Well, it seems a small band of intrepid souls toiling away endlessly to elevate the nascent Arizona wine industry are living up to my extraordinarily low expectations with respect to cooperating/collaborating with one another. I stumbled across a February 2nd article, written by Richard Ruelas, on the azcentral.com website describing what appears to be a growing rift amongst those involved in Arizona’s fledgling vinification industry. Hell, they don’t call it the “Grand Canyon State” for nothing!

Feel free to click here for the article, then come back and finish perusing my rant – yeah, that’s right, yet another rant.

According to one Arizona winemaker, the certification process being promoted by a recently-formed group intent on setting a high bar for Arizona wines will end up creating a ‘divisive’ atmosphere instead.  Another Arizona winemaker, (and a founding member of this new group), claims their efforts are meant to ensure only the highest quality wines in the state earn the group’s seal of approval. In yesterday’s article, Eric Glomski, (owner of Page Springs Cellars), is quoted as saying “It does seem like it’s divisive.”  The ‘it’ he’s referring to is the certification process an Arizona winemaker would have to go through to earn the right to use the group’s super-nifty logo.  One of the group’s founding members, Todd Bostock, claims “…the certification [process] is a tool that will help enhance and protect the state’s reputation.”

Oh, sweet Jesus, where do I begin…

First of all, naming this bad boy’s club the “Arizona Vignerons Alliance” is ridiculous, simply ridiculous.  Oh, right, you’re missing an apostrophe too…  Let’s get this straight, you pretentious bastards, AVA stands for “American Viticultural Area”, period.

Step 1 – change the f**king name of your club.

Second, what’s this nonsense about protecting the state’s reputation?  Really.  What reputation? This state doesn’t have a reputation for winemaking – at least not yet.  There are three states that do have a reputation for winemaking.  They are, (and in no particular order), California, Oregon and Washington. Not Arizona, Texas, New York or Virginia.  Not New Mexico, Nebraska, Illinois or Florida.  Get the picture?  Again, it’s CA,  OR and WA.  Three of ’em.  That’s it.  Just three – one, two, three.

To be clear, there are very drinkable wines being produced in many states, including Arizona.  Hell, I’ve even said mildly positive things about one or two, but in terms of getting nervous about protecting the industry’s reputation in the state and/or wanting to build the state’s brand identity for the industry itself, well, let’s just say it might be a tad bit premature to worry about doing so in 2016. Or even in 2017. …or, well, you get the idea.

Step 2 – focus on your vineyards, your wines and your customers, not your neighbor’s vineyards, their wines or their customers.

OK, so is the club gonna be “elite” or is it gonna be “inclusive”? According to Glomski, some of the state’s winemakers he spoke with used the word “elite” to describe their first impressions of the Arizona Vignerons Alliance, while Bostock hopes the program this particular cohort is promoting would eventually be regarded as “inclusive”. Me? I’m leaning toward the former and not the latter. Why? I’ll get to that in a moment, but first, take a minute and go back to an earlier post I did in late November, bemoaning the politics of wine distribution/promotion called “A whine about Arizona wine.”

Doesn’t it look like those who have already been sufficiently recognized for their winemaking prowess want to keep it that way? I can’t think of a better way to cordon off the so-called “elites” from the filthy, unwashed masses than to form a club. A club with admission rules conveniently favoring the a**holes, er, I meant founders, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo – at least as far as reputations, (and those sought-after awards), are concerned!

Next time, oh, I dunno, try sitting down maybe a dozen, (or two dozen), winemakers at the table instead of just four of them…

Step 3 – practice what you preach. If you want to be inclusive, try being, well, inclusive…

On to point number 4. Were you drinking while drafting the mission statement? For God’s sake, at least try to follow the basic rules of grammar, OK? ..and while you’re at it, post some decent photographs of the principals/founders instead of those gimmicky, self-referential images you snapped with your smartphones. Please, act like professionals. Lastly, disabuse yourselves of the notion that a silly, contrived, state-specific designation could ever – and I do mean ever – approach what can be inferred from the country-specific designations of France “appellation d’origine contrôlée” (AOC), Italy, “Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita” (DOCG), or Spain “Denominaciones de Origen” (DO) when they appear on a bottle.

Yer punchin’ way, way, waaaaay above yer weight class, kids…

Step 4 – slap a gigantic “UNDER CONSTRUCTION” sign on the website. Gain consensus first, then make your big splash on the Internet.

Hey, I’ve got an idea! If you’re as disappointed as I am about this rather poorly-conceived/clumsy attempt to foster cooperation and collaboration amongst those involved with the vinification industry in Arizona, purchase a pair of tickets to their so-called “launch reception” in March and go give ’em hell. Here, I’ll make it easy for you – presto, bango, poof – a link right to their Eventbrite page. See you there next month.

…and don’t forget to boycott Dos Cabezas WineWorks, Callaghan Vineyards, Sand-Reckoner Vineyards and Caduceus Cellars in the meantime. Need to find an alternative? Try something from Aridus Wine Company, Javelina Leap Winery, Lawrence Dunham Vineyards or Page Springs Cellars – I doubt you’ll be disappointed!