
LOS
participating member-
Posts
164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by LOS
-
Chablis is a great source of lightly oaked or no oak chardonnay. Generally the higher up the price ladder you go the more oak you will find. The traditional barrel used in Chablis is a bit larger than the barrique used in the rest of Burgundy and helps reduce over oaked flavors. Many straight Chablis and even Premier Cru wines see no oak at all. An easy to find and well made brand of un-oaked Chablis is Laroche whose regular Chablis is light and fresh. Chablis may be the single largest category in my cellar. As the prices continue to creep up, I am buying less and less, however. Long gone are the days when you could have your pick of basic Chablis from any grower for $14. There are 3 basic categories of Chablis producers -- those who use stainless steel to age their wines -- those who use oak, mostly old, to age their wines -- those who use oak, including much new oak Of course, these are not strict categories. I tend to avoid wines in the third category, but like wines from both the other categories. Here are the standout estates: Louis Michel -- stainless Adhemar Boudin -- mostly stainless R&V Dauvissat -- mostly old oak, 20% new for grands crus Raveneau -- mostly old oak, up to 40% or so new for grands crus W. Fevre -- mostly old oak, I think. things have changed and improved here recently LaRoche -- uses too much oak in the high end wines for my taste, but have good material. IME, the "St Martin" bottling has often been thin and characterless Any good 1er cru or grand cru chablis will need at least a half day of air if you want to drink it young. The wine will still taste good on the first day, but it will be a pale shadow of what it could be.
-
I agree with you that "the trick is to only pay those prices for the best wines." In many cases, however, that means avoiding entire regions. Just because there are no Napa Cabs in the bargain range, does not mean that the higher-priced ones are worthy of their prices. If you're going to blow $125 on a bottle, you would do better to look elsewhere. I don't think anyone has claimed that Napa makes no quality wines -- just that they are almost universally overpriced...and they seem to sell at those prices. So I think a better plan is to do your bargain wine-buying from regions that are priced more reasonably and to do your splurge buying from regions that are priced more reasonably.
-
Brad -- good to see you here! You know that I agree with you about Champagne. In fact, both Champagne and Burgundy are in a strange category -- they both offer many of the most expensive duds and many great values! It's just a matter of picking the right wines. In neither case is the region itself overrated, as shown by the many great wines available. I agree with Andre that most champagne does not show character -- that's because they're blended wines. The small-grower, unblended champagnes often show great character. In Burgundy, the poorer wines tend to show no character for a different reason --- they're simply overcropped. But in both regions, the good wines are amazingly full of character, even at low price points. Unfortunately, in both cases, many of the better bargains are poorly distributed. Maybe I will right up a brief "How to Learn Burgundy" piece and post it here, though I'm afraid that my approach requires access to a good selection of the wines. As to which is most overrated -- I agree that Napa wins this contest, hands down. Almost any California wine which offers decent QPR these days comes from a region other than Napa.
-
Yes, I've had it. Is it really that good? Depends. If you're floating in dough and like new-wave Cal Cabs, then sure. If I must do Cal Cab, I prefer Montebello, or Pritchard Hill, or Schweiger. That said, Screagle has more finesse than most of the other cults I've been fed (which is most of them). So if you like huge monster cabs, but would prefer to have some finesse along with those gobs and gobs, Screagle may just be your thing. If you're rolling in the dough, it may even be worth the $$$$. But you could sell that single bottle and buy a full case of 1975/6 CVNE Vina Real, or 1993/6/9 D'Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs, or .... You get the idea. If it were mine, I'd flip it in a second. It's a wine where you are paying for the "ooh" factor. Personally, I let others pay for rarity. I look for quality -- preferably underpriced, underappreciated. If I had a 85 La Tache or Romanee Conti, I'd flip them too. In fact, I have a few choice bottles I'm planning on flipping as soon as the auction market recovers. The gift factor makes it a little bit different. I'd be less inclined to flip a gift bottle. Bu t if it were fetching that much dough, I'd probably do it anyway.
-
First of all, Katie's right -- we need to know how these are being prepared. And you've got an easy match if you are doing separate courses. So this is really only a problem if you are doing the 'classic surf and turf' -- ie, all on one plate. In the "you'd be surprised" category, a big white burgundy like a Corton-Charlemagne or Batard-Montrachet can match well with a simply prepared steak, especially filet. Still, my first choice would be a big, big champagne. Think Salon, Krug, etc. This is not my favorite style of champagne, so you'll have to depend on others for specific recommendations. Selosse has the rep of being in that style, but in my limited experience it won't have the stuffing to stand up to the meat.
-
A 10 cL bottle? I can understand the why, but where, and how?
-
Will brining help with this? Is there a reason not to?
-
I've been to the Texas Land & Cattle on the Riverwalk. They do at least cut their steaks thick, but they have this abominable seasoning they insist on throwing on their perfectly good steak. Too salty, too. Maybe the one up at the airport is better -- or, more likely, quality control is poor (this IS a chain, after all). Ruth's Chris, IMO, is absurdly overpriced. I have heard good things about Salt Grass, and plan on trying it soon.
