+- 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: definitions (/thread-18196.html)
Pages:
1
2
- matteson - 05-18-2004
Greetings From Boulder--
I didn't think I would have sparked so much controversy with my questions. However, in this restaurant, most of our classico's are labeled "chianti." But as someone said, maybe that is because we don't have a large wine market here in Boulder. I wasn't offended by the comments-in fact these "fights" (if done in good faith) can be amusing to the novice because many of us never thought that wine could be argued over as such.
[This message has been edited by matteson (edited 05-24-2004).]
- Kcwhippet - 05-18-2004
If the management at your restaurant can't or won't answer that question for you, then you might as well be working at a Dominos Pizza. They should be training you and you shouldn't be afraid to ask questions of them. By the way, where are you from? You didn't fill out your profile. Well, anyway, welcome to the Wine Board. Classico is a sub area in the Chianti region. Riserva is a designation for a wine that's supposed to be better than the regular bottling from a particular winery.
- Thomas - 05-18-2004
Riserva wines must be aged in a specified (by region) length of time and manner.
- chittychattykathy - 05-18-2004
I would also add that your wine vendors should be able to explain this and much more to you.
I'd write out some questions and set up a time when you can be there to talk to at least one of them. The new bosses should appreciate "seeing" your enthusiasm to learn more.
And of course we're here as well!
Welcome to the Board!
- Tastevin - 05-20-2004
Hello Matteson. "Classico" wines are from a restricted area within the limits of a *"DOC". By implication, and often in practice, the best of the district. This does NOT just apply to Chianti, for instance Soave Classico, Valpolicella Classico.
On sparkling wines it means made by the classic Champagne method.
*"DOC" (Denominazione di Origine Controllata) means the same as the French "AC" (Appellation d'Origine Controlee), which is government control of origin and production, but not quality, of all the best French wines.
"Riserva" wines are aged, usually in barrels, for a statutory period of three years (usually).
Very best wishes for you in your new job; sounds as if you will do well. T,
[This message has been edited by Tastevin (edited 05-20-2004).]
- Thomas - 05-20-2004
Now you see, matteson, why you need proper training. On this board you've gotten a small amount of conflicting information. Plus, without proper training you are sure to impart confused information to your customers.
The important thing to remember is that wine rules vary from country to country, region to region. Even the pros get confused!
- Tastevin - 05-20-2004
Foodie, help me get this straight please, for my sake as well as Matteson's. Are you saying that in the U.S. my definitions of "Classico" and "Riserva" as applied to certain wines produced in Italy are incorrect? T
- Kcwhippet - 05-20-2004
Ya know, T, it's just possible that Foodie may have been referring to how you used your command of the Queen's English to put down my definition of Classico. Just my impression of course, but I may be wrong. As you may, or may not, be aware, I was referring to Classico as one of the seven Chianti regions. For Matteson's benefit, the wines from Chianti are from seven named sub regions, which are Colli Senesi, Collini Pisane, Colli Aretini, Rufina, Montalbano, Colli Fiorentino and, of course, Classico. Classico is not necessarily always the best wine from Chianti, as Tastevin implies. Oftentimes, Chianti Collini Pisane surpasses Chianti Classico, though it's not as available. In fact, after Classico, Rufina is the most available Chianti in the U.S.
- Tastevin - 05-21-2004
Over to you Foodie. T
- Thomas - 05-21-2004
Tastevin, it is as clear as can be. In the U.S. there are no definitions as to how wine is produced and regulated in Europe--just information on how to interpret or understand European regulations.
You, KC and I gave matteson information that, while correct, is not exactly the same--KC's Classico answer concerns itself with Chianti, and yours, correctly, exceeded those boundaries; my answer concerens itself with the general idea behind Riserva, yours hones in on one three-year aging requirement that is not necessarily widely practiced in Italy. In addition, the novice asked only about Italian wine, but you added French DOC into the mix.
I simply see how easily a novice can be confused by the three responses, and so I caution matteson (who by now must have his/her eyes glazing over) to seek proper training.
[This message has been edited by foodie (edited 05-21-2004).]
- Tastevin - 05-21-2004
Foodie, if your posting was “as clear as can be†I would not have asked the question. Anyway, thanks for your reply.
My experience over here prompts me to say I do not agree that the three-year aging requirement is not necessarily widely practiced in Italy. Your experience obviously differs.
