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

I'm not sure what others may get out of this but just thought I'd open up and share, just for the pure heck of it (or maybe just for frivolous entertainment purposes at worst) Just view it as having a free window to chuckle or ridicule me for being honest at no charge!

I may start off with just a brief list here and maybe post additional parts as they evolve (or maybe even change) through my "wine journey"...

I don't make any claims that these "findings" I've discovered are right or wrong or that I'm suggesting them on others - they are just my own, based obviously on my own preferences or quirks, however one may take them...

1. A back wine label description is about as useful as trying to accurately determine which stocks will go up over a three day stretch and which ones will go down.

As a matter of fact, not only will the wine not be anything like what the label says but you will almost always have an opposite description of the wine! Go figure. I'm not sure who or how those label descriptions get written. Wine is so fickle, changing and personal anyways that I would never expect for anyone else's description (even that of the maker of the wine) to exactly match what will be in the bottle. Everyone interprets wine and even its terms/descriptors differently. Yet you would think they might have at least an accurately vague target of what is in fact in the bottle!!!! I'm the biggest believer in the world that everything is subjective but when a label claims that the "pick your wine name here" was aged for 36 months to reveal an extrememly full body, with mouthfilling tannins and rich concentration, only to find that when tasting the wine itself it was virtually so tannin-free that I've gotten more chalky grip from a bottle of spring water, that it is light bodied (to my taste), and tastes more "green" or herbal with almost no balance of ripeness or concentration, then one starts to wonder if these labels are even written for the correct wines! I've heard of marketing and poetic embellishing for the hope of sales before but wine label descriptions seem to not only not match but, as mentioned, be completely opposite of the liquid inside! Some of these labels honestly wouldnt be any farther off if they simply just gave a WHITE wine description on the back of a Napa Cab! It's that opposite sometimes. Either that or I just have the most backwards palate and sense of taste and texture on the face of the planet! Either me or these labels are in the Twilight Zone? I guess I'm not sure which one?

2. Having said #1, if a wine catalog/site that I like and have bought from before has a really seductive and enticing description of a champagne/wine that I'd like to buy, I can easily be swayed into buying it.
Yeah I confess. I guess it just goes to show that marketing does have its effect on some level for all of us, even if we dont like to admit it. An alluring description, especially if it seems to be deliciously describing what I want to be hearing in relation to the wine I'm pondering can be hard to fight against when shopping for bottles. I know (logically) that even if I DO really like the wine myself when I get it that the note I was reading is likely not going to match my experience when I eventually drink it. Yet, if deciding between two wines in a catalog and I like both and one doesn't have a note (or has a less attractive note) and one has a more tempting note, I'll likely go for the one with the more "creative" note. Sure, I believe you found all 9 of these exotic flavors. Sounds like an 82 Salon to me! And even if I know I'm completely being seduced and taken by such a description I DO genuinely believe that the wine must be at least, well, very good regardless of the intoxicating adjectives that are helping me along. I mean it IS a Salon. How far from the truth can the note be? I know the stuff is good even if I don't necessarily end up sailing on a spring-scented rainbow with a kaleidescope of 9 different citrus fruits and nuts circling above my head like that taster did. It's almost as if I'll buy a bottle just as a token of my appreciation for being treated to such a delicious and poetic tasting note! So sure, why not! I'll take one! Click! Add one to the check out cart...

3. I almost can't have a wine that is too tannic (texturally).

For me wine, most especially red wine, is all about texture (well that and great taste and a perfect "balance") . It is a sensuous experience, when it's good (I'm still referring to wine here). I LOVE the feel of a rustic full red wine and the way the tannins and structure attack my cheeks and gums filling them with luscious layers of chalk. Maybe it's just a tactile preference/quirk I have but I always look for that FIRST when tasting a red. I know, I'm probably crazy but, hey, you like what you like...

