JohnL

Vinfidel--you should read the Australia issue of the Wine Advocate. Under "Current realities and myths surrounding Australian wines"--he makes a case for the diversity of Australian wines--including unoaked chardonnays and rieslings. also--grange hermitage--IMOP is not a "blockbuster" but rather an elegant wine that with age resembles a fine Bordeaux--another myth. Some Torbreck wines are very big scaled--not all. You are on to something with your "thin and watery" comment. Often those touting a wine that is thin, not concentrated , overly acidic (out of balance)or from unripe fruit will use the terms"elegant" "terroir expressive" "finesse" ad nauseum. If one disagrees with the application of these terms then that person is said to "not appreciate" the style or not to "get it"--one has to keep things straight here. A wine is either well made or it isn't--this is not subjective. It has nothing to do with "liking" a wine. Anyone who would claim that a flaw or defect is an attribute to be prized is a shill. The argument that one man's thin watery wine is another's rich and concentrated wine is so ridiculous as to be absurd--there is room for subjectivity in this world but we are not living in wonderland. also you are propegating another myth about Parker. "He doesn't appreciate Italy or Germany or Byurgundy etc"--suggest you at least read him on these areas. "The World's greatest Wine estates" was just published and those areas are covered in detail. The fact that he has enlisted help with the Wine Advocate indicates no lack of appreciation or knowledge--where's the evidence?--rather he is approaching his sixties.

Yes, we are really talking about a stuffing made out of chopped up White Castle hamburgers. And you can use the frozen versions, or the fresh ones (without pickle or ketchup). I used frozen ones for the one made above. ← Arten't White castle burgers basically made of onions, beef, cereal? and aren't a lot of stuffing recipes comprised of--meat, cereal or grain of some sort and onions? and isn't Jello similar to aspic? are we really that far from 'gourmet" cooking here?

"The ability to offer intense aromas and flavors without heaviness. .....wineries in the New World (especially in Australia and California) can easily produce wines that are oversize, bold, big, rich, but heavy. Europe's finest wineries, with many centuries more experience, have mastered the ability to obtain intense flavors without heaviness...." That is Parker's opinion as to a factor in what makes a wine "great." I would argue that the "high point scorers" are not fruit driven blockbusters, rather they are wines that meet Parker's criteria for what makes a wine great. The fruit driven blockbuster thing is a piece of conventional wisdom applied by his critics. From Andrew Jefford's book "The New France."----- Compare the following two tasting notes for white wines from the same producer: "The first wine is a fragrant effort exhibiting scents of tropical fruits and orange rind, crisp acidity, and a lively medium bodies citrusy finish." The second wine is a "restrained, well deliniated white..which represents the essence of granite liquour,There is no real fruit character, just glycerine alcohol and liquid stones." The first wine costs $24 a bottle. The second wine costs $440 a bottle. We are comparing Chapoutier's 1999 Crozes Hermitage Blanc Les Meysonniers and the same producer's Hermitage Blanc L'Ermite. The tasting notes are both by Robert parker (the fruity wine by the way scores 84, the unfruity one 93-95). How is it that Parker has long championed Beaujolais? If he "only likes big wines." I doubt anyone would find many "blockbusters" here. How about Muscadet? these are not blockbuster wines yet Parker has written highly of them. What about his big scores for mountain grown cabernets?--these are cool climate wines. One could go on and on just quoting Parker's reviews and tasting notes. I do believe that Parker does lapse into "wine porn" and over exhuberance in his prose. Critics often latch on to "buzzwords." The Australian wine Halliday and Parker have issues over is selling for about fifty bucks a bottle--Parker merely tasted it and is saying that in his opinion it is not worth it and why. Halliday is a salesman/flack for the Australian wine industry. Who has credibility here? A final (I hope) note on those "big blockbuster wines" that Parker gives the high scores to. Lafitte? a big block buster? Cheval Blanc? Pichon Lalande? where are the arguments when Parker rates these wines highly? How many have tasted Screaming Eagle, Pride, Colgin, Mondavi PR, Harlan? all these get high scores yet they are all incredibly different wines different from the Bordeaux he rates highly and the Burgundies from Leroy and D' Angerville Rhones from Ogier and Chapoutier and Guigal, Loire wines from Baumard, and Dagganeau and Cuilleron --all these wines are:" blockbusters?" Really? One can disagree with Parker--he is a critic and writer--but where is the cogent and factual based argument?