You are correct in pointing out that Matteson asked only about Italian wine. Mind you, I don’t think my mentioning A.C. will have confused him. If it did, I hope he will accept my apologies.
My fault was to give information that was not pertinent to his question. However, surely that is preferable to misleading information such as Kcw gave in regard to “Classicoâ€. As I recall the question it did not mention Chianti, only “Classico†(and “Riservaâ€). Therefore, to state ““Classico†is a sub area in the Chianti region†full stop (I think you say full point) is very misleading because it infers a Chianti relation only. Which, whether one lives in the U.S. or the back of beyond, is incorrect. T.
- Tastevin - 05-21-2004
There you are Kcw, just goes to show how impressions can be wrong, and usually embarrassing. Never mind old chap, could happen to anyone. Or could it?
You know, you really should not be so touchy. There was no put down intended in my posting. My use of capital letters in “not†was simply intended to stress the point to Matteson that the term “Classico†does not only apply to Chianti. However, as you have raised the matter, here in plain Queen’s English IS a put down. Whilst your statement “Classico is a sub area in the Chianti region†is correct, it is very misleading because it gives the impression that the term â€Classico†only applies to Chianti. Surely you knew that it does not. If you did not, then you have learnt something new - your thanks, whilst not obligatory, would be appreciated. If you did know, then tut tut, you should take more care in future when answering questions. I don't know why you insist on rabbiting on about Chianti. The question was about the term "Classico", and you got the answer wrong. So be a gentleman, stand up and own up.
How's that for a Queen's English put down? Ever had the feeling you should have left well alone? T.
[This message has been edited by Tastevin (edited 05-21-2004).]
- Kcwhippet - 05-21-2004
Perhaps there may be something to your points, T. However, knowing many parts of the U.S. from several decades of travel, and dining, in all of our fifty states, I made some assumptions that perhaps you might not have made unless you live here and have travelled (and dined) here extensively. I've been to Boulder (that's in Colorado) several times and I've never found it to be in the forefront of Italian cuisine (forgive me if I've offended you, matteson). Also, while Boulder does have some decent wine choices, it's not one of the premier markets where many more diverse wines are available. So, with all that in the back of my mind, I formulated my answer knowing from experience that the chances of a wine labelled Classico in a restaurant in Boulder, Colorado which restaurant, it appears, doesn't properly train its waitstaff in the intricacies of its wine list would most likely be serving a Chianti Classico, and in fact the wine is probably a Chianti Classico Riserva. If it makes you feel any better, I know absolutely nothing about the wine selections in the restaurants of Essex, England.
Oh, by the way, we say period, not full stop or full point, though I suppose there may be some who have immigrated here from your country for a better life who may still have retained some of their old linguistic idiosyncracies.
[This message has been edited by Kcwhippet (edited 05-21-2004).]
- Thomas - 05-21-2004
Well, as I said earlier, matteson, if still reading the posts, must have been confused then, is likely more confused now.
There is clarity in that thought.
FYI Tastevin, Aglianico del Vulture; Campania; must be aged five years in wood before it can be called "Riserva." Three years gets it a "Vecchio" designation.
As I said, three years is a general DOC rule, but some areas have their own specifics.
[This message has been edited by foodie (edited 05-21-2004).]
- Tastevin - 05-22-2004
Foodie, what was the point of your posting - "Aglianico del Vulture; Campania; must be aged five....."? T.
[This message has been edited by Tastevin (edited 05-22-2004).]
- Thomas - 05-22-2004
"My experience over here prompts me to say I do not agree that the three-year aging requirement is not necessarily widely practiced in Italy. Your experience obviously differs."
Tastevin, just pointing out one source of real difference, lest you think my statement is based only on "my experience."
- Tastevin - 05-22-2004
Foodie, sorry, but I don’t know what you’re getting at with “just pointing out one source of real difference, lest you think my statement is based only on "my experience.â€
Actually there was really no need to give me an example. I am well aware of the likes of Aglianico del Vulture. That is why I said “usuallyâ€, not “always†in my original posting. T.
- Tastevin - 05-22-2004
Kcw, what a load of codswallop, tosh, and balderdash (how's that for idiosyncratic language?)! I’ve heard some excuses given to explain errors, but yours really does take the biscuit. It’s a classico. I expect that in Italy in 3 years (usually) it will also be regarded as a riserva.
