

This is where perception trips people up.

Several components in wine create a sensation of sweetness without sugar:

• Alcohol
  Ethanol itself tastes slightly sweet and contributes to roundness and warmth.

• Glycerol
  A natural by-product of fermentation that adds smoothness and body.

• Low acidity
  Wines with softer acidity can feel sweeter even when dry.

• Ripe fruit aromas
  Ripe peach, mango, or baked apple aromas are often mistaken for sugar.

Sweetness on the palate is a sensory experience.
Sugar is a measurable component.

They are not the same thing.

Acidity changes everything

Acidity is the great counterweight.

High-acid wines can contain measurable residual sugar and still taste bone dry. This is why some Rieslings with 7–9 g/L RS taste crisp rather than sweet — the acidity offsets the sugar.

Conversely, a low-acid wine with almost no residual sugar can taste round or “sweetish.”

Without understanding balance, sugar gets blamed for sensations it didn’t cause.

When is sugar intentionally preserved?

Only in specific, clearly defined wine styles.

• Off-dry wines: roughly 12–32 g/L RS

• Sweet wines (e.g. Sauternes): often 100–150 g/L RS

• Very sweet wines (e.g. Pedro Ximénez): can reach 300–400 g/L RS

These wines are meant to be sweet. They’re traditionally served in smaller pours, often with food, and they aren’t pretending to be dry.

Is sugar ever added to wine?

For most wines, no.

In some regions and under specific regulations, grape must or concentrated grape must may be used to adjust ripeness in difficult vintages or to support secondary fermentation in sparkling wine.

This is not table sugar, and it does not turn dry wine into a sugary product. The yeast still ferments it into alcohol.

The idea that sugar is routinely dumped into wine is simply incorrect.

So how did this myth take hold?

Because wine stopped explaining itself.

Wine labels rarely list components. Numbers are shared without context. Meanwhile, wellness culture favors “zero” claims and clean binaries.

In that environment, complexity becomes suspicion.

Wine didn’t change.
The language around it collapsed.

Presence brings clarity back

This is where tasting with presence matters.

When we slow down — when we notice texture, acidity, balance, and structure — wine starts to make sense again. Sensation reconnects to cause. Fear gives way to understanding.

Wine doesn’t need defending.
It needs explaining.

The takeaway

• Residual sugar is not added sugar

• Most dry wines contain 2–3 g/L RS

• Sweetness ≠ sugar

• Balance matters more than numbers

Wine isn’t unhealthy because it’s sugary.
That idea is a misunderstanding born of silence.

And the antidote isn’t shouting — it’s clarity.

Subscribe now

You’re welcome to join.
You don’t have to.
But there will be consequences if you don’t.

This week, that logic landed not in a communiqué or a treaty room, but in a wine glass.

When France signaled it would decline participation in President Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” the response was immediate and unmistakable: a threat of 200% tariffs on French wine and Champagne. Not framed as trade policy. Not framed as negotiation. Simply stated as leverage.

Wine, here, is not the issue.
Wine is the message.

The Board of Peace was initially presented as a mechanism to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza. Since then, it has begun to look like something broader — a new table, a new structure, a new way of organizing power. Invitations have reportedly gone out to dozens of countries, allies and adversaries alike. A draft charter circulating among diplomats suggests tiered participation: limited-term membership on one hand, and permanent seats on the other — reportedly secured through a substantial financial contribution.

Whatever final form it takes, the underlying logic is already visible. This is not collective decision-making built through consensus. It is participation shaped by access.

That distinction matters because it sits uneasily alongside existing international frameworks, particularly the United Nations. The UN is slow, flawed, and often frustrating. But its authority rests on something fundamental: legitimacy derived from shared agreement, not transactional entry. When governance becomes something you buy into — or are pressured into — legitimacy thins.

The tariff threat makes that shift impossible to ignore.

Economic tools have always been part of diplomacy. What feels different now is how openly they are being used to compel political alignment. The pressure placed on French wine does not stand alone. It joins a growing list of tariff warnings tied not to trade disputes, but to foreign policy positions — from Gaza to Iran to Greenland.

This is not about protecting domestic industries.
It is about enforcement.

