And it certainly is true that most of the country thinks of that small valley northeast of San Francisco as the No. 1 Wine Country region in the United States, but there are dozens of Wine Country areas and almost none of them are synonymous with that phrase.

To those who live in southeastern Washington, the entire Columbia Valley is their Wine Country. Similarly, New Yorkers (especially Manhattanites) would tell you that their Wine Country is located on one of the two forks of Long Island.

But to those who live in Rochester, Syracuse, Cornell, or Ithaca, their Wine Country region of choice would be far closer — the Finger Lakes district. Some fabulous, world-class Rieslings are produced, alongside a handful of other superb wines, including some from hybrid grape varieties that do extremely well in such a cool region.

To residents of East Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Detroit, their Wine Country regions are the twin peninsulas in the northern part of the state, Old Mission and Leelanau.

As you can obviously tell, the definition of a “Wine Country” is difficult to pin down. Any definition starts with the fact that grapes grow there; but just because a vineyard is located in an area is no real justification for using the term “Wine Country”.

Nor is the existence of a single winery a rationale for the term, especially if the grapes are being trucked in from a distant region. Wine Country entails the growing of grapes.

Moreover, just because grapes are growing in a particular location is no reason to call an area “Wine Country,” notably if the wines happen to be pretty terrible.

One specific reason why Napa Valley gained its reputation as America’s most notable wine country is that it produces some of the most highly acclaimed wines in America (not only Cabernet Sauvignon). It makes wines that command international attention, high scores, and high prices. And Napa also gets acclaim from knowledgeable people in other countries.

So to best define the phrase Wine Country, let’s start with significant facts.

• It should have a number of different kinds of vines (not just a few acres) that make fine wine year to year and generally does well with at least two different grape varieties. (An area that does great with Pinot Noir and only Pinot Noir and no other grape variety isn’t much of a wine country. Maybe it’s Pinot Country.)
• Let us further define this term as a region in which the number of grapes that do well is significant. Since Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir call for different seasonal temperatures and usually different soils, they rarely produce excellence in the same general region, which is one reason why the Yarra Valley of Australia is more a Chardonnay and Pinot Noir place, and why the warmer Coonawarra is ideally more suited to Cabernet.

Coonawarra, to use a classic example, certainly is a great Wine Country. It has at least two dozen wineries, all of which make Cabernet, and most make Syrah (Shiraz) as well. Less well-known, however, is that Coonawarra also makes some nice Chardonnays, many superb Rieslings, and several other wines.

Washington has several Wine Countries, not only in the southern part of the state, but the emerging Puget Sound as well.

And Oregon’s famed Willamette Valley surely qualifies, but so do Oregon southern subregions like Umpqua, Applegate and Rogue valleys.

Most of the wineries located in Colorado are in the eastern sector of the state, the so-called Front Range. This might seem to be Wine Country, where you see lots of wine tasting rooms.

But very few vineyards exist there. The majority of the grapes that grow for wine in Colorado are on the other side of the state, far to the west, and it is there that might best be described as Wine Country, even though the number of wineries is far smaller.

Boise, Idaho is a lovely college town that has several tasting rooms that display the “local” wines, but to visit Idaho’s real Wine Country, it’s best to drive into the heart of the Snake River Valley, where most of Idaho’s wine actually is produced.

Most of Mendocino County could be called Wine Country. But to be more precise, there are several smaller, better identified regions that are more intriguing than simply identifying the entire county, some of which don’t grow grapes at all (such as the coastal strips along the Pacific Ocean).

Among Mendocino County’s better known Wine Country areas are Redwood Valley near Ukiah, the cooler and more elevated Potter Valley just to the east, and the inland Anderson Valley, which is cooled from the north by Pacific coastal breezes. There is also Yorkville Highlands, just north of Sonoma County’s border, and a small area around Hopland that has several superb wineries, including where Fetzer was founded in 1962.

And obviously France, Italy, and Germany have many Wine Country regions that fit our definition. As does Canada with three areas, British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. And in the southern hemisphere, both Chile and Argentine each have four or five different and divergent Wine Countries.

The one area of the world, however, that truly defines wine country almost perfectly and most broadly is Sonoma County, which almost always gets second billing when the phrase “Wine Country” is bandied about. Napa qualifies as a Wine Country, to be sure, but no delimited region of the world offers more to wine lovers than Sonoma County, and in a multitude of spectacular ways.

The subregions of Sonoma are so fascinating that to write a book about this county and its wines would take months of dedicated touring as well as scores of interviews with viticultural, enological, and real estate experts. And even then the subject wouldn’t be completely covered.

