Why sauvignon blanc is overrated ...

[Gifted Gourmet]

article in Slate

... it was a sauvignon blanc problem. Simply put, the grape is a dud, producing chirpy little wines wholly devoid of complexity and depth, the very qualities that make wine interesting and worth savoring. For years, this offensively inoffensive grape has escaped criticism while ....

Astonishingly, there are people, among them some wine writers, who contend that sauvignon blanc creates wines of great character and verve. I'd love to know which sauvignon blancs they've been drinking. I taste dozens each year, and character and verve are two qualities most of them sorely lack. Sure, they tend to have distinctive bouquets, with heady aromas of grass, citrus, gooseberry, gunflint, and chalk—or some combination thereof. But this excitement is reserved for the nose; all the mouth gets is a limp, lemony liquid that grows progressively more boring with each sip. Sauvignon blancs almost never evolve in the glass—they simply fill the space.

Anyone else have the same, or similar, reactions to sauvignon blancs?

Or do you find many sauvignon blancs are quite suitable to your taste?

Care to elaborate for us?

[jsolomon]

Ack! No wonder I don't read Slate.

If there wasn't a reasonable wine produced by sauvignon blanc, there wouldn't be a market for it. I drink it. It is a good wine. I generally don't drink spectacular wines, though. My wallet can't afford it.

Here's my problem with the article: Simply tearing into the grape because a particular bottle was uninspired is sensationalist for the sake of readership. That, and starting off with the anecdote of how he doesn't like in-the-shell crab and how distracting his four-year-old son was by flipping the bird to fellow diners was the set-up to a I-had-a-bad-day-so-read-my-vented-spleen article.

But, I like sauvignon blancs with early spring salads. They go better with a good greens mixture than the German wines that the author says are so much better.

Besides, isn't wine like sex and pizza?

[dinwiddie]

Obviously the writer has not tried some of the wonderful examples from Crocker & Starr, Mulderbosch, Kim Crawford and that like.

[Joe Gerard]

What a strange rant. To suggest that SB from producers like Dagueneau, Ladoucette, Jolivet and, yes, Kim Crawford (which I enjoyed with some Petit Billy yesterday - what a match!) are not among the world's great white wines displays a very surprising level of intolerance for a professional.

Perhaps Steinberger prefers wines that many critics enjoy these days, the ones that could come from any grape, and any place, but conform to their subjective preferences. Sauvignon Blanc is not that kind of wine.

[JohnL]

I wasn't so put off by the tone--the piece was provocative.

I believe the writer was merely making a point that sauvignon blanc

is often over rated.

It is an aromatic varietal that offers more excitement in the nose than on the palate

and many (writers and geeks) in their attempt to flee chardonnay declaring it passe touted sauvignon blanc as one varietal to which the "hip" were into--the silly "anything but chardonnay" (ABC) movement was thus born.

(today the "cognoscenti" are "into" other whites --the more obscure the varietal the hipper the wine. These folks do serve a good purpose--they help introduce people to different wines.

The truth is, sauvignon blanc (IMOP) is a wine that can be wonderfully refreshing to drink--the nose can be beguiling. True, on the palate the wine is rarely the equal of the nose--the wines are simple--and when well made, are clean, crisp and straight forward. They are what they are.

Rarely does one "savor" a sauvignon blanc but the wine can be quite savory to drink.

The writer should have made clearer that there are two contrasting styles of the wine from grassy and herbaceous to fruity/citrussy, tropical and otherwise and the very best can offer a mineral note as well.--these wines do pair up well with many foods.

The writer also neglected to note that there are a few examples of SB that do approach the greatness of chardonnay in terms of complexity etc. The whites of Bordeaux--my favorite is Domaine De Chevalier blanc (I have a few bottles of 1981 left) which age very well and offer some incredible drinking. Of course most of these Bordeaux are blends (semillon for age ability etc). Also worth noting are some Loire examples--Didier Dagueneau produces some remarkable sauvignon blancs among a few others.

But, by and large, the piece in Slate pretty much sums up the obvious. Sauvignon Blanc for the most part is a pretty basic enjoyable wine that doesn't require too much intellectual pondering--with some good food and some great conversation it certainly won't get in the way.

It does not reach the "heights" that chardonnay or riesling can attain but if one doesn't ask it to, it can provide a lot of drinking pleasure.

