Maybe I'm weird, but... - Printable Version

Maybe I'm weird, but... - Printable Version

+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: GENERAL (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-100.html)
+--- Forum: For the Novice (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Maybe I'm weird, but... (/thread-15865.html)

Pages: 1 2

- Machforce1 - 02-19-2002

I bought a 1995 Chateau Haut Maillet, which is rated something like a 93 from Wine Spectator and it cost around $49. I also purchased a relatively cheap bottle, a 1999 Hampton Bridge Reserve, which cost around $9. In my honest opinion, there isn't much difference between the two, certainly not enough to justify the $40 difference in the price. Maybe my palate just isn't sophisticated enough to tell the difference, but I'm finding that some of these supposedly "fine" wines aren't much better than the cheaper bottles.

- Thomas - 02-19-2002

Machforce1, you have discovered what every wine consumer should: it is your palate that matters, not the palates of so-called gurus whose magazines survive on the strength of advertising--get it--and whose writers survive on the strength of their perks rather than their palates. Besides, why should anyone else's palate assume what you will like, especially when magazine writers seem universally to love fruit bombs that have had a substantial brush with wood.

I defy anyone to illuminate the difference between a wine that scores 88 and one that scores 90 on the magazine's arbitrary 100-point system. What I prefer is that consumers explore wine on their own, deciding what suits their palates and their budgets.

- Machforce1 - 02-19-2002

You bring up an interesting point. I must say that I totally agree with you. For the most part, I am ignorant in my knowledge of wines. I have studies the subject continuously over the past few months, but I'm only scratching the surface. I relied on these rating systems because I figured that these people knew what they were talking about, whereas I didn't. I figured that if a wine got a mid 90's rating, then for the most part, it had to be good. And I will admit, they are very good, but not much better than a wine with an 85 rating. I have proven this to myself time and time again.

I went to a restaurant the other night and they were actually serving glasses of a 1990 haut brion. I was very excited to try the glass even though it cost around $30 for one glass. I finally got it, smelled it, tasted it and I did like it. But, and this is a big but, I swear to you it wasn't much better than a cheaper, younger bordeaux. The only difference I could taste was that the wine's tannins were much softer and the wine had a much more fruity finish. That's it. Whereas the younger bordeaux have stronger tannins and a less fruity finish, the aging of the wine seems to soften the tannins and the acidity. After trying many so called "fine" or expensive wines, these are the only two differences I can tell between a $100 bottle and a $12 bottle. For me, it's just not worth spending that much on a bottle of wine for softer tannins or a more fruity wine. The subtle differences, to me, just aren't worth the 5 fold increase in price.

Now, I know nothing of the politics of these rating systems. Like everything else in life, I'm sure somebody benefits from these ratings. I'm sure that guru Parker is paid quite handsomely for pumping a certain wine since he has that type of influence. It's no different on Wall Street where influential people such as Abbey Joseph Cohen are paid millions of dollars to pump the stock of a certain company whether it be a good investment or not. That's just how the world works unfortunately. Myself, I'd like to stear clear of that type of stuff and just stick with what I like, no matter if Parker says it's garbage or it's great. I know somebody will bristle up when I say this, but judging from my experiences so far, I doubt very seriously that a 1990 Chateau Mouton Rothschild is that much better than a much cheaper second or third growth. That's just my guess though. [img]http://www.wines.com/ubb2/smile.gif[/img]

- Bucko - 02-19-2002

While I disagree with Foodie's broad brush strokes on wine writers, I do agree with his premise that you should trust your own palate. Only you can decide what you like. Wine that I did not like many years ago are now my favorites. Tastes change over the years. Go with the flow and enjoy the ride.

- Botafogo - 02-19-2002

Who needs a brush when you can use a powered roller? We had dinner with the PUBLISHER of a major wine and food rag dedicated to "good appetite" (wink, wink) and he admitted to only visiting wineries who paid his way and only tasting free samples. He also questioned how ANY Montepulciano d'Abruzzo could be worthy of his attention and admited to a general ignorance of any wines made in Italy outside of Toscana, Piedmonte and the Veneto even though he visits and writes about Italy regularly.

