Brad Ballinger

I thought something might be up. I know you've been trying to beef up your other web ventures for a while now, and I wish you the best of luck. Feel free, of course, to still contribute here. A big thanks for bringing me on board. I'll see you at vinocibo.com.

I've been away for a few days. Good topic. Good discussion. The first thing I read that I was going to quote and comment on was the California dessert wines are low in acidity comment. Yep. In my experience, I've found the dessert wines from California -- on average, there are always exceptions -- to be lower in acid (and lab work also bears this out). For me, they are better drunk shortly after release whereas many dessert wines from European regions -- again, on average -- improve with age. Violeta has been mentioned. I've had this wine on three occasions. Once pulling the cork the same day I bought it at the winery. Again a year later. And finally 5 years later. All bottles were of the 1995 vintage. The last one was over the hill, and it wasn't because it was a bad bottle. The middle one was okay, but not as vibrant as the one just after release.

I'll jump in and add a few. Chateau Mille Anges, $9.99 Chateau la Croix de Millorit, $9.99 Chateau Bonnet Blanc, $8.99 Domaine Lafond Tavel, $9.99 Domaine du Mas Boislauzon Cotes-du-Rhone, $9.99 Cline Zinfandel, $6.99 Ramsay Syrah, $9.99 Inama Pinot Grigio, $9.99 Falesco Vitiano, $8.99 Pierre Sparr Riesling, $9.99 Hugel Gentil, $7.99 Villa Maria Sauvignon Blanc, $8.99 That'll do for now.

A couple of thoughts to add. Shelling out the coin for a $$$ class will get you the opportunity to taste wines you might not otherwise have access to either because they are rare or expensive (or both). For example, a class like this done will will have mature examples of certain wines so you can taste what a well-aged wine tastes like. You will also have the chance to taste with an experienced taster, possibly more. A caution here, trust your own palate, but listen to those with experience. A cheaper alternative for you is to taste with a group of friends on a periodic basis. Each time you get together to taste, you can do it around a certain theme. For example, two weeks ago, I tasted with a local group in Minnesota, and the theme was pre-1991 Bordeaux. There were eight of us. My "entry fee" into one of these tastings is one bottle of wine that supports the theme. For the career options you've listed, I don't think you need to do the high brow, high buck tasting. If you work for a winery or wine shop, you'll get the opportunity to taste plenty.

Your first WTN?! I'd assumed that you had posted notes before given the interest and participation you've shown in the forum. Thanks for posting the note. Data points are always helpful. And the mullet rating scale is a new one. And perhaps the wine fits the mullet slogan -- business in front, party in the back.

Can't speak to the food, but I can address the wines. The average wine drinker will recognize the names of three producers, if he or she is lucky. The list is that obscure. That doesn't make it a bad thing, though. You can put yourself in the hands of a server or bartender, but I would suggest you give them some help by telling them what types of wines you typically prefer. The owner should also be there, fellow with short dark hair and a darker complexion. Ask him what he recommends. And you should be allowd a small taste of anything before committing to a purchase. If you get the 1/3 bottle option, your wine will come to you in a cruet. If there is more than one of you, this is a good option in case your prefer someone else's wine to the one you ordered and vice versa (a very real possibility given most likely don't know what they are ordering). The lighting is what I found strange. Unless it has changed, the tables are under some sort of strange dim fluorescent lighting. I can't think that makes the food appear attractive. Of course, if your experience is less than you hoped for, Blackbird is right next door.

I had this wine about two years ago and was similarly nonplussed. Did absolutely nothing for me.

1997 Castellina di Rodano Lazzicante, Toscana IGT. This is a 100% merlot wine aged in barrique for 22 months and in bottle for six more before being released. I have like Rodano's Monna Claudia 50/50 sangio/cab blend. The Lazzicante is almost twice the price (approx $50), but I was lucky to have a retailer give it to me for his cost since his Rodano supplier no longer has the wine in their portfolio. The wine was served with raw pecorino, some olives, some marinated mushrooms. Color was very dark garnet. At first the nose had a bit of a reductive quality, and it needed time and air to open up. Then the wine showed intense morello cherry aromas with coffee and freshly turned earth. There's a great cherry and blackberry core to the flavor profile, but ripe, yet firm, tannins keep the fruit from fully emerging in the mouth. This is a wine that needs some time yet.

