JohnL

jayt90 I have to jump in--you suggestions IMOP were right on. The dish in question has two elements--butter and lemon. Chardonnay is a fine match given its propensity for richness and lemon notes. A classic example--of a similar pairing is a good white Burgundy with Dover Sole and beurre blanc sauce. Chardonnay is available in many different styles-- Oak seems to be misunderstood--if a wine is too oaky then it is not balanced. (some folks like oaky wines some don't). Oak and Chardonnay have a special affinity--see most fine white Burgundy. In fact in this case--one would do well with a chardonnay that was fermented in Barrel not an "unoaked" version. The wine should have a richness and buttery quality to match the sauce and the crust. Wines lacking in richness and body would be overpowered and taste thin and watery. Also it was noted that the sauce would be flavored with herbs (parsley and possibly tarragon)--again chardonnay is more likely to have herbal notes. So with a nicely made barrel fermented chardonnay you have body and richness, lemon notes, and herbal notes--you should also have enough acidity and complexity. The only problem (for any wine) are the asparagus. On a side note: I am a bit put off by your comment that you use the terms "untrained" and "uncritical" palates. This is pure snobbery. (I am sure you didn't mean to imply that Riesling and Gewurtz and "unoaked chardonnay" are only appreciated by a "select" few). While a nice pinot blanc or a riesling (no one seemed to note what type of riesling would work with the dish) are fine recommendations--a very good case can be made that a well made white Burgundy or a New World Chardonnay that is barrel fermented would be optimal. as for the oakphobes--one can certainly "prefer" wines made in stainless steele (most aromatic varietals seem to do best unoaked) but to suggest that one's preference for unoaked wines indicates a level of sophistication well.....really! conversely, those who seem to enjoy complaining about wines that see barrel time--we are talking most all of Burgundy, and Bordeaux let alone Spain a large part of Italy and the New World--have some splainen to do.

The article lists about a dozen labels that will be changing to varietal listings this year. Given that the ultra-premiums will not be affected, anyone care to place bets (for virtual M&Ms) on which houses will be switching to or including varietals? ← There is absolutely no reason not to put the varietal composition of a wine on the label. Tradition? Silly--many labels have changed over the years--there is no "label tradition." (eg one time Mouton labels had no artwork on them). A big reason European wine sales have suffered is precisely because the consumer does not know what is in the bottle. In fact--many wine geeks and experts would have a hard time offering up the blends of most wines on the market. If there is one piece of information that will provide some idea of what a wine might taste like it is the varietal used to make the wine. There is no reason that a consumer should not be able to compare a Syrah from Australia with a wine from the Rhone. Given that many wine buyers are familiar with Syrah from Australia and the US--France can at least compete by indicating that Syrah is used in many fine wines from the Rhone etc. With the huge market for Sauvignon Blanc why shouldn't the many fine examples from the Loire be part of the mix? Maybe someone will offer up a reason for keeping varietal info off of labels that makes sense--I just can't think of a single one.

In reading some of the background on Alexis Bespaloff, who died recently, thread and obit here I read this article .. and wondered, after learning something new ... Does wine taste better when it can breathe? Or is it better straight out of the bottle, as is contended here? Your experience with this? ← Opening a bottle and leaving it to "breathe" is a bit of mumbo jumbo unsupported by science or anything else. The surface area exposed to air is miniscule. Air--or really oxygen is after a point detrimental to wine--oxidation is a bad thing. It is part of the process by which a wine evolves (ok ages) so it is a factor that can benefit wine's development if controlled. Thus winemakers expend great effort in their attempts to control how and how much oxygen is involved in the wine making process. If rapid exposure to oxygen was a good thing then all the time and effort in stoppering and sealing a bottle of wine would be wasted. Aeration of a wine--either in the decanting process or swirling it in the glass--is primarily done to release the aromas of a wine--tasters do this to help in the evaluation of the wine. Decanting--the main purpose is to enable one to eliminate any sediment from a wine. As for leaving a wine open either in bottle or in a decanter is a controversial practice. There is little science to support claims that aerating a wine will improve it. The key, I believe, is "improve"--it depends upon what one feels is meant by improve. A young wine can be very tannic and difficult to approach--introducing some oxygen can release some aromas/bouquet and attenuate the tannins. Old style Barolos are a good example of where aeration can help one approach a young wine. However, common sense and experience dictates that a wine aged in a sealed bottle over a long period of time will always be preferable to the same wine drunk at an earlier age after spending hours or even days sitting in an open container. In the end--either way-- one ends up with oxidized wine--the trick is--aging slowly and gradually can produce wonderful changes in a wine--the development of secondary aromas and flavors. When one leaves a wine out over hours or days--these secondary aromas and flavors never appear--one may "soften the wine" a bit or make it more approachable--but one is not truly "aging the wine" as if they left it in the cellar for several years or so. I would also say that if the ideal situation is to open a bottle --pour the wine and enjoy it--then having to leave it sitting in open air for hours to derive any enjoyment from it indicates there is something wrong. Either the wine is not "ready" or the taster is "not ready for it."

