Columbia Crest Merlot

I completely agree. I've found CU quite reliable for evaluation of machinery, but their food evaluations have always left me scratching my head. FWIW, I think that the same criticism applies to most evaluations by tasting panels: the winning wines will usually be the least offensive, which usually guarantees something squeaky clean and bland. That's why, if one wants to rely on a critic's opinions, you're usually better off with a single individual whose tastes are close to your own.

Mark Lipton

I have never been a big fan of most Merlot as an unblended wine from most areas. Even in the classic Bordeaux regions of France, most Merlot is blended. The noticeable exception, and what an exception, is Petrus . Merlot from most regions, unblended, seems to be even more difficult to turn into a great wine than Pinot Noir. Merlot, often slightly blended, from California became very popular in some circles several years ago, and prices shot up. Since it tended to be softer in youth than CS of the era, and most wine is consumed shortly after it is bought, this may be a large reason Merlot became more popular.

Of course CR's reports on wine have not been aimed at most people who read this group, read wine books, or subscribe to wine newsletters. Their limit on upper prices and reviews of rather young wines point to suggestions for people who are not too interested in wine and who just want a decent wine at a reasonable price to serve with a meal soon after purchase. Slip a young Ch. Latour from a good year into their tests, and they would have to suggest that it rates very low for current drinking, but that it likely has great potential for those who will age it properly for many years. Also one can not expect much other than primary flavors, especially in the reds, for such young wines. I think that many people consider wine just as another food item and give it no more consideration that vegetables or meat. They likely usually serve food from the supermarket and do not order in dry-aged US prime beef and discuss which company has the best steaks, and why.

I have not tasted CR rated wines, so I can have no opinion on them. However I do know quite a few people who are not very interested in wine and who find many top wines too strong, too acid, too dry etc for their taste. I sometimes put a bottle or two of softer wines in the wine machine along with the wine I plan to serve. I tell a guest, who I do not know well, what I plan to drink but, since tastes vary, I have 2 other wines ready to serve and will be glad to give them a taste of all to select. I have seen people pass up a mature first growth Bordeaux for a much softer California blend. I have also seen even experienced wine drinkers pass up Ch. Chalon, which seems to be very much an acquired taste.

Great screen name, Godzilla!

CU is very good for reviewing toasters and microwaves, but laughable as a benchmark for wine.

That said I would actually agree with them on this wine Columbia Crest's GE Merlot is best-of-breed for Washington State merlots under $10. It has the pommerol-style tannin backbone, with lots of bramble and a tight core of cranberry and plum.

I typically use this during wine-intro lectures to show how a varietally-correct merlot is very different than the fat-plum-and-vanilla ones we typically get from California.

That said, I haven't had the 03 yet, and it sounds like it has gone downhill fast.

Keith Wallace The W> In a recent post, I noticed that COLUMBIA CREST Grand Estates 2003 Merlot

Sounds like most varietal Merlots to me. Some grapes are simply better for blending than for varietal production.

I'll not pass up a taste of a vin jaune, but to date none have thrilled me. But I admit to being a poor excuse for a wine geek, as I've never been moved by a sherry,either.

Mark & Godzilla,

I agree completely. I find that CU does OK with "household" machinery, but when it comes to photographic gear, AV equipment, or wine, they are playing to the masses and choose products that will not likely offend the majority of their readers. When one is experienced in certain areas, they can usually poke holes in the reviews, without breaking into a sweat.

CC Merlot Reserve is one of those.

Hunt

I have written a Letter to the Editor after CU did one of their reports on computers. In it, I opined that it is understandable why commercial magazines continue to pretend that Windows or Mac are the only two choices available in operating systems, completely ignoring the millions of individuals, corporations and governments around the world who have switched to Linux. But, why does CU follow the same illusory path?

Godzilla Hardened Linux User, trying hard not to be an Evangelist.;-)

I like a Unix Apache (Linux) server and have my 2 domains on one. Linux-type servers have a large market. There are also Windows servers and several others including special purpose streaming servers used to stream music and video.

