Comments on: Cracking Open Enologix’s Black Box

By: Sid

Sid — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:24:01 +0000

UCD phenolic methods, ……they are not widespread.Why?

Wine Business Monthly covered UCDs Boulton. WBM exposed that Boulton’s article prompted an unusual response from academic Chris Somers, who in an article appearing in the March/April 2003 Australia and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal said it “seems to contain strange interpretations and some dubious recommendations.”

“Roger Boulton, who had previously made no contribution to the subject in the open research literature, published an extremely long and devious article (20 pages) with no less than 129 references dating back more than a century,” Somers told Wine Business Monthly via e-mail. “It was presented as a scholarly review in his Department’s home Journal (2001)–the worst review I have ever encountered. I do not consider that it could have been published anywhere else. He has muddied the waters so much that I felt obliged to respond by what I claim to be a more logical account.”

Boulton told Wine Business Monthly that the problem with Somer’s assays for color measurements is that they do not incorporate the copigmentation aspect, and as such over estimate the anthocyanin content, especially in young wines. “This has been a major problem for research in young wine color for many years,” he said.

“As you can see, there is sometimes conflict in the pathways of science, but truth will win out,” Somers said.

By: The Grapes of Math

The Grapes of Math — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:47:53 +0000

[...] written about Enologix here before. Their service purports to help you make wine that will score better with influential gatekeepers [...]

By: Carneros Wine

Carneros Wine — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:53:34 +0000

I have no problem with the concept of digitalizing wine, we have digitalized everything else. What I don’t like is that it references to the two biggest pieces of self aggrandizing, marketing hype crap, bullshit artists out there, and that so many people buy into them. It’s not hard to make Parker wines, just overprocess and cheat with micro-O2, enzymes, extracts etc… And so many do, especially in Napa, and especially when they have a big name, so many… Everybody makes their neighbors wine and they all taste the same. The bigger they are, the more they have to lose, and the more desperate they get.

By: 29Winemaker

29Winemaker — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:58:43 +0000

A consumer service, Enologix is not. It is technology company. We use their testing, software-way cool blending tool-to make tasting trials, and some of their consulting.

They remain the gold standard. Report from UCD’s RAVE two weeks ago: RAVE presented color and tannin assays, and I believe the subtext was that researchers believe they have a tannin assay to replace Enologix’s. Back here in wine country no commercial laboratory in Napa Valley which is offering the UCD Adam’s assay as a replacement. I can only surmise that Enologix has the better analytical chemistry.

As to Enologix black box. Its a competitive advantage for we winemakers. If everyone has the same technology, the value of Enologix is diminished. So I for one hope no one figures it all out

Happy winemaking.

By: Johnson

Johnson — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:10:58 +0000

FYI. Enologix has waded in on the side of the consumer with respect to wine labeling laws. See What’s really in that wine?
New federal labels may tell us more than we want to know.
By Corie Brown, Times Staff Writer
March 28, 2007
Enologix is some kind of hybrid between the producers and consumers, or so it appears, and maybe their future is a a consumer site, a sort of Zagat for wine. What’s your sense?

By: Johnson

Johnson — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:23:42 +0000

This blog reminds me of a David Lynch film, it is referential to something super insider knowledge, in this case students’ former professors at an academy. As a winemaker I can say there is absolutely no connection between anything happening in winemaking at most wineries. UCD is not used to make wine, Enologix is used by 50-70 companies at most, and this is a tempest in a tea pot.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:03:54 +0000

Hello again NW. Thanks for the link. Enologix certainly has always been newsworthy.

By: New Winemaker

New Winemaker — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 03:27:56 +0000

Check out the Business Week feature issue, 2006 Best and Worst Ideas. Enologix continues to garner attention from the consumer media.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/12/1207_bestideas/source/12.htm

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 09:05:38 +0000

Hi New Winemaker,

My interest isn’t in seeing anyone punished for using any lab service. I’m not sure why I left that impression. Whether you are making wine from Napa or from Texas doesn’t matter to me. I’d never go out of my way to bash another winemaker or a wine. Do unto others and all that.

I like Parker wines and I like Meadows wines. Enologix helps you make one, but not the other. It has it’s limits because it is designed to cater to a type of style. Determining that style should be the role of the winemaker IMHO. If that makes me biased so be it, but I never said Enologix was bad. In fact, I said if their prices ever came down I’d use them!

Hey, good luck to you as well.

By: New Winemaker

New Winemaker — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:07:17 +0000

My sense is wine is business, too.. Given your bias, you would probably punish me in print if I revealed the famous winery I work at here in the middle of the Napa Valley. So I must demure, though I can tell you Enologix is very widespread here in the most important winemaking region in the new world.

Let’s stick to the facts to make our points. Your sense is that Enologix is bad. Bad for what? It’s good for making wine. The New York Times said it, ‘in one issue of Robert Parket’s guide, one single issue, 51 wines scored which were made with Enologix. That’s alot of fine wine.

You have to admit that’s performance.

Good luck in your efforts to make a significant contribution to the California wine industry.