What I've Learned In My Own Wine Journey Thus Far...

Everyone is entitled to their own palate and everyone defines their own parameters for 'delicious'. But, as someone who is obviously interested enough in wine to post on websites like this,

Well I'm actually somewhat of an old-timer here on this site (a modern old-timer anyways). I was more present back on the old WLDG board which I happily found when I first truly did get into wine. But that was, boy, I wanna say 7 or so years ago now so my wine interest isnt really "new" anymore although I admit there's always more to learn and explore. Actually this is the only wine website I post on, simply because I love it and since coming across it 7 years ago or so I found it to be one of the best websites period that I have ever come across (for what it is). And, no, Robin isn't paying me to say that. Is just the truth but I do go into hiding from time to time and I see that the posts counts obviously don't carry over from previous postings on the old forum so I can understand why it probably looks like I've just stumbled in here (and into wine) a month ago or something...

I think you at least owe it to yourself (if you haven't already) to try some of these well-aged, mellowed wines, and at least understand why so many people get excited about the 'harmony' of such wines.

Oh but I do understand! And I HAVE tried them. They are 1985 Dom Perignon Rose, 1988 Salon, Perrier Jouet Fleur de Champagne 1990, Laurent Perrier Grand Siecle La Cuvee, Taittinger Comtes de Champagne (several vintages), etc etc etc I'd say my love of "well-aged, mellowed wines" isn't missing or unacknowledged just simply in a whole other area/color perhaps. And I have admitted that this contrast I have (loving elegance/creaminess in a champagne yet NOT liking such traits in reds, wanting chalk, weight and rusticity) is a bit odd. I can't precisely explain myself why I have these two seemingly extreme "tastes". If you check out my #5 on my little list, towards the bottom part of it I mention something to the effect of how my tannin texture "infatuation" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what I would agree or acknowledge is a "great" wine (as far as other qualities go). I don't claim to have tried several 1st growths with frequent experimentation (to be honest I'd rather go broke buying fine champagnes) but I have tried "nice" ones, enough to have fairly determined if I would typically want to immerse myself in a certain wine/grape/area. I do understand what others see in it (based on what qualities and attributes are important to them in a red wine). I see some of them too (notably the greater concentration and earthy elements which I really enjoy). I just wish, in a perfect world (which I know it is not), that I could see that age, grace, earth, mellowness through chalk coating tannins as well! I probably just put an abnormal emphasis on chalkiness and texture. To me it is probably 70% of why I find a red wine a red wine! So if it isnt there, to an extent, its irrelevant (to my taste) how graceful, aged, mellow, complex it is! As I jokingly started off this paragraph with, I can get all those qualities in the wine I DO love most if I don't want tannins! The only reason I dabble outside the bubbles is because I like the unique and distinguishing element that tannins bring to red wines. But if they aren't abundant enough then (to me) I'm simply drinking a white wine that is just colored red! I'm being narrow-minded and over-simplying things there but that is how I mentally view/approach red wines vs white etc. I know the grapes are inherently different with different characteristics, aromatics etc. regardless of skin color.

You may still like the rough stuff, but there is a reason this world of gustatory appreciation has value for certain wines.

There are lots of reasons I'm sure! As there should be. As stated, I know I'm the "oddball" here with my tannins love. I didn't mean to imply (if I did) that I didn't understand why others have value for such wines or even that I don't have value for them myself (to a large extent)! I probably should add not to take my "innocent" wine journey revelations too seriously, I don't. They are my honest "findings" yes but they are also largely for fun/contemplation/casual reading/whatever one wants to take from them/etc. As I started them off with, I don't claim that they are right or wrong or that I'm hoping to start a revolution towards my own personal wine quirks/tastes etc. It's really just a page out of my own wine "diary" that I open up for free, nothing more, nothing less really.

Also, hopefully my tannin heavy entries on the list aren't giving everyone the wrong idea or misrepresenting the fact that I'm not (completely) new to the world of red wine. Perhaps I sound like I am but I dont intentionally lounge in the Cal Cab section of the wine catalog hoping to try the thickest/sweetest/biggest red that catches my eye. That isnt necessarily true. Yes I DO like some. And perhaps some of the ones that have passed my "tannin test" would qualify under the label. But it's a TANNIN/TEXTURE thing for me, not a "I like upfront, obvious blockbusters so I'm going to stay limited right here in this region" thing. I follow the tannin (if I knew where it always was..). I'll be happy to drink/savor/appreciate/cellar as many fine bordeaux/burgundies but can you promise they all will attack and layer my mouth with sumptuous chalk and texture??? Until then, I'll still happily enjoy them and dabble in them here and there. Otherwise, I have my bubbles resting in the cellar which always seems to trump all the above anyways (in my humble opinion) so I definitely can't complain!