Here here! Vinfidel. I too am sick of this silliness. There are two elements at play here: First--the wine press. (mostly a handful of British writers) who just can't seem to be able to deal with Parker. They can't ignore him they just have to snipe and nit pick--a result of petty professional jealousy. Second the trade. When Parker is critical of a wine or wines--seems that often the trade or the winemaker has to respond. Fair enough, Parker is a critic afterall--it is his job to evaluate wines and report on them. But the response usually consists of an attack on Parker via some ridiculous conventional wisdom like "Parker only likes big wines...." or even more ridiculous: "Parker doesn't appreciate wines with finesse..." Yadda Yadda Yadda. It is a shame because Jancis Robinson is a fine, knowledgeable writer and advocate for wine. she needs to "get over" Parker. as for Halliday. He is what he is. He is an advocate for the Australian wine industry. He should never be confused for a critic or consumer advocate. Having said this--I have enjoyed reading him--he knows Australian wine. I would love to see the tasting notes for all the wines in these massive industry tastings--I would be shocked if anything tasted was rated or assessed objectively and fairly. Halliday goes beyond basic foot in mouth logic--his argument makes no sense whatsoever. It is also amusing that he decides to go after Matt Kramer--if anyone is a counterpoint to Parker it would be Kramer--so both these writers are wrong about Australia? Parker, in the October issue of his newsletter recommends 952 wines and writes glowingly of what Australia is achieving. He literally raves about Australia and notes many diverse styles produced--including "streamlined, restrained wines from South Australia....." He also lauds the "unoaked Chardonnays" and rieslings.... He is critical of the wines of Yarra, noting it is the "darling of the Australian wine press." He provides his reasoning and notes for Mount Mary (he tasted five vintages and rated only one higher than 80 points). So there it is! Halliday can't handle the opinion of a wine writer and critic over one wine. The British wine press--Robinson, Decanter, are almost gleeful in reporting this "feud."--it is a tempest in a teapot. Enough already.

Stop--I am choking here! This is the single best retort I have found anywhere on the net! by the way --to bring things full circle" isn't this thread dealing with a British response to an American cookbook--and aren't the Brits those wonderful folks who came up with "Jellied EEL"??????????? by the way--I am an Anglophile--I have a complete set of "Carry On" flicks... and I love Fawlty Towers and Benny Hill but I draw the line at Potted Shrimp.

I will point out that most people who live in Texas for any length of time, from thereon generally refer to themselves as a Texan - deservedly so. ← Ah, see, in New York, we have standards for this sort of thing... ← Most New Yawkas are from someplace else! but then--everybody gotta be from someplace!

Just take it from Madonna! ← I just saw an interview with her--Isn't she "British?"

Was this on todays great chefs of the world? Would love to see it! Thanks for the heads up. ← It is actually on the "Discovery Home Channel" I am in New York City (CH114 on Time Warner Cable). I checked my guide and the show is being repeated at 2:30 PM and 5:30PM--Today!

Duh. (a long-term sore point for me personally, from back in my political hack days) But, anyone who recalls Bush's pork-rind eatin', Lee Greenwood playin' and cowboy boot wearin' 1988 presidential campaign knows that he certainly branded himself as a Texan and not as a New Englander. ← He certainly has indicated he sees himself as a Texan. That's how he should be viewed. I suppose he could go either way! There are plenty of people buying expensive western clothing and listening to country western music here in New York City! People love to "reveal" that Ralph Lauren is just a Jewish kid from the Bronx as if he is somehow "not a real WASP."--some sort of poseur. But hey this is America! We can be anyone we want to be!

