LOS

Craig, Have you had many of Cuneo's other wines? When I last tasted there, I was not impressed, but that was a LOONNNNGGGGGG time ago.

Actually, I was talking about his red Granit. So he's stayed on the mainline with his bread-and-butter (his whites).

Others I can think of: Didier Dagueneau in Pouilly-Fume Marc Angeli in Bonnezeaux Jean Thevenet in the Macon Domaine Pepiere in Muscadet

Until about 2-3 years ago, grower Champagnes had held their prices down amazingly well. Still good value, as you point out. I've been in an inventory reduction phase for the past year or two. Mostly, this means buy a few cheapies to fill in niches and living off my stash. Still, there's been a few things too tempting to not buy in quantitiy, like the 2004 Pepiere Muscadets. I end up doing some verticals, but almost all are broken and none are by design. I just happen to buy my favorite wines in most years...at least, until they get priced out of rationality (as has happened to many). A pretty good vintage for Burgundy. You may be able to find some high end wines that are still holding up. Well-stored premiers crus and perhaps even top-notch village wines should be holding up well for 1969. I've had a number of grand and premier crus from auction and not a bad bottle yet.

It's just about the right time of year for Beaujolais Nouveau. That might work.

I second the coq au vin suggestion. Also, now's the perfect time to poach some fish in red wine, and to make some burgundy beef and oeufs en meurette.

It's a good lineup when the Montebello is 4th out of 8 wines. My WOTN was the 93 D'Angerville, but I'm biased 'cuz I brought it. I agree that it's not at peak yet, and will wait 2 years or so to open another.

Yes you are. Hint: When you are in such a hurry to defend Parker's point of view that you put words into other people's mouths in order to do it, you are an apologist. The proper thing to do when you put words into other people's mouths is to apologize.

You should really stop putting words in carswell's mouth. It doesn't make him look unreasonable. There's hundreds of bottlings of Chinon. Parker found 8 of them to damn with faint praise. Big deal. That doesn't exactly establish him as a fan of the wines. The more you rant against the anti-Parker partisans, the more you establish that your own opinions are those of a fervently partisan Parkerphile.

We finally managed to pull off the Rioja tasting I've been planning since spring. Jay Miller was here from NYC; all the rest were locals. There were 12 of us in all; pours were 2oz, and I think that was about right. This was a really impressive tasting; there we no clunkers or off bottles other than three corked wines, all of which showed good stuffing. Aperitif 1996 Gramona Brut -- Very few bubbles (bad cork?) but great stuff; very intense. With Salad 2002 Gramona Gran Cuvee Brut -- I've really liked this in past vintages, but this bottle seemed sweet and simple after the 1996 (which cost 4x as much). With baked halibut, crusted with cream cheese and bread crumbs 2003 Do Ferriero Albarino "Cepas Vellas" -- Made from famously old vines, this is the best bottling of Albarino I've ever had. Rich rich rich but still good acidity. Minerals and peaches. 1976 Lopez de Heredia Vina Tondonia Gran Riserva blanco -- stole the show from the impressive Do Ferriero. Rich and honeyed with apricot fruit. A great match with the halibut. With a spanish recipe of snails & mushrooms: 70s Lopez di Heredia wines 1978 LdH Bosconia GR -- needed time, was better with an hour's air. Lots of stuffing here. 1976 LdH Tondonia GR -- showy straight out of the bottle, orange peel, caraway notes, cherry fruit and good acid structure 1976 LdH Bosconia GR -- corked! With Quail: 70s CVNE Vina Real Gran Riservas, all showed a similar orange peel/cherry profile 1976: very tight, opened a bit after an hour or so 1975: more delicate, lovely out of the bottle, a bit earthy in a good good way 1970: one of the 2 contenders for WOTN. Took half an hour or so to open, but it was really quite lovely With lamb: wines from the 60s 1968 Bodegas Palacios Rioja Glorioso Gran Riserva. Great straight out of the bottle. Lovely complex nose. 1964 LdH Bosconia Gran Riserva: Candied and sherry-like. Not my favorite, though Jay swears it will taste just like the '42 in another 20 years. 1964 Pavie St Emilion: Showed very litte out of the bottle, put on weight for an hour (after which everyone had drunk up). At that point, it was quite nice -- some even said in contention for WOTN (though I didn't think so). With cheese: older wines 1952 CNVE Vina Real GR: Corked! But good stuffing; I think intact bottles of this can yet age. 1942 LdH Bosconia GR: Ethereal. Wow this was good. Absolutely worth every penny of its price. 1935 Glorioso: THis had that stunning well-aged-wine nose...for about a minute and a half, then the unmistable scent of TCA came on and just got stronger and stronger. Would have been in contention for WOTN. With manchego, fig paste, and pecans 1913 Riserva Velha Barbeito Malvasia Madiera: pecan notes to the wine, quite nice, a great match with the dessert.

