Wow!

Florida Jim

Florida Jim

Florida Jim
Sometimes, you just have to say, what the . . .

2000 J.P. Droin, Chablis, Les Clos:
Youthful but sumptuous; character driven with superb concentration and intensity, slightly closed, precise balance, not the slightest hint of oak and unbelievable length. Drink it tonight, taste it tomorrow . . . night. I dont recall ever being this impressed with any wines length. A dazzling, albeit young, bottle of Chablis and amplifies grilled mahi mahi with lemon-caper sauce.

1999 Dugat-Py, Gevrey-Chambertin Les Evocelles:
Another wow wine; full, expansive aromatics, earthy/mineral/oh so Gevrey; powerful fruit, immense concentration without an extractive feel, old vine sap, depth, purity, focus, complexity and again, endless, balanced length. Burgundy, without question, and as concentrated as any Grand Cru. Has lost its baby fat and is now a laser-like wine with etched flavors and sinuous textures. Very fine with aged cheeses.

Best, Jim
 
Was pre-01 Dugat-Py wine? I've unfortunately come across a few from '01-'04 here and they all seemed black, super-concentrated, smothered in oak and quite undrinkable. I'm not sure what I tried was beverage though they did come in a wine bottle.

-O
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Was pre-01 Dugat-Py wine? I've unfortunately come across a few from '01-'04 here and they all seemed black, super-concentrated, smothered in oak and quite undrinkable. I'm not sure what I tried was beverage though they did come in a wine bottle.

-O
Click to expand...

'Matter of opinion.
Arpy certainly wrote highly of the 1999's but then so did Meadows and Coates.
So much for the pros.

I have found the Dugat-Py wines that I've had, big and concentrated; on release perhaps too much so. At this point, the lower end 1999's seem to be shedding some of that "hugeness" in favor of more focused profiles with a sense of place.

But SFJoe made a rather incisive observation about my tastes recently - his comment had to do with Muscadet but, with regard to other varieties, it is, to some degree, also applicable - I like bigger wines. Not milk shakes, not oak bombs and not even fruit bombs; rather those that have strong flavors and plusher textures. I think he's essentially accurate.
Hence, that is the filter which those who read my notes may wish to look through.

Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
C'mon, Jim, he did bandy about the term "floozy."

Thus, I suggest a "floozy filter" for your notes.

Strange. But, true? Really?
Click to expand...

Was that what he said?
Well, maybe I cleaned it up a little.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
C'mon, Jim, he did bandy about the term "floozy."

Thus, I suggest a "floozy filter" for your notes.

Strange. But, true? Really?
Click to expand...
Stirring the pot, are we?

In my limited experience, Jim is a very hard guy with whom to pick a fight.
 
In my limited experience, Jim is a very hard guy with whom to pick a fight.
Click to expand...

In my semi-limited experience if you poke him with sticks for a good long time, he can turn a little curt on you. That's about it, hardly worth the return on investment.
 
Actually, I think you have to poke manatee filets with sticks and rest them over a fire. But I agree: if you've got a sharp stick, better to prod someone with a hair-trigger temper. Like, say, me. Faster ROI.
 
ROI - I learned what this meant about three weeks ago.
Poking the clueless is usually counter-productive.
Oh yes, one more thing, fuck you.
Best, Jim
 
Oh yes, one more thing, fuck you.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the problem starts here: from you, "fuck you" almost comes off as affectionate. A reputation for peevishness isn't something you just just pick up like a spare mantle, it has to fit like a well-worn suit. Perhaps you should paw through the sarcasm or condescension racks first, trying on their satiny undergarments at a low cost, before moving on to the edgier fashions in the aggression aisle.
 
I think I'm the one who claimed to be the connoisseur of floozy wines. I have a long reputation for it. Jim just claimed to like floozies in general. Floozy wines are as different from over-oaked and oversized wines as floozies are from women who have had augmentations done. It's clear that we need to start a thread about this category.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I think I'm the one who claimed to be the connoisseur of floozy wines. I have a long reputation for it. Jim just claimed to like floozies in general. Floozy wines are as different from over-oaked and oversized wines as floozies are from women who have had augmentations done. It's clear that we need to start a thread about this category.
Click to expand...

Can you tie this in to the Hippie/Hipster thread?
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Maybe, I'll just give VLM a call - jump in with both feet, if you will.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

For sheer edginess, I've heard bringing your gun to a Jeebus works pretty well.

I'm still laughing at the concept of floozy Muscadet. Something not likely to be heard anywhere else on the internet.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Floozy wines are as different from over-oaked and oversized wines as floozies are from women who have had augmentations done. It's clear that we need to start a thread about this category.
Click to expand...

Jonathan, please do! I have a whole theory about the white wines of Puligny Montrachet / Meursault / Chassagne-Montrachet based on types of women one might find in some idealized mid-20th century.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Floozy wines are as different from over-oaked and oversized wines as floozies are from women who have had augmentations done. It's clear that we need to start a thread about this category.
Click to expand...

Jonathan, please do! I have a whole theory about the white wines of Puligny Montrachet / Meursault / Chassagne-Montrachet based on types of women one might find in some idealized mid-20th century.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm qualified to start the defining. There are clear problems. Despite the obvious gender non-neutrality of the term, my wife is even more a floozy wine afficionado than I am, but, unlike Florida Jim, she does not extend her afficionado enthusiasm to floozies of other kinds, at least to my knowledge. This argues for a certain metaphorical slippage going on. As to comparing wine with women as objects of desire, as I said on another board, if wines are like women, then my wife is, like, a lesbian.

But, like, go ahead, don't let me stop you.
 
"A floozy wine aficionado" is ambiguous when the aficionado is an aficionada. Wines floozy, or she?

My typology wasn't, however, as objects of desire! (A great failing of mine is clearly not seeing the other side of the coin.)

But: "if wines are like women, then my wife is, like, a lesbian"? I.e. she likes wine?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Despite the obvious gender non-neutrality of the term, my wife is even more a floozy wine afficionado than I am, but, unlike Florida Jim, she does not extend her afficionado enthusiasm to floozies of other kinds, at least to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
'Never heard the line "sleaze to please?"
Best, Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top