Curious--Is the Johnson to whom you refer--Hugh? also--where did you see a "100 point rating" by Mr Johnson? thanks!

My point exactly. Conterno tastes like Barolo while Scavino and Vorezio taste like Scavino and Vorezio - vine and vineyard are secondary for them and primary for the Conterno. (I assume you mean Giacomo) This doesn't mean that Scavino and Vorezio aren't delicious and enjoyable, it just means they don't taste like nebbiolo. In fact, almost everything they do is to control some aspect of nebbiolo they think needs adjusting while Conterno is doing everything to expand on the natural character of nebbbiolo. Just the opposite. I also see no reason to bring Parker into this and think for the most part he personally respects terroir in France - with a few notable exceptions. This issue is not globalization but industrialization and elimination of regional characteristics in the pursuit a wine that pleases the highest percentage of consumers. It's easy to find European wine for under $20 that displays terroir, how many New World wines can say that? ← Gee--now you are sounding so ....well...moderate and reasonable! I must say I do agree with everything you are saying. The new world is getting there--I believe that wine makers are just beginning to find terroir. The problem was initially, they tried to emulate European wines rather than simply find what worked best where in terms of varietals and terroirs. I have tasted some very fine wines that are interesting and seem to reflect the complexies that are offered by terroir. I would say that Hanzel and Mount Eden Reserve chardonnays are on a par with a lot of fine chardonnays from France in terms of expressiveness. will they ever rise to the level of a DRC or Leroy Montrachet? I had a revelatory experience a while ago with a number of side by side tastings of Eyrie Reserve Pinot 1985 and The '85 Volnay 60 Ouvrees of Pousse D'Or at ten years of age. The wines were near identical. Early tastings of the Eyrie held no hint at what this wine became. I would say the future is looking good for the New World. In fact I have tasted soem very fine Clare Valley Rieslings and Chardonnays from Australia recently.

No, I am saying that a typical business model does not allow for it. If I understand Randall's musings, any grape will have terroir if allowed to, but it might not be an appealing terroir. The goal of a business is to make wine that appeals. ← That's what I thought. You have found a moment of great lucidity among Randalls meandering tome. The guy does make good wine. By the way--as Mr Graham has experimented with actually putting crushed rocks into his fermentation tanks--how's that for instant terroir!!!! The implications are enormous--why then all wine could taste like it came from the same place!!! I suppose the globalizationista will somehow find a way to tie Robert Parker into it--the guy is just nefarious!

Craig I believe you are taking terroir and attempting to make a political argument. It is all about Robert Parker and globalization. One can discuss terroir--it is a fascinating subject. We can also debate Parker-- though I would suggest you look at what he has written about terroir first. (I think you would be pleasantly suprised) You would also be suprised at how much of the fooferaw is due to petty jealously and silly professional feuding. We are talking a very small handful of writers here. As for the globalization thing this is to me a non issue. basically you are saying that all/most wines taste the same. ok so for eg in Barolo the wines of Voerzio, Conterno (pick one A or G-or take both), Scavino to name a few--all taste the same? really? well if you are arguing terroir then wines made by all these folks should taste the same if they are from the same vinyard--correct? see how convoluted this can get? where does terroir end and the hand of the wine maker begin? where should the line be? also for eg-you seem to be saying that one can dismiss my point about the 1976 tasting because the wine making obliterated the terroir back then? well if so, how about the difficulties one has differentiating todays' wines? I believe you are confusing wine styles and wine making techniques and wine fashion all of which are evolving. yes there are a hundred chardonnays that are similar in style (the sam?--I won't go that far). However you overlook all the other chardonnays available that are definitely not the same in service of your argument! So: Peter Michael and Kistler and Flowers and Au Bon Climat and others oaked and unoaked from various vinyards and micro climates all taste the same? I think not-- all Burgundies are the same? All Bordeaux? Really and it's all Parker's fault? I agree with much of what you (and Randall) are saying about terroir. I am disagreeing with your attempts to make a case about terroir and globalization. That argument holds no water (wine).

