|
What are the threads thoughts on Garagiste? Are the mystery wines usually worth it, and are the "clues" actually clues or just more of his word-salad rambling?
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
From what I've heard, the mystery wines are a mixed bag. Some have been high quality, others have made people boycott Garagiste all together. As for today's offering, I don't think it's a Leonetti, because that clue is too easy to get. Maybe there's some relation between the winemakers, or maybe it's nothing more than being based in the same region.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Hey wine-goons! This Saturday I'm thinking of introducing a couple friends to the wonderful world of wine! I got an in when I suggested Moscato (Who doesn't like Moscato, honestly?) and was thinking of a few bottles of cheap (But not rubbish) wine for us to drink and be merry with. There's no decent dedicated wine place nearby so I'll be sourcing from Dan Murphy's, Australia. I was thinking 3-5 bottles, in the AU$5-10 range? Is this a no go zone? My typical method is to spend at least $15 or thereabouts, and it hasn't let me down. Having said that, a bunch of wine is expensive, even at $10. Any good picks from the site anyone can see? The Bourillon D' Orleans suggested last time I posted was one of my favourites ever. It is $20 though, so that's out with this plan. Any typical varietals that I should include? My current outline is: - Pinot Grigio - Riesling - Shiraz - Pinot Noir/Merlot Basically a 2/2 white/red split. Any suggestions on this? I mean, if my friend's hate the stuff I'll drink it myself, but I'd like something a little " beginner friendly".
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
For white wines try this: I don't think it's too expensive and the taste is pretty decent for newbie white wines. Also, try a drier prosecco and a sweeter moscato. When there's a wide range of tastes, it's easy to gauge what to drink afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Another newbie wine question! Friend asked me to bring a "not too dry red that's preferably a little sweet." Do you guys think something like a zinfandel or pinot noir would work (the reds I have in hand besides a cab) or should I go about buying something else (which I wouldn't mind too much as a learning experience)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Archer2338 posted:Another newbie wine question! Not too dry basically means a little sweet. Many Cali Cabs are, well, not too dry, red, and a little sweet. Same for Cali Pinot and Zin for that matter. But if your Pinot is from a colder region, it might be precisely the kind of wine your mate doesn't like. Given what you've said so far, I'd be interrogating the friend for clarification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Not too dry basically means a little sweet. Many Cali Cabs are, well, not too dry, red, and a little sweet. Same for Cali Pinot and Zin for that matter. But if your Pinot is from a colder region, it might be precisely the kind of wine your mate doesn't like. Given what you've said so far, I'd be interrogating the friend for clarification. Yeah talk to your friend to clarify, but I have a feeling "not too dry" just means "fruity and not austere." The Zin would be a good choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Not too dry basically means a little sweet. Many Cali Cabs are, well, not too dry, red, and a little sweet. Same for Cali Pinot and Zin for that matter. But if your Pinot is from a colder region, it might be precisely the kind of wine your mate doesn't like. Given what you've said so far, I'd be interrogating the friend for clarification. Huh. Could you explain that a little bit further? I didn't really think the cabs I've tasted so far were on the sweet side (the spectrum is dry---sweet, right?); I generally associate cabs with some level of bitterness (maybe because of the high tannin)... I feel like I need to take a proper course or something to distinguish all of these flavors/tastes. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Not too dry basically means a little sweet. Many Cali Cabs are, well, not too dry, red, and a little sweet. Same for Cali Pinot and Zin for that matter. But if your Pinot is from a colder region, it might be precisely the kind of wine your mate doesn't like. Given what you've said so far, I'd be interrogating the friend for clarification. This basically isn't true. You'd have a hard time finding many Cali pinots that have above threshold levels of residual sugar. Often people confuse fruit-dominated higher alcohol pinots with being sweet, but they rarely are. Cold climate pinots are not drier, they are just more austere and can lack some of the forward fruit elements of riper or valley floor pinots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Archer2338 posted:Another newbie wine question!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