And the latter statement is also obviously true. It all depends on what these things mean to you: "Parker likes" "subtle wines" "wines with finesse" I doubt very much you can find a wine that Claude Kolm would call 'a subtle wine' that Parker likes. Certainly "Parker only likes big, over-extracted wines" is indeed false. But what is true, is that given two wines of the same qualiity, Parker prefers the bigger, more extracted wine 99 times out of 100. As to reading the notes and knowing your reviewer -- you're absolutely right, there. My only real quarrel is that you include the Wine Spectator in the list of reviewers worth learning to know. I've never seen any kind of consistency from them. To answer the original question: you absolutely need to keep in mind the predilections of the reviewer. I could say that I think that Claude Kolm offers the best advice for Germany, but that doesn't really say anything of use to you. The thing is, Claude is looking for something different in German wines than Parker is. If what *you* want in a German wine is close to what Parker wants, then Parker will work better for you. For me, Kolm is better. The same thing applies to, say, Piedmont, to pick a red wine region at random. If you want your Barolo to taste like an Aussie oozemonster, follow the Wine Advocate reviews. If not, pick somebody else. On a personal note, I find Claude Kolm's The Fine Wine Review to be the only printed matter worth spending the $$$ for. His coverage is pretty much limited to Germany, Burgundy, and Piedmont, but that's fine by me -- he sticks to the areas he knows well.

I've just got one last point to make: even industry professionals are subject to the palate-deadening effects of high-alcohol, highly extracted wines. But you're also right -- many of the burgundies were likely too young to show well in the time constraints of the tasting.

Let me be clear: yes, I think California is making fewer and fewer pinot noirs that are of interest to those who value finesse in their pinot. Whether this means the wines are of lower quality, is a debate for another thread. The 16% pinots that are coming out of California these days are exactly the kind of wine that clobbers the competition in a tasting and clobbers any food you might pair with them. I don't like that style, so to my point of view there are fewer and fewer interesting pinots coming out of CA these days. So, for me, things are not getting better and better, they're getting worse and worse. A quick note about blind tasting: I think there is some value in tasting blind. I think there is zero value in 'blind-tasting' 16% pinots from California made in a style to drink well yesterday and to be drunk as coctail wines in the same tasting with tradtionally made burgundies. Who wins these competitions says absolutely nothing about the relative quality of the wines. In fact, I think there is less than zero value in these tastings, because they lead you to believe that you have learned something. As for Oregon, I think there is a small trend in the same over-the-top direction as California, but it isn't carried nearly as far. I will agree that there are more interesting wines from Oregon these days, simply because the number of bottlings has exploded in the last 10 years. More land under vines + more wineries = more bottlings. I think the percentage of interesting wines now vs then hasn't changed, though. The reason that I brought up the price/value thing is because you did. You said My point was, that as the price drops off, Burgundy still offers that something special.