those notes were the generic NZ SB notes. i suppose i should have mentioned "grapefruit." there are lots of good choices. to me, creamier oysters don't benefit from bracing acidity as much as the brinier versions. all oysters are not created equal. it's fun mixing and matching wine and oysters, though, especially given the fact that oysters can be so all-over-the-board from flavor and mouthfeel perspectives. ← I couldn't agree more! I am working on a goosberry vinaigrette (maybe just a hint of cat pee) --should create the perfect match for SB!!!!

Ivan Could you be specific? Are you saying that there are no wines from the new world that express any terroir?

You forgot to mention the merest soupçon of gooseberry and insouciant traces of grapefruit in the nose... ← funny--I have a sneaking suspicion that very very few (if any) Americans know what a gooseberry is let alone experienced the smell or taste of one. ← everything i know about fruit i learned from wine. there's very little exaggeration in that comment. ← but you didn't mention anything about fruit in your note! ps although i have enjoyed many oysters with SB my first choices for pairing with bivalves would be something drier and more minerally--Muscadet or Chablis.

I like many of Graham's wines--he has never been known to place any emphasis on "place." Just where is "Cigar Volante" or "Vin Du Glacier" from anyway? and I challenge anyone to blindly note any specific grape site as a source. This is not to say that graham's wines are not interesting--I believe they are. The real problem for me, is that terroir is not some mystical notion-it is a premise that makes a lot of sense--at the basest level we all would agree that every grape is from somewhere! but--while terroir and wine styles can make for an interesting discussion too often it is brought up by people who have an ax to grind or are making some sort of political statement. If one wants a rational and informative review of the current state of things re: terroir then I would suggest a look at the Oxford Companion to Wine--some interesting developments are in progress. But let's also remember that terroir needs to be discussed in perspective--1976 some experienced tasters could not differentiate terroirs thousands of miles apart. And a lot of folks can'ty seem to pick out the old world or new world wines in blind tastings. Let's also remember that two adjoining vinyards in say Alsace can produce two ver different tasting wines. I would also posit that people like Nossiter and to a lesser extent Graham are actually muddling the concept of terroir by putting forth agenda laden arguments rife with confusing notions and sometimes outright inaccuracies and half truths. I would have to ask--what "points war?" What "divide?" The truth is there are more different wines from more places in more styles on retailers shelves today than ever before. Those Italian wines mentioned were not even available to most drinkers just a short time ago. There is simply no evidence to support a lot of the hoo ha! as for Bio dynamics--where is the crisis? Just a few years ago there were few--if any--bio dynamically produced wines. I am still looking for an agreed upon clear definition of just what constitutes a bio dynamic wine. But-anyway--there seems to be a lot more of them around. All this talk about extraction and ripeness and alcohol levels is too often a smokescreen for a political argument. (these could be and are interesting topics for discussion--if we could jettison the silly politics). by the way: Where are these folks when Amarone is discussed? So I ask--where's the big debate? where's this war for the points? what points? what war? It is curious that we would turn to Graham (yes he is entertaining) when we have wonderfully more clearly written and much more accurate reviews of terroir from a number of people (Oxford is one, Anthony Hanson does a good job too).

You forgot to mention the merest soupçon of gooseberry and insouciant traces of grapefruit in the nose... ← funny--I have a sneaking suspicion that very very few (if any) Americans know what a gooseberry is let alone experienced the smell or taste of one.

