What are your top wine prejudices?

Like the subject says, I'm talking about prejudices you have about certain aspects of wine, especially those that you retain even if you know they're somewhat illogical.

Here are mine (with responses to each at the end):

1) Rose is cheap, somewhat sweet plonk made for people who don't actually like wine. It is the cheap domestic lager of the wine world.

2) Syrah makes a beautifully aromatic, medium-full bodied wine with finesse. On the other hand, Shiraz makes over-extracted, heavily manipulated, jacked up alcohol and fruit bombs with no character.

3) Burgundy (as a region) is hopelessly complex, quality is all over the place at all price points, and for the prices you pay, it is simply too dangerous to try to get in to it. Therefore I never buy Burgundy, and know next to nothing about it from a taste-experience point of view. Anything I do know comes from a handful of free tastings, and my experiences with Oregon PN, which I assume to be more consistent and a better value in general.

4) Nothing scoring less than 84-85 points can possibly be that good to drink. No matter who rated it, there has to be something noticably wrong for it to score less than 85.

5) Red wines from cooler climates are uniformly bad. Finger lakes, Austria, Germany...it's best to just avoid these, even at free tastings.

Responses to each of my 5.

1) I'm having some luck overcoming the rose = "white zinfandel" association. That being said, I still very rarely buy them, and if I do, chances are that they come in the form of sparklers (Crystalino and Gruet Rose, for example). I did make some headway on a recent trip to France, where I was handed quite a few glasses of Tavel and other southern Rhone roses. I even brought a bottle home, which is currently the only bottle of rose in my cellar (Domaine de l'Arjolle Meridienne).

2) Syrah = nice northern/southern and Californian wine. Shiraz = cheap over-extracted plonk from southeast Australia. Yes I know they are the same grape, but this is one association that will not go away, even now that I've tried some truly excellent Aussie Shiraz (Penfolds RWT, for example). Part of me wishes they'd name the good stuff Syrah so I'd have less of an aversion to it. I know this is completely irrational, too.

3) I'm not convinced this one isn't just a prejudice. Someone try to convince me otherwise.

4) This one actually became obsolete about 3 years ago, when I had a beautiful, elegant Zinfandel from August Briggs that scored a lowly 80 points from one of the critics (I forget which, probably Parker). Perhaps for $38, Parker was expecting a monster, jammy, in your face Zin, instead of the lower alcohol, very elegant, well balanced style that this was. Oh well, I loved it, and it was an eye-opening experience that help free me from being a slave to scores.

5) Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but it's certainly been my experience thus far.

Anybody else?

- Chris

Reply to
Christopher Sprague
Loading thread data ...
Reply to
Nils Gustaf Lindgren

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

Reply to
Mike Tommasi
Reply to
Michael Pronay
Reply to
Michael Pronay

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.

Reply to
AxisOfBeagles
Reply to
Nils Gustaf Lindgren

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

Reply to
Mike Tommasi

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

Reply to
Mike Tommasi

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.

Reply to
DaleW
Reply to
Michael Pronay

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.

Reply to
Steve Slatcher

Brilliant idea, thank you!

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

M.

Reply to
Michael Pronay

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....

Reply to
Ian Hoare

Or even "working mythoseses"{:-) Graham

Reply to
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

Reply to
Mark Lipton

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.