Funny, though, how the many of the "cognoscenti" are "rediscovering" chardonnay and merlot

I have always thought that these folks were always chasing their own tails--wait long enough and they will come full circle!

The rest of us have just continued to enjoy different varietal wines satisfied with what they are not agonizing over what they are not.

Edited April 18, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[JohnL]

What a strange rant. To suggest that SB from producers like Dagueneau, Ladoucette, Jolivet and, yes, Kim Crawford (which I enjoyed with some Petit Billy yesterday - what a match!) are not among the world's great white wines displays a very surprising level of intolerance for a professional.

Perhaps Steinberger prefers wines that many critics enjoy these days, the ones that could come from any grape, and any place, but conform to their subjective preferences. Sauvignon Blanc is not that kind of wine.

←

I think Steinberger was arguing that most sauvignon blancs do not provide the levels of complexity that other varietals do. Say, for eg--chardonnay and riesling-- to select a non aromatic and an aromatic varietal for comparison. He seems to be using the very best a varietal can achieve as his criteria.

Truth is, he is right.

I do believe he goes overboard in dismissing sauvignon blanc--it certainly has its pleasures and on a rare occasion it approaches greatness. It (SB) does not improve with age for the most part--it is what it is, and that ain't bad.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "great."

[Bill Miller]

The writer's tongue is coated with vanilla and butter from an overoaked chardonnay. He will never like the light, clean, crisp, herbal flavors of Kim Crawford. Thats ok, it leaves more for me.

[Carolyn Tillie]

Araujo....

[SBonner]

Sauvignon Blanc overrated! rubbish. With Spring now here what a perfect wine for salads, lighter seafoods, and susi I'm a big fan of SB year round from the flinty minerally styles of the Loire to the pungent in your face Marlborough's.

Cheers,

Stephen Bonner

Vancouver

[Chris Amirault]

I believe the writer was merely making a point that sauvignon blanc is often over rated.

←

"Simply put, the grape is a dud" is a far more sweeping indictment than "overrated." This article reads as yet another overblown food piece using absurd hyperbole to make an obvious point, this time about the character of a particular grape. News flash: SB isn't chardonnay. Gimme a break.

As someone who buys only affordable wines to drink with food, I regularly and happily pour SB. Not only have wineries bottled SB at price points that work for me; it's also one of several varietals that make sense with what we eat. (Meanwhile, it's rare that I'd want to serve some buttery, oaky powerhouse chard with dinner -- or spend the several Jacksons to buy it in the first place.) Speaking of price points, the writer's suggestion that one can substitute, say, $25-35 bottles of Vouvray sec for $10-15 bottles of SB indicates a basic lack of understanding concerning budgets and, perhaps, mathematics.

Finally, did anyone else wonder about this writer's subject matter given his propensity for seeking out irritable experiences: he ordered crab at Joe's Stone Crab even though he's "not a fan of crabs served in the shell"?

[russ parsons]

the article is nothing more than a provocation, more interested in getting people buzzing than anything constructive. why does slate do this so often? because we always seem to bite.

in most cases, i would rather drink sauvignon blanc than chardonnay. in fact, last month i had the 2004 silex at citronelle (thanks mark!) and i have to say it was one of the best white wines i've ever tasted.

[Daniel Rogov]

To attend a restaurant you don't like, to dine on a dish you do not enjoy, to be burdened with a somewhat obnoxious 4 year old, and to find that the restaurant was "a zoo" is far from the ideal set of circumstances to enjoy or later hold forth either about a specific wine or a variety! My guess is that if I'd sat at the table next to Mr. Steinberger's, I'd have wound up strangling his son and downing a few quick shots of vodka before the police came to take me away.

As to Sauvignon Blanc, one does beg to disagree. True, a great deal of not-at-all distinguished Sauvignon Blanc is produced but this is true of every other variety one can name. On the more positive side, however, there are the distinctive, quite often complex and even elegant wines of the Loire and, the Macconais in France, in Italy many from Alto Adige and Collio, certainly in New Zealand's Marlborough, and would you believe, even in Napa…..

And me, what the heck….I adore stone crabs!!!!

Edited April 18, 2006 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[KatieLoeb]

I'll gladly drink a glass of Sancerre with a dozen oysters or even in-the-shell crab.