Start with the Sonoma Carneros region in the south part of the county. It’s close enough to San Pablo Bay to benefit from the cooling breezes that are so essential, especially with global climate change seemingly inevitable. It’s the area once defined as the American version of Burgundy, with its Pinot Noir and Chardonnay success stories.

How it responds to global climate change is yet to be played out, but all indications are that growers will solve the mysteries of increasing temperatures and retain the region’s famous ability to produce great Pinot Noir and Chardonnay

Russian River Valley, with its three or four distinct sub-regions, may well make the county’s greatest claim for distinctive characteristics in wine. One special character trait that emanates from the persistent fog in most of the American Viticultural Area (AVA) is the superb acidity levels that benefit almost every single grape variety grown there.

One of its greatest sub-districts is in the southern third of the AVA, where Pinot Noir seems to have asserted itself in world class ways. Even lovers of real French Burgundy concede that Russian River Valley has wines of special character that now compete directly with the Old World. Many of the top Sebastopol wineries are located in the Russian River Valley.

Alexander Valley, to the north, produces Cabernets with the County’s most reliable Bordeaux-centric style. Additionally, areas of the remarkable and divergent Sonoma Coast provide more evidence that Sonoma County can produce astounding Chardonnays and Pinot Noirs in even unremarkable locales.

Just north of Russian River Valley is an area that is known to be slightly warmer. Dry Creek Valley is a superb home for Cabernet and Zinfandel, but it’s cooling nighttime temperatures in the summer allow it to produce some of the finest Sauvignon Blancs, Chardonnay, and even dramatic Syrahs, and many other varieties like Cabernet Franc, Merlot, Grenache and Carignan.

Sonoma Valley, one of the oldest growing regions in the United States, has a proud history of growing many different grape varieties, including Cabernet Sauvignon (which dates back to the 1880s!). Just south of the town of Kenwood, Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc contend for top white wine honors, and Zinfandel and Merlot grow equally exciting raw material for red wines.

What’s particularly interesting about Sonoma County is that some areas are so far under the radar that only locals know about them.

One district that has yet to gain recognition is the Fountaingrove district. It meanders from one hillside plot to another and has shown early indications it can produce terrific red wine. (Fountaingrove is a formal AVA, but has yet to appear on many labels.)

The even more obscure Bennett Valley is just being discovered. One of its entrances is in its northern reaches, just outside western Santa Rosa, just to the southeast of the Sonoma County Fairgrounds. It then saunters southerly through low-lying hills behind what would otherwise be called the Sonoma Valley, to which it is connected just before you get to the town of Kenwood.

Unknown to most wine lovers, Bennett Valley is home to several fantastic vineyards that are planted to Pinot Noir and Syrah. Only 20 years ago Syrah was discovered to grow successfully in cooler regions.

As any dedicated wine lover will tell you, Pinot Noir demands a cooler climate, and what is becoming quite clear is that Bennett Valley has that perfect cooler climate influence that may be related to an adjoining area, but also has sufficient warmth to ripen other varieties as well, including Merlot.

That other adjoining area just referenced is called the Petaluma Gap, just outside Rohnert Park/Cotati. It is similar to Russian River Valley in that it has a single climatological feature that helps give it a cooler climate, much the way fog does for Russian River Valley.

Its persistent Pacific Ocean breezes (occasionally gales!) help retard ripening. This leads to a longer growing season during which the vines must struggle to retain moisture, thus producing a substantial Burgundian characteristic in the Pinot Noirs and even in some Chardonnays.

One of the greatest geographical features of Sonoma County, similar to Napa Valley, is the existence of hills and mountains on which grapes can thrive. This is partly because, once established, they need no help with water. Vines are content to send their roots deep into the earth to seek moisture.

For more than a century, Napa established vineyards that were planted on rocky outcroppings where the exposure was optimum and Cabernet could thrive. These include mountains named Spring, Diamond, Howell, and Veeder.

By contrast, Sonoma County has a virtually limitless amount of such land that can be turned into some of the most spectacular vineyard sites in the world, many of which have yet to be planted. One is very new. It is an almost completely unknown area called Pine Mountain/Cloverdale Peak.

Located well north of Dry Creek Valley, around the latitude of Geyserville, this remote land elevates to more than 2000 feet and is already home to some cool-climate Cabernet, almost a contradiction in terms. However, once you taste these wines, you will know that special things are in development.

So would you call Pine Mountain an actual “Wine Country”? Very few wineries are there; so it would be quite a stretch to call it a Wine Country. Yet it is the backbone of several potentially fabulous wines, and in years to come it will certainly be recognized as part of what I consider this country’s greatest, though underplayed, Wine Country, Sonoma County.

