Modified Davis 20 point system

I don't know how he makes it, and I don't care.....

Sorry about the typo.

Not necessarily. One may be more suitable than another for a certain dish.

No, not at all. Some wines are mosre costly to make because of grape ripening patterns, etc. Nebbiolo-based wines (Barolo, Barbaresco, etc.) will always cost more than Barbera, because Nebbiolo grapes ripen later, and must be grown on sites that are suitable for that ripening pattern. Nebbiolo grapes therefore get the most expensive plots of land. Also, much of a Nebbiolo harvest can be ruined when in the same season Barbera is already picked and in the vat. there's more risk with Nebbiolo. Nebbiolo wines cost more than Barbera for reasons other than their 'appeal'.

I don't think so.

... in which case you'd pay more for it when you are having that dish, or you would have another dish. It is a rating system, imperfect though it may be. And it is accurate to the penny, if not precise.

No doubt. They will cost more. But they had better be better. Nobody cares how much a wine costs somebody else, they care only how much the wine costs =them=. And this is true for all things.

Jose

Jose:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I suggest you read Vino Italiano. Becuase the EU does not allow new planting of grapes in Italy (i.e., no new fields), existing vineyards in regions such as Tuscany and Piedmont are becoming more and more expensive. In the south, old idle vineyards can be bought for a small fraction of what equivalent vineyards in the north cost. But VERY good wines can be made in Puglia, my friend! The result is that high-quality wines from Puglia will cost less to produce than equivalent quality wines from Tuscany and Piedmont.

I can buy a wine like Patrigliano for $18 that is every bit as good as a Barolo for $35, but if I am making a dish that demands Barolo, then I buy Barolo.

Not at all. You don't understand the economics involved.

Correction:

"I can buy a wine like Notarpanaro for $18 that is every bit as good as a Barolo for $35, but if I am making a dish that demands Barolo, then I buy Barolo."

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote ......

Sorry Michael - yet again you are living in the past.

Italy used to be the number one producer by volume, but since 1998, having been overtaken by France.

See -

Actually, overtaken is the wrong word, because both country's production has declined, so I guess Italy's production has declined more.

Of course, when considering wine quality, both countries produce a great sea of very indifferent table wine.

I have no intention in wasting my time becoming familiar with wines from Puglia or Sicily or other regions where the vast majority of wines are characterless swill, just so I can find the one or two serious producers who do have the pride and patience to make excellent examples of local wines.

I also take issue with your statement "more types of wine" - what do you mean by this ambiguous statement?

If you mean "more local grape varieties" I would have no argument.

I appreciate that information. I'll go back to the corner and put on my dunce cap.

No doubt. That doesn't make them worth more. This is true for wines as well as for bird seed. What makes them worth more is something else...

...such as that. At least for that moment.

Jose

Patriglione?

Polly,

Is this your opinion or are you just parroting someone else's?

Andy

Then the loss is yours. Puglia, Sardinia, and Sicily have upgraded significantly in the past 20 years.

Yes, grape varieties and blends...

??? It costs 'X' to make a proper Barolo. It could cost 1/3 X to make a fine Puglian wine made to the same standard, all other things being equal. The fact that the Barolo costs more does not make it worth more, but if you want Barolo, the price starts at 'X'. Since there is a market for Barolo at 'X', it continues to be made. Many buyers are turning to the better wines from the south, as they offer superb quality. Try any Taurasi Riserva lately? About $40. Barolos start at $30 and go up from there.

What I found confirms my own opinions..

JEP62 wrote:

Right. I would therefore expect that, while some Barolo would be sold, less of it would be sold than if the price started at 1/3 X.

"Quality" or "goodness" (however you want to define it) is fuzzy, but it always comes down to a binary decision: Yes, or No. That decision happens every time you drink it (or not). Thus, "quality" is imprecise... to the degree that the difference between 89 and 90 is neglegible, but not nonexistant, and a 90 may easily get a score of 89, and v.v.

Jose

I still think you don't understand.

For Barolo to exist, someone has to be able to make it and sell it at a profit. This cannot happen at $8 retail. The grapes require too much care, the vineyards are too expensive to lease or buy, and the risk of bad harvest too high for that to be possible. Whether any given year's Barolo gets 85 or 95 points is irrelevant. It must sell for at least $30 retail or so. The wine laws of Italy require that wines made under the name 'Barolo' be made in a certain way, aged a certain way, from grapes grown on certain tracts of land, and with certain numbers of grapes harvested per hectare.

This builds in costs that cannot be ignored.

Grapes grown for the Barolo DOC require the best vineyards in Piedmont. The exposure to the sun must be optimum, and this usually means the crests of hills, with southern exposure, etc. Otherwise, the grapes don't ripen enough in time for the harvest. Ther are fewer of these sorts of sites than of less-suitable ones.

Barbera grapes do not require so much ripening time, and thus Barbera grapes can be planted on sites that would be unsuited for Barolo grapes. This brings down the cost of Barbera compared to Barolo.

In addition, wines made in other parts of Italy (Puglia, Campania, and Sicily) can be every bit as good and as well made, yet cost less. Part of this is because those wines have not yet earned the reputation that Barolo has, and therefore the cost pressures have not risen as high. Vineyards of equivalent quality are cheaper in Puglia, Campania, and Sicily.

So, just because Barolo costs more than Barbera or Notarpanaro does not mean it's 'better'. It's just more costly to produce Barolo. Part of that cost difference is > > The fact that the Barolo costs more does not make it worth more,

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote ..........

That may well be the case, however, what arrives on these shores from Sicily or Puglia is (with one or two exceptions) quaffable cheap rubbish not to my liking.

And why should I? There is a whole world of wine, waiting for me!

And "good value" well made Italian wines *are* on that list - but not to the exclusion of anything else.

I am a great fan of Amarone (Speri 'Monte Sant Urbano' or Masi Costasera Amarone) and Masi's Campofiorin.

My favourite Tuscan is currently Villa Cafaggio Chianti Riserva 2001.

You once asked if had tried Grignolino - well I have done better - I tried a couple in 1989 at the regional enoteca in Vignale Monferrato - maybe I was offered poorer versions, but I was left decidedly underwhelmed.

My point is Michael, that I am not blinkered - I am broad minded enough to seek the best in *all* things.

You on the other hand will never experience the delights that 82% of the worlds winemaking experience offers.

Maybe you have not heras the news, but the South is making some spectacular wines!

Much of what you dismiss has been sent north for decades to fill out that 'Tuscan' or 'Veneto' w> "Michael Scarpitti" wrote ..........

If you want names, I'll give you names! Or you may want to look in the Gambero Rosso books for suggestions.

Yeah, but it certainly isn't worth getting excited about......at all.

Have you tried Patriglione? It has much of the character of an Amarone (made from Negroamaro grapes, you see.....)

In general I find Tuscan wines over-rated. I'm not as fond of Sangiovese as most Italian wine drinkers. I prefer the nothern or southern grapes. (Barbera, Nebbiolo, Dolcetto, Aglianico, Negroamarao, Primitivo, Carignano, etc....)

Was it Giacosa?

Mostly piss...

I happen to be one that loves a good bold heavy red. Just a personal preference. I get tired of 'experts' telling me what a good wine is or isn't. A good wine is the one I like to drink.

I don't always want a heavy red. Depending on mood or what food I'm having a lighter wine may suit me better.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

What do you include as 'lighter'?

I mostly drink full bodied bold reds. Lighter for me would be a sangiovese. While not tradionally light I have found many lighter Pinot Noirs that I enjoy.