ask, can the score of a wine differ merely because of the words on a label??? Seems a
bit bizarre to me.
Hoke wrote:For instance, let's look at Pinot Noir. If you were to take a lug of Pinot Noir from DRC, say, and process it under carbonic maceration a la BoJo, you'd have a considerably different wine than what you'd expect from DRC, right? It would still be Pinot Noir from the hallowed ground, but the style would have been altered through the human technique chosen. Still Pinot, but different. You might not like it, Walt (in fact I seriously doubt you would), but it would still be Pinot, and it would have just as much incipient "terroir-ness" as it had originally. You just wouldn't be able to discern it, I imagine.
When I open a bottle or drink a glass of wine I would like to have something click in my head that relates the drink to my past experiences.
Next week our wine group is tasting Sangiovese. What region of the world do you think I should purchase from?
Ah, there's the problem: you're talking about your own personal preferences...what you personally like and dislike...and not the potential varietal characteristics that might come from a grape variety that is outside your preference zone. I'm talking about looking at the many different mutational varieties of Sangiovese (or whatever grape you want to use, as that doesn't really make any difference), and assessing those characteristics as being indicative of the variety-----as it is expressed from different terroirs around the world, and in the hands of different growers and winemakers around the world.Don't know what/where la BoJo is but they probably should not be making PN as I also feel that the US can't/hasn't made good sangiovese and CB from anyplace other than the Loire tends to fall on its face. There is no law against it and they certainly have the right to do it but man, have we no standards?
Thomas wrote:IIn my view, these kinds of argu-er-discussions illustrate the difference between wine writers and wine critics. .
I find it limiting to say yea or nay to a wine based on picking out one piece of the flavor profile. But I don't want my Pinot Noir to taste like Syrah (or vice versa). I want a wine to be of its place, grape, and producer
There's Sangiovese in California too. If I was doing a comprehensive Sangiovese tasting, I'd have to include some of those to establish a frame of reference.
Let's shift over to Syrah: I personally have two fairly large definitions, or groupings of Syrah. And no, it's not "French/Rhone" and "Australian, as you might think. It comes down to heat. There's warm climate Syrah, and there is cool climate Syrah.
Well, I think you'd probably include someone like Steve Edmunds as exemplifying the minimal intervention school of winemakers you admire, right?
I don't like big fruit, I don't like noticable oak, I don't like butter/malo in chards and I don't like winemaker manipulation that makes all wines taste the same. I like acid and I like wines that show complexity and evolve with age.
The tasting is 100% blind and I would be glad to bring a CA sangiovese but have no idea which one may be interesting. We have a rather large selection in St. Louis so give me a couple of names. and I will bring one.
I agree but isn't saying Rhone and Australian the same thing as saying cool climate and warm climate. I have nothing against our friends in OZ but generally speaking shy away from most warm climate areas as it tends to produces a "big fruit" and high alcohol style that I do not enjoy.
Hey, I agree with you that knowing when to pick is crucial, Walt. But I think once again you're trying to oversimplify by looking at one isolated element of what is a complex situation. Knowing when to pick can come only after a lot of leg work, sweat, focus and concentration throughout the growing season. Steve, has to pick the right combination of an awful lot of elements, and control as many of them as he can to get to the poing where he can pick that fruit at the right time.
And I'd argue that what Steve does is not "minimal intervention". If you're talking about actually making the wine, yeah, sure, he tends to not jigger around with the wine a lot, sure, but what he does is not my definition of minimal intervention. Steve intervenes a lot---not with chemicals or throwing lots of oak or forcing total malolactic or that kind of stuff, no; but by getting involved in the vineyards throughout the whole year. If you don't think Steve intervenes a lot, you might want to ask him how many miles he puts on his car and his body every year running around the state to his carefully selected vineyards.
You're right: we are pretty close philosophically, Walt. And in our preferences too, I think, for the most part. I'm just saying you can't (or shouldn't) reduce wonderful wines down to one single element and say things like "varietal tipicity is the one most important thing in a great wine". It's significantly more complicated than that. Thassall.
wrcstl wrote:The tasting is 100% blind and I would be glad to bring a CA sangiovese but have no idea which one may be interesting. We have a rather large selection in St. Louis so give me a couple of names. and I will bring one.
Isaac wrote:"stunningly beautiful Paris Hilton look-alikes"
I'm not sure how this fits in, but, if it looks like Paris Hilton, then it cannot be stunningly beautiful.
More power to Adam Lee and gang if they want to make Pinot Syrah. They're selling it to someone -- just not me.
And since we aren't selling it to you I'm not even sure how you wuld know that is what we are trying to make!
Wineries grow and, hopefully, improve with the passage of time and vintages. I don't know how you would specifically define "Pinot as Syrah" but don't think that is what we are doing.
As I stated, no problem with some definitions of typicity but think too narrow a definition creates a multitude of problems.