Wine Discussion - Don't you dare disagree

Most of us take pride in our taste whether it's in the clothes we select, the way we furnish our homes, the wines we buy and serve or for others, musical tastes, selection of an automobile, etc.

JC, you obviously didn't note how I was dressed either time we met.
Though I am proud of my '96 Corolla.

Chuckled, Dale. And I'm still getting good mileage with my 2003 Chevy Cavalier on which I made the final payment in December.

[David M. Bueker]

We're still using hand-me-dowm furniture. Hey it works & leaves more money for wine!

David

Thanks. This is definitely harder than I thought. Worst thing is, I made a superb sardine dish with a saffron sauce last night. It would have just been perfect wtih a semillion or riesling but no the glass contained water. Just soooo wrong. Still the doc is smiling more than when I had to see him a week ago so we are heading in the right direction.

Cheers
Mark

I enjoy pondering topics/posts such as this. I've always enjoyed this board and learned a great deal from several who have posted over the years so I actually think this board, relative to others is pretty "civil" and open about most things. That's literally why I find it the best wine board around! It's not my nature to be combative or argue aimlessly (especially involving things that are purely subjective and are at their heart about pure enjoyment anyways). If anything, I'm maybe more likely to not be more "persistent" about my views/tastes/opinions. However, I do feel that it is human nature to perhaps feel "protective" about one's views/tastes. There's probably several reasons why it happens. Hopefully, most of them aren't done with intentionally gruff intent but out of "passion". Let's hope anyways

One possible reason that may be under all our noses is the simple fact that people, generally speaking, that enjoy internet forums/boards wouldn't (continually) participate in them if they weren't themselves either somewhat opinionated by nature or at least prone to enjoying (hopefully friendly and intelligent) discussion. That's why they log-in to such things to begin with. In theory, that's fun and healthy (I believe). Of course people can go too far. That's definitely not fun, healthy or considerate.

I know I always at least try to explain my views/ideas/thinking out of a "passion/romance" for what I personally like so that hopefully my biggest "fault" may just be that I come off as one-track minded (in perhaps a too optimistic, blinded or passionate sense). That I can at least live with. For me its more about sharing what I love about wine (or which part of wine I love the most...). I'm aware that others aren't always into that part the same as me (or even care) but if you get one good sentence, thought, smile from what I babble then I'm happy and humbled. It's hopefully always about glasses always being half full not empty....

I think another reason some may appear to be overly defensive or sensitive about certain wine likes/beliefs they may have is due to the often "sacred" nature of wine history/places/practices that makes it all so fascinating. Unlike some other subjective things that people may also "argue" about, wine seems to instill notions in people that make them want to "protect" the world of winemaking and its enjoyment as a whole. Again, in theory this is maybe a defensive reaction with good intent but of course some can get locked into thinking that they are the only "guardian" of wine's ideals as a whole, that they don't have an objective (or the only) license to be this wine guardian of truth/knowledge/respect.

Then of course there are the "bad" yet sometimes human reasons that people get defensive/snobby/argumentative such as simply ego, need to feel (or use) their knowledge to stand above/intimidate others, some may simply be argumentitive by nature, enjoy "stirring things up" and are good at it! But let's all hope we can ignore all of these, always be kind and considerate and just stick to those glasses always staying half full...

Take Care,

Jeff

Top post Jeff!

I don't suppose that I have too much in a wine sense that is sacred. However extreme, ignorant AND bigoted (i.e. all three together) views would earn at least a e.g. "Napa reds are all 16% gloop monsters and should be avoided", or "European wines are thin, weedy and riddled with Brett".

I'm happy with someone holding an ignorant view, as long as they carry an open mind.
Extreme tastes are also welcome - they perhaps are best at challenging our perceptions.
Bigoted tastes are also ok, as long as the person understands that they have made that decision.
e.g. the Red wine drinker that gets too much enjoyment from reds to bother chasing whites to their taste; The person that refuses to drink Rosé or Viognier because all the ones they've tasted before have been rubbish; The old world wine drinker, who really hasn't the desire to investigate the myriad of new world producers.