A lot of cheaper reds from a warm climate will come across as being a bit sweet due to the fruity flavours and vanillin oak in them, without actually having a higher than usual residual sugar. A higher alcohol wine will also taste a little sweeter due to the extra sweetness from the alcohol and the wine having riper flavours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Tempus Fugit posted:This basically isn't true. You'd have a hard time finding many Cali pinots that have above threshold levels of residual sugar. Often people confuse fruit-dominated higher alcohol pinots with being sweet, but they rarely are. Cold climate pinots are not drier, they are just more austere and can lack some of the forward fruit elements of riper or valley floor pinots. No, that isn't true at all. Most Californian wines have residual sugar of 5-6g/L, with higher being extremely common, compared to the rarely-met maximum of 4g/L by most dry red wines in France, or as low as 2g/L in many prestigious appellations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Kasumeat posted:No, that isn't true at all. Most Californian wines have residual sugar of 5-6g/L, with higher being extremely common, compared to the rarely-met maximum of 4g/L by most dry red wines in France, or as low as 2g/L in many prestigious appellations. What are you basing this on? I don't mean to be argumentative, but am genuinely curious if you have a source for this. (Fake edit): rs isn't required to be disclosed nor is it legally defined, so label text or product text sheets are not good sources. I would be surprised if enough wineries in either country are even reporting rs numbers to make such a sweeping generalization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Stitecin posted:What are you basing this on? I don't mean to be argumentative, but am genuinely curious if you have a source for this. This is really common knowledge. Talk to any winemakers in CA. Taste a Bordeaux and a Napa Cab side by side. The slight alcohol difference is not fully responsible for the wild disparity in perceived sweetness. That wouldn't really make any sense. There's residual sugar there. It's the easiest and most obvious way to determine Old World vs. New World when blind tasting red wines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
The INAO certainly does have RS restrictions on some appellations, but not all. There is no such regulation in California. However, California wines can be deceptively sweet on the palate for the reasons already mentioned. However, they do in general run higher in RS than their European counterparts. At least some of this is out of their control as PA levels are much higher there simply because the growing season is long and warm. All that being said, if you look at total sugars in any of these wines, they are much lower than I think people perceive. If I remember correctly, Coke has somewhere over 20 grams per liter. So this often becomes the case of the person bitching about a sweet dessert, but then getting 3 Cokes with their meal. Anything that we consider "dry" wine is in fact fairly low in sugar when you look at the overall picture. If anyone is interested, I can relay the effects of alcohol on blood sugar and how it acts when it is metabolized.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
Overwined posted:The INAO certainly does have RS restrictions on some appellations, but not all. There is no such regulation in California. However, California wines can be deceptively sweet on the palate for the reasons already mentioned. However, they do in general run higher in RS than their European counterparts. At least some of this is out of their control as PA levels are much higher there simply because the growing season is long and warm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
I'm planning a wine stop on this year's summer holiday, specifically in Avignon on the Rhône river. I love Châteauneuf-du-Pape and it will be fun to visit that district. While I'm not expecting anyone to have visited exactly there with exactly my plans (great if there is!), experience from anywhere else might be applicable. I have been browsing the wine tours available and they seem to fall into two categories, either a slightly bland program for beginners with few stops at ok-ish prices (€60-80) or a great looking program with guides that sound very interesting for painful amounts of money (€150-200). So we thought we'd just rent bicycles and ride between the (very many) wineries, it seems most are happy to welcome drop-ins. The bikes are €15 so there's plenty of budget left for buying. Does it sound like a better plan? I assume it will be harder to get a good chat with the winemakers when we're not arriving in one of the regular groups, but will it be so much harder that the organized tour is worth it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Kasumeat posted:No, that isn't true at all. Most Californian wines have residual sugar of 5-6g/L, with higher being extremely common, compared to the rarely-met maximum of 4g/L by most dry red wines in France, or as low as 2g/L in many prestigious appellations. You couldn't be more wrong. Please give some data on this. Most california wines are 5-6g/L? Give me a break. I've been a winemaker in california