Brad Baker has apparently gotten around to setting up his champagne-focused website: champagnewarrior.com. The first issue is a dollar, which seems like a good deal and a reasonable way to determine whether you want to sign-up for the long-haul.

PS - I know Brad, but I don't have any business relationship with him and he didn't ask me to post on his behalf.

Is this Brad Baker the mediocre baseball pitcher, or Brad Baker the mediocre NASCAR driver?



Seriously, I'm not inclined to pay for a first look an a virtually unknown critic's opinion when I can get wine + art's opinion for free.

If this guy is serious at having people give him a shot, an initial look should be gratis. It worked for Galloni.

PH

PH:

Brad's actually fairly well-known among a decent-sized segment of internet champagne geeks, but frequents the Parker board rather than here.

To get a sense of his tastes and extensive knowledge on the subject for no cost, you could probably do some searches on various champagne topics there once the eBob forum comes back up.

JimBrennan,

Thanks for the info. I know just a wee bit about marketing and I've gotta tell you that the $1 for a first look just doesn't feel right. It has nothing to do with the money, in fact........ it's such a paltry amount that it almost feels silly to pull my wallet out and go through the hassle of registering.

I truly believe that if Brad wants to drive traffic to his site, especially users who are unfamiliar with him, that an initial look for gratis is the way to go. If he has content of value, then the dollars will come.

PH

W+A,

Opinion please.

I'm with PHaze. I consider W+A my personal Champagne vetter.

Thanks for the interest and feedback. If anyone doesn't feel like the $1 price for the first issue is worth it (and I completely understand that viewpoint) and would like a free copy of the above mentioned Champagne Warrior Newsletter, please send me an email at freeissue@champagnewarrior.com and I'll send the first issue on its way to you.

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
W+A,

Opinion please.

I'm with PHaze. I consider W+A my personal Champagne vetter.

I think PH just worked a deal for everyone.

I also think anyone still left in Detroit might be due a little of the Bail-Out money.

Brad, good luck!

Generous offer, Brad. Looking forward to it.

PH

quote:

Originally posted by wine+art:
I also think anyone still left in Detroit might be due a little of the Bail-Out money.

PurpleHaze can be our lobbyist, since he's in DC...

PS - Nice offer Brad.

I have been following Brad's notes on the Parker website for a few years. I find his knowledge second to none. I was blown away with his first issue after I subscribed to it recently. It is the most detailed notes on Champagne I have ever seen. If your into Champagne, his new newsletter is worth every cent.

Thanks, Brad.

(And thanks PH! Btw, it's been too long since we shared some bubbly.)

quote:

Originally posted by JimBrennan:
PurpleHaze can be our lobbyist, since he's in DC...

My services are currently available, JB. You may pay in Champagne.

quote:

Originally posted by Lentini:
(And thanks PH! Btw, it's been too long since we shared some bubbly.)

Me thinks we'll remedy that issue this month, Lentini.

I've scanned Brad's first issue (I've made it a third of the way through), and frankly.......... I'm impressed. Not only can he write well, but he does seem to truly "know his stuff." The article on Billiot was great, and the piece on Laurent-Perrier and the Grand Siecle obfuscation was a true revelation and fun to read. I don't quite agree with his final stance, but that's horseracing!

When 5 of my favorite 1996 Vintage Champagnes made it into his Top 10, in the "Top 50 Champagnes of 1996," I knew I was in trouble. Merde! Another subscription to pony up for.

PH

Oh.......Brad, you mentioned that Billiot is now disclosing disgorgement dates on his wines. Does this include the NVs as well? And why do you think the bulk of Champagne producers don't do this? I'm starting to think that they don't want the accountability of variations from disgorgement to disgorgement to have any effect on their and retailers' turning the less favorably reviewed bottles. Thoughts?

PH,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you found the newsletter valuable.

As far as Billiot goes, new releases should include a disgorgement date on the back label. You can thank Terry Theise for pushing and pushing on this. I won't guarantee that Billiot will always include it (sometimes some of the smaller guys are variable), but most of the time it will be there.

On your other question, below is a snippet on something I've written elsewhere:

The biggest problem is that Champagne is a business. A lot of research has been done that shows that sales actually go down when you let people know the disgorgement date and the constituents of a NV blend. Here is why:

For most wines (even limited high end wines like Bollinger RD), the person who buys them isn't as knowledgeable as those on this board. If someone reads a review saying that Cuvee X disgorged on May 1 is good and that the NV Champagne from producer ABC that is based on the 2002 harvest is great then that person normally goes looking for that exact bottle. They reject Cuvee X disgorged on May 2 and only want the 2002 based NV from producer ABC.

The end result is lost business or a high risk of it so many producers do not want to publish this data. It is a big step to give out info. With large production NVs, producers really get scared. It is easier for the smaller guys because their production runs are lower and they can survive without being in every corner store, but it was a big step even for them.

While I disagree with not giving out information, I understand the opposing viewpoint. What is nice is that almost every producer will supply me with information when I ask and they all seem aligned with the belief that they don't have a problem giving out this information to wine "geeks", but want to find a way to supply it when asked without potentially losing business. I've long asked many producers to simply allow us to input the lot number or some other bottle code number on their website to retrieve information, but no one has done this yet. Seems like a simple solution to me.

Going full circle and showing the risk a producer takes and some of the fear they face - when a note is published saying the one disgorgement is better than another, it can cause some loss of business or more likely, a drop in demand and longer shelf time for some bottles... even if the producer agrees.

Again, I don't agree with the above practices, but I do understand why it is done.

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Me thinks Methinks we'll remedy that issue this month, Lentini.

PH-

Being that you've been hibernating from the boards for a while, we'll cut ya some slack. You've missed the 'methinks' debate, regarding its' correct spelling. It's been determined that it is, indeed, spelled correctly as one word.

Just an FYI... (you can thank Board-O for clearing up this debacle).

Methinks that thou shouldst bite me.



PH