Europe’s response is telling. Brussels is openly debating whether to deploy its so-called trade “bazooka” — the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, a tool created specifically to respond to economic pressure used to force political outcomes. It is deliberately severe, designed as a deterrent rather than a norm. That even its consideration is controversial speaks volumes: once trade becomes a weapon of persuasion, every response risks widening the damage. Markets seem to understand this instinctively. Volatility is reacting less to tariffs themselves than to the loss of predictability — to the sense that rules are becoming conditional.

Wine is a particularly effective pressure point because it carries meaning beyond numbers. It is cultural. It is visible. It is emotional. France will feel the threat, but so will American importers, restaurants, retailers, and consumers. A 200% tariff doesn’t punish a government in isolation. It ripples outward — through livelihoods, prices, and choice. Uncertainty becomes the real mechanism.

That uncertainty is not accidental.

What sharpens the unease is the language surrounding it. At the same time this initiative is framed as a “Board of Peace,” President Trump has been clear that peace, in the abstract, is not his overriding priority. When peace becomes a label rather than a principle, and pressure becomes the means of persuasion, diplomacy quietly shifts shape.

This is not a prediction about whether the Board of Peace will succeed or fail. It may change. It may stall. It may never fully materialize. But the precedent is already visible.

A parallel system is being tested — one that is opt-in, pay-to-stay, and enforced through economic pressure.

And when even defensive responses must be described as “nuclear,” it is worth asking what is actually being negotiated — peace, or compliance — and who ultimately absorbs the cost.

Wine just happened to make it visible.

Subscribe now

Some assumed “California” allowed flexibility. Others believed “American” was purely symbolic. A few were surprised that imported bulk wine could sit quietly behind familiar domestic branding at all.

That confusion wasn’t a failure of readers. It was the inevitable outcome of a system designed to privilege flexibility over clarity.

Which is why the introduction of AB 1585 matters — not as a silver bullet for the wine industry’s economic challenges, but as a long-overdue correction to a labeling gap that has been doing quiet work for decades.

The distinction that shaped the debate

California has long held itself to a higher standard than federal law requires. Wines labeled “California” — or with a California county or AVA — must be made from 100 percent California-grown grapes. That rule is clear, and it has shaped the identity of the state’s wines for generations.

The confusion arises one tier down.

Under existing federal rules, wines labeled “American” may legally contain up to 25 percent foreign wine. That allowance was once marginal. Today, in a market defined by oversupply, cost pressure, and shrinking demand, it has become strategically significant.

What my earlier article documented was not deception, but substitution: imported bulk wine quietly replacing domestic fruit within the legal “American” category, while California growers absorbed the consequences through unrenewed contracts, unpicked fruit, and vineyard removals.

Consumers, meanwhile, assumed “American” meant American-grown. That assumption was reasonable. It was also wrong.

What AB 1585 actually does — and does not do

AB 1585 doesn’t outlaw imports. It doesn’t interfere with blending across regions or states. It doesn’t regulate contracts, pricing, or sourcing decisions.

What it does is simpler, and more consequential: it restores alignment between language and land.

If a wine is labeled “American,” the grapes must be grown in the United States. No asterisks. No fine print. No quiet reliance on consumer assumptions.

In other words, it extends to the national designation the same standard California has applied to itself for decades.

This matters because labels are not marketing poetry; they are informational tools. When those tools drift too far from reality, trust erodes — not loudly, but steadily.

Why this moment, and why now

The timing of this legislation is not incidental. It arrives at a moment when the wine industry is under simultaneous pressure from every direction: declining per-capita consumption, demographic shifts, inventory backlogs, rising interest rates, and a global surplus of wine.

In that environment, flexibility has become survival. Imported bulk wine offers price relief and consistency. For large producers managing national SKUs, it solves immediate problems.

But flexibility without transparency carries a cost — one that has largely been borne by growers.

When sourcing decisions change faster than labels, the economic shock travels downstream. Vineyards are pulled before consumers ever see the cause. By the time questions arise, the system has already moved on.

AB 1585 doesn’t reverse those pressures. What it does is remove ambiguity from the conversation.

This isn’t about protectionism — it’s about coherence

It’s tempting to frame this as a fight between small producers and large ones, or between domestic agriculture and global trade. But that framing misses the point.

Wine is an agricultural product before it is a brand. Its identity is rooted in where grapes are grown, not where logistics are optimized. Labels are meant to communicate that origin, not obscure it.

