Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
MENU:
. . . . . Pete
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
it absolutely transcended the 2000 Burgundy vintage reputation.
I beg to disagree. They gave simple pleasures but were low in acidity and high in alcohol -- not what I look for in Burgundy. Those who did acidify, e.g., Dujac and Roumier, came out aahead of the rest for obvious resaons. Outside of a parcel of Lafon than included some Volnay-Santenots-du-Milieu, I never bought a 2000 red to cellar, although I have been served some at friends's houses and in restaurants.originally posted by fatboy:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
it absolutely transcended the 2000 Burgundy vintage reputation.
without wishing to be argumentative, i'd have thought it was generally accepted at this point that if one actually drinks burgundy, while 2000 was initially underestimated, after its initial period of lumpy uncouthness it turned out to be a vintage that has consistently provided a delightful source of openhearted, always drinkable and surprisingly long lived hooch.
in total contrast to teh #pointstasticvintagesoftehcentury that are best bought for one's descendants (unless, of course, one had always intended to enjoy them through a straw in their glory).
fb.
originally posted by Florida Jim: The Chard seems out of place.
What did you think?
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Pete,
For me, it is odd to see Napa Chard on a menu with mostly old world wines. Especially because my experience with Napa Chard is pretty dismal.
Admittedly “de Villaine” might signal a lighter approach but the fact of its inclusion seemed odd.
It has been a very long time since I’ve had a Chardonnay from Napa Valley that made me smile.
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
Michael, besides what Claude said, this Engel "transcended" what most vintages are reputed to be so, in my mind, it definitely qualifies with the 2000 vintage.
originally posted by fatboy: could you translate for me?
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
It sounded like he differed slightly with you in a polite way and provided his reasoning.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never criticized Engel or Rousseau; I criticized the vintage in general. Dujac and Roumier were just two examples I cited off the top of my head that were exceptions, but of course there are others.originally posted by fatboy:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
It sounded like he differed slightly with you in a polite way and provided his reasoning.
which was that all 2000s were low in acidity and high in alcohol except for dujac and roumier and anyone who acidified, and boy does he know because he never bought any and has rarely drunk them since (except, i assume, to confirm his prejudices).
from this reasoning, we can deduce two things:
first is that claude either knows for certain that engel and rousseau acidified their 2000s or else he thinks that you and teh dotster have palates comparable to teh fatfridge
'
the second is that if you consider this kind of reasoning to be sufficient to determine the reputation of an entire vintage, then it seems reasonable to wonder what it was that you had hoped to convey by saying that the wine transcended it.
fb.
originally posted by fatboy: teh dotster
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
originally posted by fatboy: teh dotster
I don't recognize the tone of my postings in your summary posting.
Quite curious! What/who is the "dotster", please?
. . . . . . Pete