I doubt that by studying the pages of this "cookbook" we are going to learn anything about the Bush family. I am often uncomfortable with the gossip element induced by these tomes. whether the subject is Bill Clinton, Elvis, the Carter family (remember Billy?) or the Bush family. What one does learn is something about how people react to their preconceived notions about these famous people. Books about family recipes and or family pets etc are not the equivalent of well researched biographies (and even those are suspect). So--I prefer to deal with the recipes at their face value. I must admit that I have a fondness for some foods from my childhood: Creamed Chipped Beef Campbells Tomato soup with ritz crackers crumbled into it Spam--baked in the oven with pinneapple rings on top Stouffers Mac and Cheese Swansons TV dinners-especially the fried chicken Meatloaf with mushroom gravy made from cream of mushroom soup PBJ on Wonder bread Rice R Roni and so on..... These were comfort foods. In the fifties and sixties it was what's for dinner! I also do not recall many overweight kids then--we were out playing all sorts of sports (without adults around) and physical games. I believe we were a lot healthier than today's kids. (I would also point out that the Bush family seems to be in pretty good physical condition). Today we seem to be obsessed with food and nutrition--yet we seem to have as many or more problems than earlier generations. I, for one, am not sure things were quite so bad in the fifties nor am I sure that things are so much better today. It's all relative!

I'm in the middle of reading a preview copy of "The Perfectionist" about Bernard Loisseau's suicide because of his losing a Michelin star. I continue to be astonished how much power this publication has. ← Amazing--I was reading this thread and out of the corner of my eye, I noticed that "The great Chef's of The World" was on my TV (Discovery Channel)--there was Bernard Loisseau, preparing a dish from his restaurant. It was a sole sauteed in goose fat and served with mashed potatoes and a vinagrette. Loisseau was animated and engaging as he and a sous chef prepared the dish for the camera. What was interesting is how they trimmed and fileted the cooked fish (crispy brown) off the bones while piping hot. This dish was incredibly simple yet-the use of goosefat and the artful filet technique rendered a dish that looked absolutely delicious. The fish --a beautiful golden brown and the three scoops of potatoes with a bit of vinagrette drizzled on the plate left the kitchen with no further garnish. It was for me-one of the most enticing preparations I have ever seen. This guy was brilliant--I wish I could have experienced his food. A great loss.

No argument here! I think that one should assess a wine on its own merits. Comparisons are hard to avoid. As a rule German pinot noir is made from grapes grown in a cool climate. These wines tend toward higher acidity and less ripeness than those from warmer climes. It would make more sense, and be more fair to compare German Pinot to other pinot's from similar cool climates--say red Sancerre. if one must make a comparison. These wines have their positive attributes when well made. Germany has made pinot noir for a long long time--just recently they have made attempts to improve the quality of the grapes (clonal selections) and the vinification techniques. It is fair to say that they have probably not yet made their finest wines.

well I am sure someone out here will respond with the "perfect" matches to those items! actually--the dominance of those flavors is important. a lot of wines do well with Asian foods which contain ginger and capsicum. For really spicy foods I usually prefer beer. Umami? well a lot of wines work well--wines themselves can be quite 'savory." Actually--you are on to something because one must recognize the dish's flavor profile. as well as cooking technique--a roast chicken vs a grilled chicken vs poached chicken etc and the dominent flavors. say a roast chicken flavored with herbs or lemon vs a roast chicken flavored with spices and ginger etc. I recommended this in another thread but "Wine Style" by Mary Ewing Mulligan and Ed McCarthy was just released. It is IMOP the best book anywhere re: working with wine's flavor profiles and matching with food.

I'm the one who likes German pinots on this thread I had a recent bottle of Kesslers Cuvee Max from DRC Clones and found it quite tasty and complex. Not exacty 10-15.00 bottles but what good Pinots are nowadays. I'd take 1 bottle of the Kessler over 6 bottles of Harley Ostini but that's just my taste. They may never reach the level of success of other regions but they are really passionate about what they're trying to achieve. ← I am curious as to why you compared the Kessler to Hartley Ostini? I don't doubt that a few Germans are passionate about making pinot noir. But one must face the facts. Pinot Noir is extremely difficult to grow and make good wine from. That means it is an expensive endeavor. I believe the Germans may be attempting to climb a very steep mountain here. Everybody would love to make a pinot noir like La Tache and up to now, only the DRC has succeeded. In the end, Germany is destined to be known, and rightly so, for what some select white wine grapes can achieve from their soils and climate.