This "writer" has clearly not been tasting the right wines. There's all manner of dull and overrated wines in the world, made from every varietal under the sun. The vast difference in styles of Old World and New World Sauvignon Blanc could keep this guy busy for a while. Some nice gooseberry and "eau de litterbox" aromatics in a New Zealand SB vs. the steely grassiness and minerality of a Loire SB vs the ripeness and lush fruit of a California SB. There's SB for virtually any palate without straining oneself to look too hard. Obviously this writer has a short attention span, perhaps hindered by having to look after a four year old whilst doing his job.

[Busboy]

I have to say that I find myself more and more in agreement with the writer. Perhaps I should take Daniel's advice (on another thread) and take the study of wine a bit more seriously , but I increasingly find the SBs I buy -- wherever they're from or however much I spend -- to be thin, sour and characterless.

I'm sure that with money and good advice one can find good bottlings of any varietel, but the odds of getting a good Sancerre or a memorable Kiwi SB seem stacked against the buyer. I'd much rather run with a chenin blanc or maybe something in an Alsatian than ever drink another Cloudy Bay.

[russ parsons]

well, palates are different. i don't mean that as a banality, but i have a very acidic palate. i really like wines that are tart. i find that they have backbone and structure and that they are wonderful with food because they kind of cleanse the palate and get it ready for the next taste. on the other hand, maybe they're just sour.

[SBonner]

I have to say that I find myself more and more in agreement with the writer.  Perhaps I should take Daniel's advice (on another thread) and take the study of wine a bit more seriously , but I increasingly find the SBs I buy -- wherever they're from or however much I spend -- to be thin, sour and characterless. 

I'm sure that with money and good advice one can find good bottlings of any varietel, but the odds of getting a good Sancerre or a memorable Kiwi SB seem stacked against the buyer.  I'd much rather run with a chenin blanc or maybe something in an Alsatian than ever drink another Cloudy Bay.

←

[tommy]

Obviously this writer has a short attention span, perhaps hindered by having to look after a four year old whilst doing his job.

i'm sure this is in jest, but, it's very likely a logical fallacy to assume that the writer is doing his job whilst looking after a child, and that he does his job only when he's looking after a child.

I'll gladly drink a glass of Sancerre with a dozen oysters or even in-the-shell crab.

This "writer" has clearly not been tasting the right wines.

←

by quoting the word "writer", are we to assume that you don't feel this writer is a writer? i agree with you on sancerre and oysters. oysters don't need anything too complex on tha palate. zippy-zingy-and-fun.

anyway, i was actually quite impressed with the piece. i went into it thinking that he was just going to throw some controversial comments out there, and that was it. however, he made some very good points. for an indication to me that his argument was well thought-out, and somewhat compelling (more than i can say for most strong opinions that i find on the internet), all i need to do is to think back on how long it's been since i picked up a SB instead of a riesling, chenin blanc, falanghina, or a variety of other whites. hmm.

i would have to think that the writer does, in fact, try lots of wines every year, as he states. i have no reason to believe he's not well-versed, and no reason to think that his opinion is poppycock...least of all, perhaps, because i mostly agree.

good piece.

Edited April 19, 2006 by tommy (log)

[KatieLoeb]

Obviously this writer has a short attention span, perhaps hindered by having to look after a four year old whilst doing his job.

i'm sure this is in jest, but, it's very likely a logical fallacy to assume that the writer is doing his job whilst looking after a child, and that he does his job only when he's looking after a child.

I'll gladly drink a glass of Sancerre with a dozen oysters or even in-the-shell crab.

This "writer" has clearly not been tasting the right wines.

←

by quoting the word "writer", are we to assume that you don't feel this writer is a writer? i agree with you on sancerre and oysters. oysters don't need anything too complex on tha palate. zippy-zingy-and-fun.

anyway, i was actually quite impressed with the piece. i went into it thinking that he was just going to throw some controversial comments out there, and that was it. however, he made some very good points. for an indication to me that his argument was well thought-out, and somewhat compelling (more than i can say for most strong opinions that i find on the internet), all i need to do is to think back on how long it's been since i picked up a SB instead of a riesling, chenin blanc, falanghina, or a variety of other whites. hmm.

i would have to think that the writer does, in fact, try lots of wines every year, as he states. i have no reason to believe he's not well-versed, and no reason to think that his opinion is poppycock...least of all, perhaps, because i mostly agree.

good piece.