for over 15 years and I have never made a red wine even close to that. I've also analyzed thousands of wines, mostly pinot and chard, but some cab and rarely see those types of numbers. My pinots rarely cross 2g/L Crimson posted:This is really common knowledge. Talk to any winemakers in CA. Taste a Bordeaux and a Napa Cab side by side. The slight alcohol difference is not fully responsible for the wild disparity in perceived sweetness. That wouldn't really make any sense. There's residual sugar there. People are confusing fruit with sweetness. The defining characteristic of cali wine is the fruit, but this does not equate to sweetness. Granted, there will always be a handful of zins with some residual and some grocery store, $5 reds with some, but there is simply no truth to the idea that the majority of cali reds are sweet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Stitecin posted:What are you basing this on? I don't mean to be argumentative, but am genuinely curious if you have a source for this. Here in Ontario we have a government monopoly on wine imports. One of the few upsides on this is that they can afford to lab test almost every wine we see on the shelves. It's common to see "dry" red wines listed at 14.5% with a lab sticker showing them at 9g/L RS, 16.1% and so on. Tempus Fugit posted:I've been a winemaker in california Perhaps you're not the most unbiased person to talk to about this. Here are the data you requested, this is in alphabetical order of all the California red wines we have; I'm not omitting anything to make the data look beter: 5 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=226530 11 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=59311 6 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=118927 6 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=353102 6 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=312652 5 g/L: https://www.vintagesshoponline.com/vintages/ProductInfo.aspx?item=0327593 12 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=353631 5 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=180984 NINETEEN g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=234369 9 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=277657 10 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=4887 5 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=906198 6 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=229856 And so on. More than a dozen wines, not a single one below 5g/L, and five with enough RS to be considered off-dry. One with enough to be considered medium-sweet. I guess the lab equipment in California has a Californian palate, eh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Kasumeat posted:
Not sure what you mean by "not the most unbiased". Do you mean that I prefer sweet wines? Or can't tell the difference? Anyway, I don't prefer sweet wines, I prefer dry wines. The wines you listed are all wine factory operations- Jackson, Diageo, Gallo, etc. I think that if you were to look at the smaller production, higher end spectrum of the industry you would see drier wines. That's my experience any way. Especially on the Pinot side, which is what I'm familiar with and what I've analyzed. I don't see any significant difference between the higher end of burgundy and california pinot wrt residual sugar. In other words, I'm not sure the LCBO is the right source to represent the breadth and width of the california wine industry. I'm thinking of the Caleras, Mt. Edens, Arcadians, etc of the pinot world. My analytical equipment was made in Denmark, so you'd have to ask them about their palate preferences. Again, I know that I've never personally made a pinot that was above 2g/L residual. By the way, even within the industry, Apothic red is a joke! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
You seem to be arguing past in each with regards to what counts as Californian wine. From where I'm sitting it looks like Tempus Fugit is selecting a very small and unrepresentative sample of Californian wines and arguing that because they, according to his own analysis, have reasonable amounts of RS that means all or most Californian wines do. Obviously that is not the case. And as it was pointed out, this is probably an emotional argument for you. In general, the Californian wines people are exposed to are more in line with the ones Kasumeat linked. Californian wines are more sweet, in general, than old world wines. Why is that even in question? By the way, hi everyone. Been lurking this thread for a long time! Enjoyed a lovely 2010 Domaine Philippe Delesvaux Anjou Rouge last night, which is a 100% cab franc from the Loire. Picked it up quite cheaply at a local cheese shop ($17) and was very pleasantly surprised! A great casual wine to have with friends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Tempus Fugit posted:Not sure what you mean by "not the most unbiased". Do you mean that I prefer sweet wines? Or can't tell the difference? Anyway, I don't prefer sweet wines, I prefer dry wines. The wines you listed are all wine factory operations- Jackson, Diageo, Gallo, etc. I think