Ian Sutton wrote:Ronica
IMO it's a common issue in cheaper Bordeaux, though I do expect them (in time) to improve the entry level wines balance (i.e get them near ripeness, but at the possible expense of typicity). Beaujolais offers decent value, but is something of an acquired taste, or even a "mood" wine.
In reds, perhaps going south within France might appeal more. Cote du Rhone from a decent producer will typically be a little rounder and fuller without any glaring unripe notes. Elsewhere, the languedoc is putting out some decent wines at reasonable prices. Again this area is warmer on the whole, so it might present some interest.
Dave Erickson wrote:Don't give up on the Beaujolais, either. The '05s are big and ripe, like the '03s, and very approachable.
But that's down the road. In the meantime, as we say here at home, drink what you like, and like what you drink. Try a Montepulciano di Abruzzo. They're cheap and they're tons of fun to drink. Also investigate Spanish cheapies--they can be nicely fruit forward and still display some complexity. Borsao, Protocolo, Vina Borgia, Alba Liza, there's a bunch of 'em.
Covert wrote:Ronica, maybe you should be my niece. You seem to post subjects I can not resist responding to.
I agree with those who suggest you try inexpensive Bordeaux (not cheap). You could try cru bourgeois level wines to start with, then move even lower as you find what qualities you like in the reds.
I said I hope that you will develop a taste in Bordeaux. Not to inherit my collection, but just to experience something that I think is very special.
Even if they have screwcaps?TimMc wrote:I'd stack California Zinfindels against French Zins any day.
Sure, Howie, but who can afford them?Howie Hart wrote:Ronica - take the time to read Graeme Gee's post titled "WTN: Mostly First Growths" and think in terms of ideal French Reds. Lesser properties and younger vintages generally won't measure up. Mature great wines, especially Bordeaux (I have very limited exposure to Burgundy) can be truly awe inspiring.
Isaac wrote:Sure, Howie, but who can afford them?Howie Hart wrote:Ronica - take the time to read Graeme Gee's post titled "WTN: Mostly First Growths" and think in terms of ideal French Reds. Lesser properties and younger vintages generally won't measure up. Mature great wines, especially Bordeaux (I have very limited exposure to Burgundy) can be truly awe inspiring.
RonicaJM wrote:I find myself going to World Market for wine. They seem to have a good selection, if only the staff were as wine savvy as you all.
Anyway, they have about 6-7 Bordeaux that range from $12-$50. The manager recommended one to me that he tried and liked. I'll let you know what I try and how I like it.
I've written down all the suggestions you all have given. Thanks! I did get two Rhone wines from World Market. Tried one Cotes du Ventoux and liked it. It had a pleasant aroma w/ soft fruit and light spice on the nose. There were also vegetal hints. It was dry w/ med. tannins, on the light to med. bodied side w/ flavors of peppers and earth. It was fairly smooth, but the finish was brief.
Isaac wrote:Sure, Howie, but who can afford them?
RonicaJM wrote:So far, in the red French arena, we've tried a bordeaux and a beajolais- each about $10. Both were similar in that our initial tast impression was tartness. Also, the flavors were more subtle and more difficult to figure out. I won't be trying these again...next!
Two nights ago we opened a bottle of Columbia Crest Merlot 2002 that was $6.99. Both of us immediately liked it and the aromas and flavors were easier to define. I am going back for more of this.
Paul Winalski wrote:
Keep in mind the shipping and tarriff costs of European vs. American wines. For a fair comparison, you should compare American wines with those from Europe of double (or more!) the price. What can you get from the USA in the $4-$5 range to compare to that $10 Bordeaux? Ripple or MD-20/20, perhaps?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Roberto Vigna and 9 guests