Gordon: not ALL pinot noirs from Germany are thin and uninteresting. In fact I would argue that even though they are, for the most part, "Thin" they can, in fact, be "interesting." Yes-there are a small number of producers who are applying Burgundian techniques --a recent development. Clonal selection is still something the Germans are wrestling with. But what they can't change is the climate. The fact is, Germany is one of the greatest white wine producing countries on earth. They have made the most from their climate and soils. The question re: Pinot Noir, is what is the potential? I think they are still attempting to answer that question. (many countries the US included are still trying to answer that question!). I think it is safe to say, though, that Germany will never be a major source of fine pinot noir. We will likely, continue see a few on shelves here and there in the US and they will probably remain curiosities. Ther very few top producers may, actually produce some very fine examples of pinot noir (weather permitting) but again, these will be the exceptions (there are always exceptions to the rule). So while it would be wrong to "dismiss" German pinot noir out of hand, I do believe that the generalities applied to them are based in fact.

Here Here !! Thin and uninteresting. I'd rather drink beaujolais! ← Germany produces a quite large quantity of Pinot Noir or Spatburgunder. Because of the climate and difficulty in ripening-- German Pinot Noirs tend to be light bodied and lightly flavored. They are usually higher in acidity than pinots from warmer climates. Though they can be interesting and pleasant with food: They are also quite expensive. It is doubtful that they will ever be popular here as an import for the above reasons. so You are not really "missing" something.

Your taste buds are not unique. We are all equipped to discern salty, sour, sweet, etc. (excepting a physiological/medical problem). However your "taste" that is, what you like or dislike, is individual. (though you will find no matter what your taste there likely will be others who share it). When pairing food and wine what one is looking for in the wine is the flavor profile. That is, is the wine tannic or softer, oaky, not oaky, high in acidity or low, balanced, light bodied or full bodied --is the wine fruity or more mineral, what are the flavors? etc etc etc. In the past, one could take a number of approaches--geographical, or varietal etc. That is one could recommend, say, a Chardonnay. Today--chardonnay is produced in so many styles/flavor profiles that recommendation is really useless. One also could recommend a French Chardonnay--again, even in France within specific regions, chardonnay is made in different styles. What is most important is to recommend the type of varietal--for eg--a big oaky chardonnay --like a ...... The trick to wine and food pairing, I think, is learn to approach wine by the flavor profile and then be able to walk into a wine store and ask: "I am making a roast leg of lamb--I need a nice balanced red wine with some body--what do you suggest?"--then try the wine with the lamb and make a note as to how it works for you. There are thoudands of wines that fit the flavor profile and all taste differently--that's where your own preferences come in. As for the "fetish" Americans can have re: food and wine pairing (some Americans) this is perfectly understandable. We have no history of wine making and regional cooking. That is, unlike Europe where regional wines and cuisines developed over time. Our cuisines are derivitive--they come from places other than the continental US. Our wine industry also developed independantly of any particular cuisine-it sometimes mimiced wine produced elsewhere in the world. The nice thing or advantage we have is that many different wines are available here (imports and domestic) as well as a wide range of cuisines (domestic and ethnic). We are not "restricted" to chianti with pasta. (though that is a good match). So while it is more difficult to pair wines and foods--the range of opportunity is staggering today, we have so many more options. Europe is "opening up" as well--the Frenchman in the Savoie who ate the local food with the locally produced wines can now select a wine from/made not only elsewhere in France but in the world. The French and the Italians and the Germans et al are increasingly facing our happy dilemma--what wine with what food?