I've found completely the opposite. Specifically, that there are fewer and fewer producers in California producing Pinot that is complex and interesting, and that prices in Oregon have largely risen to a level where the savvy Burgundy shopper can find similar-priced burgundies that are much, much better. The number of CA producers who are modelling their pinot on Williams-Selyem is steadily shrinking. The few names in CA pinot that I have some interest in -- Littorai, Arcadian, etc. haven't impressed me enough when I tasted them to make me shell out the $$$ to really find out what's going on there. I dropped off the Williams-Selyem list when the operation was sold. Maybe that was a mistake, but staying on didn't seem like a worthwhile gamble at the time. Dehlinger, Rochioli, Saintsbury, ABC are all hit-or-miss for me -- some wines over-the-top, some not. Not worth $50++ for a crap shoot. And that's the *good* side of CA pinot. The dark side...let's just say it's very, very dark...virtually indistinguishable from Syrah, in fact. These wines will never be ringers for burgundy, until they're all OTH at age 60. As for Oregon, there are still producers who deliver value there...Evesham Wood, St Innocent, Bethel Heights top the list IMO. Belle Pente. Amity deserves way more respect than they get. I haven't had the last few vintages, but Eyrie has always made classy wine. But the big picture here is that many are asking $25 for generic Willamette Valley bottlings, and $50 for single-vineyard wines. For $25, I could buy a number of 'lesser' burgundies that, for my taste, blow away these wines (Bourgogne Rouge from Lafarge, Georges Mugneret, or Cathiard, for starters). For $50, I can buy many different 1er crus that I find far more satisfying than Oregon wines priced at that level. I guess that's really where we part...our evaluation of the $25-$50 burgundy market. As long as you stay away from the 2002s, the prices are still quite reasonable. Recently $50 or under: 2001 Fourrier Gevrey Clos St Jacques 2002 Chandon de Brailles Volnay Caillerets 2001 Robert Chevillion Nuits Les-St-Georges & Vaucrains 2001 Henri Gouges Nuits Les-St-Georges & Vaucrains These are the kinds of wines that are "pretty amazing and offers a complexity and ethereal flavors and aromas that I have not found in pinot produced anywhere else on earth." If the price tag were raised to $65, that list would be much longer. Recently $35 or under 2001 Mugneret-Gibourg Nuits-St-Georges Chaignots 2002 Chandon de Brailles Ile de Vergelesses 1998 D'Angerville Volnay Taillepieds 1999,2001 Denis Bachelet Gevrey-Chambertin VV 2002 Fontiane-Gagnard Pommard Rugiens 2002 Fontaine-Gagnard Chassagne-Montrachet Clos St Jean 2002 Bernard Moreau Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeots For $35, there are very few Oregon pinots that can compete with these wines for balance, food friendliness and complexity. Not that there aren't any. But for my $35, there are only a very few Oregon producers that I would even consider giving my money to instead of Burgundy.

Brad, Did you get a chance to see how it evolves with air? I expect that given how much stuffing it has, it may be best on the second day. Or even the third.

Names, bitte? For my own experience, I've never had an Oregon or Washington chenin that was anything other than foul. And with the pittance that the Loire guys get for their product (especially ex-cellar!), the motivation to branch out into domestic chenin just isn't there.

I would suggest that your very first session focus on environment. I've run the following session for novices and it was very educational: Flight number 1: buy 2 bottles of a decent white wine, and put bags over the bottles. Serve the wine in 2 different glasses, a red wine glass and a white wine glass. See what their opinions are of the 2 different wines. Flight number 2: repeated, but with a red wine. Flight number 3: buy 3 bottles of another decent red wine. Put bags over the bottles. Serve one at about 50 F, one at about 65 F, and one at about 80 F (ie one too cold, one too warm, one just right). See what they think of the 3 different wines. A good idea for the second session would be to focus on food/wine matches. You could start with 3 whites, a Cal chard, a Muscadet (not 2003!), and a German riesling. First, taste the wines without food. Second, taste the wines with apples. Third, taste the wines with something a bit spicy (asian, probably). I think this sort of basic education is necessary before you are really ready to begin learning about different wines.

