Brad Ballinger

Typically, I don't drink in the morning (but, then again, I'm working). Yet, there is something to be said for doing so. Most people whose profession involves tasting wine will generally do so in the morning before their palates become ruined by letting something else cross them first.

I've had all but 4, 7, and 10. But the ones I've had have been from different vintages. As John wrote, a person could do worse. If I had to pick only one, it would be the Brocard Chablis. And, wow, Alion has certainly shot up in price.

I'm going to point you to two threads that chronicle a trip Chris James took to Piedmont. It will give you a flavor of how the Piemontese feel about Barolo and some of the debate about what it should be. Fun With Piedmont Producers (1) Fun With Piedmont Producers (2) Craig Camp had also written some Barolo columns for The Daily Gullet, but I'm not able to bring those up. I'll see if they are archived somewhere, and edit this reply to include links to those. Some general comments: Good Barolo can be had for under $30, but it takes a lot of effort and you have to kiss a lot of frogs. Most of the good stuff will cost you over $50. Barbaresco (also from Piedmont, also made from nebbiolo) is aged for one year less than Barolo, and can be just as good for a few dollars less. Gattinara (also from Piedmont, also made from nebbiolo) can also be quite good, costs less, and ages just as long. The main topic that surfaces in Barolo discussions is old v. new style, or traditionalism v. modernism. Some people appreciate great wines made in either style. Others are loyal to one over the other. So to recommend a specific producer to you would probably depend on your preference of style. The best recommendation I can make is to seek out a Barolo/Barbaresco tasting that will feature traditionalist and modernist producers' wines.

I'll be one voice from the Midwest. Living in a metropolitan area, I have pretty good access to wines from much of the world by walking into a retail shop. What we don't have in the Twin Cities is a large selection from Austria, Beujolais, New Zealand, South Africa, higher end South America, Slovenia, and it's hard to get the highly-allocated wines from California. We also don't see many New York State of Virginia wines on retail shelves here. But, I can order the wines I want that I can't find here. Also, Chicago is only seven hours away by car (one by plane), and I get there a couple times a year. Each trip I come back with wines I can't find here.

Jason, some of us perusing the list don't generally have access to many neurons to scratch about champagne, so some examples would be in order, please. ← Adding onto Jason's reply, if you search for "recoltant manipulant" or "RM" or "grower champagne" in this forum, you'll come up with a larger list of producers. I'll briefly add, however, Diebolt-Vallois, H. Billiot, Chartogne-Tallet, Jean Milan, Pierre Moncuit, Michel Arnould, Franck Bonville, Tarlant, and Rene Collard. In additon to the Terry Theise portfolio, you can find some from K & L, based out of Redwood City and San Francisco (as if jbonne and I don't shill for them plenty as it is).

This I can go along with. But depending on how reductive the wine is (which one wouldn't know until smelling and tasting it, I'm of the mind much of the needed oxygen can be obtained through aeration in the glass. Edited to add: Thanks for taking the time to write!

Did this whole paragraph not rub anyone else here the wrong way? And does using Dom Perignon, probably the most bling and unremarkable of Champagnes also come across as somewhat unresearched? I'll bite, though. Dom Perignon does make one exceptional wine, their vintage Rose- -- which at $300+ per bottle is quite bling, yes siree. If given a choice between vintage Dom and Argyle's sparkler, I'll pick the Argyle. Or if under duress I'll swallow my pride and open a bottle of that Egly Ouriet or Billecart. ← I'll take issue with the paragraph. But mine will start out from a slightly different slant. Steinberger pigeon-holes Champagne as an aperitif. For me (yet again, and others' mileage may vary), Champagne is one terrific food wine. While there are some that make excellent aperitifs, and I support using them as such, that's not the be all and end all to the wine. And the Champenoise, in particular, would support me on that. But Steinberger has written the article in close proximity to New Year's Eve -- the only time much of this country drinks a frothy alcoholic beverage that isn't beer. To address the Dom comparison, my guess is Steinberger picked it for name recognition. Cristal has replaced it as quintessential bling bubbly, as the kids will tell you, but everyone still knows about Dom. As far as tete de cuvees go, I prefer many others. I've had Dom's rose only once, but I'm with you there. On a return trip from Champagne, I brought back a bottle because it is much cheaper there. Instead of keeping it to myself, I opened it at a dinner party for eight. I only got a taste, but what a taste.

