Things I've discovered in my "wine journey" thus far Part II

Unfortunately, for those of you who struggle to read through all this "stuff" I tend to come up with, I'm presenting a Part II to the Things I've discovered In My Own "Wine Journey" Thus Far.

The good news is that this particular chapter only has 3 entries. Don't get too thankful however. I can't promise there will not be a Part III...

1) Balance really IS everything!

Why is this earth-shattering news for wine discussion? Well, as some of my other "discoveries" have uncovered, some wine catch-phrases/sayings/advisements aren't what they appear. Examples might include my previous "Champagne should always be drunk chilled/cold" or the eternal stereotype belief of non-wine people that "Only expensive wine can be really good wine", etc. However the stereotypical wine phrase, "Balance is everything" is not one of these misleading truths. I've come to realize that for my taste (and in this case I mean taste as in literally not as a "preference") balance is indeed everything!

This is no truer than when I'm enjoying the taste of champagne although it follows for any reds I've tasted too. Now this has nothing to do with texture, weight or depth/complexity of flavor. In fact I have rather unbalanced preferences for these (that being that basically the more abundant and obvious of all three of these the better for me!). However, balance is something else altogether. I suppose I should add that I define "balance" for my taste purposes as mostly just the quality and taste impression of the slightly sweet versus very dry dilemma. This may not be a professional definition of wine balance (which probably includes textural and tactile qualities as well into one whole assessment of true balance). Nonetheless, I simply put a "good balanced" wine in my terms as one that is neither too much on that sweet end nor too much on the dry/green end. I like a wine's sweet to sour ratio , so to speak, to be just about in the middle.

There was a time when I first fell in love with champagne that I thought I probably couldn't ever have too exotic of a champagne. I've discovered that's largely still true in terms of the "creaminess" or nutty carameled complexities that come with a well aged, or even over-aged one (the more of these, the more I like it). Yet, the more I've enjoyed and the more I've come accustomed to the "champagne taste", the blends, and most importantly the art of those blends, the more I've come to realize that I now look for a seamless sort of "balance" between the dosage/exotic touches of sweetness (which I do love) and that signature fresh acidity so signature of champagne. It's not usually a problem with champagne but I don't want complete "flabiness" with that exoticness. Subdued effervescence? Great, that's good with me. I do favor "sensuos/mellowed" champagnes but I want that citrusy edge in the back for balance and a light refreshing structure. Not a lot of it, just enough to seem to bring out that lazy mellowed exotic-ness, if that makes any sense? Champagne, at its most seductive, has always been known for these kind of "ironies within itself" kinda thing - the whole delicateness within substantialness quality or the iron fist in a velvet glove thing. It IS what makes champagne so special (and such a unique and true art for the blender). I find the "balance" of the dosage/ripeness to the natural acidity an equal art. It can be a fine line. You can't really "explain" the right balance of these two factors but you can taste it.

Typically the reverse is more the concern. It's easier for most champagnes to be unapologetically citric, even a bit green (if you've just bought a freshly released one or one released too early to begin with). Not enough dosage (or just not enough age/mellowing), in my taste, is usually the more difficult "balance" to achieve, largely because it takes time to get that balance more to the middle/exotic end. That's why it's only roughly just over $100 to buy, say, a Dom upon current release but try buying a 1990 or prior vintage today and it will often be three times or more than that (at least)! You pay for that "balancing"/mellowing acidity among many other wondrous pleasures contained within it (hopefully). At any rate, I've come to realize that I most appreciate both ends of the spectrum but most prefer it right where they seamlessly merge. The texture can be creamy and languid (please do) but the sense on the tastebuds should be exotic AND yet lifted in the back with that citric acidity. It may be a bit futile to explain like this but my taste perception knows it when it's just right and not too extreme either way...

One also may think, due to my chalky tannins love, that I wouldnt really mind a somewhat sweet red either. Yet that isnt really the case. They are very seperate qualities to me, one being tactile the other a mere balance of a tasting perception (sweet/sour). I prefer the seamlessly merged sweet/sour balance in reds too. I find myself not being able to take as much of a red (or any wine really) if it is TOO generous on the off-dry end (too extracted). And no I do dislike green/herbal/band aid-y/high yield reds so that's not any better. My ideal in reds is just pure natural "ripeness" with some balancing "earthiness"(not green-ness however) and maybe 800 pounds of body and tannins covering it all but that's aside this particular "too dry/very off dry point

2) I most definitely prefer modest alcohol levels!

