WineLovers Discussion Group

Robin Garr wrote: I think that there's not much in the world of wine to surpass the complex, subtle richness of a <b>well-aged, properly mature cellarworthy wine</b>. But at the risk of sounding a little curmudgeonly, I've got to be honest and say that for every great older wine I encounter, there are nine, or maybe even 99, that should have been drunk up years older or discarded. Walnutty, Sherrylike oxidation doesn't excite me, and neither does barnyardy, chicken-coopy brett that has multiplied out of all control. I do think there's an unfortunate tendency among many wine geeks - and I don't deny that I do it myself - to go ga-ga over wines that are essentially spoiled, just because we know they're older great labels.

Now THAT is the truth!!

Bob Ross wrote:Are you a Francophile or an Italianophile? Or a Britophile?

None of the above.

I am an enophile.


The crafting of the juice in the glass is what makes it happen...not [necessarily] the age.


My two cents...

I enjoy young wines quite a bit. Still, during my weekend sip and cycle, I was wowed by a 1885 Alexabder Valley Cab, as nice as the new release (2002) was.

My budget and experience doin't allow 30 year old Bordeaux, so I'll pass on that question.

I love young wine...../ Cali wines not french

fruit is up front and tannins maybe are tame..
but being a California winemaker we love our foward up front fruit....


not fond of musty aged stuff full of tannis old stuff like my dad has...IMHO

Carlo wrote:I love young wine...../ Cali wines not french

fruit is up front and tannins maybe are tame..
but being a California winemaker we love our foward up front fruit....


not fond of musty aged stuff full of tannis old stuff like my dad has...IMHO

Truer words have never been spoken on this forum.

Carlo wrote:I love young wine...../ Cali wines not french

fruit is up front and tannins maybe are tame..
but being a California winemaker we love our foward up front fruit....


not fond of musty aged stuff full of tannis old stuff like my dad has...IMHO

__________________________

Ditto here, Carlo! I'm looking forward to trying some from your vineyards! :cool:

Carlo wrote:not fond of musty aged stuff full of tannis old stuff like my dad has...IMHO

I haven't had many older wines that were still tannic. Mostly the older wines I have had have the tannins resolved, integrated or vanished. And if "musty" means like a dank basement, as opposed to mushrooms or bacon or forrest floor, I totally agree. But if it means the latter, I gotta say I am with your dad on this one.
I guess this is a topic on which I have no preferance, or more accurately multiple preferances. I like some wines young (west coast pinot, zinfandel, most whites) some old (most Bdx, northern rhone syrah) some with a little age but not too much (most Cal Cabs, a lot of mid-priced spanish and italian reds) and some young and old but not medium (Chateauneuf du Pape, good riesling, and some Bdx).

Mark Lipton wrote:I'll hazard a guess that one's response to this "troll" will depend in large part on how long one's been drinking wine. I know from my own evolving viewpoint that early on I was focused on fruit and preferred younger wines. As I've aged, so too has my preference for wine.

I'm not sure that's true, either, Mark. I can't remember who said it, but I read many years ago, some famous wine writer said, ""The older I get, the younger I like my wine."

Howie Hart wrote:

Glenn Mackles wrote:.... but I know what I like.

Glenn - Welcome to the forum. This quote is perhaps one of the simplest and profound statments I've read regarding wine. That's what counts.

In an art appreciation course I once took, the professor absolutely excoriated that phrase.

"Of coure you know what you like. Dogs know what they like. That doesn't mean that they have any taste!" Or something like that.

One thing I've noticed, though. What I like changes over time. Or maybe what I like stays the same, but the wines change, I dunno. Whatever, I tend to disagree with my old professor. We should all drink what we like, while maintaining an open mind in order to expand the boundaries of what we like.

As I have gotten older (made it to "59" so far! ), I much prefer older wines, but then the way I drink may not be "standard". As I am a single guy, I have a whole bottle of older wine all by myself once or twice a week, and maybe a half bottle of something a couple other days of the week. There is nothing like the soft, complex, interesting subtleties of something where the tannins are fully resolved and the flavor components have all melded into a seamless unity.

I find my "success rate" is just about 100% too. The only wine I have poured down the drain in the last 10 years or so was part of a bottle of 1994 Aussie Cab/Syrah that apparently had been acidified when made, and the acidity just became nasty when the primary fruit faded!

Since I encountered Monsieur Audouze's "method" of slow oxygenation, I have specifically been looking for really questionable older bottles too! I've picked up a few '81 red Burgs for instance, a vintage that is just not even reviewed, except to say it was "forgettable" etc. Well, with slow oxygenation, the wines have been excellent! But they were perhaps exceptions to the the general rule from that vintage perhaps - a Beaune from the Hospices, a Beze from Lupe Cholet (not exactly an esteemed negociant though, I think?). Likewise, with Bordeaux, I have been exploring '76s and '79s with great success. The '79 Gruaud is amazingly excellent. Wines like the '76 Duhart Milon are also excellent (and even Parker recognized early on that that wine was better than their '75, for instance).

