Looking backward into the future - recollections on wine industry - Column

A familiar tale to relate; the April, 1924 edition has as its lead article the fact that rainfall in California is way below average. I have always figured that California has about an 11 year cycle of rainfall. If so, we should be climbing out of the current 1994 dry spell now.

Our poor unirrigated Evergreen Vineyard suffered terribly during these ultra-dry years. San Jose reported only 4.25 inches of rain for the rain year of '24 up to March. We would barely get one ton to the acre in such a year. If stressing vines in this manner produced a superior crop, I have yet to see it. But it sure as hell did stress the vineyardists.

There is also an extensive article on the Mataro grape. We had, as I remember, about 20 acres of this variety in our Evergreen Vineyard. Mataro always intrigued me, as I found very little about this variety when I was young. It was a good shipper in the prohibition days and made very decent wine--especially for the home winemaker. Why then did it disappear? Well, the California Grape Grower (predecessor to Wines & Vines) tells us that it did not graft well to resistant stock. Although not recommended by "the University", we always liked the wine from Evergreen. But, of course, that was in the days when all red wine had to be deep in color and the Mataro always was. This attitude of sales managers in general, i.e., all red wine must be dark red was a constant thorn in my side as a winemaker (and, yes, even as a salesman). We had to take the rather wonderful Pinot noir from Evergreen and blend it with Mataro etc. to get a deep color before we could sell it. Naturally the rather delicate Pinot was turned into something not so special. But it sold.

The estimated grape acreage for California in 1924 was 671,444 and about 50,000 acres were planted in '23, sorta' a boom goin' on.

Jewish leaders requested the Prohibition Dept. to allow Kosher Wine to be distributed in the same way that Catholics and Lutherans handled their Sacramental Wines, i.e. through special distributors or directly from the winery. I believe it was eventually granted.

Forty member of the House of Representatives were behind a bill to legalize beverages of 2.75% alcohol. In my opinion if the Drys had not been so adamant about the matter, a 2.75% law would have cut considerably into bootlegging--especially beer--and probably removed most of the sting burdening the middle and lower economic classes. All in all, I believe that it would have postponed Repeal but would have made for greater respect for the law and avoided many of the criminal problems of the era. But as usual the Drys were full of hubris and would never budge an inch. They were convinced that because prohibition was a law and written into the federal constitution that nothing could be done to change it. Why they seemingly did not realize that the law could be superseded by another amendment, I don't know. Perhaps, their leaders did know this. But I had repeatedly heard (and read) Drys say that prohibition was cast in stone because "it was in the constitution".

Surely, if we had had a W.I. to gather facts and figures in the way they do today, we could, probably, have gotten some relief. But we just weren't organized and our industry just wasn't sophisticated enough. I might also add, that if more of the growers and vintners would have registered to vote we would have had a lot more clout.

Most of us know about the reticence of "Silent Cal" Coolidge, president of the U.S. Here is a good quote (paraphrased) from the Boston Globe of the period:

A reporter asks Coolidge, "Do you wish to say anything about prohibition?"

"No."

"About the farm block?"

"No."

"About the world court."

"No."

As the reporter turned to go, Coolidge added, "By the way, don't quote me."

The April, '44 edition was the annual statistical issue--about the first one.

In the "COMMENTING ON THE NEWS" page, we find that OPA (Office of Price Adm.) will allow dealers to raise prices only by the amount of the new excise tax. No mark-up is to be taken on the new costs, which would normally include the excise tax. Of course, as I understand it, "excise tax" is a tax that is imposed (almost secretly) upon the manufacturer. As a cost of doing business anyone should be allowed to take a mark-up on an excise tax as opposed to a sales tax. But such was the mood of the country no serious outcry was raised. Besides price ceilings were somewhat flexible, de facto; "you need a bottle of what? well you gotta' take two bottles of 'Mandies' brand hot sauce at $2 a pop".

Also the WFA (War Food Administration) announced that all grapes that could be dried must be dried. So farmer Jones who had Thompsons (aka Sultaninas) must, by edict, sell his grapes for $37.50 per ton, while neighbor Smith could look forward to selling his Sultanas for $100. And if he had Emperors (table grapes), he could get several times that price if he knew how to sell them to green grocers in L.A. or S.F.

It was a nightmare, and only the wholehearted good will of the average citizen made the thing work--more or less. Only the shortness of the war prevented the cute and crummy from devising even more imaginative ways to get around price controls.

Having said this, I must also say that the big fear of the administration was inflation; and with this in mind they cut down every price increase that they could. Whether their fear was justified--as a non-economist--I don't know. Certainly the Demos in the person of President Johnson had no fears of claiming to be able to supply both guns and butter. So prices rose by what? Two to 300 % in four years.

