+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: TASTING NOTES & WINE SPECIFIC FORUMS (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-200.html)
+--- Forum: Champagne/Sparkling Wine (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-20.html)
+--- Thread: A CALIFORNIA FAVORITE (/thread-10612.html)
- Jerry D Mead - 01-02-1999
A little late for New Years, but this good wine is good anytime:
"J" (by Jordan) 1994 "Sonoma County" ($28) I suppose it could be considered arrogant, but "J" doesn't call itself "Brut" or sparkling or anything else. It is simply "J," as identified by the simple large, brush-stroke look letter in gold on the stylish custom made bottle. It's a blend of nearly equal portions of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay (the two premium grapes of the Champagne region) and for the past several years has been one of America's best bubblies, racking up gold medals, trophies and sweepstakes awards. It reminds of the French with its full bodied, creamy, toasty complexity, but it is at once lively and delicate with extremely fine carbonation. It is crisp without being acidic and while it is dry enough to accompany hors d'oeuvres, appetizers and even main courses, it is also round enough to indulge the second or third toast to the New Year or a new bride. Rating: 98/88
Wines are scored using a unique 100 point system. First number rates quality; second number rates value.
- Botafogo - 01-02-1999
Jerry, if "J" is the Cristal of California (fairly sweet for a "brut", glamorous packaging and a large hype machine behind it), then our vote for the Bollinger RD of California would be Robert Hunter Brut de Noirs Late Disgorged which is much deeper in structure and flavor, has a more tightly compacted bead and is bone dry and refreshing making it perfect for a wide range of foods. It is also a much better value as would befit the Bolly / Cristal comparison. Cheers and congrats on the new boards, Roberto
PS: did anyone catch the editor of Food & Wine on the CBS morning News last week saying that "while there are hundreds of Champagne producers there are only twelve Grande Marques and that is what you want"??? One wonders where her bread is buttered.
- danberger - 01-09-1999
Jerry:
By coincidence, Juliann and I had 1989 J for New Year's Eve with friends. No, not a magnum, only a 750, which meant it was about half as much as we wanted. It was awesome, one of the finest CA sparklers we've ever had.
Dan
- WA Wino - 01-11-1999
Jerry: I've always liked your dual scoring system, but this time I don't get it. You rate the J 98/88 and compared it to French Champagne, which sells in the $25-40 price range. Yet this CA sparkler, selling for $28, a 98 point wine, is marked done for value? 'Splain, please. Isn't it as good or better for the same or less money? Wouldn't the value rating actually go up?
I'm still waiting for the day when you rate some $10 wine 100 points for quality and have to invent a new scale for value. 100/150??
- Jerry D Mead - 01-11-1999
An 88 on my value scale is at the high end of my (85-89) range described as "Attractively priced in the consumer's favor," so it really wasn't marked DOWN
90-94 = Mead On Wine Best Buy
95-100 = Unbelievable Value! A Steal!
You're right...compared to French product, it it is no doubt a 90+
I tend to score wines for what they are...in this case a California sparkler, so when compared to its peers, Schramsberg, etc....I see it only as a very good value.
You may not agree...but that's the rationale. (I have on occasion given big 90s value scores to very expensive wine...feeling that value IS a relative thing.
And thanks for the compliment on the double score Quality/Value system. I recognized the power of 100 points when Parker (and then several others) adopted it way back when. It took me a while to adopt it, because I did not immediately figure out a way to account for my emphasis on value.
JDM