I must admit - I dont really like alcohol. So why do I even like wine? Hmmm... good question. The romance? To be fully honest, I don't mind alcohol up to wine's typical limit but when it starts hitting that near 14% point or more I get more and more sensitive to the "heat". It kinda just "burns away" everything else, even if other good things are there! Wine (when modest in alcohol) is the limit to which I enjoy "drinks" because, as I stated at the start of this I've always thought of myself as more a wine "romantic/enjoyer", not a drinker. I can't taste anything any longer when drinks get above that general limit - its all just alcohol and heat to me. In fact, I always joke that I don't like alcohol, that's why I like wine! So it is a little disheartening when you see the % on some of these wines, as if now even wine is trying to turn into a "spirit". I don't get it. I always think of wine, again this word... a "romantic" drink, not a "spirit". Then again this is all just a mere opinion of mine based on my own tolerance level. I'm sure that plenty of folks enjoy wines enormously, even when the alcohol is starting to "burn" (maybe even because of that "burn", for all I know). I even know that alcohol is probably the point for some drinkers! Fair enough...

No small part of my champagne love is the simple fact it is always very modest in alcohol! Surprisingly, it starts out even less! Even bringing it up to the very approachable and tame 12% is only a result of the dosage and added sugars for the second fermentation. Not too ring yet another biased endorsement of my favorite wine, but to me champagne is the role-model of how to handle alcohol (at least in the final result/percentage). It's never "burning". Can you imagine, a champagne that "burns" instead of seducing with nuts, honey, citrus and creamy demure elegance??? Would kinda be like trying to put an eraser on an ink pen - what is that going to do for it? It isn't even part of the pen's function/"character"... I love how a champagne (unlike nearly every other wine, even if its good) seems to just sumptiously glide down your throat like a most heavenly nectar, the bubbles (hopefully) seamless and melting as you swallow, just leaving a balanced tinge of fresh citrus against the more sexy creamy apple or honeyed character - no excessive "warmth" or distracting alcohol causing you to swallow with your eyes wide open! Of course, I also know not everyone likes a wine that is largely citrusy/appley by nature and made with mostly unripe grapes (relative to "normal" areas). In that case, modest alcohol is a moot point (maybe even a negative point depending on your taste). Still, its just one (major) reason why I can always take comfort in champagne. No wavering alcohol levels, no 14+ percentages, no wondering if the promise of getting a super chalky tannin filled cab/bordeaux/enter wine of your choice will be worth the risk of a liquid that may be hitting near fire extinguisher levels just for the privledge to swallow it. Champagne, on the other hand, just simply is what it is. You may like it or not like it but at least you know when the cork pops you can savor those caressing bubbles without the distraction or fear that you might need to grab that extinguisher! It always stays modest and consistent in regards to its alcohol % (within unnoticeable variance of course).

3) I looooooooooooooove half bottles!!!!!!

I've decided the 375ml half bottle is now my definite first choice (whenever possible). I'm even at the point where I now often buy champagne halves as a first priority even if it means buying a lot of the same ones I like repeatedly (as well as maybe buying more of the staple NV ones rather than exploring the wider variety/growers in the full bottle section). I just love them. They just make much more "sense" to me. The good news is that several champagne/wine sites I regularly purchase/browse from do have half bottle selections. In fact the trend seems to be more and more of them appearing. This is awesome! I guess the bad news is that A) There still isnt (and probably won't be) a wide enough variety to entirely satisfy and that B) There still seems to be a reluctance, or maybe just an honest impracticality for the houses/winemakers to put their best wines in half bottles. It's not impossible to find some of these however. I recently purchased a half case of 375ml Perrier Jouet Fleur de Champagne 2000 in halfs. I also always buy Krug NV in halves only (it makes it "appear" that I'm somehow cutting the cost in half by doing this, relative to buying full bottles). If I only bought one half bottle here and there it would be better deals, cost-wise, especially when it comes to champagnes. Yet I do not just buy one half bottle of most champagnes. Are you kidding?? You can't have enough champagne in a cellar for crying out loud. Plus, life is too short. Far be it for me to not enjoy purchasing 2, 3, or 6 half bottles at a time. If I care enough to buy one, might as well get a few! It's only money right? After all how many lives do we get to live?