that if you were to look at the smaller production, higher end spectrum of the industry you would see drier wines. That's my experience any way. Especially on the Pinot side, which is what I'm familiar with and what I've analyzed. I don't see any significant difference between the higher end of burgundy and california pinot wrt residual sugar. In other words, I'm not sure the LCBO is the right source to represent the breadth and width of the california wine industry. I'm thinking of the Caleras, Mt. Edens, Arcadians, etc of the pinot world. Calera Pinot: 5g/L (at 15%) http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=337220 Pahlmeyer Pinot: 5g/L (at 15%) http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/searchResults.do?ITEM_NAME=PAHLMEYER+PINOT+NOIR+2010&ITEM_NUMBER=&language=EN What I'm saying is that your bias as a California winemaker is very clearly obscuring the fact obvious to everyone not from California that Californian wine is largely defined by its residual sugar. Additionally, you go on and on about Pinot but Californian Pinot is simply not very relevant outside of the US. Californian red wine is Napa Cab first and foremost; you're the guy arguing that Spanish Wine is mineral driven and elegant because you're making Albarino. Yes, there are producers making old-world style wines in California, but they are 0.001% of what California is, and thus definitively not Californian. Caymus: 9g/L http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/searchResults.do?ITEM_NAME=CAYMUS+CABERNET+SAUVIGNON+2011&ITEM_NUMBER=&language=EN Cakebread: 5g/L http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/p...ER=&language=EN Dominus: 6g/L http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/searchResults.do?ITEM_NAME=DOMINUS+NAPANOOK+2009&ITEM_NUMBER=&language=EN Opus One: 6g/L http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=26310
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
It's true that one is cherry-picking to prove a point. It's also true that the other is defensive about the wines they make. But the most important point is that it's a fine difference as I've mentioned before. I suspect both of petty vino-political maneuvering to grind their respective axes. It's not an original argument in the least; it's not the slightest bit informative or interesting (if only to tell us that lovely bulk producers make lovely wine - GASP) and there's no good nature in it. It has no place in this thread. close to toast posted:By the way, hi everyone. Been lurking this thread for a long time! Enjoyed a lovely 2010 Domaine Philippe Delesvaux Anjou Rouge last night, which is a 100% cab franc from the Loire. Picked it up quite cheaply at a local cheese shop ($17) and was very pleasantly surprised! A great casual wine to have with friends. Yes, but how much RS does it have? That's the the only interesting thing you can ask of a wine. Overwined fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Man I just post pictures of wine 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Overwined posted:It's true that one is cherry-picking to prove a point. It's also true that the other is defensive about the wines they make. But the most important point is that it's a fine difference as I've mentioned before. I suspect both of petty vino-political maneuvering to grind their respective axes. It's not an original argument in the least; it's not the slightest bit informative or interesting (if only to tell us that lovely bulk producers make lovely wine - GASP) and there's no good nature in it. For a newbie like me, knowing that there's an actual basis behind my perception that California wines tend to be sweeter is incredibly useful. When you're new to stuff, you need nudging and help to recognize things and know what actually might be a trend worth remembering and what might just be bullshit based on my limited sample size and my own mood/palette at the time of consumption. Outside of actually making wine, knowledge about wine is useful for making informed purchasing decisions. This has been very useful for me. It doesn't mean that I'm going to assume that all California wines are sweet, but it will further inform what I choose and what I expect to get out of a bottle I buy at the liquor store. It is a useful heuristic, one of hundreds/thousands that work together to inform a purchasing decision. Also, I bias towards avoiding sugar when possible and I actually saw that 7 Deadly Zins at a party I was at on Saturday (which has 11 grams per bottle), so I drank other wine instead. Obviously, 5 grams of sugar (assuming I drank the whole bottle) won't make a huge difference, but eh, whatever. No Wave fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
