Quinine Wisdom from Morris Boris Jacobs

For a while now I’ve been searching for academic looks at tonic water and have come up dry. How could something so economically significant be so poorly written about? Finding something useful would help keep tonic water’s renaissance going. A newly acquired book, Carbonation (1959) by the flavor chemist Morris Boris Jacobs has some small notable factoids.

e. Quinine Water

A specialty-flavored beverage that has had considerable vogue in Great Britain and has had some popularity in the United States recently is quinine water. In the Soft Drinks Minimum Standard (Food Standards [Soft Drinks] Order, 1953, 1828) of Great Britain which came into effect on December 20, 1953, the standards that had been in force for “Indian and Quinine Tonic” were continued. These standards required that there is a minimum of 1 pound 2 ounces of sugar per 10 gallons, a maximum of 82 grains of sacharin per 10 gallons, and a minimum of 0.5 grain of quinine (calculated as quinine sulfate) per pint. These standards should prove of assistance in the formulation of a flavored sirup for the manufacture of this type of specialty-flavored beverage.

Another quinine water or tonic formulation contains 8 grains of quinine sulfate in a mixture of 4 pints of carbonated lemon soda and 4 pints of carbonated water, that is, 1 grain of quinine sulfate per pint of finished beverage.

1 grains = 0.06479891 grams
1 pint = 473.176 mL

So that recommendation of 1 grain per pint, metrically is 0.1369 grams of quinine sulfate per liter of soda.

0.137 g/L quinine sulfate.

Lets see how these numbers compare to numbers from Avery Glasser of Bittermans that were quoted here by Tess Posthumus.

The Numbers
Avery is known from Bittermens, a company making bitters, extracts, liqueurs and more. He works a lot with cinchona bark and discovered that cinchona bark consists 5% out of quinine. The American federal safety standard for the use of quinine is a maximum of 83 parts of quinine per million in a drink. The average commercial tonic water has 2.48 mg quinine per 30ml.

Avery’s numbers supposedly come from here. (But I guess I haven’t read enough about this topic if it took me so long to find that out). 2.48 mg per 30 ml is 0.083 g/L which is far less than the 0.137 g/L from Jacobs, but maybe people were tougher back then. Numbers from the old literature give the percent of quinine sulfate in Java Cinchona as 5-7% which is inline with Avery’s 5%, but who knows what it is these days after decades of improvements.

Glasser’s numbers and Jacobs numbers are very different. I’ve never really been interested in tonic water but it looks like I need to order some quinine sulfate and attach a sensory experience to the numbers.

[edited to add: A potential difference between Avery’s and Jacobs’ numbers could be the salt form of quinine sulfate used by Jacobs and the free base form of quinine sulfate which could be what Avery is quoting. A salt is when a particular acid and base are combined while the free base is when the base is separated from the acid. The free base number is the most specific while the salt number could vary significantly depending on what acid forms the salt. I bet if I did more reading I could get to the bottom of all this.]

Prize Essay on Cinchona Cultivaton

Notes on the Estimation of Quinine

Cinchona and quinine in Java (A wildly interesting history from 1901 with spectacular photos)
British Soda History (great photographs)

(Me, in the bostonapothecary laboratory assaying quinine)

What I suspect is that cinchona added to tonic water is and has always been in the form of purified quinine sulphate. People making tonic water from raw unpurified cinchona are just far from the mark. M.B. Jacobs gives us a best bet and that is 137 mg/L.

desert soda waterStandards of civilization were so high they brought soda water to the desert battle fields of WWI. “basic equipment”

There are more gems in the book, but I lent it out before I could digitize them. So more to come!

Napa Great Tchelistcheff Posthumously for Popelouchum

[Via twitter, Randall Grahm was really flattered by the comparison. He considered Tchelistcheff a big hero because he was so hard working and progressive. I initially thought the comparison might be far fetched and I’d have to make a strong case, but apparently many readers thought it was spot on.]

Yes, I shifted the balance of varieties. I shifted already. I created a revolution. I was a revolutionary-minded man in the field of viticulture in Napa Valley. As I came in, I said, “There must be something wrong with you people, because in my European mind, you can’t build a reputation of Burgundy in the Bordeaux, and you can’t build the reputation of Rhine in the Burgundy, and you are trying to build a reputation of Burgundy and Bordeaux and Sauternes within the same geographical area, within the same soil. There must be something wrong with you people.” -Tchelistcheff p. 121

At the urging of the California Oral History Project’s associate director, I started reading André Tchelistcheff’s 1979 oral history interview. I was reading simply to learn more about the early history of California wines after having used Harold Olmo’s oral history interview to contextualize Randall Grahm’s Popelouchum project which currently has an IndieGogo fundraiser that I urge you to support. The incentives are spectacular.

