You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lazy Friday TN: 2006 Pinon Vouvray Cuvee Tradition
- Thread starter Yule Kim
- Start date
Steven Spielmann
Steven Spielmann
I love this wine. And the 2007. Love love love. I think I'm cracking my last 2002 tomorrow. Love that too.
People who hate wines with any sweetness can get converted by this stuff. I've seen it.
Drink more Vouvray.
People who hate wines with any sweetness can get converted by this stuff. I've seen it.
Drink more Vouvray.
I really hope the 2008s end up in DC. I only got one bottle of the 2007, and only the 2006s are left at the store. I need to reload on more Vouvray soon.
Any other Vouvray producers good besides Pinon, Huet, and Foreau? Is Chidaine '04s and '06s worth getting (Montlouis or Vouvray bottlings)?
Any other Vouvray producers good besides Pinon, Huet, and Foreau? Is Chidaine '04s and '06s worth getting (Montlouis or Vouvray bottlings)?
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
originally posted by Steven Spielmann:
I love this wine. And the 2007. Love love love. I think I'm cracking my last 2002 tomorrow. Love that too.
People who hate wines with any sweetness can get converted by this stuff. I've seen it.
Drink more Vouvray.
so how was the '02? I was debating opening one.
Steven Spielmann
Steven Spielmann
I haven't opened it yet! Somehow Halloween turned into a champagne-fest instead and with Bara, Bollinger, Krug, and Massin floating around (alongside some surprisingly nice stateside bubblies from Ferrer and Mawby) the chenin got shelved for another day.
But, I will remember to post here when I get to it in another week or three.
But, I will remember to post here when I get to it in another week or three.
originally posted by Yule Kim:
Lazy Friday TN: 2006 Pinon Vouvray Cuvee TraditionMy first tasting note on Wine Disorder and the second Vouvray I ever had:
Smells good. Lots of YUM! on the palate [Score: 1.9213 out of Log2(4)]
I've really never understood the reason people use log base 2.
originally posted by SFJoe:
Quite lovely 2008 tasted this week as well. Special, actually.
Ass kicking, but in a totally gentlemanly Francois Pinon way.
Steve Guattery
Steve Guattery
originally posted by VLM:
I've really never understood the reason people use log base 2.
Those of us who spend a fair part of every day working in base 2 have a pretty good idea why...
originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by Steven Spielmann:
I love this wine. And the 2007. Love love love. I think I'm cracking my last 2002 tomorrow. Love that too.
People who hate wines with any sweetness can get converted by this stuff. I've seen it.
Drink more Vouvray.
so how was the '02? I was debating opening one.
I drank one about a month ago, and it was brilliant. All the honey and balanced acidity that you could hope for, dusty minerality, just delicious with a special meal among friends who shared some of their weekly fish share from the Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association. I'm glad I have a few left- while they're lovely right now, I have the sense that they'll continue to age just as gracefully as they have so far.
Steve Guattery
Steve Guattery
originally posted by Yule Kim:
I really hope the 2008s end up in DC. I only got one bottle of the 2007, and only the 2006s are left at the store. I need to reload on more Vouvray soon.
Any other Vouvray producers good besides Pinon, Huet, and Foreau? Is Chidaine '04s and '06s worth getting (Montlouis or Vouvray bottlings)?
Have you tried the Pinon 2007 yet? As we've discussed here before, the 2006 and 2007 are very different: the 2006 is plumper, the 2007 leaner and racier. I'm looking forward to trying the 2008.
I've generally liked Chidaine, but since you asked about 2004 and 2006, the bottle of the 2006 Montlouis Clos de Breuil had just a little too much residual sugar relative to the acidity. I've got a second that I put away to see if the first was a fluke, or if it improves.
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
I really hope the 2008s end up in DC. I only got one bottle of the 2007, and only the 2006s are left at the store. I need to reload on more Vouvray soon.
Any other Vouvray producers good besides Pinon, Huet, and Foreau? Is Chidaine '04s and '06s worth getting (Montlouis or Vouvray bottlings)?
Have you tried the Pinon 2007 yet? As we've discussed here before, the 2006 and 2007 are very different: the 2006 is plumper, the 2007 leaner and racier. I'm looking forward to trying the 2008.
I've generally liked Chidaine, but since you asked about 2004 and 2006, the bottle of the 2006 Montlouis Clos de Breuil had just a little too much residual sugar relative to the acidity. I've got a second that I put away to see if the first was a fluke, or if it improves.
I haven't tried the '07 yet. Looking forward to it, though. Sounds almost Mosel-like, which makes me think I will prefer it to the '06, though I did enjoy the '06's lush, weighty texture. And can't wait for the '08s---I just hope the prices don't go up to much.
Looks like at the very least I'm going to have to try Chidaine, though it might be a shock to my system at this point if I end up drinking one of his sec bottlings first. Would never a thought a year ago that I would be this into sweetish white wines.
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
originally posted by VLM:
I've really never understood the reason people use log base 2.
Those of us who spend a fair part of every day working in base 2 have a pretty good idea why...
So why? The answer I got was strange to me. I only ever log shit for distributional reasons.
Steve Guattery
Steve Guattery
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
originally posted by VLM:
I've really never understood the reason people use log base 2.
Those of us who spend a fair part of every day working in base 2 have a pretty good idea why...
So why? The answer I got was strange to me. I only ever log shit for distributional reasons.