I was away from the computer for a while, and eGullet was going through transition, but better late than never... Dinner with friends on the Friday of Labor Day Weekend. The starter wine... 2001 Hexamer Meddersheimer Rheingrafenberg Riesling Kabinett, Nahe. The short version -- sleek, racy, and hitting on all cylinders. Taking my time, there is an intense minerality on the nose. Some lime and floral stuggles to make it through. In the mouth, it packs an acidic wallop shooting lime, slate, and green apple to all caverns of the mouth. There is just enough sugar to keep this wine from being overly mouth-puckering. Finishes with a crispness, but lingers of a good long time. One need not be in a hurry to drink this, but it's hard to lay off when it tastes this good. The main course was grilled scallops and these prawns that were the size of mini-lobster tals. I brushed them with EVOO, and seasoned with Old Bay. To finish, I served them with a white wine, lemon, butter sauce (recipe on Food board). Also served grilled radicchio and saffron rice. The food was to die for. The wine was only okay... 2000 H. Lamy St. Aubin Clos de la Chateniere Premier Cru. This, too, had some minerality on the nose with lemon oil and pears. In the mouth, I had trouble getting past an oily metallic component that seemed to suck almost all the acid out of the wine. It probably was never going to be rich enough to stand up to the food, but I didn't expect it to completely roll over and play dead. Disjointed and not nearly the wine the St. Aubin En Remilly was from this same producer in the same vintage. The next night... 1994 Ridge Geyserville, Sonoma County. 68% zinfandel, 20% carignan, 8% petit sirah, 4% mataro. A long time ago, I promised friends of ours that I would open up my Ridge zins with them and them only. They used to be on the ATP program years ago but gave it up when he was without a job for a year. They've now had the 1990-94 Geyserville wines at Maison Ballinger. The most recent one I opened for them was the 1992 which was drinking beautifully, and would've held at that level for a while. The same cannot be said for the 1994. While still enjoyable, it had peaked probably about 2 years ago. The good news, though, was that the fruit was alive and was the focal point. Not much in the way of structure or complexity at this point. Tannins resolved a while ago, acidity not terrible high. But the bramble fruit was pure and juicy. 1998 de Carolus, Fronsac. This was opened after the Geyserville was polished off. What a contrast. Fiarly intense cabernet franc nose -- herbal, earthy. Texturally, a chewy wine with still firm tannins. Some coffee spice notes to add a layer beneath the herb and black cherry fruit. There was a half bottle leftover. On the second day, the wine lost some of its "edge," and was nicely rounded. A smoother, yet still full, texture, and notes of caramel and coffee were stronger. Great with cheese.

It certainly is an ingenious approach. I live in Minnesota in the U.S., where we get about 5 feet of snow every winter. We have wineries here, but they have more modern cellaring techniques. They do bury the vines in sand, though, to keep them from freezing to the point of death.

I've seen the word "garrigue" used to describe this sort of thing. But without seeing a specific use, it's hard to say if this is the right word or not.

That's a great question, John. However, I don't think Craig was making a link between the public's buying habits and Parker's opinion of wines. When Craig mentions the "American" consumer, he is likely paralleling other conventional wisdom regarding American consumers. One oft-opined point is that many Americans have a "Coca-Cola palate," that is one that has been weend on sweetend soft drinks. Hence, a preference for sweeter, lower acid, softened-by-oak wines. But taking your question on its own, assuming the rest of this thread didn't exist, that is part of the point I was making in my first post. If Parker gave a wine 93 points, then my friend figures he should like it, too. And then if he pays a lot for a wine with high Parker points, it's harder for him not too like it -- too much cognitive dissonance to overcome.

Seems like a jug wine to me.