←

OK - perhaps my "quoting" of the word writer was a bit over the top. Mr. Steinberger can certainly write well, but unlike you, I completely disagree with him. That does not, however, mean that I disagree with his point that there's an ocean of other lovely white varietals to be had. I merely think that condemning the grape and virtually all that issues forth from it (in unadulterated form, anyway) based on bottle of Kim Crawford that wasn't to his taste is a bit hasty.

I'd suggest trying Haras de Pirque SB from Chile, Dominique Roger Sancerre Blanc La Jouline from the Loire, the Mulderbosch SB from South Africa or any one of several fine examples from the Russian River Valley before writing off SB as "dull" simply because it shows considerable stylistic variation from region to region, is an extremely versatile wine and it matches well with many different types of foods. Heck, those are all plusses in my book!

And the thing with the Sancerre and oysters is very basic chemistry. Sancerre is very highly acidic. Screechingly so, on its own, in fact. Oysters are briny. Salt and acid are at opposite ends of the Ph scale. Eaten together the flavors tame each other. Same reason we put a squeeze of lemon on seafood.

[tommy]

I merely think that condemning the grape and virtually all that issues forth from it (in unadulterated form, anyway) based on bottle of Kim Crawford that wasn't to his taste is a bit hasty.

i simply do not believe that is what this wine writer has done. although it's convenient to think that he's done this, if one wants to jump all over his conclusion. a conclusion, i would think, worded and framed to get people thinking about wine, and sauvignon blanc.

i think he would laugh at the assertion that he hasn't tried sauvingnon blanc from all over the world, in all types of settings, even without kids, and that he based his conclusion on single bottle of kim crawford.

Edited April 19, 2006 by tommy (log)

[JohnL]

article in Slate

... it was a sauvignon blanc problem. Simply put, the grape is a dud, producing chirpy little wines wholly devoid of complexity and depth, the very qualities that make wine interesting and worth savoring. For years, this offensively inoffensive grape has escaped criticism while ....

Astonishingly, there are people, among them some wine writers, who contend that sauvignon blanc creates wines of great character and verve. I'd love to know which sauvignon blancs they've been drinking. I taste dozens each year, and character and verve are two qualities most of them sorely lack. Sure, they tend to have distinctive bouquets, with heady aromas of grass, citrus, gooseberry, gunflint, and chalk—or some combination thereof. But this excitement is reserved for the nose; all the mouth gets is a limp, lemony liquid that grows progressively more boring with each sip. Sauvignon blancs almost never evolve in the glass—they simply fill the space.

Anyone else have the same, or similar, reactions to sauvignon blancs?

Or do you find many sauvignon blancs are quite suitable to your taste?

Care to elaborate for us?

←

I have to say, initially, I was only getting a portion of the piece in question when I clicked on the link (a glitch on my end I assume).

Now that I have read the entire article I am convinced even more so, that the writer is being provocative.

The piece is designed to provoke some thought and yes, some debate.

His motivation?

Well he seems to be looking at currently fashionable wines and some unfashionable wines and reassessing them.

The piece in question is his look at sauvignon blanc.

Years ago the press and some wine geeks decided that the most popular wines--chardonnay among them-- were really just for the masses and began touting new and "undiscovered" wines like sauvignon blanc. They began to denigrate chardonnay and merlot (consciously overlooking their positive attributes) in favor of "new" and "exciting" wines we--the huddled masses should be drinking as well.

By the way--this is what writers do--attempt to influence us.

One of these wines was sauvignon blanc. I remember the relentless attacks on chardonnay--too sweet, over oaked, insipid, characterless, charmless and yadda, yadda, yadda.

(merlot, among others, got the same treatment).

This preceded glowing prose telling us we shopuld all be exploring the wonderful world of--undiscovered white wines, among which they (the cognoscenti) have found --sauvignon blanc.

This was the anti chardonnay, the wine we should all be drinking (at least if we wanted to be "in the know").

Hence the trend in sauvignon blanc drinking which, as I see it, is now being attacked (ironically, by many of the same cognoscenti who were touting it at one time) in favor of--well you probably can guess it--chardonnay!

This is how the world of wine writing works--it is a fact of life. Everyone wants to be "hip" or "in the know" whether or not we admit it. (this is why we have such phenomena as trends. Things go in and out of fashion.