4. As a result of #3, I'm skeptical of all wines (red) that are well-aged, highly sought, highly adored, and highly enjoyed (by most normal wine people) because almost all the notes/experiences of fine aged wines seem to state how the tannins have mellowed or dissipated nicely or are now fine and elegant instead of upfront and abundant. You know, as if that were a good thing or something

Why would I want non-abundant or mellowed tannins? This is a POSITIVE evolution of a well aged red??? Says who? No, No, No, I want tannins! Lot's of them, please! I realize this may just be a personal thing here with my taste in reds so forgive me if I'm missing something in regards to wines with low/minimal tannins. I never claimed to have good taste, just a chalky taste Perhaps I could just bring some white Crayola Schoolboard chalk sticks and break them off into my Private Reserve if it's not quite to my liking? Or is that not very wise?

5. (Relating to #3 and 4) Despite the fact that countless cabs, zins, petite syrahs, barolos, you name it, will likely "claim" to be super-tannic, extremely full bodied, most, for whatever reason (regardless of price range) rarely are!

Again, that's relative to my palate. Perhaps I have too high and unrealistic a tannin/texture expectation? I can't say that's fully true because some reds have successfully impressed me, texturally. Beringer Private Reserve 1996, an Italian Sangiovese of which I no longer remember the year or label because I didnt actually take a note of it unfortunately. So I know it's possible. Surely, many instances were just me tasting the bottles at wrong passages in their life (or more likely I assume past their rustic youth). This is not to say I havent enjoyed several reds. This tannin infatuation doesnt have anything to do with what I thought of the taste or balance. Some have been perfectly enjoyable. But where's the texture!!! We need more, more, more!!!!! Okay, I'll stop now. There are certainly more important things in the world to worry about than tannin I suppose...

6. Contrary to my admiited love for very chalky and "masculine" red wines, I've discovered I'm, ironically, also a man of contrasts when it comes to wine.
By this I mean that on one hand I ramble on about the search for the perfect chalk-filled rustic red wine yet my "specialized passion" when it comes to wine is all "feminine", creamy demure elegance and golden-kissed purity! I'm talking about the world's most prized nectar - le champagne! I've found it is what I love best (and return to most often in my wine journey) and has been that way since day one. Champagne was my first love and entrance into wine and while I'm always open to the "romance of wine" in general and trying/learning various still ones, nothing has come close to the golden bubbles in my humble book! Why the ironic contrasts in these two "tastes" I have, I'm not sure but such is the beauty I suppose! Then again, I also find fascinating the hints of true chalky mineral apparent in many champagnes that were born out of the chalk and limestone rich land. So maybe there is a common thread to my tastes in reds after all!

7. I'm a hopeless romantic at heart. It's largely why I'm drawn to wine! Of course I'm always respectful, mindful of wine's many accepted "manners", proper opening/drinking techniques etc yet I must admit a few I just do not do, for whatever reason...
Such as you ask? Well I never hold a glass "properly" by the stem. I know, it will warm it up. Sorry, I just can't do it. I always hold it casually by the middle of the bowl. Basically no different than a drinking glass. Is just more comfortable and even logical to me. I'm just not into trying to balance my grasp from the bottom or the stem. Hopefully the world will forgive me...

8. Likewise, I don't always use a "flute" when drinking my beloved champagne.
I can here it already. "You can't be THAT true of a champagne fan if you can't even use the right glassware! Don't you know the flute concentrates the aromas and flow of the mousse????" I know, I know. Again, call me crazy. Don't get me wrong. I HAVE to use a "beautiful" champagne glass (of some sort). It is as important to the "romance" for me as it is to being able to "pop" (actually lightly expel, I have it down now...) a real actual cork (although my love of the cork will stay undisclosed for now. I really dont want to be assaulted right now, especially when I dont have any "logical" defense for it...);) Anyways, that "beautiful" glass is frequently a simple chardonnay white wine glass, NOT too tall (no good) but just normal, seven inches perhaps. It ALWAYS has to be clear/elegant (no adorning rim paintings, decorations). It doesn't have to be a super expensive reidel glass (although I do have them) but does have to be "pretty" and at least look like one;). I also sometimes use a slightly more elongated, crystal clear glass that has the slightly narrower neck and then the rim sprouts outward gently. They are I think a Scandanavian or German style wine glass but the actual name of the design currently escapes me. Richard Juhlin's books on champagnes have pictures of them on various pages... I also DO use champagne flutes sometimes as well (again, always clear, never too tall).

