Florida Jim

As do I. I never said otherwise. But we may define "value" differently. Best, Jim

THW, I repeat the following statement because you may have missed its point: "Whenever we deal in subjective perceptions, any system of ranking is infinitely vague from the start. Likewise written words in tasting notes are still ambiguous and subject to nearly endless interpretation. So I am not saying that grading systems (or tasting notes) are useless. Communication of such concepts is admittedly, difficult. But a man who broke down wine tasting in remarkable detail, Professor Peynaud, concluded that: “The quality of a wine is the totality of its properties, that is to say the properties which render it acceptable or desirable.” The words “acceptable or desirable” beg the question; to whom? Every answer will be unique to the person answering." If Ben is reliable for you, then some communication is accomplished (but see my answer to Katie regarding such individual comparisons). Again, I am not saying any rating system is useless. But neither does any system rise to the level of quanifying all quality. We all shamble around trying to get our subjective thoughts and feelings across; that we do so ineptly is a matter of the subject matter, our personal slant, the limitations of language (or numbers) and any number of external factors. What I think Parker does not understand is that it's supposed to be that way! No one is the arbiter of my taste, certainly not him. No one tells me what is good and what is bad. No one tells me what I should and shouldn't enjoy. And it is almost frigtening when someone tries, even when it comes to wine. That he sees it as a part of the grand scheme of things, ie., that quality is quantifiable, denies the humanity inherent in preference and taste and choice. So my point is not that his or any system is useless, but that the motivation and philosophy that leads him (or anyone) to make such a statement should be scrutinized . . . closely. Brad says the statement is irresponsible and I agree. But I think it much worse than that. But then, I am just one guy who isn't making a living writing about or ranking wine . . . or cuisine or art or music . . . Best, Jim

Dear Biggest Flan, What is a web geisha? Best, Jim

If you know . . . Katie, I think its more insidious than that. If you like the 99 Ogier, Cote-Rotie and Parker (or whomever) likes that wine, does it necessarily follow that you will not like the 99 Texier Cote-Rotie because Parker didn't? Or even more challenging; if the Ogier got 93 but the Texier got 89, does that make one more likely to be your preference? While I understand that, after years of comparing Parker 90 and ups with your tastings of those exact wines, you can have some confidence in selecting wines he scores 90 and up that you have not tried, I still think the whole scheme fails to take into account changes in your or his palate through the years (or any other variable over time that one can dream up). Of course this also leaves open the issue of how many times one has to compare notes and tastes to find any level of confidence, let alone knowing that you'll like his 90 pointers. And, of course, this is only my response when the subject is wine. You don't want to hear it when the subject is art or music or food. "Quality can be quantified;" I have some very primal, emotional and perhaps irrational response to that statement. Maybe it's my problem (for that very reason) but I truly hate (in this instance, used correctly) even the thought that such rubbish could be true. It smacks of inhumanity . . . Best, Jim

In the book, “The Accidental Connoisseur,” Robert Parker is quoted (at page 129) as saying, “ . . . I do believe that quality in wine, much like quality in cuisine, art or music, can be quantified.” Somewhat surprising, I thought. While setting aside for later the known fact that grading and numerical point systems are commercially successful in selling wine in today’s market, how do you feel about the essence of that statement – that is, that quality is quantifiable? For myself, I’m aware we all use comparisons to attempt to communicate to each other the varying perceptions we have of any particular wine’s quality. However, I find it illogical to maintain that the concepts of “good quality” or “bad quality” can be reduced to a letter or numerical grade. Some extremes with Parker’s chosen examples: What differences generate a 96 point Picasso but a 94 point Rembrandt? How does one compare a B- macaroni and cheese to a B+ pheasant under glass? Does Beethoven’s fifth deserve three stars? Whenever we deal in subjective perceptions, any system of ranking is infinitely vague from the start. Likewise written words in tasting notes are still ambiguous and subject to nearly endless interpretation. So I am not saying that grading systems (or tasting notes) are useless. Communication of such concepts is admittedly, difficult. But a man who broke down wine tasting in remarkable detail, Professor Peynaud, concluded that: “The quality of a wine is the totality of its properties, that is to say the properties which render it acceptable or desirable.” The words “acceptable or desirable” beg the question; to whom? Every answer will be unique to the person answering. According to Parker, there are an awful lot of wines that he recommends that we should all find acceptable and desirable. But I do not share his preferences and quality is all about preference. Neither do I share his belief that quality is quantifiable. Moreover, when he says it is, I suspect that he is only trying to promote the commercial viability of such a system; support that is self-serving, at best. And that is not surprising. Best, Jim