Linux, however, has never come of age for use on computers in many areas. If you just want to use one to get on the web, use email, etc. it is fine. However I could not possibly use a Linux on my computer. The main problem is the availability of suitable authoring media software. Much of the advanced media software is written only for Windows and Mac OSs. The reason is that such software is very expensive to develop, and there are just not enough Linux OSs on computers used by professionals to justify the expense of writing a Linux version. The likely main reason that Mac versions often are provided in addition to Windows, despite the much lower number of MAC OSs, is that many Hollywood media types love Mac computers and demand software that will work on them. To give just one example, I use a program from Minnetonka for authoring DVD-Audio discs (up to 6 channels, much higher resolution than a CD). Their DiscWelder series of authoring and burning programs are not available for Linux. Of course a few Linux die-hards have a Windows or Mac OS set up on one HD and Linux set up on an added second HD.

At the other end of the scale, a few Linux derived and other OSs have been used on very low-priced computers sold at Walmart and elsewhere to avoid the cost of a Windows OS. CR may have mentioned one or two of these a few years ago. The savings to the end user in the long run, even if the computer does what they need to do, may not be great if they have to buy several additional programs that the makers of some such computers sell.

It seems to me that Linux is well established for servers. However, for the general non-geek computer market, the time for Linux seems to have passed. I would not expect CR to mention Linux in computer reviews any more than I would expect them to review Romanee-Conti in their wine reviews. But I know many Linux users like the fact that Linux is open source and are a very loyal lot who will use it all they can. Of course a Linux OS would serve the needs of many. However, when you buy a new ready-to-go computer, as the mass market often demands, it usually comes with a Windows OS installed (unless it is a MAC). Many casual computer users would not want to install a new OS and find programs to work with it. For many, a computer has now become just another home appliance, and they expect it to work out of the box and have no interest in modification of it any more than in modification of a refrigerator. If the computer will not get on most web sites, do mail, download audio and video and burn it to CD or DVD, play media on the web, etc., they want no part of it.

Honor bound to point out, that while I am no Linux junkie, the above simply isn't true any more. We are eliminating windows in this household. I switched Adele to a Linux box which she uses professionally. In a windows environment I might add. She groaned considerably about the switch but I really didn't want to spend all the time that windows requires, from crashes to viruses.

In short, Linux does the job. She can see any web site. She can run IE6 if necessary, but it's not. She uses flash, Acrobat, ms-office and OpenOffice, watches corporate videos and DVDs, the whole shooting match. She's got google earth, internet telephony, good graphics creation. When I plug the digital camera into the usb port it _just works_. With windows, it hung up 3 out of 4 times.

Linux isn't perfect, and for sure there are certain applications that require a PC. I can't run Finale on a linux box, it's too bad.

But all of the regular consumer computer functions, no problems at all.

Oh, and the machine has never crashed since I brought it up. Not once.

My 2 centimes. ;)

-E

Good for you. However, I know of none of the most popular mid to high end computers bought by most here in the US that come set up to use Linux as the OS, and many casual users have absolutely no interest in switching OSs. The situation may be a bit different in Europe. Neither the WMP or Real players seem to be offered in other than Windows or Mac versions. There are some players that will play some of the formats these players can, and some will do this on Linux. However, considering that there are still sites that use ActiveX controls only for playing media, some of these pages can not be viewed properly unless you have both an OS and browser installed to handle these. Also the official Real player has nearly full SMIL support, which allows you to use the XML SMIL code designed for media presentations that most current OSs and browsers do not yet support. Use of SMIL is most effective in a network situation where you can ensure everyone has the Real player installed. Also, for a media oriented page, you can guess that most US users interested in media will have the WMP and/or Real players installed.

I know better than to engage in a long discussion with Linux fans. For those with an interest in the history of the open source movement, you might enjoy the DVD release of "Revolution OS", a 2 disc set. Your average video rental store likely does not have it, but, in the US, I was able to rent it online from Netflix. Linux is just one well-know aspect of the open source code movement that was taking place at MIT and elsewhere before there was a Linux.\

After a little checking, I find that I have at least 10 programs, mostly specialized media ones used locally on the computer rather than on the web, that are not availabe other than for Windows/MAC OSs, and some of these will work only on the last release or two of these OSs.

No, I think you're right there. There are a few shops offering pre-installed Linux in the US as in Europe, but it's very fringe. And as you point out that is the barrier to entry for most of the consumer market who are unwilling to install the OS on their own (that's true for windows too of course). I believe Dell and HP in the US are now offer Linux pre-installed but only on higher end systems.