9. I've discovered that the whole wine aromas emphasis is fine and well but I still get far greater pleasure out of the taste and texture of a wine!
I know, scent IS taste! I know that scientifically sure. It makes sense but smelling wine doesnt do much for my tongue, gums or taste buds! I want to drink it! But that's just me. Again, dont get me wrong. I've discovered firsthand that there ARE complexities, differences in a wine's bouquet and even how it can change in the glass over time. Even in my beloved champagne, I can remember the times I detected my first almond/nutty scent or when a rose has a definite strawberry scent to it. It's nice and fun to discover to be sure! Still, I'd rather drink it than smell it however. Just like a delicious steak frying or a warm espresso being brewed. The aroma of each is most definitely real and memorable but I'd still much rather eat/drink each! Once again, call me crazy...

10. The whole general temperature guidelines for wine, particularly (and maybe suprisingly) champagne don't seem to necessarily coincide with my taste/experience...
And I don't bring this up as just a handy excuse for why I hold onto the bowl of my wine glass thereby warming it up . I truly don't find there to be a noticeable problem with wine, particularly champagne, warming up in a glass. With still wine, yes, the general advice makes sense for the most part. Still whites ARE most "ideal" slightly chilled to room temperature. Reds are probably most "ideal" at room temperature or a hair below. Yet what we hear most assuredly and convincingly is that a champagne or sparkling wine MUST be chilled! Makes sense right? Well...no. I don't think so. Sure you initially chill it. You dont want it warm as in 80 degrees warm, no. Yet I've discovered that time doesn't stop and the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west even if my champagne warms! If that's not shocking enough I'd sometimes go as far to say Ive had certain glasses IMPROVE, taste better even as they "thawed" and went warm. Maybe this ALWAYS drink a champagne chilled myth occurs because it is assumed that people are just drinking champagne as "refreshment" or solely in a celebratory sense and so it got stuck as a "cold only" wine. That's my guess anyways. Because we all know that taste and flavors expand and are more noticeable when warm. Yet for champagne the advice is to "chill", as if the goal is to refresh the mouth, numb it and have you NOT notice the flavor/weight! I can see why this is likely GOOD advice for supermarket sparkling "wines" but true champagne has a lot more to offer than just a fizzy celebratory numbing device for your tongue and taste buds! Then again, I know I'm biased. I know lots of people either do not really like champagne or if they do dabble in it it largely IS for the reasons stated above (just as a sort of refreshment). Yet, in that case, NO temperature, warm, cold or just right is going to make you enjoy a wine that you just dont like. If one DOES like the wine in question, it seems to me that insisting that it must always be tasted cold is counter-productive to fully enjoying its taste/weight. Why numb and hide flavors of something you LIKE the taste and creamy texture of? How does it being constantly cold and actively fizzy enhance that? Oh well. I'm sure it's something simple my small mind just isnt grasping. I also admit to having a weakness for balanced but languid, less "bubbly" champagnes so maybe I'm just looking at this from too mellow and particular of view. I know some who tend to enjoy champagne when it is primarily a fresh, lively, young wine. In this case, freshness, livlieness, aperitifs is what it's all about. Which is perfectly fine. I suppose in that sense, yes, might as well keep it as constantly cold and refreshed as possible...

Oh my, I've reached ten of these already! I do have more but I shall pause for now. I think I've rambled on long enough for one night but do stay tuned for a possible Part II. I know you're all dying to hear more...

Take Care,

Jeff

10. After a long night of sampling the wines if I reach for the computer, someone shot me!!!

[David M. Bueker]

Lots to digest there Jeff.

quickly on the subject of the Champagne glass - the flute is actually meant to preserve the mousse. It's a terrible glass for aromatics. I have been sampling a number of glasses for Champagne, and tend to prefer a more of a tulip shape, though the master blender/winemaker for the Dom Perignon prefers a Bordeaux stem.

3. I almost can't have a wine that is too tannic (texturally).

You, dear boy, obviously haven't tried the Antonelli Sagrantino di Montefalco yet!
I'm giving this a decade just to recover from bottle shock.

Yes, and try some traditional Madirans. I guarantee they will satisfy your odd tannin jones.