As Huey Lewis--interestingly his band is the "News" so presciently notes "it's hip to be square."

So once a wine (or a hemline) moves from "too cool for school" into the "everybody's doin it" category the cognoscenti led by the writers of the day, has to find another "undiscovered" gem or

they can revisit the past and tout the uncool and unhip as way of the future. This is how we get "retro" trends.

I am so cool as to be wearing ( and drinking) what is totally uncool--amazing! Plaid and chardonnay are back--hipper than ever!!!!

The critics ranted and raved about oak "you can't taste the grapes..." Well now they have tasted the grapes and decided they don't like em so much--watch the oak barrel come back too!

(hint--it never went away).

Mr Steinberger looks at SB and sees what was always there--this is a grape that is limited in its potential to make truly great wines. That is not to say that is can not produce very good wines or wines that are pleasant to drink (for many people).

Mr Steinberger, I believe, goes a bit overboard in condemning the grape, but this is, I think, just a journalistic gimmick to slap the reader upside the head --"hey wake up and pay attention here! I am saying something important that will change your life."

If you don't believe me that the the critical bandwagon is beginning to move again (this time it seems to be rolling backward to the past)--well there's a thread here about the Wall Street Journal recently touting--God in heaven forbid--MERLOT!!!

It won't be easy--they did such a good job trashing chardonnay and merlot that they will have to summon all their powers to change our minds--I know for me I will listen (read) but I still say --"I ain't drinkin no f--kin Merlot!"

[jsolomon]

JohnL, great point. I disagree, strongly even, but great point.

However, I don't drink wine to be hip. I don't follow trends. My hemline does not change as the seasons, and neither does my shoe color.

And, using a four-year-old displaying his middle finger as a hook in a food article is peurile, at best.

So, what do I, as a non-cognoscenti-following, brutally bullshit-filtering wine consumer pull from this article? Unfortunately, not a whole lot.

Just because this article displays current trends in literature doesn't mean it displays much for the cause of wine enjoyment--especially if it only espouses hipster movements. I don't need a hip wine to impress a first date, or to continue to keep the eye of some moving target. Besides, what defense does hipness have? Consume me because I'm novel only goes so far.

[JohnL]

JohnL, great point.  I disagree, strongly even, but great point.

However, I don't drink wine to be hip.  I don't follow trends.  My hemline does not change as the seasons, and neither does my shoe color.

And, using a four-year-old displaying his middle finger as a hook in a food article is peurile, at best.

So, what do I, as a non-cognoscenti-following, brutally bullshit-filtering wine consumer pull from this article?  Unfortunately, not a whole lot.

Just because this article displays current trends in literature doesn't mean it displays much for the cause of wine enjoyment--especially if it only espouses hipster movements.  I don't need a hip wine to impress a first date, or to continue to keep the eye of some moving target.  Besides, what defense does hipness have?  Consume me because I'm novel only goes so far.

←

good points!

First--trends and "hipness" are phenomena that are not created. Marketers have spent billions in mostly futile attempts to create trends.

As I see it, what happens is a small group of influentials tries something and a larger group of people look to the influencers and try the same thing--if they like it the popularity grows and wallah! You got a trend or a fad etc.

I don't believe that people are sheep who just mindlessly mimic other people (worse--do whatever a writer tells them to do).

Influencers and the press have a valid function--to alert people to new things so that one can try it--most folks simply do not have the time (or inclination) to for eg--taste every wine from every varietal and find things they like (or dislike). So they read the wine column in the local paper and see a writer touting the benefits of say--South African wines etc. --they go out and buy a South African wine and try it.....

I know of few people --if any--who will drink a wine they do not like just because of--well--because of any reason.

What I do object to, is how writers and critics will set up a straw man--they pick out the worst examples of something and use these examples to denigrate it--for eg Chardonnay--yes, there are and were examples of lousy chardonnay wines--there are and were many examples of absolutely wonderful wines made from this varietal--these were conveniently overlooked so the press could "lead" us to the promised land of--say--Sauvignon Blanc.

Now they take SB out of perspective and tout its anti chardonnay virtues.

The end result was mixed.

It is a good thing that many people tried sauvignon blanc--the wines are fine and have many good attributes. many people obviously agreed because SB became "in fashion."

