ctgm

Is that $250k a year each? No wonder some of your (US) wines are so expensive if you are paying the winemaker that much!

Mogsob, I see that it has your favourite taste of pencil shavings. I won't be buying it as I prefer wines to taste of under brush!!

Don't think that it is made by Mott's. I checked out the www and think that they may distribute it but it is a Cadbury Schwepps product. (Is Mott's owned by CadbSchw?)

On the subject of Parker, the thing that I find worst about his notes (ignoring the debate about his influence etc) is the way that he changs his opinion about wines so much. If he is such a good taster shouldn't he be able to pick up the potential of a wine when he tastes it? Am I being unfair on the man, bearing in mind that a certain amount of what he tastes are barrel samples?

Just tasted this rum for the first time and must say that I really quite like it. Lovely and iodiney on the nose but sweet and full taste of molasses. What's the story behind this one, apart from being a blend from Jamaica and Guyana?

Is Bordeaux better today? Sure the bad vintages tend not to be as bad as they were but are the great years better these days? And who is to say what wine is better than the other? Having said that in order to get rid of the bad vintages the wines have lost a lot of their character - some of my customers say that many of the 1997s taste the same (and I understand where they are coming from but..) Wines made 100 years ago were undrinkable for the first 10-20 years of its life, and that is perhaps why the bottles of 1865 that we have in our cellar are still drinking exceptionally well. Wines of today are generally made to drink at a much younger age. Does this make it better or worse? Some people think that the last "true" vintage in Bordeaux was the 1983 before over extraction and over oaking became the norm. I understand this point and to a certain extent agree with it as I find most of the wines from Bordeaux today over the top and lacking the elegance and finesse that they once had. In part this change came about to cater for the American market, who after all make excellent wines themselves which have plenty of weight to them. Therefore I do not think that Bordeaux is better. More consistent yes, but at a cost of being more mediocre.

Never had this one but.. "A good cru on the sandy glacis south-east of Figeac, whose old vines resisted the 1956 frost, preserving the quality better than at many crus in the area. No weedkillers are used in the vineyards and they use organic fertilizers. The wines are matured in cask, with 15% new oak used. The wines are very scented, supple anf full-flavoured, delicious for early drinking, with plenty of vibrant fruit, yet also age well". Bordeaux by David Peppercorn 2nd Ed (1991) Looking up in Feret, it appears that this is a AOC St. Emilion Grand Cru, an AOC whose name I find very off putting. The vineyard is 11ha

Claude, I think that you are right about scepticism. Figures can be massaged quite easily and funny things do happen. I suppose the mose widespread one concerns chaptilisation. The powers that be control is fairly tightly but the supermarkets do a roaring trade! However I seem to remember from my time in Bordeaux that you had to fill in loads of forms stating the yields from the vineyards and I seem to remember having spot checks every now and then. Of course forms can be filled in as desired! Out of interest, how much can be lost - reverse osmosis - 1 or 2%??? - evaporation - say for a cellar with 1005 oak - 2%pa ???

What is the situation in the US? Is anti-French sentiment stopping sales?

Scott, You are most probably right and I should have read your post more slowly! However the point that I was trying to make was that just because the Burgundians sometimes only produce 30/500 odd cases rahter than the 20000s of Bdx purely comes down to the actual property size that is possible to obtain (partially as a result of Napoleonic law). The ha/hl was just to show that the same ethos was there. Seeing as I raised the topic I have copied some of Clive Coates' wise words as below. I think that it shows that in the better areas of both that Burgundy generally produces less than Bordeaux. The other difference with Burgundy properties is that they often cover many different AOCs. Taking Roumier for example, he has a total of 35 acres which should make a total of about 6500 cases, I presume that his vineyards in Musigny cover a few rows. The 2001 red Burgundy harvest was large but not nearly as huge as 1999. The average yield in the grands crus, for red wine, was almost exactly 39 hl/ha (2000: 39.3 hl/ha), while except in Volnay, the village and premier cru wines produced about one hectolitre per hectare less than in 2000 at around 45 or 46 hl/ha. The 2001 Bordeaux vintage produced, in comparison with recent years, as follows: 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 2001/2000 AOC Rouge & Rosé 5773 5989 5927 5695 5749 –4% AOC Blanc 787 816 879 884 934 –4% TOTAL (000 Hl) 6560 6805 6806 6579 6683 This represents an overall average of 55.4 hl/ha for red wines over the whole region. On the face of it, then, another large crop. It was not so long ago that three million hectoliters of red wine was considered abundant. But these statistics are misleading. Five or six years ago the yield even among the first growths in the Médoc was 55 hl/ha or more. Led by the example of the Libournais, who have been actively reducing their crop for a decade, the classed châteaux on the Left Bank have followed suit. A relatively humble property in Pomerol such as Château L’Enclos has aimed for 45 hl/ha for some years (in fact Hugues Weydaer produced 39 hl/ha in 2001, owing to millérandage); L’Évangile produced 40 hl/ha, the same as in 2000. So did Vieux Château Certan. Ausone, however, produced 30 percent less than in 2000. These sort of yields are rare in the Médoc/Graves. Yet both Lafite and Latour made 47 hl/ha in 2001, a lot less than in 1995 and 1996. Elsewhere the 2001 crop was even lower: 42 hl/ha at Mouton-Rothschild and Margaux; as low as 37 hl/ha at Château Pontet-Canet, 36 hl/ha at Brane-Cantenac, 35 hl/ha at Malescot-Saint-Exupéry, 32 hl/ha at Montrose and 31.62 hl/ha (what precision!) at Léoville-Las-Cases. That it was as high as 54 hl/ha at Beychevelle helps to explain why this château, which could be fine, is merely, boringly "good."