Could you elaborate just a bit on that contamination example you offer? also-- you are on to something in that there should be a distinction between "artisinal" and "organic." I do agree about the motivation, though in the end--there is no guarantee that the final product is, in fact, better qualitatively. ← There is not much to elaborate on. You're doing a regular vineyard walk-though and you look around you and all the leaves are curling up and dying. When you see it, it is very clear what the problem is, but almost impossible to prove whom is responsible. True there is no guarantee on quality from an organic label, but when it comes to wine, few producers who practice organic agriculture put an "organic" label on their wines. While many organic wine growers farm this way partially because of the environment, I believe most do it as they believe they will make better wines. I think the same is true for bio-dynamic farmers. ← Thanks Actually I was hoping you would explain what "2-4D contamination" is exactly. Your post is interesting and I am not up on the technical problem you noted.

good points! First--trends and "hipness" are phenomena that are not created. Marketers have spent billions in mostly futile attempts to create trends. As I see it, what happens is a small group of influentials tries something and a larger group of people look to the influencers and try the same thing--if they like it the popularity grows and wallah! You got a trend or a fad etc. I don't believe that people are sheep who just mindlessly mimic other people (worse--do whatever a writer tells them to do). Influencers and the press have a valid function--to alert people to new things so that one can try it--most folks simply do not have the time (or inclination) to for eg--taste every wine from every varietal and find things they like (or dislike). So they read the wine column in the local paper and see a writer touting the benefits of say--South African wines etc. --they go out and buy a South African wine and try it..... I know of few people --if any--who will drink a wine they do not like just because of--well--because of any reason. What I do object to, is how writers and critics will set up a straw man--they pick out the worst examples of something and use these examples to denigrate it--for eg Chardonnay--yes, there are and were examples of lousy chardonnay wines--there are and were many examples of absolutely wonderful wines made from this varietal--these were conveniently overlooked so the press could "lead" us to the promised land of--say--Sauvignon Blanc. Now they take SB out of perspective and tout its anti chardonnay virtues. The end result was mixed. It is a good thing that many people tried sauvignon blanc--the wines are fine and have many good attributes. many people obviously agreed because SB became "in fashion." The bad thing is Sauvignon Blanc was oversold--the grapes limitations were glossed over. Even worse is that to sell us on trying SB, the press did a disservice to chardonnay-- The truth is--chardonnay is a non aromatic varietal capable of making a wide range of types and styles of wine many of which are among the greatest white wines man has ever made. Sauvignon Blanc is very aromatic varietal that can with the very best wine making can produce very fine white wines. Both these grapes can produce wonderful wines at all levels and one would be well served to enjoy each for what it is and can be. As for the Slate piece at hand, I agree with your comments about the style of the writing though I am not so put off as you by the "puerile" stuff. I do think that the best thing that can come from the article is if everyone just stepped back a bit and thought. If one enjoys sauvignon blancs that's good. There is a reason that SB is enjoyed by so many drinkers--they like it. It is likable. There is nothing wrong with being one of a crowd. remember--it is hip to be different but it is also hip to be square (ok Huey Lewis is no Dylan but he was on to something here). But--what is needed here is some perspective and a dose of reality--this comes from thought. (I think). Anyway--let's appreciate SB for what it is and let's maybe look at other whites--notably chardonnay for what it really is and can be. And most importantly, let's enjoy them both.