You actually started off well. Karen MacNeil's wine bible is one of the best written for what it does. That is it provides a nice easy to read guide to wines of the world by region. Just this past weekend I picked up a new book (just out): WINE STYLE---by Mary ewing Mulligan and Ed McCarthy. This book is is IMOP the single best book covering wine appreciation on the market. why? Wine education has traditionally been based upon learning about wine by visiting each country and region that produces wine. In fact, the International Wine center here in the US is headed up by Ms Ewing- Mulligan.--they are probably the foremost certification program for amateurs and professionals in the world and are part of the Wine Education Trust which runs the Master of Wine program. This traditional education involves a large amount of information--AOC's wine laws grape varietals, growing and winemakein techniques etc etc etc.--the approach involves a lot of tedium. and the info is delivered in an academic dry style--The Wine Bible is the best of the lot--because MacNeil writes well and the book is more conversational in tone. What " Wine Style" does is approach the wine world not by country or region but rather by the various styles of wine --it is geared to the actual drinking and enjoyment of wine--the subtitle is: "using your senses to explore and enjoy wine" This is not just a "beginners" book but rather a book loaded with important information--it is the approach that is different from most other wine books. It organizes wines by flavor profile then explains why the and how the wines are made in that style covering wine making techniques grapes varietals etc. and various countries and wine making regions. (other books may have tried this approach with varying degrees of success--none has done it as completely or as well). it is really cutting edge because the world of wine is moving away from the emphasis on location toward styles of wine these locations produce--it is a matter of emphasis. I have been reading about and studying wine for thirty years now and I wish that this book had been available when I started! Someone else recommended the Oxford Companion to wine--this is an encyclopedia that is a good reference book. also a good wine atlas--I own many and I believe the most user friendly is the one by Oz Clarke--"The New Wine Atlas"--these last two are good additions/foundations to a wine library--they are expensive--and I honestly believe that if you read the Wine Bible and Wine Style you do not need much else at the moment. The Wine Bible contains much of the information they do. There are two good books that cover the two different philosophical approaches to wines today; Robert Parker's: "The world's Greatest Wine Estates--A modern perspective" and "The Accidental Connoisseur" by Lawrence Osborne. The first is a large and expensive book but the opening chapters are really the most important parts of the book--they form an essay that covers what is happening in wine today from a critical perspective-- clearly and consicisely written--I would at least settle into a sofa at Barnes and Noble or my local bookstore and read them there.--if you like the book's approach definitely buy it. The Accidental Connoisseur is in paperback and takes a view almost opposite that of Parker--it reads like a novel and conveys everything Mondovino attempted in an honest and very moving way. They both love wine passionately --they simply approach it in very different ways. There are literally hundreds of books on wine appreciation--most of them hash and rehash the same information--some are well written some poorly written--many suffer from appearing to be "informational" but are skewed by the writers point of view. Neither Karen MacNeill nor Mary Ewing Mulligan and her husband Ed McCarthy have any axes to grind in their books--they provide lots of great information and actually encourage one to taste and experience wine. They offer two different approaches to wine education. Parker and Osborne present the two dominent philosophical views of wine today--one can agree or disagree with either (or both)they are informative and persuasive. add one atlas and one encyclpedia and I am not sure there is much else one really needs. (In fact--I am glad you asked the question--I am going to begin to thin out my library--which will please my wife to no end!). Good luck and happy reading and most importantly --drinkin! javascript:emoticon(':rolleyes:')

Well I am funnin ya a bit! Really though-- while I do agree with you--you are certainly reasonable IMOP--you have to admit that wine is certainly an "ethereal" product. there's "stretching" going on all the time. the sizzle is sold at all levels by lots of people in the business. Tony's is crossing the line--I have no doubt about that. but what we would call deceptive advertising claims etc usually take an element of truth--like wine can age well--"no drop is sold before its time"--and exagerate from there. tony is just using that conventional wisdom and using it to move some old inventory etc. we could have an endless thread debating ageing of wine and what differentiates well aged wine from over the hill stuff. as for the headaches issue--there is even a lot of debate here. Marion Burros once did a piece I have somewhere that quotes a doctor Freitag of the Diamond headache clinic in Chicago: "no one really knows what causes this type (red wine) headache." a number of possibilities are discussed. "stuff" is sometimes put into wine--and isn't Tony taking a point of view held by the promoters of organic wines? aren't they also trying to sell inventory? Isn't Nicholas Joly often spoken of as a crusader or a fanatic or a visionary for organic winemaking? (kinda religious terms). There's a lot of gray area here. Sure--I believe that Joly is "honest" (he may wacky or brilliant) and tony is intentionally being deceptive--that's the difference as I see it. It may be that Tony is over the line in the area of intent--that is he knows better but..... Intent is awful hard to prove in a court of law though. I can imagine the trial--Tony represented by one of those lawyers from one of those expert panels we see on cable news all the time. OJ and MJ got off--I wouldn't bet against Tony!