-
I've got to agree with Steinberger that there are certain trends that are leaning that way. But no one, other than trendoids, is forced to follow the trends. You can still find good restaurants with wine-friendly foods and good wine lists, and you can still find plenty of food-friendly wines. This is really only a problem for the small-market consumer, whose choices are extremely limited. But most small-market restaurants are not exactly avante garde. The only real problem I see is with the small-market wine selection. Because the hip wines are all homogenous, I think the small-market wine selection suffers from real lack of diversity in addition to having few food-friendly choices. OTOH, a real dedication to food-friendly wines on the part of the owner/staff can make for some very interesting small wine shops. Steinberger has a point, but he doth protest too much.
-
Sounds like Montorgueil (spelling?). The market runs North-South along Montorgueil. If you started in Les Halles, you would have been walking north away from the river. Sound right?
-
No one here can cook a steak, from all indications. Even otherwise good restaurants, like Liberty Bar, seem to cut their steaks half an inch thick. This makes it impossible to sear the outside and get a rare steak inside. I've been here about 10 weeks total on business, and have yet to find a steak I really like. That's too bad, 'cause they've got to have good meat available. I remember a business trip to Hondo about 10 years ago, and still have fond memories of the steaks there. So where can I find a good one?
-
I expect the D'Angerville was indeed wayyyyy to young. I can't be sure, because I ain't opening any of mine for another 5 years. I haven't had that particular 2000 Roumier, but I have had a couple of others (Chambolle village, Les Cras) and they were absolutely delicious. I wouldn't pay full US retail for either of them, but they could be very tempting on closeout.
-
I'm reading too. And I haven't gone into hibernation; I've gone back to Texas for work.
-
I've only asked to do this once in France, and had no problem. It was 3-4 years ago at Ma Cuisine, in Beaune. I was dining solo for lunch and wanted a wine only available in full bottles. They looked at me like I was crazy to even think they might not let me recork the bottle and take the rest away.
-
Here in Minneapolis, if you've got enough sophistication to order Trotanoy, you've got enough sophistication to pronounce it. IME, Petrus is rarely pronounced correctly, as is Cos d'Estournel. But without any doubt at all, the most-mangled wine name of all time must be: Viognier
-
Neither of them pronounced the final 't'. It's the middle 't' where they differed. I should have been clearer. The etymology offered, to the extent it has any grounding in fact at all, must have been passed down by word of mouth for centuries. So it's unsurprising that the story might have changed a great deal from the original. My major point was that there are at least some people, at the source, who pronounce the middle 't' in the name. I personally haven't let this change my pronounciation -- no 't's for me, either.
-
I have been told on good authority that the 't' in Montrachet is pronounced; the word is derived from "mon trachet", after a medieval farming tool, the trachet. I have also been told on good authority that the 't' in Montrachet is not pronounced, supporting the thesis that the word is derived from "Mont Rachet". The two authorities in question were none other than M. Niellon of Domaine Niellon in Chassagne, and M. Colin of Domaine Marc Colin in Chassagne. I believe that when in Burgundy I have heard the latter pronounciation far more often than the former, but I have heard both. That should definitely settle this question
-
Amarone is indeed a good option. Don't know anything about the 2000 vintage, though. There are better rules of thumb. High alcohol will do a little bit to preserve a wine, but not a lot. Acid and tannin make much more difference. Dry wines with high alcohol, low acid, and low tannin age very very poorly.
-
This one comes down to experience (ie having in the past seen wines of a similar fruit/tannin/acidity develop over the years). If you don't have the confidence, the best person to ask this is the producer, who should be able to know how long it will last. This information is not a secret and the wine merchant should be able to get this for you. The problem with tannic red wines is that by the time the tannins have become nice and soft the fruit might have died out. There was some concern over some of the 1988 vintage from Bordeaux. What ctgm says here is right. To expand a bit, there are 3 things that will preserve a wine: high tannin content, high acidity, and sugar. A wine must have at least one of these, as well as a good concentration level, to age well. Dessert wines generally preserve very well because of their sugar and sometimes their acidity. Dry white wines generally preserve well if they have high acidity (and high concentration). Dry red wines can be preserved by tannin, acidity, or both. A high alcohol level (which can often be mistaken for high concentration) will not do a great deal to help preserve a wine until it hits 17-18% or so, I think. Learning to discern these elements in a wine can take a good deal of practice, but they are what you must look for. Lee
-
A few comments on these: Madeira -- I know very little about Madiera, but don't they release vintage Madiera long after the vintage date? Vintage 2000 Madiera may be difficult to find soon. Vouvray -- 2000 was not a good year for the Moulleux wines, which are the ageable ones. Some of the better producers did not even make Moulleux wines in 2000. Coteaux du Layon -- I follow this less closely than Vouvray, but I expect this vintage is not made to age. Tokay -- A great idea, though I have no idea about the 2000 vintage. Champagne -- There are very few bottlings of Champagne that are made for laying down that don't cost an arm and a leg. They are out there, but tough to find.
