What are your top wine prejudices?

"Christopher Sprague" skrev i meddelandet news:WtednUCUe7DZgqjanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com...

Tavel can be great. Not always, but it can be. Some of the Northern Spanish rosés give good QPR.

Correct me if I am wrong, but, in California, calling the grape Syrah implies you are a 'Rhone Ranger', no? Menaing, you make a wine in a more Northern Rhone style, even to the point of meticulously blending in some Viognier. Yesterday, as a preprandial, we had a glass of "Big House Slammer" from that Graeme dude, of flying cigars fame, which was quite good for a before dinner quaff, loads of ripe Syrah (yes, it said Syrah on the label), with blackberries and cold cuts, bit of tobacco, and a swift kiss of oak. Decent buy at SEK 100 (USD 14.50).

I don't know zip about Oregon PN, they are not available here. But I can´t fault you, Bourgogne is very difficult. When bad, atrocious at a high price, when good, angels sing. You have to have a good adress. Or know a good producer. Or know somebody who has or does these things (e g Jim Tanner). Travelling around Côte d'Or, with a list of good producers, is extremely enlightening. But, it is a mature market, meaning, there are next to no good deals. Well, St Aubin, Auxey-Duresse, Monthelie, then. But I would be hard put to buy a bottle of Bourg without a prior tasting.

Not quite in agreement. Reds from Austria are on the up, particularly from the better autochtonous varieties (Blaufrankisch, e g, which, admittedly is not strictly an Austrian grape - it comes, most likely, as the name implies, from Franken in Germany). Also Zweigelt can give good wines.

My own favorite prejudice would be Zinfandel. I have not, so far, come across a good Zinfandel. Sorry, but this is true, and it may be because of the idiosyncracies of the Swedish monopoly system, but they are sweetish, jammy, unblanced. No doubt the best, or good ones, never cross the Atlantic, yes?

Cheers

Nils

They never cross the Atlantic, because somewhere during the crossing they head south.

Agree, Tavel from Domaine de la Mordorée is probably the best.

Even better, rosé from Domaine de Terrebrune in Bandol, and possibly Domaine Tempier. Avoid Ott and other heavy SO2 solutions. For a change, try a Cotes du Roussillon from Preceptorie de Centernach. The occasional Champagne rosé can be rewarding.

Other than these, I must say that I find all rosés I have tasted so far from the California, Loire, Burgundy, Bordeaux and Italy not worth discussing.

Sorry Nils, but that's definitely wrong. This would be the same as implying that France ("Frankreich") has its name from Franken in Germany.

The name part "fränkisch" refers to the historic people called Franks - those living under Charlemagne -, and it is said that he was much of a promotor of planting better vines in his empire. These better grapes became known as "fränkisch", as opposed to the lesser "heunisch" grapes of Eastern Europe. There still is a grape called "Heunisch", "gouais" in French ("Gwäss" is Swiss german), well-known as parent grape (with pinot) of chardonnay and (with Traminer) of Riesling.

The first appearence of Blaufränkisch back in the 17th century, in fact, was in Austria.

So Blaufränkisch can very well be considered as being an autochthonous Austrian Grape variety.

M.

True for 99% of still rosé wine. Definitely not true for Champagne rosé.

M.

Definitely.

Really enjoy your post - thank you. Regarding the prejudices you cite;

#1 - still somewhat of a similar opinion as yours. Rose, to my palate, is in a nether world - it isn't a good white, it isn't a good red, and seems to me to be somewhat faddish. I know that there are many who ridicule this attitude ... but there it is. #2 - Syrah & Shiraz are the same grape. The difference of course is style: Australian (Shiraz) versus Rhone (Syrah). Here in CA, we also make over-ripe, over-extracted Syrah's - but also some wonderfully complex and balanced Syrah. I prefer the Australian GSM blends over the varietal Shiraz (Torbreck, etc) #3 - Agree completey. I have traveled every other year (three trips thus far) to Burgundy and done my best to 'figure it out'. But the truth is - Burgundy vin rouge is all over the board and simply not wirth my time and $. whereas Oregon PN is consistently good. #4 - hmmm ... not sure about that. Maybe you're right - I don't pay much attention to points ratings other than Parker's ratings of Bordeaux. #5 - tend to agree. I know some will stand up for some Austrian wines, and others for some NY State wines ... but to my palate, those grapes never fully develop and lack the character that the varieties possess.

Werrlll ... I do believe that the name Frankreich or France rather has its roots in the German tribe, the Franks, who put up their own little kingdoms in what is today the Northern parts of France, to wit, Neustria and Austrasia. I would subsume that Franken has its name from the same tribes. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

This cannot be denied. After all, there is a reason one of the Grand Crus in Bourgogne is nmaed Corton Charlemagne.

However, the Franks were known long before the reign of Charlemagne.

In fact, according to some cognoscenti, the bad wines were called Hunnish, by the good emperor Charlesmagne. Heunisch would be a slight corruption. However, according to DNA analyses, the Heunisch, or gouais, has its roots in Croatia (I seem to recall). It relation to Chardonnay (and various other varieties that are crossings with PN) appears to be beyond discussion, and the same goes for Riesling.

