Wine Spectator Top 100 Wines

[Ron Johnson]

  this is priceless. "particularly experienced with wine" - compared to who - you 

are u implying that a chat-du-pape tastes better in so. rhone as opposed to a tasting @ a Chevaliers du Tastevin??

still too bad the main premise of my comments have been missed by all. and jeez, here's a news flash "Lindbergh Landed!" how does a mag stay n biz, particularly a WINE mag? another news flash, not by the self-appointed connoisseurs here - duh!!!

Q? ummm, what makes ms nesita enough of a wine critic to compare her mont olivet to a guigal OTHER THAN FOR HERSELF?? nevertheless, she almost got the point, but, alas, it gracefully eludes her @the end. by having such a thin skin, it unfortunately clouds her vision.

does it not make more sense to match fact to advertisement vs. being a "winsob" & all that that implies??

english dude, you have to write it in english.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Baruch - No the point is that Clos Mont Olivet makes better CNdP then Guigal not in 1999, not in 1998 and not in 2000. It's every single year and it's been that way since the year gimel. Guigal in fact as others have said, makes a particularly lousy CNdP. And if you don't know that already, you haven't had a lot of experience with CNdP. Because I am certain if you had extensive tasting experience with Guigal and the other CNdP's you would be in agreement with us. As for the Chevaliers du Tastevin, I was just invited to a Tastevin dinner for next monday. In fact I have a close friend who wants to nominate me as a member but I have so far resisited because I hate wearing a tuxedo.

Hollywood - You have asked one of the hardest questions to answer. The truth is that nobody knows for sure. All we can do is guess. But you have to remember that wine history is hundreds of years old and people assess ageability based on a wine having similar attributes to older vintages that have aged well. But the key issue is the balance between the fruit and the acid. Problem is, the fruit is surpressed quite often and it's hard to tell. Sometimes I have found that ageable wines have a roundness to them on the tongue and I have found that with time that roundness converts into ripe tasting fruit. But it takes tons of practice to do this and nobody is 100% perfect.

This problem rears it's head not only with young bottles of wine but with ones that have been cellared for years. About 6 months ago I brought a bottle of 1961 Conterno Monfortino to Eleven Madison Park and on opening we announced it dead on arrival. But one of us (there were four) poured himself a small amount, smelled it and then tasted it, and told the sommelier to just leave the bottle settle on a side table. When the cheese course came he had them pour him some wine and it was just fabulous. Who knew? The three of us would have dumped it down the drain. So it really comes down to some people with special tasting ability who can smell and taste a glass of wine and pronounce it will age and improve for 50 years and be right about it. Sort of like picking hit records.

[hollywood]

Steve,

Thanks for the truth. I have a gut feeling you are correct.

[baruch]

the focus clearly is going the wrong way - too bad.

steve, u have a wonderful way of talking down to the wrong person - don't change! each wine is in the eye of the beholder/taster - my god, even u can't disagree with that statement. maybe it was that 1 bottle of guigals's du pape, maybe it was the evening, maybe it was the company; but it was 1 memorable wine. the mont olivet never quite gave me the same taste memory.

may see u @the tastevin, if not travelling.

Edited December 3, 2002 by baruch (log)

[mogsob]

baruch -- clearly you are right. Wine is in the eye of the beholder (my wife has had first growth bordeaux, gran cru burgundy, gaja barolo, but her favorite wine in the world is a table wine made mostly from sagrantino that used to cost $20 (now $50 ), followed closely by a rather moderately priced Amarone). But that simple fact does not excuse what I believe to be suspect practices by the WS. Essentially, the WS hypes large conglomerates. Granted, Guigal makes some good wine (his CRs are a good example), but his CdPs are shit (and overpriced at that). Now, does WS hype these wines because the producers advertise heavily in their publication. Maybe. Perhaps WS doesn't like to hype small producers because of the relative lack of availability of their wines -- why buy a wine mag if you can't ever buy the wines they like best? I don't know the answer, but WS has some very tough questions to answer.

hollywood -- while I agree with Steve P., I think history is also a guide. Certain wines in good vintages historically improve with age. Thus, it is fair to assume that future good vintages of these wines will also benefit from age. That is not to say, however, that it is written in stone. One of the great things about wine (as baruch has so eloquently pointed out) is that even the most knowledgeable among us (as Steve P. pointed out) can be wrong. No one is really master of wine. Wine challenges us. It is unpredictable. From the fields, to the barrels, to the bottle -- no one has mastered the grape. Which means we can still strive to excellence, be it in growing grapes, making wine, or picking out the best bottle on the list.