Anyone else have the same, or similar, reactions to sauvignon blancs? Or do you find many sauvignon blancs are quite suitable to your taste? Care to elaborate for us? ← I have to say, initially, I was only getting a portion of the piece in question when I clicked on the link (a glitch on my end I assume). Now that I have read the entire article I am convinced even more so, that the writer is being provocative. The piece is designed to provoke some thought and yes, some debate. His motivation? Well he seems to be looking at currently fashionable wines and some unfashionable wines and reassessing them. The piece in question is his look at sauvignon blanc. Years ago the press and some wine geeks decided that the most popular wines--chardonnay among them-- were really just for the masses and began touting new and "undiscovered" wines like sauvignon blanc. They began to denigrate chardonnay and merlot (consciously overlooking their positive attributes) in favor of "new" and "exciting" wines we--the huddled masses should be drinking as well. By the way--this is what writers do--attempt to influence us. One of these wines was sauvignon blanc. I remember the relentless attacks on chardonnay--too sweet, over oaked, insipid, characterless, charmless and yadda, yadda, yadda. (merlot, among others, got the same treatment). This preceded glowing prose telling us we shopuld all be exploring the wonderful world of--undiscovered white wines, among which they (the cognoscenti) have found --sauvignon blanc. This was the anti chardonnay, the wine we should all be drinking (at least if we wanted to be "in the know"). Hence the trend in sauvignon blanc drinking which, as I see it, is now being attacked (ironically, by many of the same cognoscenti who were touting it at one time) in favor of--well you probably can guess it--chardonnay! This is how the world of wine writing works--it is a fact of life. Everyone wants to be "hip" or "in the know" whether or not we admit it. (this is why we have such phenomena as trends. Things go in and out of fashion. As Huey Lewis--interestingly his band is the "News" so presciently notes "it's hip to be square." So once a wine (or a hemline) moves from "too cool for school" into the "everybody's doin it" category the cognoscenti led by the writers of the day, has to find another "undiscovered" gem or they can revisit the past and tout the uncool and unhip as way of the future. This is how we get "retro" trends. I am so cool as to be wearing ( and drinking) what is totally uncool--amazing! Plaid and chardonnay are back--hipper than ever!!!! The critics ranted and raved about oak "you can't taste the grapes..." Well now they have tasted the grapes and decided they don't like em so much--watch the oak barrel come back too! (hint--it never went away). Mr Steinberger looks at SB and sees what was always there--this is a grape that is limited in its potential to make truly great wines. That is not to say that is can not produce very good wines or wines that are pleasant to drink (for many people). Mr Steinberger, I believe, goes a bit overboard in condemning the grape, but this is, I think, just a journalistic gimmick to slap the reader upside the head --"hey wake up and pay attention here! I am saying something important that will change your life." If you don't believe me that the the critical bandwagon is beginning to move again (this time it seems to be rolling backward to the past)--well there's a thread here about the Wall Street Journal recently touting--God in heaven forbid--MERLOT!!! It won't be easy--they did such a good job trashing chardonnay and merlot that they will have to summon all their powers to change our minds--I know for me I will listen (read) but I still say --"I ain't drinkin no f--kin Merlot!"

The authors you describe are definitely the duo (married) from the Wall Street Journal. John and Dorothy (Brecher --I believe).

I think Steinberger was arguing that most sauvignon blancs do not provide the levels of complexity that other varietals do. Say, for eg--chardonnay and riesling-- to select a non aromatic and an aromatic varietal for comparison. He seems to be using the very best a varietal can achieve as his criteria. Truth is, he is right. I do believe he goes overboard in dismissing sauvignon blanc--it certainly has its pleasures and on a rare occasion it approaches greatness. It (SB) does not improve with age for the most part--it is what it is, and that ain't bad. I suppose it depends on how one defines "great."

I wasn't so put off by the tone--the piece was provocative. I believe the writer was merely making a point that sauvignon blanc is often over rated. It is an aromatic varietal that offers more excitement in the nose than on the palate and many (writers and geeks) in their attempt to flee chardonnay declaring it passe touted sauvignon blanc as one varietal to which the "hip" were into--the silly "anything but chardonnay" (ABC) movement was thus born. (today the "cognoscenti" are "into" other whites --the more obscure the varietal the hipper the wine. These folks do serve a good purpose--they help introduce people to different wines. The truth is, sauvignon blanc (IMOP) is a wine that can be wonderfully refreshing to drink--the nose can be beguiling. True, on the palate the wine is rarely the equal of the nose--the wines are simple--and when well made, are clean, crisp and straight forward. They are what they are. Rarely does one "savor" a sauvignon blanc but the wine can be quite savory to drink. The writer should have made clearer that there are two contrasting styles of the wine from grassy and herbaceous to fruity/citrussy, tropical and otherwise and the very best can offer a mineral note as well.--these wines do pair up well with many foods. The writer also neglected to note that there are a few examples of SB that do approach the greatness of chardonnay in terms of complexity etc. The whites of Bordeaux--my favorite is Domaine De Chevalier blanc (I have a few bottles of 1981 left) which age very well and offer some incredible drinking. Of course most of these Bordeaux are blends (semillon for age ability etc). Also worth noting are some Loire examples--Didier Dagueneau produces some remarkable sauvignon blancs among a few others. But, by and large, the piece in Slate pretty much sums up the obvious. Sauvignon Blanc for the most part is a pretty basic enjoyable wine that doesn't require too much intellectual pondering--with some good food and some great conversation it certainly won't get in the way. It does not reach the "heights" that chardonnay or riesling can attain but if one doesn't ask it to, it can provide a lot of drinking pleasure. Funny, though, how the many of the "cognoscenti" are "rediscovering" chardonnay and merlot I have always thought that these folks were always chasing their own tails--wait long enough and they will come full circle! The rest of us have just continued to enjoy different varietal wines satisfied with what they are not agonizing over what they are not.