It's not interesting because what you say you want is not what you're getting, pretty much for the reasons you yourself listed. I think you are the one that objected my objections of Kasumeat's tirade about Bordeaux. You said that you needed information as a new wine drinker and I get that. What you don't need is us to make the subjective decisions for you. Even though Kasumeat tried to ascribe measurable reasons to why he thinks Bordeaux is garbage his "evidence" neither supports his claim nor gives anyone else any real insight into what goes on there. It's just his snobbish effete opinion dressed as some sort of fact and I found it absurd and more importantly of ZERO help to a new wine drinker. You need to be more cautious of the milk you're drinking. If you ultimately want dismiss Bordeaux as he does, that's your prerogative. But certainly not before you've taken the time to explore yourself. Let's take the two offending posts together. In the first, he lambasts a region because he says ripeness is never attained, sugars are too low for true phenolic ripeness, and tannins too high. In the second he lambasts a huge growing region using only a select number of examples, focusing on one attribute (which is not even the attribute in question) because their sugars are too high. Well, you want drier wines. I can respect that. I drink dry wines and I think the majority of long-term wine drinkers tend towards dry wines. But the conclusion you have already jumped to thanks to Kasumeat's hyperbole and absolutism is that sugar = fruit, that suger = bad, and that there's an appreciable difference between a wine at 2 g/L and one at 5 g/L. All of these are shaky if not false assumptions. And it's perfectly possible that none of these things may hold true for you. Is it important to know that 7 Deadly Zins is 11 g/L? Yes. Because bad winemaking is often masked with too much sugar. However, if you take Kasumeat's view you will never taste a single California wine nor Bordeaux wine in your life. And I'm sure I can extend his conceits to several other of the world's winegrowing regions so that all we're left with are just his pets. You don't need constriction you need expansion and freedom of choice. The major mistake you are making, and it's one that many new winedrinkers make, is that we can offer some special insight to how your palate is that you somehow cannot. This is false. If we as wine people are not listening to what you say and instead trying to tell you what you should be drinking then we've failed. I know it's easier to ask what we like and go from there and in fact this isn't the most damaging thing you can do to yourself. A lasting and deep appreciation for wine flows, as most things, from experience. It has always been my opinion that you should be a wine omnivore at all times. I personally work in the US for a European wine importer that focuses on minimal intervention wines from Spain, France, Italy, and Germany (and a little Greece) and a handful of spirits. On the opinion side of things, I am more in line with Kasumeat than I let on. The difference is I'm not here to graft my tastes onto you nor bully people into my way of thinking. It's up to you to ask the right questions. Don't say "Tell me what to drink!". Ask, "If I this, this, and this are some things I've liked, what else can I try that will offer a new experience and why?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Hey man, Sauternes is sweet but I don't think it's a "bad wine". I just read through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetness_of_wine Speaking of sugar/sweetness of wine, can you care to elaborate some more on other varieties? I really like Clos de Vougeot, but internet searches are not giving me much I certainly agree that technical data has its place but first and foremost drink it! Also, wine preferences and your palate tend to change over time. It's like drinking beer for the first time, you will probably think it's really bitter and not like it. But then again, I ought to learn more about wine in a more focused way instead of just randomly popping bottles open.Ok time for more bad cellphone pictures of wine!  So this is a glass of 2009 Don Melchoir. USD 30 for a glass at Morton's Steakhouse (aka Hong Kong goon base). Internet search shows it's from Chile and Cabernet Sauvignon. The bar tender recommended it to me and I approve! The nose is not as strong as St. Julien, or other Pinot Noirs. Taste wise it's very "balanced" with a faint after finish. What really comes out of my mind is the heavier texture. In my experience as a wine newbie I find this wine deceptively easy to drink for a Cabernet Sauvignon. Normally I tend to avoid Cab Sauv on the lower price end because it's more for ceremonial purposes than tasting. Plus there are enough hordes of people ordering "a Cabernet Sauvignon" and pretending to be sophisticated. However, I tend to go for French wines  But I'm always trying to find a cheaper alternative!