Okay, I'm getting carried away here but I do truly love the idea of the half bottle. I can't think of a bad thing (in my case) about buying halves. They allow me to more freely and cheaply "experiment" with a wine on a random purchase here and there. They are less waistful when it's either just me or just me and my sweetheart They even age faster (somewhat) which is never bad if you like aged champagnes to begin with! Though this is likely not too much quicker or significant a reason. In addition, there is also the possibility, I guess, that half bottles can be more prone to mishandling. Still, there are few negatives I can come up with.

Like I said, I'm just really hoping that the trend continues and that the prestige cuvees see more half bottles. I'd be in true bliss. They still aren't cheap by any means but I would always much rather "dabble" around in the checkout cart icon buying a Bollinger Grand Annee or Taittinger Comtes de Champagne if I could always just order a half at say $50 or so rather than $125-200 on a whole bottle! Then again, based on my "if you care enough to buy one why not buy a few" theory this may get me into some trouble. Still, what the heck, if I get into too much trouble at least I'll have some great stuff to drink away all the worries! Bring on the halves! More, more, more. They are a blessing! Now if I can only get Moet et Chandon to start releasing the Dom Perignon Rose in halves??? I'm starting to pant I think. That must be my cue to leave for now...

Take Care,

Jeff

[David M. Bueker]

You've been hanging around with me too much.

I am a half bottle fanatic. I know all the arguments against them (especially the aging one), but I drink through the darned things so fast that it's a moot point. There are actually quite a number of grower Champagnes (e.g. Gaston-Chiquet, Chartogne-Taillet) available in 375s. You will just have to prod your friendly merchants to get them for you & pony up for them in quantity.

I'll comfortably join in the appreciation of the 375 ml bottle. Ideal when wanting an opening wine in relatively small quantities before going on to another wine; perfect for the person drinking on his/her own either at home or at a restaurant; and a very viable option for those couples for whom that quantity of wine is enough to see them through a meal. And, of course, often ideal with dessert wines, even when serving 4 - 5 as those are consumed in smaller quantities.

I will, however, disagree (but merely a personal disagreement) on Champagne, for a whole bottle never, never shows any leftovers at my meals or with snacks.

Best
Rogov

The "Balance Really IS Everything" point is a great thing to learn.

I've found it's one of the easiest things to talk about for newcomers to wine...but one of the hardest things to truly comprehend, oddly enough.

When one is starting out on their (hopefully) lifelong journey with wine, one is of necessity looking at specific characteristics and attributes, from "This is Chardonnay" and "This is high acid" and This is Piedmont", and engaged in so many comparative elements (of variety, of place, of style) that balance is the last thing they are looking for, really.

These people, at this stage, are looking for things that leap out, that actually defeat or counter the idea of balance. They tend to concentrate on singular aspects---okay, sometimes multiples of singular, but you know what I mean---to help them clarify what they like or don't like in a wine. So we have people looking for the imbalance in wines, as in "I love tannic wines". This is not to disparage you and your love for big bruisers, mind you, it's just capturing one of the stages where one is focused on a largely singular attribute.

So when you're in that stage, when you're focused on particular attributes, you seek out those wines, and perpetuate those attributes in your value scale. Then, often enough, the palate leads you down other pathways. Some of those pathways lead somewhere; some don't. But you are incorporating other aspects, other values, other elements.

I have seen people begin with a fascination for the (to me) overfruited and jammy style, the blockbusters, the cult wines, the bombs, simply because it was easy to see the clearly delineated features of the wines.

To use a somewhat clumsy analogy (which I actually do use in some of my classes), think of a bodybuilder as opposed to a marathon long-distance runner or swimmer. In the bodybuilder you can perceive the absolute mass (even though it's pumped up, literally, with a lot of oxygen); you can clearly see the three dimensional protuberance of muscles, as distinct from the rest of the body. It then becomes all about the musculature. Marathoners/swimmers, however, do not show as clear a visual impression, and are not nearly as dramatic in their impression, but they do have musculature and muscular strength; it is simply that that is not their only focus or only attribute: they must bundle together attributes to achieve their goals.

You could also use the analogy of muscle cars versus touring cars, or dragsters versus grand prix racers.