My first response to this was YEOW! These folks ought to be jailed! However the more I think about this, and being the curmudgeonly iconoclast that I am: (I have given up in my attempt to be an "International raconteur and Bon Vivant") what these guys are doing is a bit of ole snake oil sellin. take the deep roots claim--I believe a lot of enologists would hold that the depth of the vine root system can often be a factor in the quality of the grapes in producing wine. so ok--Tony's is jess stretchin it a mite. as for the headaches claim--well there is a lot of confusion among the experts out there just what is the problem--additives, sulphites, mercaptains and on and on--and Tony is just clearin things up a bit -- for us good ole church (or synagogue) goin folks. see where i am goin?! Just before I got on line with all you good people--i deleted perhaps fifty or so emails from real fine folks just like Tony--tryin to make my life a bit better. all sorts of creams, lotions and other items (if y'all catch my drift). Last night i watched a commercial about how'n this here cologne will guarantee that some real purty girls will be wantin me to take em to dinner! Yes Tony's is a particularly egregious example--but again--he's not really selling wine. he is selling Tony--security (yes a false security--but we are talking about wine not an automobile). He's selling good old time wine religion. Don't we all attribute some pretty amazing attributes to wine? Look at some of the tasting notes out there! A California cabernet was once described as "liquid viagra." and how often do we see "Feminine or masculine" used to describe what is in essence an non gendered item. High markups? outrageous profit margins--well there are wines on the internet right now that were released just last year at original prices one tenth of what they are offered for now. Isn't it true that an objects real worth is what people are willing to pay for it? Look at what the current price for say--Romanee Conti or Screaming Eagle is. (it's not just wine--try shopping for a Van Gogh--better yet i saw a painting in a gallery that was a pure white canvass-- yours (certainly not mine) for a few thousand dollars.) How many times have we seen wine describes as "art in a bottle?" so in the end--if Tony sells hapiness and a belief that one is getting a good deal--so ok maybe he exagerates--but just how bad is he? what exactly is the crime and how much time should we give him? and before we answerlet's take an inventory: how many have bought or were tempted to buy a: Ginsu Knife set or a Bamboo steamer? or why we own or want to own an expensive exotic car (that breaks down a lot and costs a ton to repair)?

There was some mention in the opiece (via the link you provided) about companies that "fail to pay revolutionary taxes..." Sounds like the old mob protection money scheme. Even though the ETA is known for alerting people prior to their bombs going off as to ensure only property is destroyed--and regardless of what one thinks of their cause--they are engaging in terrorism. It might be interesting to get some perspective on this bombing of an esteemed winery from our Spanish eGulleters.

I am not assuming anything other than that Max was offering friendly advice. I was playfully tweaking him a bit. I thought he was a bit overwrought in his post/response. Nothing more or less. As for the shortening of posts/responses. That is a mixed bag--I often include an entire post in my response to it because often people do not read every post in a thread (I often do not). If I feel it is important--I try to provide the entire context for my response often out of respect for the post and poster to whom I am responding so a reader gets the whole picture in one click. I do agree with Max--that is, in general terms, he has a valid point here. to clarify my response--we are dealing with Beaujolais Nouveau and its popularity etc. what often happens is mention the wine and there are many people who can't seem to just provide an objective assessment--they often have to go on about--it is not "real" wine or "real" Beaujolais. It also isn't Fleurie or Morgon or for that matter Montrachet or Chateau Lafitte. That is a value judgement. The folks who make Beaujolais (Nouveau and otherwise) often argue about its merits. I have no problem with someone stating he/she hates Beaujolais Nouveau and why. I do have a problem with people who denegrate it (or anything for that matter) based upon what it is not and worse imply that those who might like it are somehow not "experienced" wine drinkers or people of good taste or Beaujolais Nouveau is for people who don't like the taste of real wine. anyway--I am not sure there is much more we can say about Beaujolais Nouveau except it is the 18th of November it is here-- and if a lot of people want to buy into the excitement that those crafty Frenchmen are selling--I am all for it. In fact, I envy them--maybe we are all a bit too jaded out here. in fact, I think i will go out and buy a bottle --I haven't had it in a long time and maybe it is time to enjoy a wine you don't have to think about too much--a wine that actually tastesd as if it was made from grapes--what a concept--I will toast Max! (and I am not being facetious here).