2001 Bruno Giacosa, Nebbiolo D’Alba, Valmaggiore: This smells warm; with dusty rose and red fruit elements and a bit of earthiness; and, although I could never explain it, it’s so “Italian”/ Medium body with that same dusty rose, red fruit and earth on the palate, dry, moderately complex, graceful; sufficient structure to last and I think, continue to develop, good balance/ Medium length finish. Served with toasted olive bread with olive oil, a couple hard cheeses and several varieties of olives; a very good pairing, indeed. Both Diane and I agreed that this was a wine of character, authenticity and a delight to smell and taste. About $23, retail. 2002 Baudry, Chinon Les Granges: This wine, unlike tastes at release which were vibrantly fruit filled and showed no green at all, is starting to show some green bell pepper elements on the nose and palate and maybe even a bit of char. It is not out of control or dominant nor is it attractive and is a substantial change from earlier bottles. Hold in hopes it will die down a bit. About $12, delivered. I had written a note previous about the 2002 S. Quirico, Vernaccia di San Gimignano that was complimentary and I purchased six more bottles. Three of the first four have been lightly corked (all of these were from the same case) so they are all going back. I don’t know if this problem is widespread but I won’t buy anymore of this vintage. About $8, retail. 2002 Brun Terres Dorees, Beaujolais Blanc: Sweetly clean and pure chardonnay on the nose/ Medium body with good weight in the mouth, broad flavors that come through clear and concentrated, good structure and balance; well integrated/ Medium length, clean finish. Enjoyed with pasta prima vera with the emphasis on the word enjoyed. Excellent juice. About $11, delivered. Best, Jim

1993 Kiona, Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve: Genuinely ugly juice; heavy with oak and dill, disjointed and a bit hot and any fruit that’s there (and there is some) is completely overwhelmed. Bad wine and getting worse. Airing does not help. No one in our group could drink it. 2001 Falesco, Merlot: Yummy. Soft, low acid, ripe flavors with not a hint of green and no winemaker theatrics to get in the way. It will never be batter than it is right now. Perfect pizza wine. 2002 Anselmi, San Vincenzo: A blend of chardonnay and trebbiano di Soave (and maybe more) that shows both grape signatures well. Crisp but round in the mouth, well-flavored with appealing textures, moderate persistence; nothing to shake the earth but thoroughly enjoyable. 2002 Drouhin, Macon-Villages: For some reason, this wine has appeared in my market in 375’s; a very nice size for my purposes. Better yet, it’s well-made, of its place chardonnay that may have seen wood but you couldn’t prove it by me. Balanced and delicious. 2002 Giacosa, Arneis: Excellent wine that is bright and lively with medium powerful flavors, clarity and leaves one with an almost rainwater fresh taste in the mouth. A wine that could be a delightful aperitif and just as easily accompany lighter fare, especially seafood. I can not have too much of this in my cellar. 1993 Trimbach, Riesling Cuvee Fredric Emile (magnum): Sensational! Has smoothed out since last tasting (about 18 months ago) and is now deep and pure with superb balance, some secondary character, excellent complexity and extraordinary length. Opened with a large number of tasters and each raved. A special treat. Best, Jim

Craig, These may be relative values for Brunello but you just listed 11 bottles of wine whose total cost is about $475, plus tax. That is what I meant by "substantial capital." And I'm reasonably certain that you have spent a lot more than that to be able to make these suggestions, ie., to have the experience needed to be this discerning. That said, I would agree that, if one is set on learning about Brunello, your way is a good way to go about it. And your advice, and others on the boards who have your experience, can be extremely helpful. But one should also be aware that $40-$60 per bottle is the low-end of the spectrum. For me, that's just too much. Best, Jim

As mentioned, I found this vintage atypical. That said, I enjoyed it more than the 2001 (for example) and will buy more at the very reasonable price of $9. It seemed fresher and more lively rather than thick and dark. Not your usual Nero but delightful, nonetheless. Best, Jim