The bad thing is Sauvignon Blanc was oversold--the grapes limitations were glossed over.

Even worse is that to sell us on trying SB, the press did a disservice to chardonnay--

The truth is--chardonnay is a non aromatic varietal capable of making a wide range of types and styles of wine many of which are among the greatest white wines man has ever made.

Sauvignon Blanc is very aromatic varietal that can with the very best wine making can produce very fine white wines.

Both these grapes can produce wonderful wines at all levels and one would be well served to enjoy each for what it is and can be.

As for the Slate piece at hand, I agree with your comments about the style of the writing though I am not so put off as you by the "puerile" stuff.

I do think that the best thing that can come from the article is if everyone just stepped back a bit and thought.

If one enjoys sauvignon blancs that's good. There is a reason that SB is enjoyed by so many drinkers--they like it. It is likable. There is nothing wrong with being one of a crowd. remember--it is hip to be different but it is also hip to be square (ok Huey Lewis is no Dylan but he was on to something here).

But--what is needed here is some perspective and a dose of reality--this comes from thought.

(I think).

Anyway--let's appreciate SB for what it is and let's maybe look at other whites--notably chardonnay for what it really is and can be. And most importantly, let's enjoy them both.

[Daniel Rogov]

I have always liked the word "serendipity" and it was precisely that that had me at a tasting held today in Tel Aviv, that hosted by Israeli winemaker Barry Saslove who had returned from New Zealand with several Sauvignon Blanc wines he thought might be of interest. I offer the following tasting notes as a rebuttal to the concept that Sauvignon Blanc can not be exciting.

Palliser Estate, Sauvignon Blanc, Martinborough, New Zealand, 2004: Light golden in color, with generous acidity giving a remarkably live-ness to the wine, but showing complexity, with lime, pear, date and a hint of green garden vegetables that runs tantalizingly through. Drink now. Score 90. (Tasted 20 Apr 2006)

Matua, Sauvignon Blanc, Marlborough, New Zealand, 2004: Light and lively with generous acidity in good balance with lime and tropical fruits backed up nicely by hints of green vegetation and minerals. On the long finish distinct grapefruit, a hint of pungency and sweet pea flavors that cannot help but please. Drink now-2007. Score 91. (Tasted 20 Apr 2006)

Cloudy Bay, Sauvignon Blanc, Marlborough, New Zealand, 2004: My earlier note holds firmly, the strong vegetal hints that run through from first attack to the finish still there to make this a wine you're gong to love or hate, all depending on how you perceive the role of Sauvignon Blanc in the universe. Indeed good fruits here, those including peaches, nectarines, honeydew melons and green apples, and generous citrus acidity as well, but those on a background of sweet peas, green beans and sweet green peppers. Drink now. Score 88 (as those reading this note can see I appreciated that green-ness). (Re-tasted 20 Apr 2006)

Matua, Sauvignon Blanc, Shingle Valley Peak, Marlborough, New Zealand, 2004: Light- to medium-bodied, with crisp acidity backing up citrus, tropical fruits, grassiness and generous spices, allspice rising on the finish. Clean and easy to drink. Drink now. Score 87. (Re-tasted 20 Apr 2006)

Villa Marie, Sauvignon Blanc, Reserve, Wairau Valley, Clifford Bay, Marlborough, 2004: If ever a wine earned the descriptor "cat's pee" this is that wine, but don't let that put you off for the light pungency that strikes on first attack then passes nicely to reveal grapefruit, citrus peel, melon and mineral-earthy flavors. Long, generous and mouthfilling. Drink now. Score 91. (Tasted 20 Apr 2006)

Cantebury House, Sauvignon Blanc, Christchurch, Wairapa Valley, New Zealand, 2004: Crisply dry, with tantalizing hints of sweet peas and green peppers, those yielding to citrus, summer fruit and a generous grassy sensation. Long and generous. Drink now. Score 90. (Tasted 20 Apr 2006)

Edited April 20, 2006 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[tommy]

"light, crisp, and acidic. grassy and pissy. great quaffer. perfect for oysters. drink now."

[KatieLoeb]

"light, crisp, and acidic.  grassy and pissy.  great quaffer.  perfect for oysters.  drink now."

←

You forgot to mention the merest soupçon of gooseberry and insouciant traces of grapefruit in the nose...