Tell me, does this preference for over the top simple in your face flavouring extend to other areas of your life? Automobiles, food, viewing preferences? It isn't a preference one sees very often.

You have good company wrt not using champagne flutes. I've seen quite a few people argue that the flavour profile, tasted out of a chianti glass is more expressive than from a champagne flute. Conversely if preserving the bubbles is key, champagne flute if the glass of choice.

FWIW I am very sure the glass shape makes significant difference to the taste of the wine (based on a couple of quite shocking side by side comparisons) - I'm less convinced that the best experience is from the 'correct' (sic.) glass.

regards

Ian

p.s. Tannic wines to consider if not already played with: Madiran, Cahors, Taurasi (but producer, as ever will be important)

Jeff, if you have not signed up for http://www.psiloveyou.org you should do so immediately without passing allez.

though the master blender/winemaker for the Dom Perignon prefers a Bordeaux stem.

Hi David,

I'm glad to hear this. Maybe me using a similair simple white chardonnay glass isnt so odd after all. What's good for the Dom Perignon blenders/makers is good for me! Come to think of it, I have several champagne guides/books that also have pictures of the Krug and Pol Roger winemakers tasting and blending the seperate lots of still wines etc and they also seem to have the slightly shorter, simple, elegant, still wine type glasses so I definitely dont feel bad about not always using the flutes lol.

I could've sworn that flute type glasses are, generally, considered to concentrate/focus the aromatics of champagne as they rise up. That's what I was basing that statement on although I don't doubt you're correct if in fact they don't. If you read my #9, you'll notice that I also place a somewhat abnormal de-emphasis (is that even a word?) on wine aromas (as opposed to just enjoying the taste/texture) so that probably accounts for why I don't even pay proper knowledge to the behavior of aromas with the flutes or various glassware. I know I should. If for no other reason than to be accurately knowledgeable about it. Yet, my usual routine is to always just swirl, take an initial sniff. If there's something interesting there I take note of it and enjoy it. If it just smells pleasant and "typical" then I just grin, dont take a second thought and then proceed to taste, taste, taste. I rarely ever sniff again afterwards (or even miss it). However, the taste and texture I'll pleasureably enjoy and ponder for an hour, even with just one glass.

I think I know the type of tulip glass you're talking about. I've used those on occasion as well. They are kinda half flute/half white wine glass, kinda bulge in the middle, if I'm guessing right? That's probably the best glass to use, structurally I guess. Or so they say. Richard Juhlin mentions in his coffee table champagne book that he had a similair such style glass invented specifically to his liking for tasting champagnes. It looks slightly too tall for my tastes but largely resembles a tulip kinda glass (but not exactly).

Take Care,

Jeff

3. I almost can't have a wine that is too tannic (texturally).

You, dear boy, obviously haven't tried the Antonelli Sagrantino di Montefalco yet!
I'm giving this a decade just to recover from bottle shock.

No, I haven't but thank you, it sounds like I should seek out a bottle!

Jeff

Jeff, if you have not signed up for http://www.psiloveyou.org you should do so immediately without passing allez.

Thank you, I'll browse through it at least. At first, seeing the address name you gave I thought it might have been for a Beatles Fan Club site or something

Believe it or not, I've even had a few Petite Sirahs and, while they were "nice", nothing wrong with them as wines, I STILL didnt feel they were "chalky" enough but A) I havent tried more than 3 or 4 so I may just have not hit the right ones yet B) I haven't ever tried a more expensive/specialized Petite Sirah so I may just have not looked hard enough yet C)I may have just not had each bottle at the "right" stage, I don't know. I'm trying to even remember if they were older or younger. I didnt take notes. I'm thinking one was within a couple years of the vintage date and a couple others were maybe 5 years old or more. And I bought both at an upscale supermarket where they have a fair selection of nice wines but probably didnt stock the "good ones". Concannon was the name of one I believe??? I did like the inkiness in them. That was a plus in my book! I've read that Petite Sirah is NOTED for being overly tannic/robust but, like I said, it was okay but didn't completely cover me in chalk so was somewhat disappointed texture-wise (based on what I had always heard...). It's also completely possible that these few bottles I had were all just "elegant" interpretations of the grape/style, I don't know.