Mark, Other posters have given you alot of background and technical information; I'd like to play the role of consumer in trying to answer your question. I have had excellent Brunello and Super Tuscan wines but I find that both have become generally over priced. Hence, any attempt to taste through a number of different producer's wines requires substantial capital. But it is absolutely required if you are to find good ones because, these days, the international style and the experimentation implicit in that style change make picking good wines (those suited to your palate) more difficult than traversing a minefield. And I have yet to find a reviewer (certainly not Parker) that give sufficient space to identifying new wave and old world producers, let alone consistently dependable notes on their wines. So usually, the only way I buy these wines is if I have tasted them on someone else's dime (usually store sponsered tastings) and have read and talked to folks that know the producer's wines. I say and because I know that the best of these require aging (and I prefer aged wines) so I like to have input on track record for aging from people I trust. Frankly, I don't buy many. I'd rather by Rosso di Montalcino and Vino Noble at fractions of the price for Brunello, or Chianti Classico at much less than Super Tuscans. These wines have prices that, in the most part, bear some relationship to their quality (as opposed to many Brunello and Super Tuscan wines) and they also tend to drink a little earlier and accompany lighter fare better. These later two criteria are also my preference. I still love great Brunello (and occasionally enjoy some aged Super Tuscan) but I have no desire to spend large amounts of money on wines that are quite often not worth the tariff or that seem to have become some variant of domestic Cab. in an effort to capture a piece of the market for that style of wine. Best, Jim

Very slightly volitile (lively?) but not in a bad way. I'm not sure I'd want to call it herbal, but when you say cab. franc, well, I'm on that page. And of course, explaining it is hard - its a "know it when I smell it" thing. Best, Jim

I'm more the Louis Jenkins type, but thank you. Best, Jim

With homemade, grilled pizza with mozzarella and olives as a first course: 2002 S. Quirico, Vernaccia di San Gimignano: Restrained on the nose with light aromas of resin, pear and lime zest/ More assertive on the palate with brisk acidity backing some chalky chardonnay-like flavors with lime zest and bitter almond accents, weightless in the mouth yet nicely textured, intense, complex, crisply balanced and genuinely interesting/ Medium length, clean and a mouth-watering finish. This is a DOCG wine, hence, at least 90% is made of vernaccia (the remainder is likely chardonnay and vermentino). It is fresh and lively. And fortunately, there is no evidence of oak, which is these days, being used more and more often in this area. ‘My first taste of this wine and I was impressed enough to buy a case tomorrow. My plan is to serve it as an aperitif or as an accompaniment to lighter fare (which we have a lot of). This has the structure to be better with a year or so in the cellar but it is delightful even now. Excellent with the pizza. A Leonardo Locascio selection imported by Winebow. About $8, retail. With roast pork tenderloin with garlic, lentil salad, arugala with balsamic, fresh picked grape tomatoes and some slices of ricotta salada: 2002 Morgante, Nero d’Avola: Light red fruit smells with just a touch of milk chocolate; a bit high toned/ Medium body but less extraction than I am used to from this bottling; more an unoaked Dolcetto style, clean red fruit, some milk chocolate and meaty flavors, smoothly textured but lighter weight than expected, with airing the flavors become fuller but there is no sense of the overdone; concentrated, moderate complexity, fine balance/ Medium length finish with no drying tannins (again, unexpected). Certainly, a lighter vintage for this wine and quite dissimilar to the 2001 version. This has an elegant demeanor with a freshness not found in the more extracted ’01. For drinking now and delicious with the meal. About $9, retail. Best, Jim

With grilled chicken with red beans and rice: 2002 Louis Jadot, Domaine du Monnet Brouilly: Brooding Beaujolais; dark in color, flavor profile and aromatics. Has a distinct earthiness to it and some substantial but extremely fine tannin. Pure black-fruit on the palate with some richness but nothing to blur the powerful dark flavors. Excellent balance and a long finish. No mistaking this as anything but Brouilly; reminds me of some Alain Michaud’s bottlings from that area. Could use some cellaring. An impressive wine and only about $15, retail. Does anyone know if this “Domaine du Monnet” is a Jadot domaine (as opposed to negociant) property? 2002 Coudert, Clos de la Roilette Fleurie Cuvee Tardive: What a comparison; here the aromatics are sweeter and more red fruit dominated with some floral tones. Equally on the palate the wine is brighter, more red fruit oriented with a lush ripeness that comes through clearly; still it carries more weight than most Fleurie’s and the previous wine. Again, excellent balance, concentration and mouth-feel, but the contrast with the previous wine was striking. Delicious juice and more open than I would have expected. About $21, delivered. Best, Jim