The point of all this rambling is that a true appreciation of balance in wine is not a capability easily achieved, I think. I had a very perceptive and intelligent wine apprentice some years ago who said to me, "This balance thing is fine, but balance means bland; it means nothing sticks out, nothing asserts itself more than any other thing. And to me that's essentially an uninteresting wine." It took him several years before he could get beyond that point of view (but he did).

Some of us are very fortunate, in a way, if we can find a certain style that forever after is the singular definitive style for us. Some of us----I think most of us---have to go through a progress to learn what we most appreciate, and that what we appreciate might be constantly changing, so that what we liked at one time, and fervently so, is not so much what we are drinking now. Some of us---like me---love the journey so much that we don't want the trip to ever end, so we stay on the train as long as we can; now it's the journey that's important, and not the destination.

I'll comfortably join in the appreciation of the 375 ml bottle.... perfect for the person drinking on his/her own

Dr. Johnson would disagree....but I quite agree, especially if one is to start with a half of white and proceed to a full bottle of red.

Jeff, what you said about balance makes perfect sense with your example of Champagne, but surely a lot less sense when indulging your proclivity for drinking red wines that are so tannic that the subtleties are masked by the roughness of the tannins. How do you reconcile those two? I'd define such a wine as inherently unbalanced...

I really enjoy half bottles. The problem of course is that selection is limited, and sometimes price is 75% of a 750.
But I buy 375s when I can. I have to say that I seldom buy Champagne in halves, having had some mixed luck years ago. At that point I was told (and have no evidence of this) that it's riskier buying bubbly in halves,as the bottles are actually filled from larger bottles at disgorgement. Is that true or not?

I have to say that I seldom buy Champagne in halves, having had some mixed luck years ago. At that point I was told (and have no evidence of this) that it's riskier buying bubbly in halves,as the bottles are actually filled from larger bottles at disgorgement. Is that true or not?

OK, I did my own research, it seems (according to David Schildknecht and Michael Pronay) that USED to be true, only a few makers fermented in 375s. Since 1998 375 through 3L have to be fermented in bottle, so only splits and very big bottles use the transfer method now.

There are actually quite a number of grower Champagnes (e.g. Gaston-Chiquet, Chartogne-Taillet) available in 375s. You will just have to prod your friendly merchants to get them for you & pony up for them in quantity.

Yeah, I probably should try "special ordering" some of them, for true variety-sake. Then again, enough of them are available, if even in limited quantities, on more and more wine sites nowadays that it's often easier for me to just "dabble" online. Perhaps I'm a bit lazy in that regard. I know it would be better to personally order or seek out particular ones I want but it also seems like more of a "treat" when you can just browse online and see what pops up! I have come across some smaller grower halves that way. I even notice more and more roses and blanc de blancs being released in halves as well I just recently ordered two halves of Paul Bara NV Brut for just under $20 each that I've read, mostly from Richard Juhlin, great things about (at least of the producer not necessarily the NV bottling). However, I noticed the grape composition of even the NV is 80% PN and 20% CH, which I thought was very interesting since you rarely ever see a NV with absolutely zero PM. I'm anxious to try one of them but may leave them in the cellar for just awhile yet...

Jeff

I will, however, disagree (but merely a personal disagreement) on Champagne, for a whole bottle never, never shows any leftovers at my meals or with snacks.

Best
Rogov

That's definitely the spirit! Especially when it comes to champagne. I would share those sentiments myself expect for the fact that A) Even with champagne two glasses is pretty much my "alcohol limit" for any one sitting. That's precisely why, in my case, halves are more ideal for me. B) While you can enjoy a full bottle on the next day or two (in theory), I personally find that even champagne just isnt really the same after it's initial opening/airing. Sure you can drink a glass or two the second day but it always seem to pretty rapidly "sour" in my experience. And with its already natural "citus edge" it just kinda magnifies the deterioration with champagne. It's maybe the one negative I honestly have with champagne - drink and enjoy after the cork because it isn't well suited, unfortunately, for next day leftovers...

Then again I'm not crazy about drinking leftovers of a red wine the next day either (but I do find it holds up better than a champagne in most cases).

And of course, your sentiment is right on target and sensible if you're opening a full bottle or two for a "gathering" or large dinner, party etc. In my case, I'm almost always popping the cork for just me or me and my significant other. I definitely tend (and actually prefer) to enjoy bottles more in a private or "intimate" setting (mostly just at home) rather than in a gathering or more "social" environment.