AB 1585 doesn’t tell wineries how to operate. It simply asks that the words on the bottle reflect the reality in the vineyard.

For consumers who say they value authenticity, that clarity matters. For growers who farm land year after year without guarantees, it matters even more.

A quieter, more honest future

The most telling thing about the response to When California Wine Isn’t California wasn’t the disagreement — it was how many professionals were talking past one another using the same terms to mean different things.

That’s what happens when language drifts.

This legislation is not a moral judgment. It’s a recalibration. A reminder that if wine is grown in the vineyard, labels should honor that fact plainly.

Whether AB 1585 passes or not, the conversation it has sparked is already doing important work. It has made visible what was previously background noise. It has clarified what many assumed but couldn’t quite articulate.

And it has underscored something the wine industry cannot afford to forget: trust, once diluted, is far harder to rebuild than any vineyard.

Subscribe now

I want to slow that moment down.

Not to defend Meta.

Not to minimize concern.

But to name the situation accurately — because misnaming technical changes leads to bad decisions.

From both an engineering and wine-industry perspective, what’s happening here is being exaggerated in ways that obscure the real issue.

Recommendation is not prohibition

At a systems level, there is a fundamental distinction between content existing, content being reachable, and content being algorithmically recommended.

What appears to have changed is not whether wine-related businesses can post, advertise, or maintain pages — but whether those pages are surfaced through Facebook’s recommendation engine to users who don’t already follow them.

That is a meaningful shift.

It is also not a ban.

Recommendation systems are probabilistic tools. They are constantly reweighted based on risk categories, regulatory exposure, advertiser sensitivity, and policy interpretation. When those weights change, discovery patterns change — sometimes abruptly — without implying judgment on the underlying category itself.

Calling this “going dry” or framing it as a moral stance against alcohol misunderstands both the technology and the intent.

Wine is being treated as a regulated product class — not a cultural outlier

Wine is not being singled out because it is wine.

It sits alongside other regulated categories that mass platforms have long treated cautiously: cannabis and CBD products, vaping and tobacco, gambling and betting services, adult entertainment, certain pharmaceuticals, and even some fitness supplements that make health claims. These are categories that trigger age restrictions, regional compliance requirements, and heightened scrutiny from advertisers and governments.

From a platform’s perspective, wine falls into the same bucket: legal, widely consumed, culturally normal — but regulated, jurisdiction-specific, and commercially sensitive.

That may be frustrating. It may be clumsy. It may be poorly communicated.

But it is not new — and it is not personal.

Wine has always existed uneasily on platforms designed for frictionless sharing at global scale. This moment simply makes that tension more visible.

The real vulnerability isn’t the algorithm change

The deeper issue this episode reveals is not Meta’s opacity — though that deserves criticism — but how much of the wine industry still confuses distribution access with ownership.

Facebook pages were never owned channels.

Organic reach was never guaranteed.

Algorithmic favor was always leased, not granted.

When businesses build growth strategies on systems they do not control, volatility isn’t a failure — it’s the default state.

Engineers expect this.

Platforms evolve. Models are retrained. Risk tolerances shift.

The surprise here is not the change itself, but how many still treated algorithmic visibility as infrastructure rather than convenience.

Why exaggeration doesn’t help

Inflating uncertainty into certainty may feel clarifying in the moment, but it creates unnecessary panic and reactionary behavior.

Declaring definitive outcomes before facts exist doesn’t help wineries, educators, retailers, or small producers adapt intelligently. It replaces analysis with adrenaline — and that usually benefits whoever is loudest, not whoever is right.

What businesses need right now is not drama, but calibration:

• What has actually changed

• What remains unaffected

• And where resilience truly lives

A clearer way forward

This moment doesn’t require abandoning platforms overnight or rushing toward the next promised refuge.

It requires rebalancing.

Owned audiences.

Direct relationships.

Email, audio, education, events, and community — spaces where attention is earned slowly and deliberately, not algorithmically assigned.

Wine, at its best, has always thrived in environments that reward depth over velocity. This is not the end of wine communication. If anything, it is a reminder to stop outsourcing its foundations.

Closing thought

Algorithms didn’t turn against wine.

They simply reminded us — once again — that rented reach was never a strategy.

And perhaps that clarity, however uncomfortable, is the most useful outcome of all.

Subscribe now