It's been about 24 hours since I posted this. I've certainly found a way to get people gabbing -- mention Parker. But to respond to Mark... I know 87 "doesn't suck." But one could argue it's akin to a "3" since anything below 85 is a "0." Okay, I'm being a bit facetious. But most people would look at that 87 and then look at a 90 for Caggiano or Feudi and just follow the numbers. I suppose this is good because it means more Colli di Lapio for me, however. My friend only reads Parker. But "reads" may be a stretch. For a large number of the rest of the comments... Yes, he is amazingly consistent, which is a good thing. One can consistently calibrate to his palate either in parallel or in converse. One question (or rather an assumption) I'd like clarity around. I believe he buys the wines he tastes. Am I right? If so, I gotta go into that business. Imagine the tax write off.

So my wife and I are having dinner hosted by friends. They have a pretty big cellar, and the two people most often consulted for what to stock it with are me and Robert Parker (not necessarily in that order). We frequently have dinner with this couple either in one of our homes or out at a restaurant. I always try to bring something different even though I know that "the oakier the better" typically applies to this couple. I'll get to the wines in a bit. Usually, we all end up in the kitchen doing a group cooking thing. I spy the latest copy of Robert Parker's Wine Advocate on a table in the TV room next door and pick it up. It's the first time I've actually held the publication in my hand. My first reaction after a 5 second thumb through -- "How can he taste all this wine, keep it all straight, and write notes on all of them?" The man must have stamina that no one else can come close to touching. My second reaction -- "How can he or a reader really distinguish these notes from one another?" The point range in this issue was 85-96. I think he stopped publishing notes and ratings for wines that didn't reach the 85 point threshold, so really he just has a 15 point scale nowadays. My third reaction (after looking through some notes and ratings in more detail) -- I'd be hard pressed to find a palate more different than mine. Now I should add a disclaimer here. This isn't meant to be a right v. wrong issue. It's just a "boy do we see things differently" issue. Some examples. At least he acknowledges that Romana Clelia is making the best Fiano di Avellino today with her Colli di Lapio label. Then he gives it 87 points. So I have to figure the guy just doesn't like Fiano di Avellino, and he's perfectly entitled to his preferences. But when I see some other Campania whites that I like rated no higher than 87 and others I really don't like rated no lower than 91, I feel very glad I've never bought on his points. And I don't know if it is Parker rating Italy anymore or the newer guy (Tomasses?), but whatever, I'll just not look ever again. We also don't see eye to eye on California. Perhaps another good thing. I stopped there. Again, this isn't a who has a better palate comparison. It is a "at least I know I can't calibrate to his -- unless it is in the opposite direction" comparison. The wines (by the way, these are going to be more impressions than notes)... 2002 O. Leflaive St. Aubin, En Remilly Premier Cru. This was opened by our hosts. I couldn't beleive it. "Where's the Pride Viognier?" I asked. Turns out they likes a 95 O. Leflaive Meursault Premier Cru (I forget which one right now) that I had opened for them back in May, and they thought to try some other wines. This one was minerals, earth, and some great pear and apple notes. Clean finish. Moderate acidity. Had it with simply seared halibut cheeks. 2002 Inama Soave Classico. I brought this one. Kicks the acidity up a notch or two over the Leflaive. Shows more tropical flavors, and more steely minerality than earthy minerality. Sleeker, and a great salad wine. 1996 Peter Michael "Les Pavots," Napa Valley. After this was poured in the decanter all I could smell was vanilla and oak. After 1.5-2 hours in the decanter, when I poured it in my glass, what I could primarily smell was vanilla and oak. To be fair, some dark berry fruit was present. But overally, it was just too oaky for me. It didn't seem to come together as a total wine. 1998 M. Chapoutier "Les Becasses" Cote Rotie. When this one was poured into the decater at the same time as the Pavots, all I could smell was black olives and black pepper. 1.5-2 hours later when I poured it in my glass, what I could primarily smell was black olive and black pepper. To be fair, some peat, spice, and herbs were also present. Fairly tannic, but not in a way that shut out everything else. Spicy finish. At the end of dinner, I had to ask about Wine Advocate. "So do you read the notes or look at the ratings?" I already knew the answer. For wines in the cellar that Parker has rated, he has all the points catalogued. Oh, well. We'll take it one dinner at a time.