I don't see a problem with that at all. Of course, some American wineries are foreign-owned. But that's another topic.

Cremant d'Alsace. I like Charles Baur, but that may be hard to find. I'd also consider a demi-sec Champagne, perhaps from A. Margaine or Veuve Clicquot. Another good direction to go would be a rose Champagne, perhaps from Charles Ellner, Nicolas Feuillatte, or (if you want something really intense) Egly-Ouriet.

I'll grant that there is a bit of "absolutism" in this Steinberger column. And generally I tend to err on the side of avoiding any type of generalization, but I have to agree with him here. Plus, he's doing the good job of a writer, and provoking his readers. While American sparkling wines can give a first impression that may stand up to their French counterparts, for me they lack the complexity dollar for dollar that Champagne offers. There's precious little, if any, minerality -- a hallmark of good Champagne -- in California sparklers. The most "mineral" domestic bubbly I've had comes from Gruet in New Mexico. Some other observations... While pleasing domestic bubbly exists, it's important to view the comparisons on a price point level. And that's where the U.S. fails in my opinion. At the low end of the price scale, I go along with Dave and put my money toward Cremant de Loire (and Vouvray Petillant), Cremant de Limoux, Cremant d'Alsace, Cremant de Bourgogne, etc. For me (your mileage may vary), I find them more interesting and layered than American counterparts -- and they're cheaper. At the high end, I could not imagine throwing $60 down for the Iron Horse Brut LD (Late Disgorged) or $80 for the J Schram when I can pay the same amount for vintage Champagne from any NM, CM, or RM house in Champagne. I've had those two domestic wines and, for me (again), they show me nothing to justify the price. I'd rather buy two or three NV wines from Champange for the same amount of money. If I have to buy domestic, I buy Gruet or Iron Horse. I've been to Iron Horse, and their sparklers stand out among the domestic producers I've tried. (But they still don't do for me what Champagne does.)

I've had German sparkling wine from riesling, chardonnay, spatburgunder (pinot noir), and weissburgunder (pinot blanc). Almost all of them were enjoyed in Germany. I brought back a bottle of Riesling Sekt from a producer called Meier. In Germany, I remember it being nicely balanced with a bit of a cherry profile. I opened it at a party where the theme was sparkling wine from anywhere but Champagne. Amidst the wines at that event, I remember it being sweeter comparatively than the others, but not overwhelmingly so.

For the oaky Chardonnay, Mer et Soleil, Brewer-Clifton, or Patz and Hall (all from California) or a La Chablisienne product from Chablis, France. For the Pinot Noir, depending on the style you like, you can find Loring Wine Company, Siduri, Testarossa, or Chalone (all from central California) in that price range.

Most likely this was a Grand Cru Brut Blanc de Blancs. The "basic" Milan offering (gold label with a black oval containing the words "Jean Milan") is a NV Grand Cru BdB.

A good French cheapie is Kriter. A good Spanish cheapie is Paul Cheneau.

What we drank (more detailed notes to follow in a separate thread): 1996 Pierre Peters "Cuvee Speciale" Brut Blanc de Blancs, Le Mesnil sur Oger Grand Cru. 1998 Domaine de Montille Volnay "Les Taillepieds" Premier Cru. 2002 Donnafugata Ben Rye Passito di Pantelleria. Dinner was a last-minute invitation acceptance from friends since both our families had plans surrounding Christmas Day, but nothing on the day itself. They cooked, and I brought the wine.