Tchelistcheff, often called the dean of California fine wine makers, was brought over from Europe in the late thirties by George de Latour to help modernize Beaulieu Vineyards after prohibition. The Russian born Tchelistcheff was trained in France as an eonologist. Even in the thirties, he found California “in very primitive, colonial, pioneering shape” [p.41], but eventually turned California into the modern powerhouse of fine wine we know today.

It may be hard to believe that anyone would lump Andre Tchelistcheff, grand father of the Napa style, with Randall Grahm, but their ambitions run parallel. Just like a baton was passed from Olmo to Grahm, a different baton can easily be seen as handed to Grahm from Tchelistcheff. Grahm, after all, is a formidable Davis educated technologist (I’m waiting for Grahm to chime in and say they knew each other).

A segment that begins on page 54 starts a discussion on European and American points of view regarding ecology that relates very much to the Popelouchum project. This is all from the voice of the wine maker that launched a thousand fine wine ships and trained everyone that took a prize in the Judgement of Paris.

Big themes in the passage emerge like the difference between natural ecology versus managerial ecology [remember this is 1979!]  Tchelistcheff also describes his own efforts to find more acclimation in vineyards by launching large scale projects to uproot vineyards and replant them with different more congruent varietals. Tchelistcheff acknowledges Olmo, whom is brought up by the interviewer, but also acknowledges economic constraints that shaped and limited his efforts. Life is short and the art is long.

When Tchelistcheff came to California he inherited a less ideal Popelouchum project. California was 10,000 mixed up old grape varieties that needed attention, weeding out, and selection for advancement. In four or five decades, Tchelistcheff and close contemporaries like Maynard Amerine were able to do what happened empirically in Europe over centuries, and of course they never even came close to any kind of completion.

There are probably diminishing returns, and nothing gets easier, but the Popelouchum project of 10,000 new fine wine varietals is the next leg up. I’m sure Tchelistcheff would jump at the chance to uproot any stagnancy in the industry and possibly secure a varietal named after himself.

It was a renaissance of the industry. I mean, the country alone just barely started to recover from the damage done by the Prohibition. Everything was entirely different. Everything here was entirely new and not corresponding–neither for my thinking or feelings. See, this specific reaction that I am carrying, just for one single reason, because I am a product of the French viticultural science, and sometime even I today think, “Maybe I was wrong. Maybe my classical approach, genetically set in the classical ground of France, with a history of thousands and thousands of years, since the Roman days of cultivation of grape vine which was regulated by very strict empiric experiments and tradition, carried from one generation to another–but new continents are following entirely different orientation in the same area.”

Here, Tchelistcheff grapples with the lack of evolved congruency he faced in a the New World. Tchelistcheff is also wordier than me.

[Ruth Tesier] Were you thinking, for instance, of such genetic research as H.P. Olmo’s?

 

That’s right, and everything that we are doing entirely differently. But we are not alone, you see. We are not alone, because South Africa, Australia, now to a certain degree even the South America, and the Nordic countries, such as Soviet Union, they have been following the same pattern as we are following in America. We disregarded the classical principles of, let’s say, modern ecology. We are still thinking that we are far more powerful than the Mother Nature. Well, we did. We proved that the day before yesterday, a few days ago, when we started to suffer from the creation of our own. [Three Mile Island nuclear accident]

[…]

So therefore, despite the fact that they [Europeans] are as progressive in the field of research and technology, the empiric experience, by centuries, has been forcing them to maintain the base of their originality of thinking, directly connected with the soil’s general ecology, the most natural elements of mother nature. Here we are putting science ahead of it, and we are saying, “Yes, soil is very important as a nutritional element, and climate’s very important, of course, but we can change.” We are paying far more attention to managerial ecology than to the ecology given to us by mother nature. We are trying to manage the ecology given to us by the good Lord, in creation. That’s a very important factor, by the way. I am not disregarding the managerial ecology, but we are paying far more attention to managerial ecology than to the basic factors, which are nothing else but the foundation to a managerial ecology.

