Mark Lipton wrote in news:fh8a2v$qfu$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org:
except of course those of us who dwell herein!
Was trying to avoid this list, but . . .
someone said something about 85 scores and below, I too am not sure what a sub 85 would be like, but I am not sure it would be any good given what sometimes gets high marks. In general I subscribe to the I drink wine not Parker scores school.
Got me going with the Rioja, I have noticed a tendency for them to ape CS myself.
In fact I don't know, but anhow, I really don't care for signatures. But YMMV, of course.
M.
Uh, I was nodding at each one, so I'm certainly not offended.
Dana
Hmmm. Could become my most famous typo.
What does "overextracted" mean?
Jose
Well, it means pretty much what the name implies. Color and phenolics (tannins) are both extracted out of the grape skins during fermentation. Traditionally, that extraction was accomplished by the increasing amounts of alcohol present in the fermenting wine and how the "caps" were dealt with (punched down, pumped over, etc.); these days, there are enzymes like pectinase that winemakers can add that break down the skins in the must and promote extraction. The result is wines that are thick and saturated in color. That, literally, is (over)extraction. What constitutes overextraction, of course, is in the eyes of the beholder.
Mark Lipton
Mark's answer is, of course, technically excellent. From a subjective perspective, think of Kool-Aid that has too much color, too much viscosity...
I would agree with Mark's answer. I generally apply the English muffin rule which I used recently in a post here. If a wine would taste better spread on an English Muffin for breakfast than in a glass with dinner it's probably over extracted.
Seeing as most of the replies to this list are all in concurrence, I'll play the role of antagonist - albeit only mildly.
#1 - "Most", not all. There are some excellent Cab blends that are every bit as much of good QPR wines as some of the value Bordeaux. To my mind that means under $30 and of high quality.
#2 - again, "most", not all.
#3 - Again. For a number of years now we've been seeing unoaked (or lightly oaked) crisp, no-MLF Chardonnays. To such an extent that there is a recent resurgence of the "old" California style - overoaked, high alcohol, buttery, and flabby! But I would suggest that if your experience with CA Chardonnay is "all" as you describe - then you've not experiienced the better end of the California Chardonnay spectrum.
#4 - Do you consider Santa Cruz Mountains in the same vategory with Central Coast? If so, I disagree. Some excellent Pinot from the SCM.
#5 - That's just way too broad a paintbrush.
#6 - Such as unoaked Torbreck? Or an austere Margaux? c'mon ...
C'mon, Ric, I _said_ that they were prejudices, not that they were ironclad truths. And, no, I don't consider the SCM to be part of the Central Coast: think more Santa Lucia Highlands, etc. And I'd hope that anyone who's read my posts lo these many years realizes that my view of the world of wine is a bit more nuanced than these statements would indicate. ;-)
Mark Lipton
I don't care for over oaked Chards myself. However, I do prefer part MLF but not 100%. I like the buttery smoothness rather than acidic crispness. I just don't like giving up forward fruit which is a common problem with MLF although that doesn't always occur.
I prefer PN from Solvang/Buellton or Oregon above Santa Cruz.
In general thats true but certainly not always. There are some wineries producing top notch Rose's. Try Wild Coyote (Paso Robles). At $20+ its not cheap but it is unlike most other Rose's. Very nice.
There are Aussie Shiraz and California Syrahs of both characteristics.
Generally I tend to agree. NY does produce some very nice wines but has a ways to go yet.
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.