Despite the difficulty of definitively identifying the term “Wine Country”, I’m pretty sure a strong case could be made that more such regions exist within Sonoma County than just about any place in the world. And if more evidence were needed, just look at the overall quality of Sonoma County’s wines! You can essentially end the argument with a final QED. (link)

How did that reviewer get to that conclusion? What were the parameters that led to 97 and not 98?

Surely there must be a better way to ascertain the quality of a wine, one with a built-in guard against a preference for one thing (high alcohol lots of oak) or a distaste for another trait (high acidity).

What Do Wine Ratings Mean?

In fact, the solo critic’s score often is presented in a vacuum. What we’re never told is:

• Was the critic influenced by the wine’s brand pedigree, varietal, prestigious appellation, or high price?
• Did the critic have a nasty cold, suffered from allergies, a bad night’s sleep, or an aching back?
• Was the critic a defendant in a lawsuit, taking pain medications, or recovering from a broken toe?
• Did the critic factor into the score any possible regional elements of the wine or simply award its score based solely on a hedonistic reaction?

How a wine score was arrived at is one key to explaining how valid it is, but almost never are we told anything about the process. And there are other ways to explain the caliber of a wine, such as the results of wine competitions, especially those that are properly run (details below) and have skilled judges.

The results of professional wine competitions benefit consumers who seek advice from experts in their quest to get great wines or good values. Properly strategized competitions also benefit wineries that want to know whether their output meets current standards of quality vis a vis other wines in the same category.

Wholesalers also benefit since they can determine whether they have priced their latest offerings appropriately. And others in the industry appreciate competitions because they may not trust number-driven single reviewers whose tasting strategies are completely unknown.

Use of the term “properly strategized competitions” above means that the organizers understand the pluses and minuses of the format(s) they have chosen and use checks and balances to deal with them.

For example, it may sound like a good idea to have a set of 10 judges on one panel evaluating wines of a unified category (say 140 2018 Cabernets), using a wine grading system, adding up the scores and dividing by 10. In this way the organizers of the event can come up with a rating scale for the highest-scoring wines.

But there are numerous drawbacks to such ideas. One drawback is logistics and the fact that 10 great judges are hard to find. And if a competition has 1,500 wines, it would need 15 days of judging 100 wines each day to complete the task.

Moreover, panels of 10 tend to create bell-shaped curves in which the average score is barely above a bronze medal. Averages usually lead to a great number of average wines all lumped into a hard-to-decipher grouping.

I have coordinated wine competitions since 1982 and can say that 10 judges on a panel is awful and that the best panel size is four persons. You might think this could lead to problems when votes among judges are tied, two votes for one medal and two votes for another. Such as two votes for gold and two votes for silver.

However, panels that use an odd number of judges (3, 5, 7, etc.) usually let the majority rule, but the pitfall of “majority rules” usually leads to mediocre results, especially if one or more of the judges is inexperienced at grading wines.

The benefit of panels with an even number of judges is that whenever ties occur, the best way to break deadlocks is for the panel members to discuss the wines and reach an agreement by discussion. Professional judges work to compromise and ties can almost always be resolved — sometimes by horse-trading.

Odd-numbered panels that rely on majority rules can often lead to terrible results, such as a flawed wine getting a medal.

Three-person panels pose a uniquely tricky situation when two persons have valid reasons to like a wine, and where the third panel member sees his or her power to deny the wine a medal of any color, for whatever reasons (typically the egotistical ability to simply wield power).

The best three-person panels I have ever witnessed and participated in were 11 events I have been asked to judge at Australian wine shows.

Australian vs. US Wine Competitions

Australia runs the finest wine competitions in the world, by far. One reason is that the judges on its three-person panels all are experts. Each one respects the spirit of the event in which the judges respect the votes of the others. Ego rarely enters the picture.

Moreover, the present method of three members per panel in the United States is far too simplistic for a major, world-class competition. It assumes that two mediocre palates, or people who aren’t skilled in seeing anomalous styles, are “better” than the third judge who may have a valid argument, even if it isn’t always mainstream.

I have faced many situations where I voted a wine a gold medal, and two others voted no award, and the wine in question wasn’t even given consideration for a bronze medal. It’s as if a valid argument for a gold medal is ignored by a “majority rules” kind of mentality.

 This ignores the possibility that a slightly aberrant style of wine is distinctive enough to warrant a medal, which would reward a winemaker’s courage and adventurousness.

The critique I often get from those who prefer the “majority rules” system (such as three- or five-person panels) is, “What do you do with ties?”

Tie votes on four-person panels (such as two silver votes and two bronzes) often yield excellent results because the four-person panel is required to initiate a discussion that can eventually lead to a consensus. And the two-silver, two-bronze vote should, in most cases, be compromised to a silver, based on the fact that all four panel members voted for the wine.