The Gambero Rosso (Italy's most influential rag) did a special issue on Italian wine in Los Angeles and did not even mention the store with a selection so vast all the others could fit in a small corner. Why? Because we questioned in print the ethics of their presenting "neutral exhibitions" of "the top wines of Italy" (as selected by THEM) when they colluded with one local merchant to sponsor the event, only poured the wines of wineries who had bought their way into the event and even went so far as to print a booklet in English that LOOKED like their Italian guide to the top wineries but only included the wineries who paid to be in the American tour (some of which had no American distribution unlike MANY who were left out).

And then there is the Spectator's trashing of a Barbera Vivace that said ON THE LABEL that is was frizzante (slightly sparkling) and to serve it cold as "strangely effervescent, amateurish winemaking, tasted twice with consistent notes 71/100"!!!!!

But then that's just us, Roberto

[This message has been edited by Botafogo (edited 02-19-2002).]

- Thomas - 02-19-2002

Roberto, you slay me...

Bucko, my broad brush is intended more toward attitude in the business than it is toward individuals--although there are many individual writers with whom I completely disagree. I have been writing about wine and food for seventeen years, and what goes on sickens me. I have met many people like the one's Roberto mentions, and I am familiar with the many shortcomings of magazines.

Machforce1 taps into an important thing: the relative value of a wine. Is it the marketing. the name recognition or the wine that a consumer buys? As a retailer, I grow weary with people who come to my store, magazine or newspaper article in hand, and all they are interested in even trying is what some writer gave a 90. There is more baloney in that concept than in Oscar Meyer's distribution network. Besides, we eschew stocking such wines, so they cannot be bought at my shop.

- winoweenie - 02-19-2002

Can't let this subject go by without a birds-eye-weeners-view. Mach, you are indeed onto the one path that'll lead you to a marvy life of a wine drinker that is independent, knowledgeable, and completely satisfied with what's in their glass. ALL wine-writers aren't bad, ALL expensive wines cannot be supplanted by wines at a fifth their price, and regardless of the divergant views on this board, the 5 growths were established a whale of a lot earlier than Big Bob started his critiquing. The classification of 1855 established the status of wines with the simpliest and fairest of all measures...What the consumers were willing to PAY for them. There's no question that there are anamolies in every vintage, but when a great wine from a great vintage is cellared for the requisite time magic happens. The perfume don't be there in them new dudes on the block. The major problem that most wine-drinkers encounter with the better wines is that they're drunk WAY too young. Keep on Keepin'-on and you'll have lots of fun. Please don't encourage Boto or he'll drill us wif' annubber discourse. WW

- Botafogo - 02-20-2002

Verne, do you really think if we had such a classificaton of California cult cabs today that the inflated prices paid by clueless Studio Execs, Dot Commers who cashed out early and Japanese collectors (several of whom informed me on Sunday that my store was a sham because we do not have any bottles over $200 which they said was the bare minimum one could buy "premium wine" for) would be an accurate assessment of relative quality?

I didn't think so.....

Jazz lover that you are I am sure you also realize that the "market" says that Britney Spears is better than Ela, Anita and both Dinah's combined and that Kenny G is the best saxophonist of the last 100 years.

Roberto

- winoweenie - 02-20-2002

Roberto, Roberto, Roberto! you know that isn't what I was trying to communicate to the Mach. As far as the " Yelling Birds ",
" Mister Bs' Family Goldmine " or " Pray-before-Dinner Family ", I've long since departed their mailing lists and found solace and substance in wines less demanding on the wallet. What I said was that there is a quality that is proven in the Lafites, Latours, and Moutons of the world. You can
try to dismiss them as much as you want but they are the benchmark against which ALL wines are judged. Not by the Parkers and Speculators, but the buying public. If they've gone out of sight, price-wise, it isn't the fault of the wineries but the people who vote with their cash. Granted, some of these people are idiots who like to glom onto anything that has luster, but there are far more intelligent people who buy and love the juice, want a 15 to 20 year old Latour in their cellar to share with friends, these are the same ones that in 1855 determined the classification. It must have worked, because as you know, there's been one major revision in all them-there-yars. 40. WW

- Thomas - 02-20-2002

ww, politics and power is a major factor in the lack of revision of the 1855 classifications. But I agree with you that the market should determine the value of a product, which is precisely why I do not agree with so many "wine gurus" whose distorted view of wine often determines the value of the product.