-
Those types of wines do indeed generally age well. Others do too -- Barolo, Barbaresco, classically styled Rioja and Burgundy, and many others. Most Bordeaux 2000 are priced over the top, thanks to the hype. There are indeed many ageable wines here, and you may be able to find one at a decent price. Then again, you may not. Others will have to provide recs; I stopped paying attention to Bordeaux when the 96s (and their prices) hit the shelves. The Domaine de Chevalier has shown aging potential in the past and is IMO underpriced in todays Bordeaux market, but I have not tasted the 2000. Hermitage 2000 is an iffy year. Chateauneuf 2000 is a very good year, but I don't follow the wines much anymore personally. I've had the Beaucastel and it was very good, but spendy. Barolo 2000 has not yet been released. Much Barbaresco 2000 is out, but has not hit the shelves here yet. The Pelissero Barbaresco is rumored to be a great wine. Also from Piedmont, I have had a superb 2000 Barbera d'Alba -- the 2000 Bricco della Viole from G.D. Vajra. With proper storage, this may well last 20 years. I paid just under $25. Most of the better 2000 Riojas will not be released for several years yet; I can't comment on vintage quality. But the classically styled Riojas are often bargains and may well be the "value" option here: the cheapest way you can get wine that will still be going strong in 2 years, not just hanging on for dear life. I would not expect "modern-style" Riojas to have this kind of aging potential. Burgundy 2000 is not a vintage for long-lived wines, and I would not look here.
-
My biggest problem with the 'greatest' lists is that diversity is rarely well represented. You'll never see a traditional Chinon in any of those lists -- with a certain degree of reason. Chinon is not generally a crowd-pleasing type of wine. There are large segments of the population it simply doesn't appeal to. But for exactly that reason, it is generally underpriced vis-a-vis its quality level -- and it can be a great bargain for those it does appeal to. It is precisely in this area that I feel that newcomers to wine are ill-served by relying on the WS or Parker as purchasing filters. These filters are quite biased, and will tend to guide the consumer to mainstream wines. This keeps the newcomer from exploring some of the lesser-known regions which they might love if they tried. And many of the lesser known regions offer great QPR. So I think these 'greatest' lists are OK, if used properly -- ie, if used as a list of suggestions. But to limit one's purchases to only what is on the list is to limit one's horizons -- and I have seen this done many times. Not only have I seen it done, I have, many times, seen it used as the reason why Parker and/or the WS are useful to wine beginners. The best thing a beginner in wine can do is to get advice from a knowledge local aficionado -- not advice about what wine to buy, but advice about what store to go to for honest advice. A dedicated and honest local wine merchant is far and away the best advisor a wine newbie can have. IMO, the most important single bit of advice he can get from those more experienced than he, is where to shop. That's what we need for a 'greatest' list -- a list of the most honest and knowledgable wine salesmen. I'll nominate: Roger Clark Surdyk's/Minneapolis Germans and Rhone Cheapies David Lillie Chambers St/NYC French offbeat wines Lee
-
I resemble that remark. Not quite all over France. Certainly all over Burgundy. But many of the other post offices just have these cardboard fold-up wine shippers that I wouldn't trust to check on an airplane -- even the one in Vienne had these, right across the river from Ampuis/Cote Rotie. I would expect that they would have the styrofoam version available in Paris, but it might be prudent to just bring some shippers with you. Lee
-
You have a legally binding contract with the producer. You do not have a legally binding contract with the producer's european retailers which prevents them from selling the wine to a gray market importer. You do not have a legally binding contract with the gray marketeer to keep them from selling the wine to US consumers. Your argument is a smokescreen; no one in the gray market chain has broken a contract of any kind. Not only that, but the states' enforcement of your importation exclusivity is not at all dependent on an exclusivity clause in your contract with the producer. Even non-exclusive contracts between producer and importer still result in the state enforcing exclusivity. In fact, there are many many such contracts which are intentionally non-exclusive. As you well know, whether or not an importer has an exclusive contract is very much an item for negotiation with the producer. The states' exclusivity clauses are clearly not based in the contract between the producer and the importer -- even when those contracts are intentionally nonexclusive, the importer still has a legal exclusivity. Lee
-
You have a legally binding contract with the producer. You do not have a legally binding contract with the producer's european retailers which prevents them from selling the wine to a gray market importer. You do not have a legally binding contract with the gray marketeer to keep them from selling the wine to US consumers. Your argument is a smokescreen; no one in the gray market chain has broken a contract of any kind. As cgtm points out, a contract between you and a wine producer is not legally binding on said producer's European retailers nor on gray market retailers. Just because every state other than California gives you a legalized monopoly, does not mean that California should. If the producer of a product wants to appoint an exclusive representative for his product, the producer needs to take steps to insure that exclusivity. That would involve the producer not selling wine to outside channels, the producer stipulating to his European channels that they cannot sell to US merchants, and the producer taking steps to ensure that this is enforced. US federal and state government regulations should not be involved in any way. Lee