Hi John, before getting to the substance here, a sincere friendly suggestion, maybe useful to others too. It is very helpful to readers sometimes to trim any earlier text being quoted. This increases the impact of the posting, and comes partly from the general wisdom that “vigorous writing is concise” (Strunk and White), but also the firm tradition on Internet fora, ever since they became well established in the early 1980s. More on that is in classic online advisories, including the famous RFC1855 (a current link to the original), one of the most-read documents on the Internet and roughly the Net’s counterpart of Strunk and White. (It was posted on the Internet since late 1982 in predecessor versions, and from the Network Working Group since 1995.) It long predated the currently popular http/html protocols by the way, but so did Internet fora. Advice and standards of practice for forum users and administrators appear in Section 3.0, One-to-Many Communications, including this, which is widely followed. Among other things it conveys thought for the reader and for the content: First, I did Stevenson injustice by pulling his lowest-pH remark (earlier I called it crisp) out of its actual context, which wasn’t Nouveau wines specifically, though centered around them. It is from a succinct two-page summary of the Beaujolais world (including the story of the “Pisse, Vielle!” legend), in which he explains the use of full or partial macération carbonique (MC) in both Nouveau and some regular versions of Beaujolais. But he also explains the close connection of the technique to the resulting "pungent aroma of nail varnish" and the antipathy that has accumulated, including in Burgundy itself, to this style, citing Jean-Marie Guffens for the phrase “carbonic masturb*tion.” Having explained the trade word “lollipop,” early in the two-page section, from MC’s generation of flavoring chemicals used also in candies and bubble gum, he sums up the section with “Beaujolais Nouveau should be fun and used to promote a greater awareness of wine ... but readers should be aware that these “lollipop” wines are not good-quality Gamay, whereas the best Cru Beaujolais are the world’s greatest Gamay wines.” I believe this is a fact-based assessment. Second, this information appears as a tiny part of a long wine encyclopedia (2001 edition is ISBN 0789480395), endorsed by US experts including Robert Parker, and comprehensive enough, as I’ve told people for years, that a newcomer could look up a random wine of the world, just bought, with a fair chance of finding a synopsis about it. Finally I stand on my original comments. These cited the real, partly technical basis for criticism of Nouveau styles in the context of Beaujolais at large, in response to your posting, which mentioned none of this, but only “snobbery.” Stevenson nowhere claims that BNs are not real wines, but that the light MC styles are “ideal for anyone who does not actually enjoy the characteristics of real wine.” It’s possible to pay attention to the wording and detach questions of tone from factual content. Some wines appeal to people who are not wine drinkers or are turned off by mainstream wine. White zinfandel enjoyed repute for that, and before it, packaged wine coolers and cocktails in the US did so. I have used Beaujolais Nouveau myself to play the devil and seduce “white wine only” drinkers into the world of red wine (soon, they’re drinking Cabernet, and liking it!). That’s what I meant by factual, and it’s a dimension separate from how much people like the statement. In none of this thread do I find warrant for offhand stereotyping of British wine writers (coming after “Mr Stevenson can't seem to provide a fact based assessment”). I didn’t mean to feed that, or any other, nationalistic prejudice. ← Max I'd love to follow your suggstion to "summarize" your post. I can't. (I would bet neither Mr strunk or Mr White could either) I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. We are discussing Beaujolais Nouveau for Pete's sake. A simple wine, for sure, that really doesn't warrant a lot of discussion. As for "offhand stereotyping" of British wine writers and nationalistic predjudices --please! By the way-as you think highly enough of Robert Parker to cite him, here's a quote for you: "The Nouveau hysteria and incredible profits taken by the wine trade from the sales of nouveau have resulted in a school of thought that has attempted to disparage not only the wine but those who consume it....A few arrogant wine snobs would would have you believe it (BN) is not fashionable, that is ludicrous." I agree. Do You? (I think you do) That's all. I edited this for spelling errors

