1997 Alegrini Amarone

[stevebody]

Botafogo,

Gotta love a man with strong opinions, even if you don't agree with them!

I seem to have a problem with clarity on this site which rarely plagues me in person. "Typical" seems to me to be a strait-jacket for any wine type. I've spent a hell of a chunk of change indulging my Amarone Jones and the wines are as individual as snowflakes in my memory. The lovely Bolla '90 I had for New Year's Eve was nothing at all like the Masi Campolongo di Torbe '77 I had last May or the Bussola '95 or the Tommasi '88 or the.... All completely different. Roses on one nose, tar on the next, crushed blackberries on the third. So, what is typical? I'm sure the Italians have their preconceptions and traditions, which I respect fully without feeling any need to abide by them. As I tell my customers constantly, you don't need to feel bad because you like this wine or don't get that one just because they're supposed to be great. I freely admit I don't get what the fuss is about Bordeaux, since the earth-shattering wines that made its reputation are wines that are so scarce and so expensive that most of us will NEVER know them except as elegies in the Advocate or the Spectator. We're Americans. What the Italians drink is fine with me but we don't and SHOULDN'T drink, judge, or buy based on their view of their wines. Once it comes past our shores, it's for us to decide if we think it's great - or "typical" - in relation to the pool of wines of that type available to us. I'm sure stuff like the Domenico Clerico Arte and Cotarella's La Carraia Fobbiano horrify Italians. Great, more for us.

I think Cotarella's principal crime is Vitiano. He makes some snappy juice. I'm sure the Aussie's would welcome him with open arms.

And, BTW, LOVE the word "Luddite". I've been accused of that one a few times myself!