Good example of better Chardonnay?

I haven't had the Australians, but neither of these are very exciting.

Dimitri

Those are really two different questions. For the first part, I'd put my $$ on the Beringer, but I have to confess that I have little experience with Australian Chardonnay.

For a California wine that's not on the list, I'd suggest Kistler. It's rather pricy at ~$75 US (if you can find it, at all), but that's not bad compared to top white Burgundies.

As for wines that resemble Burgundy, I doubt that any of them really do - at least not any more than Burgundy resembles Californian or Australian Chardonnay. That's rather clumsily worded, but I think you get what I mean.

Tom S

All of these wines are good examples of Chardonnay (Beringer and the Shaw & Smith really stand out) because they do not resemble Burgundy.

The standard St Francis Sonoma Chardonnay is another anti-Burgundy that will get your attention.

Sean

"Eric lee" wrote in news:bsmum2$61o$1 @mawar.singnet.com.sg:

Are you equating good Chardonnay with better brugundy or contrasting? None of your examples are very burgundian though the one thing that they share with Burgundy is the varietal. FWI I have had some French Burgundy made for the US market that tastes somewhat like a Beringer (DeBoeuf's Pouilly Fuisse and Jadot's "Chardonnay" come to mind)

Speaking of Pouilly Fuisse, This one I tasted recently is pretty nice: Louis Tête 2002 ($15US) I don't know if it's made for the California market, but it's pretty good by my admittedly Californian standards. :^)

Tom S

If a Burgundian winemaker can make a wine that tastes like a "California chardonnay" (whatever that means) from grapes grown in Burgundy, what does that say about the French insistence on the primacy of terroir?

Not trying to start another argument over terroir. Just asking a (somewhat) loaded question.

Vino

This issue is as old as the hills, it was decisively answered in 1976 - see:

(and yes, I live in California).

Dana

Terroir is only evident if the winemaker wishes for it to be. In many wines, it's not evident even *if* the winemaker wants it to be. Terroir is the most important thing, but viticulture and winemaking are extremely important. Cal chards usually don't *try* to express terroir and many consumers prefer it that way. There is something to be said for it, certainly. I am not sure I want the Modesto terroir expressed in my budget wine.

Dimitri

Vino wrote in news:7advuvsgr7gvulk5u7k5iptfdlist2cq0g@

It rally means nothing as these wines are deliberately made to conform to a style other than the native terroir driven style. The competition that Dana mentioned doesn't adress terroir as much as taste, the taster's prefered the taste of the CA wines but I would never pick the two I mentioned above as the best in any competition. If they were the "best" I'd flunk 'em all.

We need to report you to the FBI---you must be one of those terroirists.:)

Dana Myers snipped-for-privacy@arrl.net posts....

And always for good measure:

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.

--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--

I would add Konsgaard to that list. Expensive but delicious and quite Burgundian. Ramey also makes a great Chardonnay as does Lambert Bridge and Rosenblum at the value end (under $20.00) of the market. Bi!!

No Dana. I don't think this web reference to the competition between French and CA wines answers the question. In fact, it's only tangentially related to the question.

The question is whether producing a product true to the soils, climate and native yeasts produces a distincive wine. I believe that it does. Whether the wines wins (or loses) a competition with a CA wine is another issue.

Moreover, terrior is important in CA also. A Napa Cab is different than a Sonoma Cab. etc. That's why wines are labelled as to their origin. I do not know CA Chardonnay, but I presume that the top wines are not blends from different areas, but wines taken from select plots, and labelled as such.

I think it's too bad when the French producer wants produce a California-like chardonnay. I hope it's mostly in the mass-marketed (read Debeouf, Jadot etc.) wines, but I have tasted some creamy, buttery Chablis as of late, and in my opinion, they have no place on the shelves.

Down with standardization!

Tom Schellberg

Actually, if you can't taste it, it doesn't exist. So, the 1976 competition clearly indicated that the panel could not taste which wine was French and which wine was Californian in a blind setting, if we presume that the French tasters were looking for what they considered to be characteristics of French wine. One of those characteristics is terroir - whether amplified in the wine-making or not.

Personally, I think "terrior" is somewhat overblown and is primarily a marketing tactic. It's used to create a perception of exclusivity that otherwise isn't there. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate terroir and terroir-driven wines, and can actually taste some terror-driven differences sometimes - but if terroir doesn't speak from the glass, it's meaningless. If terroir speak only from the label, it's marketing.

Dana

Is this right, in the higher end CA Chardonnays? I have tasted so few of these. Do the better examples have distinct qualities representative of their origin?

This is a legitimate question I have, that I believe others in the group could answer.

Tom Schellberg

I like Kongsgaard and the wines he made for Livingston-Moffet as well, but they don't strike me as Burgundian in any way. They are big, massive fruit bombs. If you want to spend $60+ on Cal chardonnay then I recommend Peter Michael over Kistler or Kongsgaard. As half that price I like Tablas Creek Antithesis, which is in my opinion the best chardonnay under $50.

Dimitri

Where would you place Chateau Montelenas Chard?

dick

It depends in what you mean by "higher end" and "better examples". If you mean "expensive" then my statement is completely true. The same if you mean "popular" or "rated highly by Spectator". If you mean "the wines that taste the best" then it is not necessarily so, but that group is only a subset at best of the "expensive, highly rated, high end" group.

In California there has been a movement towards vineyard designated (or even block designated) boutique wines. However, the average winemaker (even of high-end wine) doesn't really try to evoke terroir and instead tries to make a tasty wine. The French, on the other hand, will evoke terroir even if it means the wine tastes like mud, manure, and ash. It is important to the French.

If I randomly selected a dozen Cal chards (even $50+) I don't think you'd be able to tell where the fruit came from. There are wines that do try to evoke the terroir. Stag's Leap makes a point of this in their SLV vs. Fay (cab) tastings. The vineyards are right next to each other, but the wines are distinct. This is not typical for California and it is a matter of winemaking mostly. Highly quality viticulture and good climate are essential, of course, but not sufficient.

Dimitri

Sorry to followup my own post, but another Cal chard that I like is Flowers. I once bought a bottle for $10 mismarked and it was the best $10 wine I think anyone anywhere has ever had! ;)

Dimitri