Where things get a little heated in the e-wine world, is where people find themselves forming groups centred around bigoted thinking (usually in reaction to other bigoted thinking, henceforth known as 'the enemy'). E.g. Parker is right / Parker is a menace; Corks are best / screwcaps are best; high alcohol is good / high alcohol is bad.

Even the wine-seal debates seem to have reached the point where the pitch has been marked and the opponents are limbering up for a nice friendly game of football (whilst they wait for some decent investigation to be reported on!).

regards

Ian

Top post Jeff!

I don't suppose that I have too much in a wine sense that is sacred. However extreme, ignorant AND bigoted (i.e. all three together) views would earn at least a e.g. "Napa reds are all 16% gloop monsters and should be avoided"

Is this just an opinion or is it not the GOSPEL TRUTH?

Brian
I suspect the gospel truth is that all Napa Reds should be over 16% AND YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT BUDDY?!!!
regards
Ian

[David M. Bueker]

No, no, no. You do not understand. All Pinot Noir must be 16% alcohol. If it's not then clearly the grapes were not ripe.

I got past all that long ago. If someone doesn't share my opinions over music, cars, wine etc., I don't take it personally, I just nod politely and perhaps mentally mark them off as a future discussion candidate. I don't have the proselytic need to convert others to my way of thinkingin order to feel secure, as many people seem to. If I feel that a particular wine is the bee's knees, and you don't, it is no big deal to me - I don't need to try and convince you that I have the one 'right' answer and that you are mistaken.

I see this identification people have with wine all the time, especially when they bring a wine to a tasting that is below par or, heaven forfend, even corked. They get all apologetic as if they'd made the wine and have some personal responsibility rather than just buying the stuff and presenting it to us. I have always found this a bit hard to understand, logically, but it seems a common thing.

No, no, no. You do not understand. All Pinot Noir must be 16% alcohol. If it's not then clearly the grapes were not ripe.

... but I'm sure you also recognise there's yet to be a great maker of Riesling - nah none of that truckin' beer an' house lasers or icy wine - watch for the modern equivalent, using cutting edge viticultural techniques, 200% new US oak treatment, full malo and selected high performance yeasts, creating a wine coming in at minimum 18%alc. Respect to the traditional styles though as the wine style name will be a logical extension of the icy wine concept - whilst Icy wine is that old-fashioned style grimly acidic wine with weedy low alc, the new innovative style is powerful and mouthfilling, so by analogy it's name isn't icy wine ... we're calling it cooking wine, 'cos it's "cooking" and um, err it's "wine" (possibly).

No, no, no. You do not understand. All Pinot Noir must be 16% alcohol. If it's not then clearly the grapes were not ripe.

Ah yes...California CANNOT BE Burgundy, so let's just create our very own gift to the wine world: THE PINOFANDEL NOIR!

I actually tasted this weekend an "experiment" in which the winemaker mixed Pinot and Zinfandel. Truly strange.

Brain wrote;
Ah yes...California CANNOT BE Burgundy, so let's just create our very own gift to the wine world: THE PINOFANDEL NOIR!

Why not just concentrate and try to produce the “best” California Pinot Noir?

Salute

I was at a wine makers dinner in Sacramento featuring Siduri wines this past sat. Somebody asked Adam which of his pinots was most burgundian in style. He said that was a hard question to answer as styles were a moving target. To parapharse a quote he made, good pinots started at 13-14% alcohol, very good pinots were 14-15% and great pinots were 16% or more! Then he mentioned that this was a statement attributed to the owner of Romanee/Conti in the 1880's I don't know where he came up with that statement, but it is food for thought! Oh, and most of his pinots are under14%.

Here's the question for today: Why do so many of us have so much emotional capital invested in our opinions about wine. At the end of the day it's only fermented grape juice

Why do so many of us have so much emotional capital invested in our opinions about our children? At the end of the day, they are just meat and bones.

We project in both cases.