Jeff

Interesting personal learnings on your journey (thus far).

I was especially interested in your Tannin-No Limits! attitude.

It has long been my personal theory---totally personal and only a casual theory left untested---that relatively new folks that have been infected with the wine flu tend to heavily favor tannin-driven wines, and can easily develop an almost mania for finding such wines. Even to the point of seeking the punishment pleasure ("Thank you, Sir. Please, may I have another, Sir? )

Again, the theory is that this is usually a phase one goes through, and once experienced to its utmost, allows the wine drinker to progress to other manias in good order.

I have come to a stage where, more and more, I value acidity in a wine. In a structural sense, primarily. Which means that tannis become secondary and not instrumental to my enjoyment of a wine. Mind you, I don't avoid tannic wines; I simply appreciate the development and style of acid-driven and acid-structured wines.

The "original" template for Bordeaux, after all, was to allow it to go through the appropriate maturation and development process that encouraged the softening and lessening of tannic impact on the taster's palate. Heavily tannic wines were considered rough, rustic, coarse, unrefined, and not considered in a true sense "table wines"--in that they were not considered 'fit' for the table.

On the other hand, I'd welcome any refutation or belittlement of this theory.

It has long been my personal theory---totally personal and only a casual theory left untested---that relatively new folks that have been infected with the wine flu tend to heavily favor tannin-driven wines[...]

Why, after all these years, am I still in this structure-driven phase?

It has long been my personal theory---totally personal and only a casual theory left untested---that relatively new folks that have been infected with the wine flu tend to heavily favor tannin-driven wines[...]

Why, after all these years, am I still in this structure-driven phase?

Slow learner?

Peter Principle, as applied to wine?

Just a Rebel, and you'll never ever be any good?

You like to take a walk on the wild side?

Musar has tainted you for the rest of your life?

I have come to a stage where, more and more, I value acidity in a wine. In a structural sense, primarily. Which means that tannis become secondary and not instrumental to my enjoyment of a wine. Mind you, I don't avoid tannic wines; I simply appreciate the development and style of acid-driven and acid-structured wines.

I like your writing...and I like your taste in wines.

I don't mind tannins at all. After all, we enjoyed a 2002 Pauillac Friday and hoo, that dryed out the cheeks.

I value acidity in a wine.

Aha - the man gargles with Savennieres. Got any enamel left on your teeth...?

I value acidity in a wine.

Aha - the man gargles with Savennieres. Got any enamel left on your teeth...?

Teeth?

Teeth?

Picture of drinker of newly bottled Savennieres:

Interesting personal learnings on your journey (thus far).

I was especially interested in your Tannin-No Limits! attitude.

It has long been my personal theory---totally personal and only a casual theory left untested---that relatively new folks that have been infected with the wine flu tend to heavily favor tannin-driven wines, and can easily develop an almost mania for finding such wines. Even to the point of seeking the punishment pleasure ("Thank you, Sir. Please, may I have another, Sir? )

Again, the theory is that this is usually a phase one goes through, and once experienced to its utmost, allows the wine drinker to progress to other manias in good order.

That could be true. Although I would've thought that I might be a little "out of the norm" with the tannin-texture infatuation since it's been my experience (although not a widely confirmed one) that most new wine tasters find tannin too unusual and weird (for lack of a better term). I find that most wine beginners either just like whites because they dont have the tannin, texture oddities to deal with or else they just want a sweeter "easier-drinking/elegant" red. By elegant I dont mean that they seek out finer wines with an appreciation for complexity and balance necessarily but just elegant in the sense that they want a more shy, silkier wine without the troubling and unaccustommed characteristics that drying, rustic, rough tannins bring.

Now I definitely agree and believe that most all people getting into wine will favor "blockbuster" wines, which admittedly probably are more tannic (in theory) as a result but I have my doubts if its particularly and specifically TANNIN that is what they're gravitated to. I would guess that it's the off-dryness, even sweet character of such wines that keeps the taste buds of new wine drinkers in comfort (but I couldn't speak for all of them). You'd certainly have better experience and knowledge of people's tastes though, being in the heart of US winemaking there.