Jeff

The "Balance Really IS Everything" point is a great thing to learn.

I've found it's one of the easiest things to talk about for newcomers to wine...but one of the hardest things to truly comprehend, oddly enough.

When one is starting out on their (hopefully) lifelong journey with wine, one is of necessity looking at specific characteristics and attributes, from "This is Chardonnay" and "This is high acid" and This is Piedmont", and engaged in so many comparative elements (of variety, of place, of style) that balance is the last thing they are looking for, really.

These people, at this stage, are looking for things that leap out, that actually defeat or counter the idea of balance. They tend to concentrate on singular aspects---okay, sometimes multiples of singular, but you know what I mean---to help them clarify what they like or don't like in a wine. So we have people looking for the imbalance in wines, as in "I love tannic wines". This is not to disparage you and your love for big bruisers, mind you, it's just capturing one of the stages where one is focused on a largely singular attribute.

So when you're in that stage, when you're focused on particular attributes, you seek out those wines, and perpetuate those attributes in your value scale. Then, often enough, the palate leads you down other pathways. Some of those pathways lead somewhere; some don't. But you are incorporating other aspects, other values, other elements.

I have seen people begin with a fascination for the (to me) overfruited and jammy style, the blockbusters, the cult wines, the bombs, simply because it was easy to see the clearly delineated features of the wines.

To use a somewhat clumsy analogy (which I actually do use in some of my classes), think of a bodybuilder as opposed to a marathon long-distance runner or swimmer. In the bodybuilder you can perceive the absolute mass (even though it's pumped up, literally, with a lot of oxygen); you can clearly see the three dimensional protuberance of muscles, as distinct from the rest of the body. It then becomes all about the musculature. Marathoners/swimmers, however, do not show as clear a visual impression, and are not nearly as dramatic in their impression, but they do have musculature and muscular strength; it is simply that that is not their only focus or only attribute: they must bundle together attributes to achieve their goals.

You could also use the analogy of muscle cars versus touring cars, or dragsters versus grand prix racers.

The point of all this rambling is that a true appreciation of balance in wine is not a capability easily achieved, I think. I had a very perceptive and intelligent wine apprentice some years ago who said to me, "This balance thing is fine, but balance means bland; it means nothing sticks out, nothing asserts itself more than any other thing. And to me that's essentially an uninteresting wine." It took him several years before he could get beyond that point of view (but he did).

Some of us are very fortunate, in a way, if we can find a certain style that forever after is the singular definitive style for us. Some of us----I think most of us---have to go through a progress to learn what we most appreciate, and that what we appreciate might be constantly changing, so that what we liked at one time, and fervently so, is not so much what we are drinking now. Some of us---like me---love the journey so much that we don't want the trip to ever end, so we stay on the train as long as we can; now it's the journey that's important, and not the destination.

Very well said! I like the analogies. I know I've started out myself on some of those paths, and in the case of the thick tannins as you pointed out, still happily enjoying that path. The balance (or the sweet/sour dry/off dry impressions rather) were the first thing that gradually came more into "focus" for me after my initial jumping into wine period. It took awhile. As you said, I just didnt really think about balance for awhile. I just tasted and hoped a wine was simply good rather than bad. I knew I liked tannins. I knew I liked "weight". I knew I was more texturally seduced rather than say aromatically seduced. And I probably sought more off-dry tastes for it seemed to go down with less complication but for no other reason than that. Actually, aside from the latter component I probably havent really wandered too much from those likes. But I have in recent years gotten a better handle on that dry/off dry subtlety and how I know seek out more of a true balance between the two. I find I dont prefer an overly off dry wine if at least some acidity/structure isnt behind it. Again, I mostly credit my mostly exclusive taste in champagne for helping with this since it is a prime candidate for acidity vs sugar (dosage) issues/perceptions. It also has indirectly shaped my overall wine "palate" to be less tolerant of overly extracted/very off dry reds etc because of the contrast. When you're living and bathing in the chalk, limestone, acidity of champagne even a balanced red/still white can seem slightly "syrupy" in comparison. It's like anything. Sort of like when someone diets or starts eating salads with no/minimal salt/dressings/toppings. They didnt like it at first but they get conditioned to it. Then they have something salty/fatty and it seems over the top suddenly (relative to what they usually have).