That said (let me adjust my winesnob hat here), I think everyone could benefit from a rudimentary course in how to taste wine. Just as the Greeks divided the world into 4 elements, so wine should be tasted for its 4 elements: fruit, acidity, tannins, and alcohol. A great wine, IMHO, should present all four taste elements in balance with each other. But the best way to learn about how to taste wine is to drink unbalanced wines. To taste fruit, get a cheap California merlot. That's all fruit, no structure. To taste acidity, get a Muscadet -- that puckering is the acid. To taste tannins, get a bottom end Cornas -- sort of like drinking tea that has been seeped too long. Finally, get a young California zin to taste the alcohol -- the burn more typically associated with distilled spirits. Then, get a 1997 Argiano Brunello (as per ron's rec above), and see how a master winemaker skillfully plays off all of these elements in perfect balance. If you want, spend the $40 to get a Guigal CdP to see how not to make great wine.

[baruch]

a' votre sante, mogsob

[Steve Plotnicki]

steve, u have a wonderful way of talking down to the wrong person - don't change! each wine is in the eye of the beholder/taster - my god, even u can't disagree with that statement.

[jaybee]

Baruch, why are you so threatened by the idea that there can be a difference between a great wine and a wine that people enjoy a lot? No one is saying that the Guigal CnP is not a wine one can enjoy, just that it is not worthy of the rating as the best wine of the year. The people who run WS are purely driven by the revenue implications of their rankings and not by any oenophile standards. These are the same people who decided a couple of years ago to turn Cigar Aficionado into a lifestyle magazine "Aficionado" with cigars taking a minor place next to cars, wines, liquors, clothes and jewelry, all of whom are big advertisers. The publisher told me so. I don't criticize their business judgment, but I sure stopped reading them as a serious cigar magazine. WS long ago stopped being a serious wine magazine for the same reasons.

You seem to equate being seriously involved with wine, having high standards based on experience and a trained taste as being a winesnob. I suspect that's because you feel that implies you are a wineslob. Not true. No one would attack you for saying you enjoyed a particular wine the most in your life as part of a memorable experience even though it was not the greatest bottle in the world. In fact in an earlier thread where I asked "what was the greatest wine you ever drank?" Many posts referred to the occasion, setting and situation as making an ordinarly wine transendent in their memory. None of the "winesnobs" scoffed.

No one's tryng to take away your personal taste. But everything is not relative, after all. There are poor, fair, good, better, best and the very best wines and there are standards by which to rank them. Popularity is not one of them.

Edited December 3, 2002 by jaybee (log)

[Steve Klc]

In the Washington Post today, "Glossy and Greedy: Real Page-Turners"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2002Dec2.html

Here's the concluding paragraph, nicely expressed I think:

"Perhaps other corporate magazine executives are not so crass -- or so honest. But they all share a quality that distinguishes them from an earlier generation of magazine publishers, men like Time's Henry Luce, Esquire's Arnold Gingrich, even Playboy's Hugh Hefner: This new breed exhibits no passion about bringing their own personal vision of truth and beauty to magazine readers. They are mere managers, empty suits with spreadsheet souls. That's why most of their magazines are so timid, so tepid, so insipid."

[Tonyfinch]

But that philosophy allows for Au Bon Pain being considered better than Pain Poillane, Nestle Crunch Bar being better than the Maison du Chocolat Rocher, Tad's Steak House being better then Peter Luger's, and a Toyota Corrola being a better car than a Mercedes not to mention that Mary Had a Little Lamb is a better song then Satsifaction, all because someone says they think so or they like them better. Well it's just not true.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well of course when you switch the criteria from assessing the level of quality to what is preferential in an individual circumstance the answer changes. But that has nothing to do with measuring overall quality on a continuum that includes all cars or all chcocolate candies or all wines. And while comparing a Mercedes to a Toyota might be more of a theoretical exercise then one that people actually do in real life, here we are comparing the Guigal to its actual peers. Wines from the same appelation and at the same quality level.

[Tonyfinch]

I think there's a kind of defensive/aggressiveness that some people display about wine more than about food and indeed other subjects.

Its due to a variation on the "I don't know much about Art but I know what I like" line

It goes "I don't know much about wine and I DON'T know what I like"

If you're confident in your own tastes in music, films etc. do you really care whether others share your tastes or not? You may be disappointed that they don't regard Mary Had A Little Lamb as being up there with Satisfaction, but do you give a damn,really? YOU like it and so what?