Not too long ago, I had the pleasure of sitting down with a good group of fellow wine geeks and Joel Peterson in the courtyard at Ravenswood and tasting several Dickerson, Old Hill, Cooke, Monte Rosso and other vineyard designated zinfandels from Ravenswood. The vintages were from the late eighties and early to mid-nineties; perhaps not as old as some I have had, but still many showing the marks of cellaring. With Joel there to talk about each bottle, giving personal insights, pertinent stories and remembered moments in the harvest, it was enlightening and entertaining. On the whole, I thought the wines were good to very good with a couple of duds and a couple of outstanding bottles. But to be able to follow each vineyard's wines through those vintages was the really captivating part of the exercise; well, that and Joel's comments. The Dickerson's were the most memorable; they have a distinct red raspberry profile and the shadings they went through depending on vintage gave me a pretty good grasp of what could and couldn't be done with that dirt. In any event, that was one of the times I have had the opportunity to taste a large number of older zinfandels and it was an experience I would enjoy doing again. Not that all or even most old zin. is my thing, but these were both interesting and, in most cases, pleasurable. Best, Jim

Chris, My thanks for your notes; sounds like you can't go wrong. I have not found the Première Trie yet for sale in the states; it is certainly one I would love to have but I suspect that it will go quickly to folks with a far longer track record of buying Huet wines than I. Best, Jim

Andre, Riccardo Cotarella is not my favorite consulting eonologist; no more so than Michel Roland, but I think he has run enough "experiments" at this property to begin to have a feel for the vineyards; at least this wine would indicate so. Several vintages in the past were far too oaky and disjointed for me. Although I will say, their front line products have always been impressive for the money. One thing about the 2000 Montiano; it is completely ready to drink tonight. I doubt seriously that there is anything to be gained by cellaring this. Best, Jim

With Caesar salad and vegetarian lasagna: 2002 Anselmi, Capitel Foscarino: Not your typical Soave; fat and viscous with good depth and strong flavors despite being wrapped a little tight. Excellent concentration, structure and persistence; could use a year or two in the cellar. About $16, retail. & 2000 Falesco, Montiano: Lush but not over-the-top, balanced flavors, no overt oak, good persistence. I was prepared to dismiss this (as I have several other vintages of Montiano) but this was delicious. For drinking immediately. About $28, retail. With pasta with gorgonzola: 1999 Belle Pente, Riesling: My daughter’s favorite wine, my daughter’s favorite food and my daughter sitting next to me to enjoy both. It may not be the match others would choose, but it was perfect for me. About $12, delivered. With baby bok choy, jasmine rice and grilled wild salmon all sauced with a ginger-garlic-red pepper broth: 2002 Huet, Vouvray Demi-sec, Le Mont: Oh my! There are many reasons and ways to love wine; seldom are they all exceeded in a single glass. Words fail me; the best I can say is that I hope you have a chance to taste this wine at some point along your way; certainly it will last and develop over a very long time. Supreb with the food. About $30, delivered. Best, Jim

2002 Tavignano, Verdicchio dei Castelli di Jesi Classico Superiore: Yellow with golden/coppery tinges/ Moderate aromas of sour apple, pine resin, herbs and unripe pears; penetrating/ Medium body, flavors echo the nose with a touch of almond added, bright acids, fairly intense; no impression of viscosity, rather austere and mouth-watering on the delivery/ Medium length, clean finish. Tasted over 2 days (bottle recorked and put in fridge); not a delicate wine; more akin in structure to a very young, acid driven sauvignon. Interesting stuff but absolutely requires food and probably will be better with a year in the cellar. About $9. 1996 Trimbach, Gewurtztraminer, Cuvee des Seigneurs de Ribeaupierre: Smells of perm solution (so much so that I could not get much else on the nose)/ Full body, smooth texture, some spice and mango flavors but the perm solution impression persisted and essentially spoiled the experience/ Long finish. This may be a very fine wine but once I got “perm solution” in my head I could not see the forest for the trees. 2000 Dom. de la Petite Cassagne, Costieres de Nimes: Lovely, clear red fruit, spice and garrigue notes on the nose; very well integrated/ Medium body, very pure red fruit flavors accented with spice, black pepper and underbrush tones, complex but still all together in a smooth, clean presentation that can’t help but draw smile/ Medium length, pure finish. Although I have found a small amount of bottle variation in the two cases of this I have been drinking through, the vast majority of bottles have been delicious; to the extent that this is now my “go to” wine whenever I think an excellent, med-weight red is required. Ready now and a screaming bargain at $9. 2001 Lindeman’s, Pinot Noir Bin 99: Just a brief comment here; it’s time to move on to the 2002 vintage as some bottles of the ’01 are starting to show a little oxidation. These are not bottles for keeping but they are varietally correct, not overtly wooded and pleasant tasting pinot noirs for $6. Best, Jim