Broadly speaking, yes I think so. Not sure about that. How do you measure "industrial"? Presumably it is how many hl/ha they get. I would have thought Bgy is generally higher than Bdx due to the needs to try and make a living off smaller amounts of land. I would be very interested to know if anyone has any figures to compare. As for the question about the best wine in the world, I think that this is unanswerable. It comes down to a question of what is wine supposed to taste like?

I don't doubt you, but why on earth would barley be outlawed in Nigeria

was once drinking with an engineer who built a Guiness "factory" in Nigeria. All went to plan until they tasted the final product and found it to nothing like "normal" Guiness. Apparently they sorted this out by shipping out a tanker or two from Ireland with the real stuff in and put it in the blend

The Sauternes that I hold in very high regard is the 83 Climens. Generally 83 is considered a fantastic vintage but becareful there are some dogs out there (eg Coutet 83) I was lucky enough to have a 1929 Raymond Lafon in about 1993, which was absolutely fantastic and came from one of the greatest years ever. The person that I was drinking it with had a friend who had 2 cases of every classed growth from 1929 but didn't like Sauternes!!! the only bottles from the 70s that I have had recently was a 1973 Yquem, which was nice but not exceptional and considering that it came from a duff year was fantastic and a 1971 Coutet, which again was nice but not a property that I really like. There are some other appellations worth looking at - one of the best bottles I ever had came from Bergerac. Also have has some lovely sweeties from St. Croix du Mont and Cerons

It seems that the article says that the merchants aren't buying the goods. Is it them or their customers (you guys in the US) who are driving this boycott. Being in England we don't really ever boycott French goods as we have always disliked them

As I have said in a previous I hate screw caps and am (an outdated) "traditionalist". BUT if this is the trouble that corks are going to go through then you may well be right (or at least plastic ones). Corks are already subjected to some treatments so subjecting it to even more can't really be good, can it? Anyway, I am not sure why this debate really exists. If a consumer is not happy taking a chance with natural cork then they can drink something with a non-natural closure. They may miss out on some of their favourite wines but they have the choice.

I think that uproar is not quite the word that you are looking for here!! It is against the law and if you were found out then the Scotch Whisky Society (or other bodies) would make you call it a Whisky Liqueur. However what can sometimes happen is that when the whisky is decanted into other casks (eg port cask)then a certain amount of liquid (eg port) can be left in. I won't go into details but I know that someone bought some sherry casks and asked specifically that a litre or two was left in - legitimately this means that the cask should not dry out - and an extra one or two for good measure and to speed up the "finishing" process. This obviously affects the spirit that you put in the cask and I worked out that in this case it would be about 2% of the total.

Had a drop of both last night and must say that I preferred the VSOR. Suppose it comes down to a matter of taste and how you are feeling!

Claude, going back to the varietal being stated on the label, what is your view on the fact that a certain percentage (20% I think) can be of a different variety as to that stated. I have a friend who makes a "Pinot Noir" in the Argentine and uses 10% Cab Sauvignon. Presumably a Bourgogne Chardonnay can have 20% Aligote in it - or not as the case may be.

Claude, (1) Yes I suppose you are right about the varietals being there to help sales. (2) Get off your high horse! I very much look for the nuances that you mention and having made wine I well understand these. (3) I am not sure where I am badly misinformed as I never said that the great estates used this practice. It was common in lesser burgundies and in particular beaujolais (where algerian wine and rhone wines were used). However this practice DOES NOT exist today and has not since 1973 when EU law outlawed it.

Does it really matter what is on the label as long as what is in the bottle is good. I suppose the classic examples are the table wines from Tuscany, which break DOC regulations, whose contents sell themselves rather than the particular plot of land it has come from. Taking a look at Burgundies (red) from pre-1970, these were always supposed to have Algerian wine added to them to give them structure and weight. Similarly Bordeaux apparently used to use Rioja/Spanish wine to give weight. Whether this is true is debateable but as long as the wine is good I really don't mind too much. As an aside I had a great comment from one of my customers. I sold him a lovely full rich Bourgogne Blanc (which stated chardonnay on the label) from Michel Bouzereau. The reply I got back was that he found this Bourgogne a little disappointing as it was made from Chardonnay and not as good as the Pouilly Fume that he buys!!!

I was thinking last night, how many corked bottles do people actually get? I probably open about 200 bottles a year but get no more than 4 or 5 corked bottles. If we are to believe that 1 in 8 are corked (12.5%) this should mean that I get about 25 corked bottles a year. Why is this the case (a) I can't tell the difference (b) the wines that I drink don't generally use the cheapest cork (is this a factor?) © 1 in 8 is a grossly over exagurated figure

There's the problem. With sparkling wines/champagne, I prefer to drink it when a certain amount of the fizz has "disappeared" through the closure.

Got a question re: Bud. In the UK they ahve started advertising that it is best to drink a beer when it is young and they have started putting the bottling date on the bottle. (a) does this happen in the US (b) is this just a marketing gimmick seeing as they don't actually tell you what the best age to drink it at. As I never drink Bud it doesn't really concern me but I am just curious.

I like Castle from South Africa.