Roberto, I have had some walk out of my store because I do not carry those uppity-priced wines--but then, I have had many more people stay, glad for the breath of fresh air of honesty about wine, and also glad to get three bottles for what they once believed was the price of one. Mostly, the people whose minds (and not just their wallets) are open are the ones who are willing to forego what they have been led to believe and take part in the adventure of discovery.

- wondersofwine - 02-20-2002

Naahh, not Kenny G--Sonny Rollins has my vote for best saxophonist and Candy Dulfer's pretty good too. (I was thinking it was Cindy Dulfer but amazon.com has it as Candy so I guess I was wrong) I got to see Sonny Rollins live in Zurich and in Velden, Austria and count those among the musical thrills of my life (up there with seeing Eric Clapton in Mannheim, Germany vicinity).

- Botafogo - 02-20-2002

>>What I said was that there is a quality that is proven in the Lafites, Latours, and Moutons of the world. You can try to dismiss them as much as you want but they are the benchmark against which ALL wines are judged. Not by the Parkers and Speculators, but the buying public. <<<

Verne, 80-90% of "the buying public" has never heard of EITHER Mr. Parker or First Growth Bordeauxs. Unfortunately, the standards they use are neither scores or classifications but how much TV and Radio advertising a wines has and thus Beringer, Fetzer, Santa Margharita, Korbel, Kendall Jackson, Clos du Bois and other such crap is the standard. Of the remaining 10-20% the prevailing standard seems to be Silver Oak and Sonoma Cutrer primarily due to heavy restaurant placements.

It's sad buddy but people like you and me who have a context and a broad tasting base to compare to aren't even the dust mite on the flea on the dog's arse...

The real world is VERY differnt than what goes on at friday afternoon tasting groups. Roberto

- Thomas - 02-20-2002

Roberto, have you been reading my diary???

wondersofwine, Kenny G and Sonny Rollins--no contest. In fact, the G ain't in the running, at least not for sax. When I was a youngun' I had the fortune to grow up in NYC and I had the wherewithall to frequent the Village Vanguard, where I saw (and heard) them all. G would have been laughed off that intimate stage.

I once met Thelonious Monk in the men's room of the Vanguard. I asked him if he would play his version of Dinah. He said, "m,m,m,m,m,m,m,m,m,m,m,m,yu godit." And I got it on the next set, which cost me another drink. Monk's sax player, Charlie Rouse, would make KG cry.

[This message has been edited by foodie (edited 02-20-2002).]

- lizardbrains - 02-20-2002

Foodie, I can't believe you had the opportunity to hang out with Melodious Thunk!!!! What a privelege!!!!! I studied him (and others) in my Honors Jazz class in college! He was one of my favorites!

Oooh, and I would LOVE to play the bass - that's one of my favorite instruments, 'cause it's so simple but cool. Blum, blum, blum... (that's me playing the bass)!!!!

I got to see the 3 Tenors in concert in Paris in 98. I was at the rehearsal and the concert - out in the grass (non-paying) section. It was so neat to sit on the grass with friends, having a French picnic (wine, baguettes, Camembert, Brie), and listening to the 3 Tenors. Spectacular.