Brain wrote;
Ah yes...California CANNOT BE Burgundy, so let's just create our very own gift to the wine world: THE PINOFANDEL NOIR!

Why not just concentrate and try to produce the “best” California Pinot Noir?

Salute

But what does that mean? The Pinofandel Noir producers honestly believe that their's is the best approach to fulfilling this dream. So...cherry syrup and 15.6% abv.

And the market largely agrees in the United States.

I, however, will continue to make fun of these wines.

If all we want is the wine to “speak” of the place where it is grown and comes from, a “California” Pinot Noir blended with some Zinfandel IMHO doesn’t sound like a strange idea.

Salute

Victor
I guess the question is whether it reflects the people or the place? Perhaps a bit of each, but my gut feeling is it more reflects the people than the place. Maybe this concept of terroir leaves out a major component - the mentality/psyche of the local wine makers/drinkers? They perhaps anchor the 'sense of place'.
regards
Ian

Ah yes...California CANNOT BE Burgundy, so let's just create our very own gift to the wine world: THE PINOFANDEL NOIR!

I actually tasted this weekend an "experiment" in which the winemaker mixed Pinot and Zinfandel. Truly strange.

Hmmm ... you are on to an idea there. Crossing Pinot Noir with Zinfandel and making a new variety, Pinofandel, would be mighty noble work!

It could even go down as Pinotage's Californian cousin . . . or something

[David M. Bueker]

Hmmm ... you are on to an idea there. Crossing Pinot Noir with Zinfandel and making a new variety, Pinofandel, would be mighty noble work!

It could even go down as Pinotage's Californian cousin . . . or something

If all we want is the wine to “speak” of the place where it is grown and comes from, a “California” Pinot Noir blended with some Zinfandel IMHO doesn’t sound like a strange idea.

Salute

But....it TASTES strange.

I'm sorry, Victor. You are being somewhat serious and I am goofing on you!

Aw, c'mon guys...if I told you I was making a wine by blending chardonnay and pinot noir together, your first reaction would be negative. Until you realized I was talking about Champagne.

That said, yeah, there are some combos that intuitively don't seem right.

And I think there are some grape varieties that blend well with others (it's in their permanent record!), and some that don't. I think Pinot Noir doesn't particularly blend well, and that's the reason it mostly stands alone (although apparently the Burgundians thought it did quite well with a little Rhone Syrah).

Petite Sirah is a great blender. Also, but more selectively, Mourvedre. Grenache.

Sometimes you run into problems because of dominance issues. Cabernet tends to dominate most of the blends it is in; it needs a strong partner to stand up to it. Sanvigovese tends to yield to other partners though (anyone remember the Atlas Peak Cab/Sangio blends from years ago). Chardonnay tends to be dominated by Viognier, because of the floral aromatics in Viog'; a little viog can totally trounce a lot of chard.

It's fun and instructive to blend varietals together. You learn an awful lot from it. Mostly, you learn that combinations that you think should work, as in A + B = Aha!, often tends out to be A + B = Feh. And then it's back to the graduated beaker again.

I dunno". I've always been willing to try just about anything, and I've enjoyed most. Bourgogne is a current favorite. Don't care much for Viognier, most American Cab Franc and some others, but that doesn't mean they are bad wines or that I wouldn't try them again. Even many of the hybrids have something good going for them, Vignoles, Noiret and the oddball Norton included. The worst wine I ever tasted was made from ramps, an experience I don't want to repeat. Sometimes I wonder what all the fuss is about.

The worst wine I ever tasted was made from ramps, an experience I don't want to repeat. Sometimes I wonder what all the fuss is about.

I don't want to go all Covert on you, Alan, but I think there is something inherent in human nature that compels people to try to do things. And this is one of those things. It seems that if it is possible to ferment (and distill) anything, someone will do it, if only to see that it can be done.

Kind of like the kid with the magic set: he sits around, thinking, "Hmmmm. If I mix this with that..." Then, once he's conceived it, he just. has. to. do. it!

And, unfortunately, I often end up tasting the result from the grown up kids who make wine, beer, spirits, bread, and food concoctions.