I am also in the middle of it. I agree it is a very nice read--I am enjoying it a lot. I also agree with what you have recapped here. I would add one thing from my own perspective--wonder if George also shares this thought. One interesting conclusion one can make is that this infamous tasting puts terroir into perspective. The tasters should have been able to distinguish the different terroirs. There was literally an ocean between them!

In the same spirit, wkl, but surely not the same degree. (The gulf that yawns between "blue nun" ("the wine that's correct with any meal," as the smooth announcer's voice used to assure the almost non-wine-drinking US public) and the exquisite German Rieslings available for as little as $9-$10 in the US was much wider, in my experience, than the distance from classic Beaujolais to the nouveau. A light, fragile product that used to be consumed in bulk around Lyon, and very cheaply too, before the vast marketing projects started and it began appearing in the US on a pedestal, not hardly so cheap any more. Well, JohnL, I've read a lot of more specific criticisms of the nouveau, to say nothing of the lack of perspective it commands in the US, with many casual wine drinkers recently getting the weird notion that it's what Beauj is all about (!?!?). Tom Stevenson in his wine encycopedia writes crisply that most of it smells of bubble gum or bananas, and is ideal for anyone who does not actually enjoy the characteristics of real wine. Some may project the idea of snobbery into this (JohnL will doubtless have more to say) but many experienced wine drinkers I know would say that the statement is also factual to the letter, like it or not. That doesn't mean they won't also drink the nouveau, it's pleasant and has its place. (Also overlooking that we'd probably like it better, in pitchers for a dollar or two, and close to the source, 'cause it's fragile stuff. It has lost its roots and with them, maybe part of its soul.) ← Hi Max. My quarrel is not over "facts." It is with tonality. Tom Stevenson is not "factually" wrong in his assessment of Beaujolais Nouveau--it is his comment that it is "ideal for anyone who does not actually enjoy the characteristics of real wine." Wait--sorry--he is "factually" wrong here afterall--BN is not real wine? what exactly is it then? faux wine? ersatz wine? And what are the "characteristics of real wine?" This is wine snobbery--as practiced all too often by British wine writers these days. Mr Stevenson can't seem to provide a fact based assessment of the wine--he can't even bring himself to call it wine--without denegrating it and those who would like it. You, actually provide a better assessment--"It is pleasant and has its place."--I can buy that! If even experienced wine drinkers will drink BN--why? are they prone to "slumming" on ocasion? do they try it just to see what the peasants are into? My point is--BN according to most critics and drinkers (experienced and otherwise) has a fresh very grapey quality--yes there are often notes of tropical fruits-bananas and yes often a bubblegum quality. All Mr Stevenson needs to do is note these things. fact is I like BN and see some merit in its existance- and I consider myself an "experienced wine drinker"--so Mr Stevenson's words put me off a bit. Also for someone who is new to wine and intent upon trying some BN, that person would be prone to be intimidated by Stevenson's words--"My God, what if I try BN and actually like it!" Contrast Mr Stevenson's note (by the way--I am assuming that there is no additional context other than what you quote) with how Karen MacNeil handles the subject: "...BN, a grapey young wine made immediately after the harvest in celebration. BN is great fun, but as wines go, regular Beaujolais is so much better." She does note the banana and bubblegum notes a few sentences later and elaborates on the differences with Beaujolais in general. If Mr stevenson wanted to trash the wine or express a negative opinion then he would best do it outright as Francois Mauss does: BN is "not proper wine but rather a sort of lightly fermented and alcoholic fruit juice." Even the acerbic Anthony Hanson is more fair in his writing. (and he's as British as they come) So the snobbery, is really tonality. If this were not so rampant--I would be nit picking here.