Actually Real player runs native as does Quicktime, and there is no need for WMP as an application called mplayer handles the windows formats.

You clearly know more about these areas then I. I am merely pointing out that for stuff like watching videos, browsing the net, making DVDs etc Linux works just fine. As I pointed out linux users have Real Player and can watch any windows media file (as far as I know).

You're right about that, too. :) As I say I'm not a Linux evangelist (you'll note I'm not using it to post to this group), but I do think it deserves a fair shake.

We agree there are certain "killer apps" that constrain users to the Windows environment. Many of these don't run on Mac even. Mine is Finale, although I am tempted to switch over to mac with it.

In any case there's no need to change from what works and what you're comfortable with, provided the hassle factor isn't too great. But I still quibble with the conjecture initially quoted above.

Now, for a glass of 2000 St Bris with grilled sardines. And I will toast your health. ;)

-E

Thanks. I would gladly join you in a toast with a glass of 2000 St Bris, as I have never tasted it. I am afraid I would decline the sardines. Living in the central US when young, most sea fish was a few days old before it was cooked - not spoiled, but often too "fishy". Then there were those awful canned sardines which reeked of fish that seemed to need a bath. We also often got some fairly well aged fish on Friday when I was in college. The college was state run, but many places then served fish on Friday so they would not have to cook one thing for the Catholics and something else for the rest. As a result, I seldom want any common sea fish such as sardines, cod, etc. I do like many shellfish. I did not have much shellfish when young. However I hear that one overripe raw oyster can turn you against oysters for a long time, if not the rest of your life.

Ed Rasimus wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

As a WA state resident I'm probably spoiled.

At the same quality point as Columbia Crest, Snoqualmie, Covey Run, and Hogue are qite a bit cheaper than the 'Grand Estates', and if you go up just a bit in price, Columbia Winery, Hogue Genesis, and Terra Blanca are quite a step up in quality.

Of course, out of state you are at the mercy of the distributors, and a lot of them are only going to bother with the biggest wineries.

Spoiled? Do you mean biased?

How do you define "same quality point" when you're talking about different wineries? Each of these wineries produces wines in a range of quality points. Matching them up point by point is a highly subjective exercise. Columbia Crest GE wines were advertised at $7.99 in an advertising flyer included in last Sunday's local (Seattle) newspapers. Which of the others do you say are "qite [sic] a bit cheaper"?

Generally, as you go up in price, you go up in quality, although there are many exceptions to this. So what's your point?

Of the wineres you brought up, three (Colunbia, Hogue, and Covey Run) are owned by Constellation Brands. I doubt that they have any problems with distribution.

Vino

Vino wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Why should I be biased for one WA wine vs another. I mean spoiled, with better availability as far as WA wines goes, than East Coasters, Europeans, Australians, NZ or Asians.

(Doesn't mean that they don't have the advantage over me in availability of other wine regions.

At $7.99 I'd be buying Columbia Crest Grand Estates, on sale I'm usually seeing it for 8.99 or 9.99. The 'mass market' versions of Snoqualmie, Hogue and Covey Run typically run about the same as Columbia Crest two vines (or is it three?), 6.99 to 5.50 on sale, exactly where depends on how deep the sale is. Snoqualmie I see regularly at 6.49 which I compare to the $8.99 for Grand Estates.

As for quality, I feel I'm going down a tiny amount for the Snoqualmie, Covey Run and Hoque. I also feel that the difference between CC Grand Estates and Columbia, Hogue Genesis, and Terra Blanca is fairly big. Bigger than the difference between $8.99 for CC Grand Estates and $10.99 for Columbia and Hogue Genesis (again on sale), Terra Blanca is a little bit more but another step up in quality. Again, CC at $7.99 is more of a toss-up.

Of course, that's just my taste buds and my feelings, so if you feel differently, just continue buying Columbia Crest and leaving the other wines for me.

My point is that to my taste, and the price points I see, Columbia Crest Grand Estates is not on a good place on the Price/Value line. You seem to disagree. That's why having every winery try to make the same tasting wine is a bad idea.

Well, I suppose if Costellation wanted to lean on the distributors, they'd get the distribution.