Extra powerful stuff and this is 1979. For decades to come, managerial ecology will rule the day and wineries will pursue trends like Merlot and Pinot Noir that defy what Tchelistcheff refers to as general ecology. Tchelistcheff then goes on to explain how the appellation system was an attempt to keep commercial trends from driving vineyards away from natural ecology. The free market just wasn’t creating fine wines.

In other words, what we are achieving right now, we are just trying to produce similar false norms as they produced years ago in France, without improving them through specifics. But this is a factor that I don’t think that we will be able to solve here within the next hundred years, because we hate any federal, state, or county regulation. We hate any additional controls. We are strictly individuals. We are accepting controls by corporations, and there are also very strict controls by corporations, but we do not accept federal controls in production in our particular field, specifically because that’s strictly an individual field.

Hopefully this passage can exist without all the context he builds up talking about appellations. The false norms are the appellations and the specifics are efforts like the Popelouchum project, or all of Tchelistcheff’s replanting that actually make strides for congruency and the quality that comes with it. Unless you want to wait a thousand years, fine wine takes visionary action. The most famous wine industry adage always is: to make a small fortune in wine, start with a large one.

Now, in basic agriculture, production of wheat and corn, as you know, they accept the bank, and they accept the norms and regulations, but we are a little too artistic, we are a little too small, and we are a little too sensitive to accept such a norm.

Doesn’t this sound like he’s talking about Randall Grahm?

But I revolted, when I came here, against this liberalism of interpretation of the law of ecology. It was absolutely strange for me to see Napa Valley planted with the varietals from Burgundy, from the Bordeaux, from the Rhine, from the Moselle, from Spain, and from Portugal. I just, even now, can’t understand this thing. So therefore, I have been constantly pioneering readjustment within the laws of ecology, and being a pioneer in the Napa Valley and leading the group of youth and some very intellectual people in the industry. We started to shift and uproot Several vineyards and move them to an entirely different section of Napa Valley. I am dividing, in my own mind, Napa Valley in sixteen different appellations. But officially, we have only one appellation of Napa Valley now.

Do not get confused here, Tchelistcheff isn’t putting down Spanish and Portugeuse varieties for California, but rather only Napa after he has seen first hand that they are not congruent. The conclusions from experimentation and the uprooting and replanting, knowing full well how long things take, are how Tchelistcheff had his own Popelouchum.

This is the conflict of my own, and I think I am going to carry this conflict within my mind to the rest of my days, because I don’t see any possible reforms in the situation. The most tragic thing to me, it’s not to see this interplanting as sins of the past, you see, there was a good reason. There was a very strong reason to do such a thing, by the pioneers.

The absolution.

After all, pioneers came here, let’s say, a hundred years ago, a hundred fifty years ago, and they located, really, paradise on the earth. They located, really, paradise. I mean the Frenchmen or the Spaniards or Italian or German viticulturists, grape growers, came here, and they located paradise–beautiful rainfall, heavy soil, moderate winters, a beautiful situation. So they thought, “As long as this is paradise on the earth, I can permit myself to do anything.” Plus, America was not a wine drinking nation at all. So therefore, the distributor, the marketing agent, never could accept the ideal of fine quality production such as is acceptable today. In other words, if I as a newcomer would say, “I am going to make one type of wine, or two types of wine,” I could not because I remember very well the days when there was a necessity to have everything in the line to have a distributor. That is, a distributor would demand that a winery provide him with many types of wines or he would not take any. So those sins are the compulsory sins of the past.

Paradise is never so simple.

But the newcomers today, rather than to clarify the situation completely, due to the financial, economical pressures of the market, are following the same pattern. The wineries that start with one or two, within the next four or five years start to create five or six, or even create a second line of products. So you see, this is an uncurable situation.

Randall Grahm has been here. The IndieGogo endowment, and other aspects of the Popelouchum plan such as direct to consumer sales are about alleviating this pressure.

Now Mr. Francis Gould said, “What we need here, to purify the quality of California, we need the Rothschilds, Rockefellers in the industry.” And I think we, to a certain degree, already have it–a certain infiltration of Rothschilds and Rockefellers, but they are also very practical people. Besides that, we have a heavy infiltration of the corporate business such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Heublein, National Distillers, etcetera. Their interests, the commercial aspects, definitely are not corresponding to the dreams of fine quality winemaking. So this is tragedy. It’s a sore point in my feelings, and that sore point, by the way, to a certain degree forced me to take a position of free-lance consultant, when I can publicly open my mouth and say what I think about the California wine industry, you see.