Nostalgia: There were still 27 BWs in Santa Clara Co.; Grape prices (as reported by the Federal-State Market News Service) were an average of 51.80$ per ton; bulk dessert wine prices were in the 55 to 60|cents~ range and table wines about 40 to 60|cents~. These were probably the highest since 1958, if memory serves. Multiply those figures by 4 to get approximately equivalent current (1993) prices.

Benchmarks: 1968 saw "apparent" shipments of table wines top dessert wines by a whisker: 95.8 vs 95.4 millions of gallons.

Flavored Wine shipments remained static since '63.

In many ways, I believe that 1969 was also a benchmark year for the industry as a whole. Not only we, as wine men, were being lionized by the cocktail set and accepted by "Middle America", but also we were doing things right. Our advertising was working, our public relations had positive impact, etc., etc. And consumption was rising. It seemed that all good things were coming together; prosperity in our country, better and better quality in our wine (not the least of which was the gradual lowering of ethanol content of all of our wines) and a period of quiescence among the Drys. And best of all we were building for the future rather than looking for the quick buck (as we did during WWII) or desperately fending off bankruptcy (as we did in the mid-thirties). If we can continue along the same route we will succeed.

The April, '84 issue is designated the 2d Annual Water Issue. But it is also a vineyard issue having no less than 10 articles dealing with grape/vineyard problems. As an ex-grape grower, I read none of 'em (articles, that is)--I had my fill of nematodes, zinc deficiencies, mildew and bees (yes bees--the bane of the picker and his hire-er). I can't use any of this info these days so to hell with it.

But to those still hoeing (actually or vicariously) these articles are great reading. Especially the one about growing grapes in the desert, Coachella Valley, to be exact; how different from growing grapes in Sonoma.

Sam Sebastiani announces a new ad program with the help of Red Buttons, the comedian. Big stuff, Sam, for Sonoma's Eagle's Hall where the event was held.

Robert Mondavi and Baron Rothschild introduce Opus One. Now this is the kind of stuff that helps the industry. I also hope it helps the Mondavis.

Richard Paul Hinkle gets a new client, the San Diego Tribune. Gotta stroke these wine writers. They keep the blood flowing through the veins of the industry.

James Cook, a viticulturist at U.C.Davis retires. Too many of these experts retired in the last decade; it hurts.

And old Fr. Terry S.J. dies. Fr. Terry was president of the Novitiate Winery. Thus closes an era.

Christian Brothers closes Greystone Cellars. A great and historic monument to the old-time California wine industry, but it was, I guess, a white elephant to all who owned it. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that all its owners went out of business relatively shortly after acquiring the premises; no?

Wise & Otherwise fell for the same ploy that many others did; i.e., that New York State food stores would soon sell wine. As with Pennsylvania, too many in the industry forget the presence and power of the indigenous Drys and the fears they have of ethanol. If non-believers would only live in the rural communities of these kinds of states for a while, one would understand the source of this fear. Drunken driving of not only automobiles but also snowmobiles, horses (and yes, gliders!), gives us a bad rep and bad copy. And then we have the drowning ice fishermen, vicious fights and burning down house trailers. A terrible toll seems to be taken every winter with these drunk-related accidents--fatal and near fatal and, of course, the news reports always indicate the ethanol blood level.

So that's why the measure didn't pass. Of course, the Dry cause was helped by the retail bottle shop operators who were and are very well organized and the reluctance of the distributors to enter the fray. I was on a week's trip to New York and the Northeast at the height of this battle and so I remember it well. I got on three radio shows to explain the situation. Which were no-win situations! Also, I've lived in New York City and Upstate villages for some 20 years. Such may give me some degree of expertise in these matters.

Since we can agree that the many of the ultimate goals of the prohibitionists, both old and new, are about the same as ours, we should be able to work with them, with some degree of harmony.

CURRENT RAMBLINGS: In January, I wrote about the Cucamonga grape growing area. Today I received a letter from Gino Filippi with the latest update on this great old viticultural district. Gino says that there are still about 2,500 acres of wine grapes and five B.W.s in the area. At its peak Gino says that there were over 23,000 acres and 40 wineries in the '40s and '50s. Unbelievably, to me, is his statement that the old Guasti Vineyards had over 6,000 contiguous acres of wine grapes. This surely would have made it the largest continuous vineyard in the world.

Also Gino tells me that the area is applying for the designation as a Viticultural District. Great news from what I suppose is our oldest wine and grapegrowing area.

Thanks much Gino. As I've said, my research is exceedingly scanty, so that I very much appreciate getting letters such as this. Besides, it lets the editor know that someone reads me!

When asked what wines he liked to drink, Diogenes replied, "that which belongs to another." Diogenes--ancient Greek aesthetic philosopher

COPYRIGHT 1994 Hiaring Company
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group