Take Care,

Jeff

I’m just going to expand on what Rahsaan wrote, besides everyone having their own personal set of “parameters” of “delicious” (of what one likes and dislikes), most of the structural components could be gauged on one’s own personal “intensity scale”. In other words from nil (non-existent)- low- moderate-to high. Looking at tannin on the “intensity scale” it could be non-existent, low tannin, moderate tannin, or high tannin. On the “perception scale” (besides non-existent) it might range from harsh and rough tannin (un-ripe tannin)-youthful tannin-middle aged tannin (smooth tannin)- mature tannin (ripe, velvety tannin). A wine might fall into a single range, swing through half the total range, “skip through” the range, or even swing through the total range.
In decided whether or not a wine is full-bodied or not, tannin is not the only component to look at.

Salute

On the “perception scale” (besides non-existent) it might range from harsh and rough tannin (un-ripe tannin)-youthful tannin-middle aged tannin (smooth tannin)- mature tannin (ripe, velvety tannin). A wine might fall into a single range, swing through half the total range, “skip through” the range, or even swing through the total range.
In decided whether or not a wine is full-bodied or not, tannin is not the only component to look at.

Salute

That's pretty much what I've discovered, that it seems to be a case of catching the wine in a stage where those tannins are (to my taste) the most texturally interesting/obvious. I don't have to have the wine "obvious" but texture, most definitely (at least preferably). I think that's where the problem comes in and why I made the initial comment in my list about being "skeptical" of aged red wines. It wasn't meant as a negative to red wines aging per se, just that I've rarely tasted older wines that keep that chalky, tactile-depth, textural interest. On the contrary, it seems that the dropping/vanishing of those tannins/tactile depth of pleasure is desired! It's just that one, single element that I find missing yet which is, to me, sooooo very crucial (since I'm drinking a red wine). All other aging factors/characteristics/benefits I would agree with and understand.

I do admit that I may just not be as "texturally sensitive/subtle" when it comes to appreciating red wines that don't have dry, coating, abundant tannins. For example, it isn't a problem for me to appreciate/recognize the sensuousness of texture/body with my champagnes/whites. I can discern a very creamy/pure champagne from a more "green", unbalanced one. It's a pleasureable quality! Tannins aren't even an issue or player (although hairline traces can technically be present in some roses of course Yet I don't miss them. Aside from the various intensity/fineness of the mousse, which can sometimes add textural "confusion" to the purity and sense of body if you're not careful, I love the "transparency", elegance, silkiness, mellowed qualities that a harmonious and aged champagne can provide. It's what a champagne/white should be! Of course I'd never expect to have tannins, "masculine-ness" in a champagne (although, granted, some champagnes are more "bold" than others, but that's just relative within their "feminine" nature overall - none are what I would ever call "masculine") Yet, somehow with a red wine, even in the absence of virtually no tannins, this "femininity" doesn't seem to work. A red, even an aged, graceful one always seems somehow a little "lost" in this "portrayal", like it was inherently meant to be this bold, texturally obvious, inky, mouth-coating front-runner in the line-up of wine types but now it has evolved into something more "elegant", tactile-less, like a white, losing it's distinguishing natural texturally tannic identity in the process. Maybe it is just a "perception" issue I have (and something that could be learned/re-adjusted) but it's harder for me to feel purity, elegance, interest in a tannin-less red wine. It just simply seems "light" and without texture now (even if its otherwise pleasing, concentrated, balanced). And I'm not one to (intentionally) stereotype or broadly categorize things. I know variety is the spice of life but I do tend to feel that red wines should be red wines and whites/champagnes should be white/champagne. Just as I wouldn't want/understand tannins in that transparent, silky, harmonious, elegant champagne, I don't know why I wouldn't want them in reds. To me that's why you have the two "choices". One wine is one thing. The other is another. You can certainly enjoy both (as I do) but I don't want one group/color trying to be the other (as a general rule).

Of course, complicating my views/perception is the fact that even champagne is traditionally (at least partly) red wine grapes itself! So maybe I just don't know what I'm even talking about here...lol.

Take Care,

Jeff