Jim, I don't recally reading which producers' wines you've tried. But as you continue your experimentation, I suggest Dorigo, which makes a number of Refosco wines, but some show a bit more oak than others. Have a terrific holiday season yourself. I admire you for always "getting" what this beverage is about.

Oh, there's liability. This is why pours are so controlled. I've worked one of these tastings years ago, and I pissed someone off by refusing to pour. The sponsor of such tastings usually takes out a one-day liability rider policy.

Sam, Older still wines are decanted primarily to remove sediment that is thrown during the time the wine ages in the bottle. But since wine breaks down with exposure to oxygen, which occurs very slowly over time in bottle, older wines will be more "fragile" and will break down more quickly. Decanting to aerate an older wine isn't generally the primary reason. And some decant young still wine to introduce more oxygen into it to "soften" (not the best word, but you know what I mean) it. Regarding older bubbly having less PSI and gas, that is true. In some wines, this makes the texture of the mousse less coarse than it might otherwise appear in a younger wine.

As I wrote above, there is an upside if by allowing some of the bubbles to dissipate, the wine doesn't come across as being as acidic. This is really a mouthfeel perception issue in my opinion, but others may see it differently. Veuve Clicquot, for example, recommends decanting their demi-sec Champagne to reduce the acidic impression casued by too many bubbles, and, therefore, allowing the drinker to experience more of the sweetness in the base wine. Could be voodoo. But this is probably one of those "your mileage may vary" issues.

It's not from Riedel, but William Yeoward Crystal makes a Champagne jug for the purpose. Also, I just read that someone at The French Laundry who had ordered a rose Champagne had it brought to their table in a decanter and poured into syrah stems to enhance the fruit.

There are two reasons for decanting any wine -- 1) to separate the wine from the sediment, and 2) to aerate the wine, which can "soften" the harshness of the tannin or acidity. Champagne used to have to be decanted to remove sediment before disgorgement was perfected. So, today, we're really dealing with reason number 2. Some Champagne may benefit from decanting if the wine is overly acidic or if the ferocity of the mousse (bubbles) is such that it would give an impression of the wine being too acidic. This aeration can take place in the decanter or in the glass. But sometimes the mousse imparts a creamy-ness to the texture of the wine, that many enjoy and would find lacking if they took the time to let the bubbles dissipate. So I guess it depends on one's preferences. Some people choose not to decant still wines that others would not drink unless they were decanted. I would guess that individual preferences likely guide the decision on whether or not to decant sparkling wine as well.

There are so many factors that could be at play here. Is the host intimidated by the thought of ordering wine? Is this a "test" the host has planned for the guest? And how much does the guest know about wine? But. . . Having been in that situation more times than I can accurately count, I can share what I do. Generally, I don't know my host's taste in wine, so I'll ask a couple of questions. Picking a wine the other person will like trumps price. But once I know something of that, I'll look to pick a wine at a price point that won't raise the eyebrows of my host or my host's accounting department. I feel if I can select a wine the hosts likes that costs less than the host thought it would, I've made the impression I need to make.

My problem is no receipt, no gift receipt, no longer the box it came in after moving a couple of times. They've deteriorated with normal use. I've cleaned them according to instructions, and have never abandoned them empty on the stovetop. For me, they're just not a good product.

Tea Source is another very good place to shop for teas and all other things tea-related. The proprietor, Bill Waddington, used to be a pseudo-regular on NPR's The Splendid Table. Maybe he still is; I haven't listened in a while.

Over the weekend I enjoyed some Full Sail Amber Ale. It had been a while since I last had anything from Full Sail, and I'm glad to see things are still as good as I remember. I also purchased some of the Rip Curl English Pale Ale, which I've never had before. I haven't opened one yet. I've enjoyed Full Sail's Amber Ale several times before. This particular weekend, it went well with chili. It has a plesant toastiness to it, but still a nice bite. I passed on the WasSail. I seem to remember it having too much of a spice profile for my liking. I prefer Sierra Nevada's Celebration Ale for that type of brew.