With wine, people are far less confident about their own tastes? I sometimes drink wine and genuinely don't know whether I like it or not. Or know what qualities I'm supposed to be looking for. Under those circumstances some people get nervous and unwilling to take advice. My father maintains that he cannot tell the difference between a £5 bottle of wine and a £50 bottle. I say "of course you can. Anybody can" but he will not have it. The point is he is generally an opinionated old bugger and I can't think of another subject he would say that about.

In the UK and I suspect in large parts of the US, quality wine is still a new subject that some don't feel confident about and some of those are likely to be resistant towards being advised and guided out of a kind of defensiveness. That's when allegations of "winesnob" start getting chucked around.

[hollywood]

That said (let me adjust my winesnob hat here), I think everyone could benefit from a rudimentary course in how to taste wine.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think there's a kind of defensive/aggressiveness that some people display about wine more than about food and indeed other subjects.

[helenas]

WS also runs Smart Buys online.

Ratings aside, do you think that tasting notes are misleading as well?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Aside from Domaine Brusset, which I believe is the Gigondas producer, I've never heard of any of the other ones. So I have no way of telling if they are accurate in this instance. But in general I don't trust the WS. If you want good Cote de Rhones, look for the following from the 1998-2000 vintages;

Domaine Reamejean

Val Joanis (Cote du Luberon but you won't know the difference)

Domaine Mordoree Lirac

Andre Brunel Sommelongue

Clos des Mure

Roger Perrin Reserve

There are others that Marty and Charles can list. But none of the above should cost more then $15 with some of them going for betwen $10-$12 a bottle and they all will drink well at about 3 years of age. But if you want to splurge you can go up to;

1998-2000 Les Cailloux

1998-2000 Clos Mont Olivet

1998-2000 Domaine Graemenon La Meme

2000 Domaine Cayron Gigondas

Those will run between $20 and $35 a bottle and will last for 7-15 years with proper storage. And there are tons more that are good in both categories.

[Robert Nesta Marley]

steve, i don't know if you have strong opinions about kermit lynch, but have you ever had "his" wine from gigondas, domaine les paillieres? i don't know about retail availability, but if it's out there it should be about $30. it's excellent.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I thought Domaine Cayron was a KL wine? In fact I'm pretty sure of it. But I haven't had the Pailleres. I will try and get a bottle. Or do you know a place in town that has it on their list?

[Ron Johnson]

I believe that the importer is a good indication of the quality of the wines from the Rhone. This is not always true of course, but it does provide one with some idea when confronted with unfamiliar producers. Some particularly savvy importers to look for are:

Kermit Lynch

Eric Solomon

Peter Weygandt

Robert Kacher

[Charles Smith]

steve, i don't know if you have strong opinions about  kermit lynch, but have you ever had "his" wine from gigondas, domaine les paillieres?  i don't know about retail availability, but if it's out there it should be about $30.  it's excellent.

[Robert Nesta Marley]

kermit lynch bought the winery along with the guy from vieu-telegraph just before the '98 harvest, and from what i understand the wine has only gotten better. it's on restaurant saul's list (on brooklyn's smith street row).

[Robert Nesta Marley]

so if had had a guigal cdp with my wife on my honeymoon it might be a favorite wine, but that doesn't mean that it was great. 

[MartyL]

Just to do some more shilling for Gilles Robin---just got an e-mail from the Burgundy Wine Company. They have the 2000 Gilles Robin Crozes Hermitage Cuvee Alberic Bouvee on sale through the end of the month for $12.99.

I have not had the 2000 vintage of this wine, and in general, 2000 is not as strong or age-worthy a vintage in the N. Rhone as 1999, but this wine was so good in 99 that the 2000 was a no-brainer buy for me, especially at this price. The 99, which is available around town for $16-$20, is a funky, meaty, bloody, rustic Northern Rhone Syrah with a core of violet fruit and enough acidity to marry well with food.

I'd rather have a bottle of it than a lifetime supply of Guigal CDP, but than again I'd also rather watch Grand Illusion than Howard the Duck. I guess there's no accounting for taste...

[Ron Johnson]

Marty,

I have had the '99 and '00 of the Gilles Robin. The '99 is better, but not by a lot, and the '00 is a steal at $13/btl.

[jeffperez62]

I recall reading in WS that their top 100 list is based on production, availability, quality and price.