I think if you use common sense in regard to vintages and wine genres, and *above all*, exercise care in serving, which means the Audouze slow oxygenation approach AND a cool serving temperature, you will be very happy with many bottles, including ones that initially may seem bad! This last point is important too. I remember an '82 Bonnes Mares I opened a couple months back that was so tired and smelling and tasting of varnish and orange peel, even after being opened for 3 1/2 hours, that I gave up on it and went down and pulled another bottle from the cellar. But what do you know... after 5 hours, the darn Bonnes Mares gained strength and fruit and became quite attractive, with only hints of decline left. I had to drink TWO bottles that night!

...Paul

Paul,
I think particularly with "lesser" older Burgs that people have a tendency to pop and dismiss wines that come together in time. In the past year I've had '83 village Chevillon NSG, '83 Roumier C-M, '88 village Volnays etc that were stinky/acidic on opening,but with a little time put on weight, fruit, and aromatics.

As to 1979 Bdx, a lot of lovely wines. I have du Tertre, Figeac, Gruaud, Cheval Blanc, couple others. John Gilman had a great feature article in his May-June "View from the Cellar" re 1979 Bdx- I think he titled it "Inconsistent, but with some Real Gems Flying Under Radar"

Back in 1999, a bottle of 1979 Pichon Lalande was my first "oh wow" older wine. So underappreciated vintages are ok with me.

Carlo wrote:I love young wine...../ Cali wines not french

fruit is up front and tannins maybe are tame..
but being a California winemaker we love our foward up front fruit....


not fond of musty aged stuff full of tannis old stuff like my dad has...IMHO

Cali wines...hm.


Is that anywhere near California?


Never heard of this "Cali" you speak of.

Thats because your head is full of cork.

TimMc wrote:Cali wines...hm.


Is that anywhere near California?


Never heard of this "Cali" you speak of.

And your point is...?

Bob Henrick wrote...

Richard, you really should try some aged marsanne, rousanne, chenin, and semillion with a clear mind...


I've tried all those Bob...but in my book? Sauvignon Blanc is where I go for white wines. With an occasional veering to trocken or halbtrocken Reislings. Or Alsace Reislings...hmmm...kind of pattern, huh?

Richard[/quote]

Howie Hart wrote:Thats because your head is full of cork.

Good one, Howie.

At the rate of memory loss I figure you could be right.

Sam Platt wrote:

TimMc wrote:Cali wines...hm.


Is that anywhere near California?


Never heard of this "Cali" you speak of.

And your point is...?

Well...my point is, there is no such place as Cali, but I have heard of California.

I figure one or two other folks have, too.

Seems to me, Sam, if California is what Carlo is referring to, well, then....it seems to me.... the word "California" would be most appropriate in its use. Don't you think?

I mean, do we call Wyoming "Wyo" or New Jersey "Jer" or Michigan "Mic"? Yeah, I didn't think so either.



Call me spoiled.

TimMc wrote:

Sam Platt wrote:

TimMc wrote:Cali wines...hm.


Is that anywhere near California?


Never heard of this "Cali" you speak of.

And your point is...?

Well...my point is, there is no such place as Cali, but I have heard of California.

I figure one or two other folks have, too.

Seems to me, Sam, if California is what Carlo is referring to, well, then....it seems to me.... the word "California" would be most appropriate in its use. Don't you think?

I mean, do we call Wyoming "Wyo" or New Jersey "Jer" or Michigan "Mic"? Yeah, I didn't think so either.



Call me spoiled.

We do call New Jersey, Jersey, though. A lot of people call San Francisco, Frisco. I've heard a lot of Californians call their state Cali, so it doesn't bother me when others do. Likewise when people call Arizona, Zona, which they do.

born and raised and farming grapes in Cali..........

he he he ..............

Carlo wrote:born and raised and farming grapes in Cali..........

he he he ..............

Very cool, Carlo.


Now repeat after me: Cal-i-for-nia.


C'mon, say it with me now...Cal-i-for-nia.



Got it?


I knew you could

Isaac wrote:

TimMc wrote:

Sam Platt wrote:

TimMc wrote:Cali wines...hm.


Is that anywhere near California?


Never heard of this "Cali" you speak of.

And your point is...?

Well...my point is, there is no such place as Cali, but I have heard of California.

I figure one or two other folks have, too.

Seems to me, Sam, if California is what Carlo is referring to, well, then....it seems to me.... the word "California" would be most appropriate in its use. Don't you think?

I mean, do we call Wyoming "Wyo" or New Jersey "Jer" or Michigan "Mic"? Yeah, I didn't think so either.



Call me spoiled.

We do call New Jersey, Jersey, though. A lot of people call San Francisco, Frisco. I've heard a lot of Californians call their state Cali, so it doesn't bother me when others do. Likewise when people call Arizona, Zona, which they do.

You've heard a lot of transplant pseudo-Californians say "Cali"...no naitive would ever say that sh-, er, stuff. And if they do, they say it out of earshot of us native Californians...I assure you.

We would take them to task immediately....and it wouldn't be pretty to watch.

And if you say "Frisco", you had better not ever go to San Francisco and say that. They will chew you up and spit you out for that kind of low-life abbreviation.

Trust me.


Native Californian, here. OK?

your rules do not apply to me

Drink Cali Wines !!!

Carlo wrote:your rules do not apply to me

Drink Cali Wines !!!

Uh, huh.

SO! Where you from originally, Carlo?



New Jersey?