Understood. Thank God kids are so adaptable. Best, Jim

Interestingly, most legislative historys indicate that the impetus for enacting laws that restrict movement of alcoholic beverages was temperance (and not just in minors). I doubt that reason continues to be the motivation for enforcement. Speaking of right and wrong . . . Best, Jim

Agreed. Thanks, Jim

2002 Maculan, Pinot & Toi: 60% tocai, 25% pinot blanco, 15% pinot grigio/ Light, floral, bright and crisp on both the nose and palate and more reminiscent of pinot grigio than anything else. Maybe a touch more acid and a little less spice. Pleaseant, but not much more. I’m really looking for a 100% tocai but this market doesn’t seem to have any. About $8, retail. 2002 Clos Roche Blanche, Gamay: Such precision; remarkable. Laser sharp cherry fruit with a touch of stem, earth and strawberry. Tightening up and angular, but still an attention holder. A terrific wine to break a ten day wine-fast. Lots of upside here. About $12, delivered. With salad Nicoise: 1999 Prosper Maufoux, Nuits-Saint-George: ‘Never heard of this producer but the bottles are showing up in this market for very little money. Straight-forward NSG with nothing to complain about and no reason to buy another bottle even at bargain prices. Quaffable. About $15, retail. 1998 Flowers, Sonoma Coast Pinot Noir: Gently oaky nose of cranberry and spice with very strong and distinct cranberry flavors dominating the palate, a bit hard edged (despite two hours in the decanter) with some spikes in the acidity. Needs time to be pleasurable; hard to say if it will be more. About $44, delivered. Best, Jim

2000 Morgante, Don Antonio Nero d’Avola: This is gently oaky on the nose but with lots of black fruit, dark chocolate and spice tones; polished on the attack but turning more rustic (and true to the variety) at mid-palate, rich and strongly flavored with good concentration and intensity, some grainy tannins; medium length, somewhat gritty finish. I was prepared not to like this wine; Roberto Cotralla consults, new oak aging, etc. but this was good and well-made. I think I like the regular Nero d’Avola bottling from this house ($11) a little better but both wines are tasty. About $18. 1995 Neyers, Cabernet Sauvignon: I’ve had good luck with this wine in the past but this bottle was too woody and simple to be anything but standard grade cab. Quaffable albeit uninteresting. About $40, on release. 1996 Hureau, Samur-Champigny, Grand Cuvee: This Loire cabernet franc does have an element of green/stem in the nose and, to a lesser degree, the palate but it has so much more; wonderful bottle-sweet black fruit, complex minerality, excellent depth and despite being mouth-filling, it’s a laser beam on the palate. This wine is coming into its own in fine style and accompanied pork chops beautifully. About $20. 2002 Drouhin, Macon-Village (375): When I saw this priced at $3, I couldn’t resist. Clean earth-tinged chardonnay fruit with some depth and complexity and enough stuffing to survive a bit of cellaring. Pleasant lunch wine and holds the possibility of being more. What’s not to like? 2002 Brun, Terres Dorees Beaujolais “L’Ancien VV”: I’ve written enough complimentary notes about this wine; this note is written only to report that it seems to be slimming down and becoming more linear than on release, which I take to mean that it is closing slightly. I doubt it will ever be completely closed; the fruit is too exuberant, but this is also a nicely structured wine so I think aging will be good to it – certainly this bottling has a track record for aging well. About $12. Best, Jim

We Luddites appreciate your patience. Best, Jim