Jeff

I'll comfortably join in the appreciation of the 375 ml bottle.... perfect for the person drinking on his/her own

Dr. Johnson would disagree....but I quite agree, especially if one is to start with a half of white and proceed to a full bottle of red.

Jeff, what you said about balance makes perfect sense with your example of Champagne, but surely a lot less sense when indulging your proclivity for drinking red wines that are so tannic that the subtleties are masked by the roughness of the tannins. How do you reconcile those two? I'd define such a wine as inherently unbalanced...

Well I probably can't explain it well, technically. If you read within that "balance is everything" part I mention somewhere how, in my eyes, I can perfectly seperate tannins/texture from "balance" but I also stated that I'm not meaning balance in the professional overall sense but more in the simple taste perception of dry versus off dry. So I can have tannins layered upon tannins and still prefer the dry/off dry perception of the wine to be "balanced", just simply meaning I dont want the wine to taste too sryupy or too green. The tannins in that sense are really irrelevant (to me) since they are just merely a textural component (at least as far as my gums and mouth are concerened). My love for the tannins doesnt necessarily have to require "sryupy-ness" or masking of complexities although I suppose in a winemaking sense it probably is somewhat odd or impractical to have one and not have the other as a result. That I realize. I'm not saying that most wines can be made in such ways or naturally follow such contradictory paths in the evolution scale (heavy tannins/weight yet still not be jammy one dimensional etc). I'm just saying if I could magically "build" my ideal red wine with a magic wand I'd have it be full of tannins chalk and texture yet still be in the middle on a sweet/sour perception all the while showing (hopefully) great depth, complexity and layers of interest on the back and after the finish. The tannins and weight wouldn't automatically require sweetness, high alcohol, or one dimensional-ness. A red wine could be thick, texturally obvious and still be balanced/interesting... That would be my "dream" red wine, in a general profile (if I could magically control how those components co-exist). Whether it's normal, explainable or possible for most red wines to be like this (somewhere in their life stage) is admittedly, a whole other question...

Jeff

I really enjoy half bottles. The problem of course is that selection is limited, and sometimes price is 75% of a 750.
But I buy 375s when I can. I have to say that I seldom buy Champagne in halves, having had some mixed luck years ago. At that point I was told (and have no evidence of this) that it's riskier buying bubbly in halves,as the bottles are actually filled from larger bottles at disgorgement. Is that true or not?

It could be. I don't know on that one. I do think it's a fair point that, if nothing else, perhaps halves have a tendency to maybe not be "cared for" as much as regular bottles. This could be true from it's bottling in champagne all the way to the storage/display in the wine stores they end up in. I wouldn't guess that the liquid, structurally is any different than that in a "real" bottle but I just think there is maybe more free abuse/care/indifference to halves in the storage end of things. Not that I think wine stores intentionally toss them into shelves or roll them under sunny store windows etc. but I do think if a full of a wine and a half of the same wine come in, the store would understandably care/store/promote the full bottle better. I think some people/stores just kinda views halves as "cute", just set them up somewhere hopefully they'll sell. People are probably just buying them for party favors or "dabbling" purposes anyways. That's the kind of general mentality people have for them I think. So I don't doubt that some are probably in less than ideal shape.

Fortunately, maybe I've just been lucky, the ones I've had have all largely been good, a couple (that weren't even vintage or higher cuvees - were just a Perrier Jouet 175ml and a Laurent Perrier LP 375ml) were two of the most "interesting" champagnes I've had. Yes, likely a bit oxidized/old but for 20 minutes in a glass were luscious, burnt caramel, caramel apple scents (in the Laurent Perrier one). They maybe weren't technically "healthy" and the freshness pretty much died quick but I loved them! It's also why I'll never be one to insist that NV wines can't be truly special (or even age an exceedingly long time in some quirky cases). Depending on your taste, any true champagne (in theory) can do remarkable things (in any bottle). Or so has been my experience. It's why I'm so captivated and seduced by it more than any other wine!

I also haven't had any consistently awful champagnes in halves, no worse than the random green, possibly heat damaged bottle that always ocassionally pops up even with a full bottle. I've found that no champagne can be guaranteed to be in great condition but I havent, personally, found that the bottle has anything to do with that. As a matter of fact, my handful of less than pleasureable bottles have probably all been fulls. But I'm sure all of it is just random chance more or less...

Jeff

Thanks for “rambling” Hoke!

Salute