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Overwined posted:Well, you want drier wines. I can respect that. I drink dry wines and I think the majority of long-term wine drinkers tend towards dry wines. But the conclusion you have already jumped to thanks to Kasumeat's hyperbole and absolutism is that sugar = fruit, that suger = bad, and that there's an appreciable difference between a wine at 2 g/L and one at 5 g/L. All of these are shaky if not false assumptions. And it's perfectly possible that none of these things may hold true for you. You think I'm going to go around telling people their Opus One is crap having never tasted it? Give me some credit. Wine isn't the first thing I've ever learned about, and the best way to learn about stuff (besides doing it) is to hear the bases of opinionated but knowledgeable people. By your logic, telling anyone anything about any wine is bad because it will bias them. Sorry, a little understanding into how other people mentally organize their wines is useful, because maybe their mental framework will gibe with my experience and come in handy. I had a wine that was an 84 on CellarTracker on Saturday and I much preferred it to the 88 on CellarTracker that I had last night - I'm not allowing numbers, frameworks, and other peoples' opinions to dictate my experienced reality (beyond the point that it is somewhat psychologically inevitable). They're all just heuristics that can come in handy. I didn't at all get the impression that Kasumeat was bullying anyone, by the way. No Wave fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
No Wave posted:I never said that more residual sugar made for bad wine, and I'm not sure why you're assuming that anyone is picking that up. I generally avoid sugar when possible for health reasons (which I didn't make clear in my previous post) but Sauternes is (in general) my favorite wine of all so far. If I told you that as a product I think Sauternes is garbage, would that help you? This is what I believe by the way. If it sways you then you are either gullible or confused. quote:You think I'm going to go around telling people their Opus One is crap but Opus One is garbage quote:having never tasted it? Then why would you need a loving techsheet if you fully intend to taste it before forming an opinion. What can a techsheet tell you that your palate cannot???? quote:Give me some credit. Wine isn't the first thing I've ever learned about, and the best way to learn about stuff (besides doing it) is to hear the bases of opinionated but knowledgeable people. This is just disingenuous. If you want to believe that RS alone will tell you everything or ANYTHING, go right ahead. Again, I make my former point. You don't drink the loving tech sheet. quote:Sorry, a little understanding into how other people mentally organize their wines is useful, because maybe their mental framework will gibe with my experience and come in handy. I had a wine that was an 84 on CellarTracker on Saturday and I much preferred it to the 88 on CellarTracker that I had last night - I'm not allowing numbers, frameworks, and other peoples' opinions to dictate my experienced reality (beyond the point that it is somewhat psychologically inevitable). They're all just heuristics that can come in handy.  You might be intentionally missing the point here. I'm not sure. RS levels below a certain threshold tell us nothing of the perceived fruitiness/sweetness of a wine. a.) Because a lot of it is in the perception of the drinker and b.) They are two different things that commonly get conflated. There are 0 g/L wines that people describe as fruity and 6 g/L wines that some will describe as earthy or dry. You seem to want to objectify winedrinking though "heuristics" and tech sheets when these are maybe the two most useless tools of all. Use your god drat palate. What the gently caress are you afraid of? If you don't like a wine it doesn't make your head explode. Then you have your own, much more solid "heuristics" to go on.quote:I didn't at all get the impression that Kasumeat was bullying anyone, by the way. He was in an active dickwaving contest with someone when both obviously have an ax to grind and more importantly they were arguing about a tiny piece of the puzzle that has a small relevance to the whole. I'm sure the Cali winemaker's bias is obvious, but it's obvious to me that you don't see what Kasumeat's is. And with that I am going to leave you, in particular, alone with your fanboyism of a wine tyrant. I understand that many people should be curious about the technical aspects of winemaking. And they should be. Oftentimes it's very fascinating stuff. Pretending that technical knowledge without experiential is in any way useful is like saying that knowing a chef's exact recipe BEFORE tasting the dish somehow enhances the flavor. It's not wrong to do. In fact in this realm nothing is really wrong. But when used in place of experiential knowledge you do nothing but apply conceits to yourself. Get interested in the process, sure. But the process is nothing if not for the experience. There is no other reason wine exists. And that is not an opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Overwined posted:If I told you that as a product I think Sauternes is garbage, would that help you? This is what I believe by the way. If it sways you then you are either gullible or confused. I am confused - I will always be confused - to be confused in a state of constant revision is the human condition. Overwined posted:And with that I am going to leave you, in particular, alone with your fanboyism of a wine tyrant. I understand that many people should be curious about the technical aspects of winemaking. And they should be. Oftentimes it's very fascinating stuff. Pretending that technical knowledge without experiential is in any way useful is like saying that knowing a chef's exact recipe BEFORE tasting the dish somehow enhances the flavor. It's not wrong to do. In fact in this realm nothing is really wrong. But when used in place of experiential knowledge you do nothing but apply conceits to yourself. No Wave fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Overwined posted:
I'm hesitant to even continue in this discussion, but I'm not sure where it was clear that I had an axe to grind. My point is simply this - you can't generalize an entire region with a single hand wave. There are lots of different currents in the cali wine scene with lots of interest in pursuing a more european model of wine. Cali pinot does not languish in obscurity, it is in fact known around the world and gaining steam all the time. At this point I'll stay out of the discussion. If someone wants to talk about specific winemaking or vineyard stuff, I'm happy to participate. caberham posted:
Wondering if you auto-corrected to Clos Vougeot from something else. Clos Vougeot is a grand cru vineyard that's planted to Pinot noir. We can talk about specific plots and the geography, etc, but I'm not sure there's a residual sugar discussion to be had on its behalf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Overwined, you are displaying a Fox-News level of childishness here. All I did was refute the claim that Californian red wines typically have ≤ 2g/L RS. I'm not sure whether this misinformation is deceitful or delusional, but misinformation it is, and I am correcting it. You took your anger at my expression of an unorthodox opinion about a totally unrelated matter and constructed some fantasy straw-man for you to flay. Not once in this debate did I express whether I thought RS in wines is good, or even any subjective judgment at all about the wines in question. I was correcting misinformation. I understand now why you think the readers of this thread are too immature to understand that Some Guy On The Internet isn't the Holy Word Of God On Wine. . . .Tempus Fugit posted:I'm hesitant to even continue in this discussion, but I'm not sure where it was clear that I had an axe to grind. My point is simply this - you can't generalize an entire region with a single hand wave. There are lots of different currents in the cali wine scene with lots of interest in pursuing a more european model of wine. Cali pinot does not languish in obscurity, it is in fact known around the world and gaining steam all the time. I never claimed to be making anything but a generalisation. I get it, California is more than Gallo and co., and yes I'm sure your buddy is making some genuinely delicious Tocai Friulano orange wine, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of California wines, including pinot, have > 5g/L residual sugar. Kasumeat fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Kasumeat posted:I never claimed to be making anything but a generalisation. I get it, California is more than Gallo and co., and yes I'm sure your buddy is making some genuinely delicious Tocai Friulano orange wine, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of California wines, including pinot, have > 2g/L residual sugar. If you'd made the generalization that a majority of Cali wine is > 2 g/l I would have let it slide but you said 5-6 g/l and from either an organoleptic or wine stability standpoint those are very different levels. California is a big place, so's Europe, I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to find a wine at any rs or abv you want from either place, but like Overwined got carried away saying you need your pallet to decide whether you like them. The same is true for pH, TA, new oak %, critic score, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Stitecin posted:If you'd made the generalization that a majority of Cali wine is > 2 g/l I would have let it slide but you said 5-6 g/l and from either an organoleptic or wine stability standpoint those are very different levels. Ah my mistake, I'll correct that. I stand by ≥ 5g/L being the majority. Again, here is some data to back up my claim; in alphabetical order, the California pinots carried by the largest purchaser of wine in the world: 6 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=118927 12 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=353631 9 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=277657 12 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=366013 9 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=212076 9 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=130138 6 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=718668 4 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=316034 2 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=317685 4 g/L: http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=311647 Only 3/10 come under 5g/L, and these are both largely premium wines, and of the major style of wine in California that exhibits the lowest typical RS. In warmer areas of production such as Napa and San Joaquin the averages are much higher. Kasumeat fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Overwined posted:Yes, but how much RS does it have? That's the the only interesting thing you can ask of a wine. What? Did you even read my post or are you just looking to be difficult? Wine is relaxing...