Eh? This is a bit of a copout. But it would help stem the tide of people who buy vintages and not wines -- albeit a barely perceptible amount. Going more to the point, a bit. About people who buy on vintage.

In February I had both the 91 Lytton Springs and the 91 Lytton Estate ATP. Both were singing and the Estate was still on the way up.

Sorry, never heard of Dorwagen St. Johann Geyserberg Ortega And you probably know enough about Beerenauslese and Rheinhessen.

Your friend poses a tough challenge. Living in the UK, your primary access to chardonnay will be wine from France and Australia. Genrally speaking, they offer a marked contrast in style (although you will find some over the top, buttery, oaky French ones and some sleek Oz ones). The trouble is, for the price your friend is paying for Australian Chardonnay, it will be difficult to find excellent representations of Chablis or other White Burgundy. You can get appellation designated wines, which can be great values from good poducers in good vintages. But when you start with the village, premier cru, or grand cru wines, the price increases expontentially. You can find a "medium" range is some of the wines of Pouilly Fuisse and Pouilly Vinzelles. You will also find attractively priced St. Veran, Rully, and Macon wines, but some of these are hit or miss. But if your friend is into the "experimentation" aspect of it, and wants to pay to experiment, then he should have fun.

I'm hardly one to know what the optimum grain size should be, but I do know that as one grinds the beans more and more oils are realesed. There's probably a point when too much of a good thing occurs.

And that would be across the board for their portfolio of wines, not just the ones designated Langhe. Their Barbaresco normale wines and the Barbaresco single vineyard wines are great wines and great values comparatively, especially for those who prefer a more traditional approach. Jean, have your next bottle with some duck and mushroom risotto.

Burugndy will probably always perform okay. There's enough demand for the very limited supply. And with a pretty good string of vintages now, it won't be hurting. Bordeaux, on the other hand, has huge production levels. It almost has to be a case of the uber collectors wanting first growths and super seconds, and the demand drops geometrically from there. Champagne is a bit of a surprise. But I'm glad because it means I might see more of the stuff and greater variety.

Kriss, Good to see you here. Didn't know you posted here. To answer your question, I don't really think this wine was shut or shutting down at all. But I need to couch that by saying it has been my first experience with Fevre under the son's winemaking. A different way to respond, though, is that there really weren't any "mature" elements in the wine yet.

Maybe a chemist will jump in. But I don't believe TCA is spreadable into bottles that are already corked and capsuled. Certainly I wouldn't think so in a home cellar or even commercial storage cellar such as the one you are using. A winery operation is another matter altogether.

Marcia and I stole a weekend out of town and rented a cabin in North Central Minnesota. We cooked in, even though there were two restaurants in the area I wanted to try. Cooking in was a bit more relxed though. 1999 Luigi Bosca Cabernet Sauvignon, Maipu-Mendoza. This wine was a present from the GM of the Latin American Business Unit of the company I work for. It was also the best wine from South America I've ever had. One could take that comment as "not saying that much," but that would take away from the wine. This wine was more thanjust forward fruit. Actually, it was a little backward at first, and needed about 1.5 hours of air time to open up and round out. There was a nice blackcurrant quality accented with some tobacco, herbs, and even a leathery touch. Texturally, there were ripe and fairly firm tannins. These dominated in the early stages. But, as I said, more fruit was coaxed out over time. Finished rich and lush. 2000 William Fevre Chablis Montmains Premier Cru. I was explaining to my wife how a lot of people could taste this wine next to an oaky, buttery style of chardonnay and not know that they were the same grape. I had no sooner finished when my wife commented "I don't think I like chardonnay." Had it been a bottle of the oak juice we were drinking, I would've taken her right there on the table. But we were drinking a very good chardonnay. Well, on the bright side she's learning what she likes and what she doesn't. This wine was my style of chardonnay. It was steely, flintly, chalky, and full of other minerals. But there was also a lemony, tart apple, and faint pear fruit component to temper the rockiness. Yet, it was a mineral first, fruit second style of wine. And a welcome departure from a producer who in the former generation seemed to have a love affair with oak. This crisp and clean finish seemed to go on forever, leaving a chalky, lemon pith bitterness in a good way.