Quite an interesting -- to this tyro -- dicussion. In here, beginning page 23, following the lengthy parody of Dante's Inferno (called "Vinferno," natch). ← O'l Randal has put rocks in his wines--- now clear evidence he has rocks in his head!

Could you elaborate just a bit on that contamination example you offer? also-- you are on to something in that there should be a distinction between "artisinal" and "organic." I do agree about the motivation, though in the end--there is no guarantee that the final product is, in fact, better qualitatively.

Not my business to speak for JohnL but as an observer, I took his comment on Arsenic in a common, rather than the chemists', sense of "organic," viz. naturally occurring. (I'm not a chemist but do have some formal training in it and if I recall, JohnL is a physician, therefore has some too.) He was making a broader point I think, a classic one: some nasty hazards to humanity are all-natural. Isinglass's significance (as far as I can tell from running into it in many older writings on food these past 30 yrs) may reflect its venerability, not just its material properties. I agree about the foundation-building education, this is an incessant problem, I could tell some stories too. On to the original subject: Some of you may remember when Fetzer vineyards in Mendocino County, California, was owned by the Fetzer family. Part of the firm's claim to fame then, cited regularly in wine writing, was organic farming. It helped put Fetzer, the firm, on the map as well as promote the organic angle in California. When driving nearby I saw the extent of Fetzer plantings adjacent the highway then, which may possibly have exposed the plants to more than usual exhaust-borne pollutants -- no real health hazard to my knowledge, but illustrating, just as JohnL did, the further factors that enter even with organic farming. ← Thanks Max-- I knew this would cause a bit of confusion-which I realized after I had shut down the computer and left for the country. You are correct--I used the examples in a broad context--not "organic" but rather "naturally occurring." I am not a doctor though--for the record.

← Is there anything more outrageous than snarky wine writers who can't resist taking shots at wines they "hate" even though the comments have nothing to do with the topic at hand? ok now that I have gotten that out of the way.... The first problem with "organic" is defining it--arsenic and potassium cyanide are "organic." (so is sulphur dioxide and crude oil). Secondly, the use of "organic" often has nothing to do with producing a good end product--it is some sort of altruistic /religious thing both for the producer and the consumer. It also is used as a marketing gimmick to garner higher prices or to leverage a product against non organic competition. That said--there is nothing really wrong with wanting to be a good citizen. Just that the "organic" movement is not just about being a good citizen and good farming practices toward the goal of producing better quality products. It is a "movement" whose lofty goals are often dubious and go well beyond good food or wine. it deserves the same scrutiny as any "movement." In the end--to me--it is more important what is in the glass. The wines of leroy and Zind Humbrecht are certainly amazing--I do not know if their quality is enhanced or a direct result of the "organic" farming and vinification techniques or not. I have had good "organic" chickens and bad one's--at the moment I actually prefer basic non "organic" supermarket chickens having tired of rubbery flavorless "organic" free range samples. So where do we come to agreement on what exactly is "organic."? and How do we sort out all the non quality related issues--the marketing hype the near religious zealotry? I simply don't--I just buy the products that offer good flavor--that I like to eat and drink.

The more things change..... The vast majority of wine is (and has always been) made for drinking immediately after the vintage. Most people do not buy wine to cellar (most people do not have wine cellars). Years ago there were plenty of marketing efforts--from Mouton putting artwork on their labels (with folks like Kenwood following suit) to Mouton Cadet, to Blue NUN and the rest of the Portugese wines in crocks. Riuniti, California Jug wines etc etc etc. And that--flavored wine craze--Ripple--Passion Pink and.... Then there was the white zinfandel phenomena. Marketing has been going on since the French devised the Bordeaux rankings.(maybe even before). Today there is more competition--not long ago there were few or no wines available from the Pacific Northwest, or New Zealand or South Africa (apartheid etc) Australia, South America (I am sure I am missing a country or two). The selection from Europe was much smaller and less varied--look at Italy and Spain today vs ten or twenty years ago. Even California was basically about jug wines and Chardonnay and Cabernet look at the variety today. I believe that the sheer magnitude of competition for drinkers--casual to serious is simply amplifying the marketing that has always been around. It is more sophisticated--market segmentation etc. and wine makers/sellers et al are being forced to be smarter in their efforts--wine selling was much more passive long ago. Today--wine marketers are competing for casual drinkers with a large and more savvy beer industry (the wine folks are catching up)--here in the US. In France and much of Europe--the decline in local consumption is forcing wine makers to compete on a growing world market that no longer accepts their wines at face value as representing good quality. It is a rapidly changing world today. There is literally, something for every type of wine drinker--every market segment, if you will. Some wines will be winners some losers and consumers will always come out ahead!