The price of so many wines is a gift. You can drink so many Rothschilds that turn their large fortunes into small ones or you can just drink wine makers of tremendous foresight and any money you give them is prudently spent and wisely invested. Then of course there are the Heubleins, but I think they are going away. There are economies of scale to be gained by being under a Heublein. They have the good intentions these days because demand for fine wines has proven so large, but they can’t hire enough people with vision. They need to see templates like Popelouchum, they have the means but cannot invent them.

Because before, when I was working for a private company, and then the corporation, I never would have a chance to have an interview like this today with you, unless I would have a p.r. man of the corporation sitting right here and controlling my answer, or saying, “Well, this we are not going to discuss.” That’s right.

Now, I jumped very probably out my program–

I should stop here but he’s on a roll.

What we did in forty years, it can be accomplished normally in Europe in four or five centuries. See, that’s what we did [strikes table for emphasis], and what was good then, it is not good any more. It would be a great error today to say, Louis Martini is going to produce only red wines in Napa Valley, and Wente Brothers are going to produce white wines in Livermore Valley, because the wines of today that are produced in the Livermore Valley in several cases are quite different than the white wines produced today with our knowledge in Napa Valley.

This would benefit from a little more context, but what he is getting at is how in forty years of hard work pursuing congruency and acclimation, by degrees they got there. This was all just careful sensitive replanting, and when Tchelistcheff said what was good then, is not good any more is still somewhat true today. Strides were made simply replanting, but the next step is fine wine hybrids.

The varietal wines were unknown then, just barely started to grow in the little molecules, you know, in embryo in some fine quality wineries such as Inglenook, Schram’s, Beaulieu, Beringer, etcerta. But they were really unknown here. It was the beginning of the orientation towards varietals. And the beginning remedy for this tragedy of the California wine industry was that Dr. Winkler and Dr. Arnerine, with a tremendous amount of individual effort, without the machinery to proceed with this effort, solved it by pushing and repeating, constantly, “You have [slowly striking table for emphasis] to plant a better variety. You just got to pull your old vineyards. You just got to pull all the vineyards that are not corresponding to the climate, reputation, and possibilities of production of fine quality wines of California.”

 

Maybe the IndieGogo would go better if Randall Grahm [pounded the table for emphasis.]

To a certain degree the problem was corrected, and to a certain degree it still remains uncorrected, because a great amount of wines are still produced from Flame Tokay and Thompson Seedless. They are still functionally physical elements of the industry and never should be. They should be assigned strictly as raisin or food product varieties. But you see, this is our lot. I mean, this is the whole thing. If you would go into the depth of this problem, you got to go step by step, because all our regulations, all our legal interpretations of our functions of our living with wines and grapes have been dictated by ourselves, in the self defense against the physical structure of our industry that we inherited from the past.

[…]

If you have to have a complete understanding, you should statistically, as a historian, go step by step, year by year, to understand this problem. I am just abhorring a weakness of this tragedy, and despite of my critical approach to everything I am still saying what we accomplished during forty years will put California industry on the competitive level of European industry. In other words, what we accomplished in [only] 150 years, disregarding the Prohibition, was accomplished there during hundreds and hundreds of years. But if you go step by step, there is so much to do yet.

#Popelouchum #Grahmcru

I urge you to find your favorite perk and support the Popelouchum Indiegogo.

10,000 Grapes for a New Grand Cru at Popelouchum

Recently I attended a wine maker luncheon with Randall Grahm of Bonny Doon Vineyard, where he briefly discussed his plan to produce a more extraordinary fine wine by producing new grape varieties. He currently has an IndieGoGo campaign to finance the project that I urge readers to support.

“The discovery of a new Grand Cru brings more happiness to humanity than the discovery of a new star.”
-Randall Grahm

Initially, I couldn’t completely wrap my head around the idea, but I remembered that Dr. Harold P. Olmo’s California Oral History interview was on the subject of plant genetics and new grape varieties and it helped contextualize Randall’s project perfectly. When I read most of the oral history series on wine long ago, it was one that I only skimmed. Unlike Randall, I didn’t truly understand what challenges wine faced or more importantly what was possible.