Because you have wined and dined extensively in all of your 50 states, and because an Italian restaurant appears not to properly train its waitstaff (don’t know the word, is it new English?) in the intricacies of its wine list, you assumed the Classico Matteson was asking about was a Chianti. No, wait, I’ve got that wrong, you assumed it “would most likely….â€. You may well have been correct, but the fact is you did not know and you were not, and could not have been, certain. For all you knew, he could have seen “Classico†on a Soave for instance. However, even if your assumption was correct, there’s no getting away from the fact that your answer was misleading. The questioner enquired about “Classicoâ€, your response only mentioned it in relation to Chianti thereby giving the impression that only Chianti has such a sub-region. If you knew otherwise, don’t you honestly think you should have said? Come on my friend, own up.
Re “If it makes you feel any better, I know absolutely nothing about the wine selections in the restaurants of Essex, Englandâ€. I don’t know what that’s got to do with it or why that unnecessary information should make me feel any better. I do know a lot about restaurants in Great Britain, even so, had I been given the same question here I would not have been so presumptuous as to assume I knew the questioner was talking about a particular wine/region. Even if (God forbid) I were, I would still have given the answer I posted because it is the correct one.
Now that I have all guns blazing let’s get back to the subject of “Riservaâ€. What help do you think your definition of “Riserva†- “Riserva is a designation for a wine that's supposed to be better than the regular bottling from a particular winery†- was? If one does not want, or is unable, to give a helpful answer it is best to keep quiet.
There is something you could help me with if you wouldn’t mind. Earlier in the year a friend dined in a French restaurant in New Orleans and enjoyed a bottle of wine. However, his lunch was marred somewhat because the waiter, nor any of the latter’s colleagues, could tell my friend what “Grand Cru†is. Unfortunately my friend has forgotten the name of the wine. Could you use your expertise to tell me what the wine was please?
Oh, by the way, thanks for putting me straight regarding “periodâ€. However, I must confess to a certain modicum of doubt about your info. I shall have to check it out with my many Yankee friends who immigrated here for a worse life many moons ago. Mind you, they may not have retained any of their old linguistic idiosyncrasies. I won’t jump to any conclusions, best to wait and see, don't you think? T.
- Thomas - 05-22-2004
T, you are correct--I missed your "usually." But since I did miss it, and since you questioned that my experience with Italian DOC (as it relates to Riserva) must have been different from yours, then all I can say is that my warning about confusion has been reinforced by our discourse on the matter.
Matteson, I stick by my advice.
Ever notice how the novices who ask the seemingly simple questions vanish when we start offering the answers, which soon are subject to the microscope?
Incidentally, all, let's do away with sarcasm and put downs (or is it puts down?). This is a wine discussion board not the Friar's Club.
- dananne - 05-22-2004
Usually when the fur starts to fly on these threads, I just keep my head down and stay relatively amused at the pedantic/semantic arguments. However, this board tends to be a civil and very friendly place, so I'd like to offer a few unsolicited thoughts to, perhaps, help keep it that way.
In my humble opinion, if a novice asks a simple (or not so simple, as the case may be) question that someone answers in a way you feel is incomplete, a more complete answer can certainly be given without any problem. "In addition to the above . . ." or "I would add to the above . . ." or "To clarify the above . . ." would all do the trick. The answers above all are given by people know have a great deal of knowledge and experience with wine and the wine industry, so the immediate assumption that the answer provided by another was done out of a lack of knowledge likely does a disservice to the other party. Ommission of a qualifier, for example, does not mean that the general intent of a statement is necessarily incorrect. If an answer is given that seems to be more "layman" than you'd like, just add the info that you think needs to be added. It can even be done without reference to the other answer, and it can certainly be done without attacking the person who provided it. Not to attack anyone above, but just picking an example of what I'm talking about, consider the debate over the definition of "Reserva." An answer was provided with helpful intent that it is often considered superior to the regular bottling. Technically, this isn't a false statement. I don't know of many wineries that direct their inferior juice to their "Reserva" line. However, others may choose to add some additional information regarding things like aging. Fine. It can certainly be done, using the above examples, without any problem, and certainly without making assumptions about or attacks upon another. The answer, itself, doesn't even need to be attacked. I just pulled one example from the above to illustrate my point, and again, I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. If I offended anyone, that was certainly not my intent and I'll apologize in advance. This was only offered as gentle persuasion to try and help keep the discourse civil. Thanks, and regards to all.