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Kasumeat posted:... Again, here is some data to back up my claim; in alphabetical order, the California pinots carried by the largest purchaser of wine in the world... The r/s in the first 10 wines from the South of France on that website averages 8.4 g/l. I'm not going to look at this any more, because I don't care, but I do think that the average r/s in all CA wine is probably a bit higher, but not by 3 g/l.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Hey wine goons, what do you guys think of European Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) - ie. naming constrictions on food? You can't call it Champagne unless it's from that region. Feta is protected, Parmesan is protected etc. Goons in D&D http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3616139 argue that PDO's are just protecting cartels and old businesses. And Wisconsin cheese can be on par with Parmesan. Tempus Fugit posted:Wondering if you auto-corrected to Clos Vougeot from something else. Clos Vougeot is a grand cru vineyard that's planted to Pinot noir. We can talk about specific plots and the geography, etc, but I'm not sure there's a residual sugar discussion to be had on its behalf. Nope! I posted a picture of the bottle a few pages back. So what makes it so special? Do you have any other Burgundy red wine recommendations to drink at the similar price level? Higher? Cheaper? Too bad I can't afford to drink this everyday  I really enjoyed it and started trying out other Burgundy reds. I then tried other Pinot Noirs but had mixed results. My favourite pinot noir on a budget right now is : Bouchard Père et Fils. I get it for around 25 bucks a bottle. 
caberham fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Kasumeat posted:Ah my mistake, I'll correct that. I stand by ≥ 5g/L being the majority. For what it's worth, I don't think the RS numbers from that website are accurate. I work in the production side for a winery listed in one of your links and our last analysis on RS was a factor of 10 less. (ex. if lcbo claims 5 g/L, our analysis was 0.5 g/L) For reference, our sweet rose wines are 10 g/L RS and it's very noticeable. I can almost guarantee you that some of the wines produced from larger facilities are fermented to bone dry (0.1-0.2 g/L) and back-sweetened with concentrate. From a logistics standpoint, the amount of labor required to arrest red wine fermentations like that at 5 g/L is unfeasible. And I highly doubt the reason for the RS is caused by stuck fermentations. It's absolutely true that common California grocery store wines will have 5 g/L or even 10 g/L, but that is a very noticeable amount of sugar. For red wines from premium wineries I highly doubt they have 4-9 g/L as what lcbo suggests. Just my 2 cents as someone who has worked on both the premium and bulk wine side of the industry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
GLUFRU posted:For what it's worth, I don't think the RS numbers from that website are accurate. I work in the production side for a winery listed in one of your links and our last analysis on RS was a factor of 10 less. (ex. if lcbo claims 5 g/L, our analysis was 0.5 g/L) For reference, our sweet rose wines are 10 g/L RS and it's very noticeable. I can almost guarantee you that some of the wines produced from larger facilities are fermented to bone dry (0.1-0.2 g/L) and back-sweetened with concentrate. From a logistics standpoint, the amount of labor required to arrest red wine fermentations like that at 5 g/L is unfeasible. And I highly doubt the reason for the RS is caused by stuck fermentations. I was suspicious too, especially on wines like the Calera. I don't think people understand the difficulty of getting a 5g/L red wine. You're either arresting and blending to 5 g/L or you're adding back. Calera does neither of these. The other thing that hasn't been mentioned is the threat of refermentation. I don't care if you've sterile filtered or not, 5g/L is in the danger zone and most people aren't comfortable there. Early on I worked at a large facility that made about 750,000 cases and we added back to chardonnay, targeting between 3-4g/L. This was for an $8 bottle. We did nothing to the reds as far as RS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
GLUFRU posted:For what it's worth, I don't think the RS numbers from that website are accurate... Here go the California winemakers showing their California biases again. I also work in production and the numbers on that site are about +3 g/l for our wines, but the discussion (pissing contest) was about comparing California and old world not Ontario's lab accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 16:14
|
|