- Machforce1 - 02-20-2002

From what I have gathered in my own experiences, and somewhat from this post, is that the world of wine isn't any different from the world of anything else. I can relate to what Botafogo said. I can't tell you how many times I've been out with friends and the waiter suggests a Kendall Jackson wine and the crowd grows silent with wide eyes, saying "Ooooohhhh!" I've had Kendall Jackson, and I think it's crap. Yet this wine is what us normal people are led to believe is the standard by whomever is paid to promote it. I can also understand what wineoweenie is saying about the first growth bordeauxs being the standard by which all wine is judged. That may be true, but I question whether the price of these first growths are justified by their quality or by what people are willing to pay for them. Put another way, is the wine worth $250 per bottle because of it's quality or is it worth $250 because Parker says it's good or the snooty crowd says that's what it's worth? I just can't see a wine tasting so drastically different that it should cost hundreds of dollars for four or five glasses. Again, maybe it's just my virgin palate telling me there's not much difference between the $100 bottle and the $12 bottle. I admit, I've never tasted a first growth bordeaux, but I have to believe that their price is reflective of what people are willing to pay for them, not what they are really worth in regards to differences in quality.

- wondersofwine - 02-20-2002

I lack experience with first-growth Bordeaux (although I recently plunked down my credit card for one bottle of Lafite from a less-than-toprated vintage--breaking my usual $50-$60 limit per bottle). However, I have tasted at least two Grand Crus red burgundies and several tastings of Le Montrachet (top white burgundy) and there WAS a clear superiority. While the Bonnes Mares or Clos de Beze were probably the best red wines I've ever tasted, I'm not willing to spend close to $200 to purchase a bottle. So I settle for the burgundies I can obtain for $50-$60 or less. But as WW said, the Grand Crus provide a benchmark for comparison--what great burgundies can strive to be. If it were a perfect world, the 1st growths and grand crus would be more available to the genuine wine lover and not just a status symbol or collectible to the wealthy of the world who may or may not know beans about wine. We owe a debt to dealers like Foodie and Roberto who are always searching out wines with good QPR (Quality to Price Ratio) and educating the public about same. And for the record, I have had some lovely wines from Sonoma Cutrer in the past (I think the one called Le Cutrer) but was NOT impressed with the Russian Rivers brand at the low end of their production.

- winoweenie - 02-20-2002

This is my fini' on this subject.I've been lucky 'nuff in my time to have played wif' the "Bird", "Coleman", "Diz", "Chet", and meeny of the crowd at the " Blue Note", Village", and all the venues of K.C. of the late 40s' and early 50s'. The people who followed this early modern jazz idiom and the people who follow the great wines today are of the same cloth. NONE of the fellers mentioned in the previous posts could carry the mouthpieces of the above. They forgot more notes in their passages than Kenny or whats'-his-name could play in a week. I was smart enuf in my youthful exhuberance to listen to Oscar Peterson and his mentor, the greatest of them all Art Tatum, and realize I couldn't play like either in my whole put-togthether even if I had 18 fingers. How is this pertinant you ask? Very few people know any of the people I've listed, but without one shadow of a doubt my buddy, they are still the greatest musicians at their instruments the world has ever, or probably everwill see. You mention Ella, Dizzy, etc. and ask what the crowd goes for. Dernit' KJ isn't Ch. Montelena. Who gives a tinkers dern about the fact the stupid waiter gave it a big thumbs-up. The fact-is you and Foodie are doing one heckova' service in your presentation of superb alternative wines that kill the popular commercial CA-CA being offered to the general public. All I'm trying to get across is the fact your zeal can't conceal there is a top-flight area of juice, IF YOU CAN AFFORD THEM, that affords another level drinking experience. XXX&OOOs'. WW

- visionsof - 02-20-2002

I think I'm kind of in the same boat here. I'm really just starting to seriously get into wine. While I agree with earlier post about trusting my pallet over magazine reviews, I'd be interested to know what publications to trust out there. Again I'd like to shy away from actual reviews, rather I'd just like general info, the what and the where. Could anyone point me in the right direction?

- winedope - 02-20-2002

speaking of sax players not mentioned, Stan Getz is still my favorite. As for wines, I am making a list fo the wines mentioned here that sound like something I might like. As I have the opportunity and money, I am trying them and making notes on what I would like to have again. I read a number of the professional wine publications, but I won't buy an expensive bottle just because someone says so. I am trying to keep an open mind. At the same time, I think that with some direction from folks like you all, trying is still going to tell you what is best for your tastes. Thanks all.