David M. Bueker wrote:When I drink Chambourcin (and I have had more than a few) I normally have to say: "that's pretty good for a Chambourcin."
[Sigh] . . . .Where's the love? I have occasional said "Chambourcin can do better than this," but I've certainly never used the 'master qualifier.' Like I said, I like Chambourcin for its own merits - I think it's a good grape, not merely 'good for a hybrid.' 'Fantastic for a hybrid' would be more like it. But you know, I think the reason I appreciate it so much is because the first one I was introduced to was an excellent one (Pirtle Winery, see above), and having seen what the grape is capable of, I more often than not find charm in the various ones I've tried. Mind you, my intent is not to start a debate to establish its merits, or defend my opinion - I like it, and that's all that matters to me. But it is certainly 'off-beat,' and there wasn't a vinifera/non-vinifera qualifier to the thread.
Mind you, I'm not generally speaking all that fond of hybrids, but having lived my life in various parts of the Midwest, I've been exposed to them, and learned to appreciate the better ones. But my special affection is reserved only for Chambourcin, although I am fond of good Traminette (the good ones are like super-spicy GT), and I've had enough good Vignoles to appreciate it as well. OTOH, Foch always gets the 'master qualifier' from me, and I do sometimes question why it exists. Same for Chardonnel, although my principle complaint there is not so much that it's bad, but simply that it's boring. I once had some hope for Seyval Blanc, but now I'm not so sure about it.
"The sun, with all those planets revolving about it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else to do"
Galileo Galilei
(avatar: me next to the WIYN 3.5 meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory)