Stumped again...any French readers?

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by nigel groundwater:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I think you can tell blind by the style of the tannins. In fact, I'm willing to say that I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too, too difficult.

Tannin management is why the assemblage technique is allowed in Champagne, but nowhere else. Tannins and acidity accentuate each other. Champagne trades in fairly high acid grapes. So some people avoid the saignee method because they want to have more control over tannin extraction.

Again true and IIRC Veuve Clicquot switched from saignee to the assemblage method early in the 19th century mainly for tannin management reasons and before that I assume saignee was the only method of rose production. However the successful saignee producers today [would you call the Roederer or the Laurent Perrier wines obviously tannic or even the Phillipponat or Paillard ones?] manage the tannins well through careful maceration technique.

OTOH there are some assemblage rose wines that are difficult to tell blind from white Champagne from standard 3 grape blends due to the high percentage of chardonnay and the small amount of heavily de-tannined pinot noir still wine blended in.

I am not looking for an argument but simply making the point that like every generalisation there are exceptions and I don't think Tom Stevenson was wide of the mark with his disagreement with those who suggest the saignee method is superior but also felt that it is unlikely that most [I assume he included himself] could separate, blind, [good] examples of both into their respective saignee and assemblage camps. No doubt there are also saignee wines that would give themselves away by their force and some assemblage wines that would suggest their genesis by their similarity to white wine.

I think my statements have made allowances for possible exceptions. I think that when I say "Often the color differences are pretty marked" that that is not an absolutist statement. I made the point because I believe that yes, generally the color differences are pretty marked. I don't see why one would refuse to link similarities based upon a few possible exceptions. I also understand that some producers use partial saignee and partial assemblage in their process. I am going to go ahead and leave it at that.

 

[nigel groundwater]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by nigel groundwater:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I think you can tell blind by the style of the tannins. In fact, I'm willing to say that I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too, too difficult.

Tannin management is why the assemblage technique is allowed in Champagne, but nowhere else. Tannins and acidity accentuate each other. Champagne trades in fairly high acid grapes. So some people avoid the saignee method because they want to have more control over tannin extraction.

Again true and IIRC Veuve Clicquot switched from saignee to the assemblage method early in the 19th century mainly for tannin management reasons and before that I assume saignee was the only method of rose production. However the successful saignee producers today [would you call the Roederer or the Laurent Perrier wines obviously tannic or even the Phillipponat or Paillard ones?] manage the tannins well through careful maceration technique.

OTOH there are some assemblage rose wines that are difficult to tell blind from white Champagne from standard 3 grape blends due to the high percentage of chardonnay and the small amount of heavily de-tannined pinot noir still wine blended in.

I am not looking for an argument but simply making the point that like every generalisation there are exceptions and I don't think Tom Stevenson was wide of the mark with his disagreement with those who suggest the saignee method is superior but also felt that it is unlikely that most [I assume he included himself] could separate, blind, [good] examples of both into their respective saignee and assemblage camps. No doubt there are also saignee wines that would give themselves away by their force and some assemblage wines that would suggest their genesis by their similarity to white wine.

I think my statements have made allowances for possible exceptions. I think that when I say "Often the color differences are pretty marked" that that is not an absolutist statement. I made the point because I believe that yes, generally the color differences are pretty marked. I don't see why one would refuse to link similarities base upon a few possible exceptions. I also understand that some producers use partial saignee and partial assemblage in their process. I am going to go ahead and leave it at that.

You really don't like the slightest deviation from your personal [and therefore limited] view of the world do you? I refused nothing and I said I wasn't looking for an argument but you make it very difficult for even an old man not to have one. I am perfectly happy for you to have your view as long as you don't ever think it's the only one possible.

I, too, and rather grandly, am going to go ahead and leave it at that.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by nigel groundwater:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by nigel groundwater:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I think you can tell blind by the style of the tannins. In fact, I'm willing to say that I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too, too difficult.

Tannin management is why the assemblage technique is allowed in Champagne, but nowhere else. Tannins and acidity accentuate each other. Champagne trades in fairly high acid grapes. So some people avoid the saignee method because they want to have more control over tannin extraction.

Again true and IIRC Veuve Clicquot switched from saignee to the assemblage method early in the 19th century mainly for tannin management reasons and before that I assume saignee was the only method of rose production. However the successful saignee producers today [would you call the Roederer or the Laurent Perrier wines obviously tannic or even the Phillipponat or Paillard ones?] manage the tannins well through careful maceration technique.

OTOH there are some assemblage rose wines that are difficult to tell blind from white Champagne from standard 3 grape blends due to the high percentage of chardonnay and the small amount of heavily de-tannined pinot noir still wine blended in.

I am not looking for an argument but simply making the point that like every generalisation there are exceptions and I don't think Tom Stevenson was wide of the mark with his disagreement with those who suggest the saignee method is superior but also felt that it is unlikely that most [I assume he included himself] could separate, blind, [good] examples of both into their respective saignee and assemblage camps. No doubt there are also saignee wines that would give themselves away by their force and some assemblage wines that would suggest their genesis by their similarity to white wine.

I think my statements have made allowances for possible exceptions. I think that when I say "Often the color differences are pretty marked" that that is not an absolutist statement. I made the point because I believe that yes, generally the color differences are pretty marked. I don't see why one would refuse to link similarities base upon a few possible exceptions. I also understand that some producers use partial saignee and partial assemblage in their process. I am going to go ahead and leave it at that.

You really don't like the slightest deviation from your personal [and therefore limited] view of the world do you? I refused nothing and I said I wasn't looking for an argument but you make it very difficult for even an old man not to have one. I am perfectly happy for you to have your view as long as you don't ever think it's the only one possible.

I, too, and rather grandly, am going to go ahead and leave it at that.

Wherever it is you are going, it isn't warranted by anything I have said here. Your personal, and therefore limited, worldview would seem to be askew in this instance.

But anyway, I'm game for a go. I'll go ahead and grandly not leave it at that. How is saying "Often the color differences are pretty marked" making it difficult for you as an old man not to have an argument? I said "I think my statements have made allowances for possible exceptions." How is it that I am not allowing for deviation? Please do explain.

 

[Jay Miller]

originally posted by Mike Klein:
Jay, I keep meaning to try that one and just haven't gotten my act together. I'll make a point of it. Thanks for the tip.

Matches well with beef daube of all things.