I just read the entirety of Dr. Olmo’s 1973 interview by Ruth Teiser and it may be the most exciting of the whole series (As a resource, the oral history series is epically useful). Asking Randall about Dr. Olmo on twitter, he noted that they had sat down and talked new grape varieties over the years. Dr. Harold P. Olmo passed away in 2006. [see Harold P. Olmo wikipedia for more background]

For those not completely up on the new grape varietal particulars of Randall Grahm’s Popelouchum plan, I hope to use Professor Olmo’s ideas to show that it is pretty much the only path left to make wines more natural. It is also very much feasible and has a big dormant tradition supporting it. Randall Grahm is probably the only American wine maker that can pull it off. The time is now!

It is not common knowledge, but grape hybridizing and other forms of varietal improvement have been staggeringly important to viticulture over the last century. We tend towards an illusion that varieties like Pinot Noir, consumed in the U.S., are the same as those in Europe, and that they’ve been the same for centuries, but that isn’t exactly true and a passage by Dr. Olmo tells the story of how clonal variation was noticed.

But after a few years of records and just working with these vines, one could even stand at the end of each block and look down the rows and know that the selections were different. In some cases the leaves would redden slightly earlier in the fall, and in some cases the canes would tend to arch over and others not. There were differences that were evident to even an inexperienced person. Once you had enough replications from this original vine you could see differences that you couldn’t see before. (p. 94 selecting within a variety)

Selecting within a given variety can only take a grape so far and its probably done because we are clinging to the legacy and symbolism of varietal names as well as forcing varieties into sites that they aren’t acclimated enough to. Overall weaknesses are made up for with vineyard interventions like irrigation, pesticides, fertilizers, and then even further in the cellar.

And in essence this is what I was thinking about, that basically, unless you have the quality in the raw material, all of the manipulation that you can do is not really going to improve it. Now, can you take the poor grape and make an excellent wine out of it, even with all the technology we know of? – Olmo coming to the same conclusion as Peynaud (see p.135-6)

Dr. Olmo came the conclusion that the only way to improve wines was to improve the grape and this is precisely the dormant tradition Randall is continuing. A difference is that Dr. Olmo and others were working on commodity wines and Randall Grahm is tackling fine wines which have a different set of aspirations. South African Pinotage, among the most famous hydrids, is a commodity grape and the same is true of the other enduring California hybrids like Carnelian and Ruby Cabernet. There has yet to be a fine wine hybrid used for a Grand Cru and it just may be the only path to getting there in the New World.

In Dr. Olmo’s day, California fine wines didn’t exist like they do today and there was no established demand that could lead anyone to tackle supply problems. Olmo specifically acknowledges this point and spends time smartly discussing the marketing of wine and the acceptance of new varieties. For those interested in naming their Popelouchum varietal, there are also spectacular passages on the topic. Other passages on naming reassignment, as the UC Davis teams set out to correctly identify and trace the lineage of grape varieties at the outset of prohibition, are wildly interesting. These were long term projects of tremendous foresight whose value was hard to realize at the time and the Popelouchum project is yet another one. The return on investment for kickstarting new fine wine varieties could prove phenomenal (if you have the patience of a wine maker).

Only now with momentum for natural fine wines, and under the specific guidance of Randall Grahm (who else has 300k+ twitter followers?) could the market handle new fine wine varietals and that is why the ideas have never been common conversation before. When a wine maker truly becomes a terroirist he can start to transcend mere grape varieties. The New World also does not have the legal restrictions of the Old World so there is opportunity in California to actually set an enviable precedent for what terroir in wine can actually be.

Olmo and Peynaud had no large concern for intervention like we do now. They simply recognized there was a ceiling to how good wine could be with the technological pursuits of the day and they wanted to push through it. Having seen the industry adopt uniform practices and watching uniqueness disappear, they had to promote another route.

I feel, for example, that with many of our white wines, despite the fact that our varieties are very different, that the technology is such, the cold fermentation, the way it’s filtered, the way it’s handled, that the refinement of the wine has given us a mediocrity. They’re good wines but they’re pretty much alike. (p. 137)

We now have large symbolic objections to certain interventions because we understand the environmental consequences or that they strip uniqueness we’ve come to prize. The natural wine movement has made large strides in making sound expressive wines while minimizing intervention, but advancement like recognizing the value of polyculture will only get you so far, the next step is in the nursery and the road is long.