That's precisely where this came from, a premier cru, Domaine Maratray-Dubreuil. Recommended, as I mentioned, by someone I trust. Hence my questions about cellaring and decanting--was it me or the wine?? Well, I have another bottle, I'll just have to try again. And keep reading and tasting. ← hi I suppose I am a bit of an iconoclast. First--the information ie wine you note is a bit confusing--there is a Debreuil Fontaine who produces Pernand Vergelesses. There is also a Bonneau du Martray (known for their Corton red and Corton Charlemagne white. In Savigny there is a premier cru: vergelesses. I have not heard of a Domaine Maratray-Dubreuil (though I can certainly see one existing given the two well known names). Also you do not mention the vintage. important with Burgundy). What disappointed you? What were your expectations? on to the iconoclasm! Burgundy is pretty simple. IMOP the confusion comes in when one becomes immersed in all the places. First--we are dealing with the pinot noir grape (and chardonnay for the whites) one would be advised to have a little understanding of these two grapes. Second--given the difficulties in growing pinot noir--vintages are important (yes there are always exceptions to any rule re: wine). Third--very generally speaking--grand and premier crus are capable of producing the best wines. Note the use of "capable."--which brings us to the most important key to understanding Burgundy. The producer. In this regard Burgundy is the same as any wine produced anywhere-- Given a good vinyard site, and a good vintage --one would expect a good wine--one would more often than not be wrong! My advice would be to try different producers and find one who is making the best wine no matter where it happens to come from. Several posters here mentioned some. I would look at negociants first as they are easier to locate in shops and each produces a range of Burgundies and importantly, most have a "house style" of winemaking. Jadot and Drouhin are two of the largest. I would mention Alex Gambal (he's actually from the Boston area and is producing some interesting wines at reasonable prices) as well as Bouchard and Faively also Dominique Laurent. there are many others. You will also find good Domain producers as well. Find which styles of wine you like. Try to taste a villages wine and a premier cru wine from the same location, vintage and the same producer and see if you can note differences in quality. Always try wines from good vintages--where pinot noir fruit is ripe. Be careful of generalizations or absolutes about Burgundy. Approach the locations carefully and in perspective.--the truth is too much is made of where the vinyard is located-- here's an example--you will hear or read about "textbook clos Vougeot or textbook Chambertin"--I would simply ask what textbook? who wrote it? and when was it published? One would be hard pressed to say what exactly Clos Vougeot should taste like given the myriad producers and all the different styles. This is not to say there are not discernible differences between say Clos Vougeot and, say,Chambertin, only that these differences are not as easy to discern or define as some would have you believe. One would (as another poster notes) find some differences between villages wines and premier crus for example. The fact is Burgundy is no different than wine produced anywhere else in the world. The most important entity for the consumer should always be who made the wine. also the vintage--more important with pinot noir than other grape varietals given the fruit's fickle nature and susceptibility to the vagaries of mother nature. The cru system is reliable only in that the French have put a lot of time and effort into it and it offers some indication into the potential of a vinyard location. It is purely hypothetical but should not be ignored. I always try to remember that Burgundy really isn't the big mystery that many are convinced it is. It can be fascinating. it is pinot noir (not a bad idea to explore the new world either). It (Burgundy) is expensive mainly because so little is produced and of that relatively small quantity, precious few producers are making truly great wine. When Burgundy is at its very best it can be an incredible experience--but really there are few truly "great" wines produced from any grape anywhere and they are usually quite expensive. --at some point try to taste a grand cru or premier cru wine from a good vintage from the DRC, or Leroy or Rousseau or JF Mugnier, Roumier, Comte Georges de Vogue, Dugat Py or Angerville. (there are a number of others). most importantly--it is--in the end--wine! Cheers!!!!!

I would add 1990 to your list of outstanding vintages.