The only scenario in which a bronze is the better result is where a silver voter sees a valid argument against the wine, or where a bronze voter realizes that his or her vote was weak and should be dropped.

A split vote, two gold and two bronze should not be an automatic silver medal. One side or the other usually tries to make a compelling case. Discussion is key. Single reviewers have no devil’s advocate.

It is also crucial to assess the number of wines each panel judges. Assume 40 Chardonnays must be judged. Is this too much of a burden for one panel to judge? Usually not. How about 55? Perhaps that’s too many. But 100 probably is too many. One goal of the competition should be to have each category judged entirely by one panel, with that panel advised that they should look for an appropriate percentage of golds.

In major multi-region competitions, the average percentage of gold medals is between 7% and 10%. With 40 Chardonnays, there should be at least 3 or 4 gold medals. It is feasible to have six or more golds if the wines display various styles. This admonition before the judging starts helps the judges to understand that awarding of only 1 or 2 gold medals to a class of 40 is probably a poor result.

When assessing the results of any wine competition, always ask who the judges were and how many judges there were per panel.

Aspects of Wine Award to Consider

1. Does the wine awards competition use mainly professionals? I know the criticisms of wine makers – that they can be too technically demanding. But I believe such arguments are false. Most winemakers love wine and have a conscience and can be relied on to not to award flawed wines medals. And most also are eager to give a gold medal where warranted.
2. Does the judging use panels of uneven numbers and rely on a majority-rules system?
3. Does the event maintain a consistent wine grading system, or do they mix evaluation systems? If you use one system for one group of wines (medals) and another system for another group of wines (points), results may be bizarre.
4. Are judges asked to evaluate wines by price? Such events lead to questionable results. For example, how are the categories low-priced wines, moderate-priced wines, and high-priced wines determined? Is a Chardonnay priced at $35 high-priced for medium? How does the competition deal with wines that are never discounted vs. wines that are always discounted?
5. If one category is judged by price, all categories should be judged by price.
6. Does the event historically award a lot of bronze medals? Bronzes should be discouraged, probably by limiting them to a percentage of each group judged. A bronze is rarely a winery’s finest moment.
7. Are judges asked to judge huge classes? It’s daunting to ask a panel to evaluate 150 Syrahs.
8. Are sparkling wines separated into separate groupings, such as Blanc de Noirs, French-American hybrids, Native-American, dessert, etc.
9. Are fruit wines, flavored wines, and the like candidates to win sweepstakes awards, which go to the best wine in the competition? Formulated fruit and flavored wines are not the reason wine competitions exist.
10. Are judges regularly asked to judge more than 150 wines a day? About 100 wines per day is plenty for most judges, who should also get time for ample breaks.
11. Are judges asked to judge only one type of wines, such as only reds or only whites? The best panels get a variety of wines – a mix of reds, whites, and sweets.
12. Are there palate cleansers? Cleansers need not be fancy, but filtered or bottled water as well as some form of protein and fat (such as cheese, olives, bread and crackers).
13. What sort of glassware is used?
14. Is lighting good? Fluorescent lights usually are terrible because they remove color from wine and make reds look older than they are.
15. Do wines that get votes of S+, S+, S+, S+ end up automatically getting silver medals? Such wines are gold medal candidates! In fact, any wine that gets two gold medal votes is a gold medal candidate.

Other Wines Competition Factors

I believe no judge should ever justify a gold medal vote by saying, “I love it,” or “I could sell the hell out of this.” Judges should be prepared to justify their wine scores by answering the question, “Why, specifically, is this a gold medal?”

Wines that are considered to be odd, weird, or strange may wind up with no award. If one panel member likes such a wine, a senior judge should determine if there’s a possibility that it displayed a regional characteristic or a blending decision that made the wine the way it was.

I also believe that inflexible judges must be told the facts of life: this is not life and death, and wines should not be held to some mythical nirvana-esque standard. Excellent wines with great characteristics that fit the variety, the vintage, and the region are gold-medal candidates.

I also dislike it when a judge asks, “Are medals given for how the wines are now or how they’ll be in years?” Such folks should not be wine judges! Great wine is balanced, which means it can be consumed now and for some additional time.

I detest the situation where a judge hears two votes similar to S+ and G — then votes “no medal” without any justifiable reason. All good judges should respect other judges’ opinions until a discussion can take place.

If, for example, a wine has no noticeable flaws, such a vote is usually mere petulance.

I’m also a foe of judges who bad-mouth light-colored red wines that otherwise have no other drawbacks. Consumers don’t drink color.

I’m also wary of judges who rarely vote gold medals for any wine. In most cases, such judges cast about 75% of their votes for bronze medals. Such judges place themselves above the wines. Hubris has no place in wine scores and competitions.