I have come to a stage where, more and more, I value acidity in a wine. In a structural sense, primarily. Which means that tannis become secondary and not instrumental to my enjoyment of a wine. Mind you, I don't avoid tannic wines; I simply appreciate the development and style of acid-driven and acid-structured wines.

I can definitely relate and even agree to that actually. Maybe not so much with my chalky red wine palate. Myself, I'd reverse the priorities. I like the red to be super chalky first. If its acidity is also present and adds to it then great but the acidity is kinda just a bonus in my book. After all a red wine with great acidity but no tannins is well, just simply a wine with good acidity but no tannins! It doesn't have any obvious, swarming, drying, tactile textural interest (to me). And that definitely isnt good if texture is 70% of why you like a red wine! But I understand what you're saying. It's true that any red wine is likely structurally better, more prone to age well and gain complexity if acidity is first and foremost as the #1 quality. I don't doubt that.

And I can relate to acidity a lot better and more directly when it comes to my REAL love, champagne. With champagne, acidity TRULY is everything! Sometimes to a negative, which is why it needs (typically) a dosage in the first place. Although even with champagne I tend towards the nutty/exotic/mellowed style (if given the choice). Yet I understand the role acidity plays in the balance. I like just a touch of fresh, youthful acidity in the balance. Not a lot but just to keep that subdued effervescence and creaminess that I like from being TOO flabby or "hollow". But in champagne a little acidity goes a long way. Ideally, I love when that citrus bite comes in just before you swallow but isn't harsh and green. It's developing towards more the peach/melon/tropical acidity. It's right at the merging point where I think a young to medium-age champagne is best to just innocently gulp with pleasure. It's turned into more of a "soft citrus" acidity instead of the more biting green apple acidity that it likely was when first bottled and released.

The "original" template for Bordeaux, after all, was to allow it to go through the appropriate maturation and development process that encouraged the softening and lessening of tannic impact on the taster's palate. Heavily tannic wines were considered rough, rustic, coarse, unrefined, and not considered in a true sense "table wines"--in that they were not considered 'fit' for the table.



On the other hand, I'd welcome any refutation or belittlement of this theory.

I definitely can't refute that at all. I've liked a lot of bordeaux, on the surface. Several have had the balance and earthy tones I love in reds but, again, the grippy heavy chalky tannins texture is what usually gets compromised (in my experience). So I actually wish that rustic, heavy, unrefined character was left in there to be honest! Then bordeaux would truly be the world's greatest red wine Just kidding. I know that the development and maturation you speak of REQUIRES the dropping off of tannins and rustic-ness. I know that's the whole IDEA/GOAL for most true bordeaux lovers. I realize I'm the oddball in that sense. Still, I'd probably get into bordeaux a lot more seriously if that chalkiness/weight was more common/widespread. Like I said I like the wines (in theory). The earthiness I've had in some Paulliac's and St. Estephe's lower growths are typically nice! And I also find bordeaux to be more balanced in terms of dryness and overall concentration. Those aspects of it are great and I see (in that sense) why the wines are so coveted.

Take Care,

Jeff

I don't think that I have ever actually been on a "wine journey", but my learning to date pretty much comes down to "red with meat, white with fish".

Jeff,
If you find any Foppiano PS in your local shops, check it out. It's perhaps the most typical of Russian River Valley Petite Sirahs. Young, it can leave your teeth rough as a rasp and have you spitting purple for a week. And peppery and fruity and sort of lovable if a Kodiak bear is lovable.
After 6 to 10 years it's more approachable.
I got a couple of bottles of library wine that was 20 years from vintage and it was as lovely a wine as I've ever had. Dark, plenty of tannic structure, and with the feeling of old lace that makes older wines so delectable.
I wish I had the stamina to let more wines age longer, or the budget to buy older wines.

There's a producer of Zin and other stuff in Amador County called TKC. His wines are so tannic that they need a bottle about as much as Navy coffee needs a cup. I like it. Chances are you won't find it on a shelf. The winery is a metal prefab building about 2000 square feet. And that's everything. He farms about 10 acres and sells some of that. Ok, maybe 20 acres.