I mainly use it in the analysis of algorithms. For example, in my algorithms course this term I taught my students how to solve recurrence relations describing divide-and-conquer recursive algorithms. The depth of the recursion is typically logarithmic in the size of the input, and it's most often a log to the base 2 (denoted as lg). That often shows up in the solution to the recurrence. Because logs to any two specified bases differ only by a constant factor, once things are folded into big-O notation its convenient to express all logs in terms of log base 2.
For a number n, lg n also tells you how many bits are needed to represent that number in binary. As a result it's useful in a wide range of problems, e.g. everything from design of a memory hierarchy to figuring out the running time of certain numerical algorithms in arbitrary precision.
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
originally posted by VLM:
I've really never understood the reason people use log base 2.
Those of us who spend a fair part of every day working in base 2 have a pretty good idea why...
So why? The answer I got was strange to me. I only ever log shit for distributional reasons.
I mainly use it in the analysis of algorithms. For example, in my algorithms course this term I taught my students how to solve recurrence relations describing divide-and-conquer recursive algorithms. The depth of the recursion is typically logarithmic in the size of the input, and it's most often a log to the base 2 (denoted as lg). That often shows up in the solution to the recurrence. Because logs to any two specified bases differ only by a constant factor, once things are folded into big-O notation its convenient to express all logs in terms of log base 2.
For a number n, lg n also tells you how many bits are needed to represent that number in binary. As a result it's useful in a wide range of problems, e.g. everything from design of a memory hierarchy to figuring out the running time of certain numerical algorithms in arbitrary precision.
I'm not sure I understand all of that, but thanks.
That's a much different context than the answer I got (arbitrary interest in 2 fold changes) and from what I understand more meaningful the the problem.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Nathan, this sort of stuff pertains to figuring out how slow or fast we can do operations like sorting, searching, storing -- nearly anything that can be done to data.
For example -- and, Steve, please jump on me if I err -- the naive way to find what you seek is to start looking at items from #1 and keep going till you find it. On average, then, you will look at half of the available items. That magnitude is called the "order"; in this case, O(n/2). [[ ...which is often treated as O(n) because little constants don't really change anything ]]
But, if the things you are looking through are, say, stored in a binary tree, rather than just lying randomly next to each other, then each "look" you do will discard half the remaining items rather than just the one in front of you. You'll be done much faster. You will need only O(lg n) time to finish.
Et cetera.
For example -- and, Steve, please jump on me if I err -- the naive way to find what you seek is to start looking at items from #1 and keep going till you find it. On average, then, you will look at half of the available items. That magnitude is called the "order"; in this case, O(n/2). [[ ...which is often treated as O(n) because little constants don't really change anything ]]
But, if the things you are looking through are, say, stored in a binary tree, rather than just lying randomly next to each other, then each "look" you do will discard half the remaining items rather than just the one in front of you. You'll be done much faster. You will need only O(lg n) time to finish.
Et cetera.
Steven Spielmann
Steven Spielmann
I report back with a note on the last 2002.
Great acid. In fact, dangerously great. There was a new wine flaw in that bottle, or at least one I've never encountered before. It was this sharp, stinging, hyper-acidic green taste that made the backs of my cheeks curl up. Really horrible smell. Anyone have an idea what it might be? I suppose refermentation might cause a smell sort of like that but there was no cloudiness in the bottle and it was only 2002, so I kind of doubt that.
I tried to get it back by opening a Huet 2002 Le Mont Demi-Sec. TCA city.
I then gave up on white and opened one of a small handful of grand cru burgundies in my cellar. A beautiful nose of elegant cherry smoke gave way to waterlogged rot on the palate. This bottle wasn't flawed, just another example of why producer matters more than vineyard in burgundy.
At that point I was despondent so I found a moderately yummy tuscan red. Italy over France, 1-0.
Great acid. In fact, dangerously great. There was a new wine flaw in that bottle, or at least one I've never encountered before. It was this sharp, stinging, hyper-acidic green taste that made the backs of my cheeks curl up. Really horrible smell. Anyone have an idea what it might be? I suppose refermentation might cause a smell sort of like that but there was no cloudiness in the bottle and it was only 2002, so I kind of doubt that.
I tried to get it back by opening a Huet 2002 Le Mont Demi-Sec. TCA city.
I then gave up on white and opened one of a small handful of grand cru burgundies in my cellar. A beautiful nose of elegant cherry smoke gave way to waterlogged rot on the palate. This bottle wasn't flawed, just another example of why producer matters more than vineyard in burgundy.
At that point I was despondent so I found a moderately yummy tuscan red. Italy over France, 1-0.
Steven Spielmann
Steven Spielmann
Drinking the '04 Vouvray Sec tonight. Yum yum. It's a little tough but shows pure chenin blanc flavor and delightful complexity. It's all there, herbs, minerals, fruit, a knife and a big smile. Not quite as accessible as the demi-secs but more precise.
Mark Davis
Mark Davis
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
Lazy Friday TN: 2006 Pinon Vouvray Cuvee TraditionMy first tasting note on Wine Disorder and the second Vouvray I ever had:
Smells good. Lots of YUM! on the palate [Score: 1.9213 out of Log2(4)]
I've really never understood the reason people use log base 2.
Nathan-
A more general answer would be because we tend to use "bits", and thus binary, to represent a multitude of things in math and computer arithmetic....which leads to a huge application area in digital circuits, microprocessors, and DSPs, for instance. In my view, base 2 is the most interesting of them all, given this core basic-block...at least until the days of quantum computing become more broadly useful.
-mark