Now, here is where it gets just a bit dicey. After all, when the Blauränkisch appears, Charlemagne has been dead lo these ... 800 years. Can his naming system really still be applicable? Just sort of thinking out loud, you know?

Yes - quite so. Blaufränkisch does exist in Franken too, under the name of Lemberger - Lemberg apparently being a placename. I stand corrected as to where it appeared first, this being in Austria as you point out. It even has the Heunisch as one of its parent varietals, according to some authorities.

To sum it up: I have been proved incorrect in assuming that Blaufränkisch has its name from Franken, sincen the variety was known (under that name) in Austria before it was ntroduced in Germany (and, in consequence, in Franken).

Are we in agreement that it can make some rather good red wines?

Cheers

Nils

And the name Franken is German for the HRE's province of Franconia, which indicated the region where the Franks lived...

Some time later the Franks got together with the Beans somewhere in SW France, and cassoulet was born.

Tastes differ. I would agree that 99% of all still roses are pedestrian to terrible. But then, that's true of most broad categories of wine. In the last year I have loved the Edmunds St Jean Bone Jolly, the Clos Roche Blanche Pineau d'Aunis, and the Cantalupo Il Mimo. All $1-15. No Burg roses lately, but I have an '06 Bart Marsannay in waiting, some previous vintages have been very good. OK, ok, I admit I've never had a Bdx rose that didn't suck.

I don't look for profundity in rose (other than maybe the Lopez de Heredia Tondonia, and maybe Tempier). But a $6-7 Chivite rosado on a hot day by the river hits the spot for me.

Thank you.

I always have assumed that Württemberg (province of Baden- Württemberg) was Lemberger/Limberger country, not Franken (province of Bavaria), so the Lemberger/Franken connection is new to me.

By far the largest place called Lemberg is the city of Lwow/Lwiw, formerly in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, today in Ukrainia.

Didn't know that, thank you.

Thank you once again.

Yes we are! :-)

M.

I prefer to call my prejudices "working hythoseses". They may cause me to miss some gems, but on the whole they seem to steer me towards wines I am likely to enjoy. Life's too short to be open-minded about every wine - it's there for enjoyment.

Note, I was referring to the ones I have tasted... :-)

Of course, and in the summers here a Bandol from La Suffrene or one of the lesser rosés from La Mordorée will do fine...

Brilliant idea, thank you!

If I'd use usenet signatures, this would be a sentence to enter into the data base.

M.

Hi Michael Pronay,

on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:52:41 +0100, you said:-

I don't know if Xnews allows you to do this, but Agent - which is my newsreader _does_ allow me to have a list of signatures - and like you I found Steve's phrase eminently quotable.

So....

Hi Chris,

on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:09:36 GMT, you said:-

I rather tend to agree with those of us who've expressed some reticence over most Rosé wines. However, I'd not call it/them "faddish" wines, merely boring.

However, where I don't agree with you, or with some of the other contributors, is in the tacit assumption that there's not really a legitimate place for still (not talking about champagne here) rosé of good quality. There are dishes where most reds are too "red" and most whites too "white". I know that you can get some light reds, and some meaty whites, but take a dish like a jambon morvandelle, where slices of ham are cooked in with a madeira, cream and tomato flavoured sauce. I find that the dish does nothing for reds, and tends to overwhelm most whites. While a bif chardonnay does resist well, I don't find the flavour profile goes that well. A good characterful rosé goes very well.

Where I agree with most people is over the difficulty of finding such a beast. Either they are thin and dry and boring or they are thin and sweetish and boring. A Tavel is often excellent, though they are horribly expensive for what they are.

I have to say that I have found that there are some really surprisingly palatable rosés from the Bergerac Region. They are often produced from the plots of vines used for the best reds, by the saignée method - removing part of the fermenting must to leave a higher proportion of skins to juice to make a red with greater intensity of colour and acidity/tannins. It could be argued that it would be better to get that balance by viticultural means, but the fact is, that it's not done.

Anyway, I've had some splendid rosés from the region, abnd they are never too expensive -around 3 to 5 euros for the average bottle and only 8 euros for a complete maverick rosé called "Jour des Tendres" from Luc de Conti, which has had about 5 years in barrel.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my opinion..... I've really only dashed on quickly from the UK on my way to Peru - leaving LHR at 7.25am!! (yeuch).

See you later

Or even "working mythoseses"{:-) Graham

Chris, I'll see you your prejudices and raise you one:

1. California Cabernets produced since '91 are too pricey for what they are.

1. Aussie Shiraz is soupy, overextracted, overoaked "blueberry milkshake" with only a very few exceptions.

2. Califonia and Australian Chardonnays are overoaked, buttery and lacking in acidity.

1. Central Coast Pinot Noirs are overextracted, overly alcoholic, Syrah wannabes.

2. "Modern" reds from Rioja, Tuscany, Ribera del Duero, Priorat, St. Emilion, etc. are basically indistinguishable from (1).

1. Any wine that gets 95 or more points from Parker or the WS is too oaky, overextracted and expensive.

There. I think that's predjudiced enough to offend almost everyone ;-)

Mark Lipton