A vineyard with 10,000 genetically different varietals might be hard to imagine for some people so lets consider imagery from Dr. Olmo’s Guggenheim sponsored trip to Persia where he encountered a unique valley of almonds:

Of course, they plant most things just from seeds, so there’s a tremendous variation. And literally, for example, any variety or any type of species you want to mention. Almonds, for example. In the northwestern part of Iran there are villages there that have literally millions of almond trees. They’re just planted all over the place. They’ll cover whole valleys. And every tree is different from every other tree. It’s a fantastic amount of variation. And somebody could go over there just about find all of the variation that you’d want to find. (p. 76)

This is all at odds with American agriculture as currently practiced. Planting from seed which creates a hybrid from two parents as opposed to grafting clippings is what leads to the diversity, and big numbers allow for the finding of synchrony to weather conditions and resistance to diseases that are inherent to a site. We typically think of site acclimation as picking varietals that will achieve adequate yields and oenological ripeness within the rhythms of a site. We can also define acclimation in terms of disease and drought resistance without intervention and this of course has a spectrum. Ten thousand new varieties gives that many chances to push for higher levels of acclimation and that is towards terroir.

For commodity wines, because of their vast scope and economic importance, finding disease resistance was of grave immediacy. Foresight and investment was needed to stave off the next catastrophic epidemic. Phylloxera was not a one off event and other diseases lurked in the vineyards of the world. No one could noxiously spray their way out of Phylloxera, the only path was disease resistant root stocks.

More than a decade ago, Randall Grahm had a run in with Pierce’s disease on a vineyard planted with Pinot Noir that has shaped his career and likely the vision for the Popelouchum project. He knows cautionary tales first hand. In Pierce’s Disease, a bacterium rapidly kills all the vines by blocking the vine’s vasculature. Dr. Olmo had done a lot work with the disease, achieving resistance from it for certain types of non-fine wine grapes. (More recently, Dr. Andy Walker of UC Davis has also immersed himself in developing Pierce’s-resistant varieties.)

Back in the 1930’s, Professor Olmo actually had a research vineyard that was at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Veteran’s Avenue in a ritzy corner of the UCLA campus. According to the Oral History tale, the property had astounding real estate value so it was only in use for short period before being developed (in the grand scheme of agricultural time). The property was unique because Pierce’s Disease was predictably carried to the site by all the insects that inhabited the shrubs of the stately homes surrounding the small inner city vineyard. Dr. Olmo’s team kept planting hybridized varieties hoping for resistance and when they died they would start over and try something new. There was a fear that if the disease spread it could be as catastrophic to California as Phylloxera was to Europe.

As I understand it from Olmo’s Oral History interview, Pierce’s disease was the reason Vinifera grapes could not grow in southern states like Florida. This was overcome by the hard won discovery that the wild Rotundafolia “Scuppernong” grape could produce disease resistant hybrids (Supposedly Andy Walker has made more really big advancements here using Vitis Arizonica and getting non-Vinifera character to disappear). Such discoveries opened doors to grape cultivation further south that we enjoy today. Breeding grape hybrids is a powerful tool but it has never been aimed at fine wines.

Dr. Olmo’s work gives us a template and a realistic timetable of what to expect from the Popelouchum project. New vines can take almost a decade to become productive and further years are necessary to identify vines that are truly more acclimated to the site than others. This means Randall Grahm is giving the world of wine a big gift. He is undertaking a project that is clearly longer that his working life and sound financing and a community of interest are paramount to making sure the advances never disappear.

Part of being a Grand Cru is endurance. Will we be able to enjoy the fruits of a vineyard over a 100 years and many different stewards? Again, acclimation is at the heart of it all. It will take decades of experimentation to create a Grand Cru level of harmony between the chosen varieties and the land. The bond is measured by the lack of intervention in the process. A relationship is pursued that won’t be interrupted by drought or untimely rain or calamitous local disease. A bond where the site gives the grape its most extraordinary expression.

Wine and the vision of the winemaker teach us all about foresight. Dr. Olmo started projects requiring decades long commitment that helped change the world of wine. The torch has been passed to Randall Grahm whose Popelouchum project is going to expand our understanding of what is possible in our new world of fine wines. We have been given the opportunity to participate and I urge people to join in, your personal return on investment could be spectacular.

“The discovery of a new Grand Cru brings more happiness to humanity than the discovery of a new star.”
-Randall Grahm

I urge you to donate!