Random Wines w/dinner (menu)

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
if the wines were actually random you'd think there'd be something like a gallo hearty burgundy or friend tucked in there somewhere.

ascribing the term random to this, as a sample set of wines in general, means that you don't know the definition of random.

as in, i have a random collection of cars--you know, an aston martin db7, a bugatti royale, a gull wing mercedes 300, a ferrari berlinetto lusso, and a stutz bearcat. no pintos, no impalas, no mustangs, no chevys, no volkswagens. just random stuff i stumbled across.

hint: make the dictionary your friend, or at least acquaintance.
Click to expand...
Getting a bit nitpicky there, aren't we. I imagine Peter was probably using the term in the sense of Merriam-Webster's definition 1(a), "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern," as opposed to definition 2(b) which you have in mind, "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence." His usage was correct and likely not uncommon even on this very board, and the grammar police ought to understand by now that being friends with the dictionary does not license them to make false arrests.
Click to expand...

and i would say that there is a "definite plan, purpose, or pattern". they are all great wines--i would call that pattern.
 
originally posted by robert ames:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
if the wines were actually random you'd think there'd be something like a gallo hearty burgundy or friend tucked in there somewhere.

ascribing the term random to this, as a sample set of wines in general, means that you don't know the definition of random.

as in, i have a random collection of cars--you know, an aston martin db7, a bugatti royale, a gull wing mercedes 300, a ferrari berlinetto lusso, and a stutz bearcat. no pintos, no impalas, no mustangs, no chevys, no volkswagens. just random stuff i stumbled across.

hint: make the dictionary your friend, or at least acquaintance.
Click to expand...
Getting a bit nitpicky there, aren't we. I imagine Peter was probably using the term in the sense of Merriam-Webster's definition 1(a), "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern," as opposed to definition 2(b) which you have in mind, "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence." His usage was correct and likely not uncommon even on this very board, and the grammar police ought to understand by now that being friends with the dictionary does not license them to make false arrests.
Click to expand...

and i would say that there is a "definite plan, purpose, or pattern". they are all great wines--i would call that pattern.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is an obvious difference between a random collection of professional baseball players and a random collection of people. But I'm pretty sure that context supplied what the category from which the random choosing was being done was. If this isn't an "incorrect" correction, as Keith, in a rare moment of hyperbole, claims, it at least comes under the umbrella of nitpicking for its own sake. I do understand that that's a common practice here, but still...
 
Ah yes, the sherry. Extremely low production, this sherry has received rave news from far and wide. And it was right on on this occasion as well. I was told it is 17% alcohol.

From sherrynotes.com...

This wine is a legend. It is a Pedro Ximénez made from the first grapes harvested after World War II in Montilla-Moriles, the neighbouring area of the D.O. Jerez-Xéres-Sherry, specialized in Pedro Ximénez.

Nose: the first thing that struck me was the wonderful smell of cinnamon rolls and Belgian speculoos. Bread pudding. Lemon grass, candied ginger and cardamom as well. It’s a sweet nose alright, but the savouriness is remarkable, as well as the fragrant touches (think bergamot and rose petals). Goes on with sultanas and black cherries with a chocolate coating. Blackcurrants. Fig syrup. Not a lot of oak, but you can sense a kind of oriental, polished wood. Waxed sandalwood and cigar boxes. There’s also a slightly medicinal layer, something in between camphor and menthol. Even hints of petrol. Great sweet and sour balance overall.

Mouth: sweet and sour again, in a generally soft way, Madeira style, a real prolongation of the nose. Not cloying at all hardly any plain wood either. In no particular order: mocha, black olive paste, brown sugar crumble, cinnamon rolls (again, big time) Raisins but also raspberries and cherries, giving this an exquisite freshness and brightness. Almonds in the background. Hints of After Eight as well. Very rich but also very elegant. My only (small) remark would be that the finish is very enjoyable, but not quite as infinite as I expected.
Click to expand...

The foregoing is W-A-Y M-O-R-E than I could ever begin to observe but maybe of interst here. I'm told this sherry is made from white grapes which are sun-dried so that the sherry ends up being almost inky black. So unctuous.

. . . . . . Pete
 
At least you are finally getting closer to the actual 7th.
Like a stopped clock, you'll hit it one of these years.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
they are all great wines
Click to expand...
That's not true. There's a Chateauneuf.
Click to expand...

