Wine Spectator against disgusting earth…
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:40 am
I confess that I still read Wine Spectator, mostly because I don’t have a life.
In James Laube’s column (Aug. 31 Dining Guide), he notes that some California wineries are facing problems with quality. In his examples he states re Stag’s Leap Cellars Cask 23: “…it’s occasionally brilliant, but just as likely to be earthy and loamy.” Re Peter Michael Les Pavots Knights Valley (which I might eschew simply for its flatulent name): “…both the 2002…and 2003…are disappointingly earthy.” And Quintessa: “…often have distracting earthy flavors…”
In California, has “earthy” become a synonym for flawed, or is Laube’s disparagement of the term an example of the inexorable march toward the fruitpopization of wine in general? Since when is “earthy” bad? I thought it was an element of interest. It certainly is for me. I also wonder whether these properties mentioned place any ads in the mag.
In James Laube’s column (Aug. 31 Dining Guide), he notes that some California wineries are facing problems with quality. In his examples he states re Stag’s Leap Cellars Cask 23: “…it’s occasionally brilliant, but just as likely to be earthy and loamy.” Re Peter Michael Les Pavots Knights Valley (which I might eschew simply for its flatulent name): “…both the 2002…and 2003…are disappointingly earthy.” And Quintessa: “…often have distracting earthy flavors…”
In California, has “earthy” become a synonym for flawed, or is Laube’s disparagement of the term an example of the inexorable march toward the fruitpopization of wine in general? Since when is “earthy” bad? I thought it was an element of interest. It certainly is for me. I also wonder whether these properties mentioned place any ads in the mag.