Melissa's birthday, not mine. We opened the 1997 Georges Mugneret Chambolle Fuesselottes with our lunch of grilled groupa in a prosciutto crust. The wine was lovely but seemed to show more aged forest-floor notes than expected; nice with the ham. I've had this wine several times in the past, and each time it showed itself a good candidate for aging despite the vintage. It was with a bit of trepidation that I left half the bottle open for dinner. Not to worry: by dinner time it had picked up steam and was more fruit forward with the forest floor receding into the background. GSM. For dinner we had salad, salmon carpaccio, scallop carpaccio, lime-marinated grilled shrimp, and baked salmon with a light soy-ginger glaze. This clearly called for some bubbly; I pulled out the 1985 Jacquesson Signature which proved to be lovely indeed. This wine was about as rich a Champagne as I like, while still keeping enough acid to go with the collection of seafood. Wish I had more.

Eh? If you look at a properly sabre'd champagne bottle, the cork extends beyond the broken/cut neck of the bottle, making it the compressed cork which keeps the glass out. If I had a proper champagne sabre, or at least one more substantial than my Olympic style sabre, I might try it... but my competition jobby just isn't designed for that kind of "proper" usage. If the sabre is electric, I'd not chance it -- but any other sabre should work just fine. Just make sure you use the base of the blade. I've seen a bottle of bubbly "sabered" with a wine glass.

Vouvray: Huet, Foreau, Bourillon d'Orleans, Champalou, Pino Montlouis: Deletang Chidaine (also now responsible for the Poniatowski Vouvray stable, IIRC) Chinon: Breton, Baudry, Alliet, Olga Raffault, Couly-Duthiel Saumur: Clos Rougeard, Joel Taluau Cheverny: Francois Cazin Coteaux de Loir: Domaine du Belleviere Savennieres: Closel, d'Epire, Baumard C-d-Layon, Q-d-Chaumes: Baumard, Pierre-Bise, Chateau du Bellerive, Domaine du Sablonettes Touraine: Clos Roche Blanche, Clos du Tue-Bouef (Thierry Puzelat)

It's actually best to just push the cork into the bottle with your thumb. That way you can control the speed and not send wine spraying everywhere. In fact, I just did this on Saturday.

With that much sweetness and spice, I'd recommend a very fruit-forward wine. I've not had many of those wines from recent vintages, but based on what I do know I'd recommend either the Brick House or the Willzkenzie. Be sure to decant well in advance.

Nope. They are sold and drunk as "cocktail wines" and trophies and wines to win tastings. The more out of balance they are, the better they serve these purposes. Indeed, it is many European producers who are modifying their style to compete. If that works for you, cool. But I don't know many people who do like that pairing; a touch of sweetness and high acidity is the classic match. Or beer. I'll ignore the ad hominem and get on to the substance of what you said -- in fact, you've got it exactly reversed. There are precious few wines coming out of CA that can compete with the vast sea of better-made cheapies from France, Spain, Italy. And nothing at all that can compete with sub-$15 (even these days) wines like the Clos des Briords Muscadet, or the Coudert Clos de la Roilette Fleurie. Last night I opened an $11.90 (net) JP Brun Beaujolais. It was very very nice.

For Jasnieres, the wines of Eric Nicolas (Domaine de Belleviere) are quite good, in my limited experience. Available from Louis/Dressner, of course.

Lots of good comments so far. I've had wine from Coulee de Serrant that didn't blow me away, but I've had others that did. Rumor has it that post-95 vintages are more reliable. Chidaine now makes Vouvray too, and very good Vouvray at that. No one has mentioned sparking Loire/Vouvray. Huet's is stunning and not too pricey but needs some age; others are often very good value. These wines are often labelled "Cremant de Loire" or "Vouvray Petillant". Basic "Vouvray" bottlings are often light-bodied and a little bit sweet. Champalou's is a versatile wine; works well with lots of food from salad to stir fry. Bottlings that say "Sec" are dry and often are good accompaniments to fish. "Demi-Sec" bottlings are often full-bodied and a bit sweet. A good match for peaches and cream, or rich fish with a slightly sweet sauce or stir fry. "Moulleux" are dessert wines.