As is the custom in Keith's hometown, please allow me (his press secretary) to jump in and undo any potential damage by assuring you that, as a man of great taste, he is merely expressing his vast preference for Cairanne and Ventoux.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
if the wines were actually random you'd think there'd be something like a gallo hearty burgundy or friend tucked in there somewhere.

ascribing the term random to this, as a sample set of wines in general, means that you don't know the definition of random.

as in, i have a random collection of cars--you know, an aston martin db7, a bugatti royale, a gull wing mercedes 300, a ferrari berlinetto lusso, and a stutz bearcat. no pintos, no impalas, no mustangs, no chevys, no volkswagens. just random stuff i stumbled across.

hint: make the dictionary your friend, or at least acquaintance.
Click to expand...
Getting a bit nitpicky there, aren't we. I imagine Peter was probably using the term in the sense of Merriam-Webster's definition 1(a), "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern," as opposed to definition 2(b) which you have in mind, "being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence." His usage was correct and likely not uncommon even on this very board, and the grammar police ought to understand by now that being friends with the dictionary does not license them to make false arrests.
Click to expand...

and i would say that there is a "definite plan, purpose, or pattern". they are all great wines--i would call that pattern.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is an obvious difference between a random collection of professional baseball players and a random collection of people. But I'm pretty sure that context supplied what the category from which the random choosing was being done was. If this isn't an "incorrect" correction, as Keith, in a rare moment of hyperbole, claims, it at least comes under the umbrella of nitpicking for its own sake. I do understand that that's a common practice here, but still...
Click to expand...

ah, yes, nits do get picked here--not an uncommon occurrence. and if it is my turn, it is my turn. so be it--no worries. i am comfortable with that.
eschewing sloppiness is a worthwhile endevour.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
they are all great wines
Click to expand...
That's not true. There's a Chateauneuf.
Click to expand...
And a sherry.
Click to expand...

As Jeff quite correctly points out if you average the PX with the Chateauneuf the former is sufficiently wonderful that they still average out to two great wines.
 
originally posted by Tristan Welles:
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Well, they certainly didn’t spare any expense.

You know, I have dreamed about one day doing something akin to this. Simpler food and certainly simpler/less expensive wines. But 6-7 courses over an entire evening, each with it own wine or wines. Maybe 8 people so it’s not out of hand and so everyone gets a decent pour.
While I’m sure I could get 7 other people to show, I’d have a hard time getting 7 that would fully appreciate the experience.
And if I could get 7 that would fully enjoy the experience, I know they’d bring wine, etc. - which is when it all becomes an entirely different event.
Ah well . . .

I hope you enjoy it, Pete.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,

This is my favorite way to have a long meal with friends, but has perhaps come about only a few dozen times. And not coincidentally a large number of them have been at the fondly remembered Bibou. The last such dinner concluded with Pierre's astonishingly subtle soufflé au violette paired with an '02 Cuvée Constance. Thanks for evoking the memory.
Click to expand...

Bibou was a fantastic restaurant and that souflee was superb.
 
I'm curious how the wines in jerobaum age relative to those in magnum, or even regular 750s.

I recall a discussion somewhere saying that you can't just extrapolate the difference between maturation rates of wine in 750s, compared to that of wine in magnums, because corks for the larger formats are hand-cut and, therefore, yield an inferior seal.

Observations?
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons: corks for the larger formats are hand-cut and, therefore, yield an inferior seal.
Click to expand...

This runs counter to conventional wisdom which says wine in larger formats ages considerably slower. I've never seen nor can imagine how the different maturation rates of various formats might be quantified.

. . . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I'm curious how the wines in jerobaum age relative to those in magnum, or even regular 750s.

I recall a discussion somewhere saying that you can't just extrapolate the difference between maturation rates of wine in 750s, compared to that of wine in magnums, because corks for the larger formats are hand-cut and, therefore, yield an inferior seal.

Observations?
Click to expand...

Magnums have aged best, compared to both 750s and double magnums/jeroboams. This is based on personal experience; no science here.
 
originally posted by robert ames:
originally posted by maureen:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
they are all great wines
Click to expand...
That's not true. There's a Chateauneuf.
Click to expand...

Nailed it!
Click to expand...

and there are people that think mark twain was a hack and that dylan's oeuvre is all doggerel.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment, but, to engage in more nitpicking, it should be "people who..."
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
originally posted by maureen:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by robert ames:
they are all great wines
Click to expand...
That's not true. There's a Chateauneuf.
Click to expand...

Nailed it!
Click to expand...

and there are people that think mark twain was a hack and that dylan's oeuvre is all doggerel.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment, but, to engage in more nitpicking, it should be "people who..."
Click to expand...

i really like the word 'that', as it can often be used to increase clarity. why the word 'who' here? because what is being referred to are people rather than something inanimate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top