John

Jeff,
If you find any Foppiano PS in your local shops, check it out. It's perhaps the most typical of Russian River Valley Petite Sirahs. Young, it can leave your teeth rough as a rasp and have you spitting purple for a week. And peppery and fruity and sort of lovable if a Kodiak bear is lovable.
After 6 to 10 years it's more approachable.
I got a couple of bottles of library wine that was 20 years from vintage and it was as lovely a wine as I've ever had. Dark, plenty of tannic structure, and with the feeling of old lace that makes older wines so delectable.
I wish I had the stamina to let more wines age longer, or the budget to buy older wines.

There's a producer of Zin and other stuff in Amador County called TKC. His wines are so tannic that they need a bottle about as much as Navy coffee needs a cup. I like it. Chances are you won't find it on a shelf. The winery is a metal prefab building about 2000 square feet. And that's everything. He farms about 10 acres and sells some of that. Ok, maybe 20 acres.

John

Thanks for the recommendations. Yeah, that Zin sounds like quite a handful, or should I say mouthful...

I will my keep my eyes open for the Petite Sirah. Actually sounds like it might be up my alley. Sure, a Kodiak bear can be lovable! At a distance anyways...

Jeff

I don't think that I have ever actually been on a "wine journey", but my learning to date pretty much comes down to "red with meat, white with fish".

Nothing wrong with that. Sounds pretty true to the book I'd say.

My own rule would have to be, "red with meat and red with fish as well, but champagne with anything and often more special even without anything (except a special someone of course)"...

I think I need to condense that "rule" though. It's a little too wordy. Imagine that, me wordy???

Jeff

Tell me, does this preference for over the top simple in your face flavouring extend to other areas of your life? Automobiles, food, viewing preferences? It isn't a preference one sees very often.

Well, put in those terms no, not really. The simple part yes. I am a big believer that in most things, the simpler the better. In your face? Hmmm...maybe with some things. Depends what it is that's in my face I suppose Over the top? No, not really my personality in a general sense. I suppose if you wanted to know my personality/traits, champagne would be the much truer parallel. I'm sure that's no small reason as to why it speaks to me the most and why I enjoy it more than any other.

I'd say I'm pretty laid back, kind-hearted (I hope), passive by nature, don't speak up much even if provoked (unless its something REALLY bad), definitely more "introverted" than extroverted (though not 100% either way), love sharing and turning people onto things or ideas I think they might love too yet at the same time very uncomfortable "pushing" things or beliefs on others when A) I know they DON'T like them or B) I myself dont like/believe in them, definitely not a "salesperson", a hopeless romantic for sure, a dreamer (if you haven't guessed), definitely the type of guy who prefers an age where you secretly tucked a naughty love note into the purse of the girl you're infatuated with and/or she plays back by writing something to you in lipstick or by slipping one of her most intimate garments into your pocket when you're not aware of it , I'm nostalgic, like history, primarily US History but also several fun and more "common" areas such as popular culture, pop music (especially the 50's - 80's, what I consider the classic Top 40 era..), Although typically reserved in nature, I'm easy to get along with (I hope), an optimist (maybe to a naive degree in some cases) yet can also be rather cynical about certain things too, I have a very healthy imagination, artistically and creatively inclined (in certain areas) as opposed to, say, having a Math or Engineering mind (which I'm less blessed with), enjoy the beauty of nuances and subtleties (which is a main reason something like wine appeals to me so much...), I try to treat others as I would like to be treated, just common sense stuff (although I've discovered I'm a big believer in the "If common sense is so common, why don't people have it" saying) And probably a few other things I may be forgetting off the top of my head...

I feel like I've just written a personal ad or something..lol. How did this happen? That reminds me of the Rupert Holmes song (1979)...

If you like Pina Coladas
And getting caught in the rain
I'm not much into health food
I am into champagne...

Laugh if you like but now that I think of it, those lyrics probably sum me up far more concisely than what I wrote above!

Now you see why I love a good classic pop song - they can go straight to the point, make you feel good and stay with you (at least the ones you like do)

Take Care,

Jeff

3. I almost can't have a wine that is too tannic (texturally)....I realize this may just be a personal thing here with my taste in reds so forgive me if I'm missing something in regards to wines with low/minimal tannins. I never claimed to have good taste...

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