kirk wallace
kirk wallace
Ok. I'll try one more time, is there a way to generalize about the Calvet style? I don't know the house, other than that it was a very large and venerable negociant.
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.
Are the times a-changin'?
- Thread starter Brad Widelock
- Start date
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
What also is interesting is that in an interview with Michel Bettane in the 1980s or the early 1990s in La Revue du vin de France, Peynaud said that the reason he did this is because he had spent some time in Calvet's Beaune operation and went back to Bordeaux wanting to make wines like they made in Burgundy. So all the legendary clarets of 1945, 1947, 1949, etc. didn't impress him, I guess, and he wanted to make something different.
i thought the legendary wine = hot year shit died with the retards who didn't care about about marginal ripeness and wine as a table beverage.
did i just enter a fatwarp? are teh necrophiles really back in charge?
fb.
Jeff Connell
Jeff Connell
Well, you're guessing on his impression of a trio of vintages, exceptional in many ways, which he would have changed. I'm guessing that he was responding to what he saw as a broad, enduring trend, and would have admitted some exceptions.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
Peynaud, no doubt, merits the snark. But this statement may be a bit off the mark.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So all the legendary clarets of 1945, 1947, 1949, etc. didn't impress him, I guess, and he wanted to make something different.
Can you explain? He knew those wines when he said he wanted to make something different.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Sorry, I don't see how hot years relates to this. Can you elaborate?originally posted by fatboy:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
What also is interesting is that in an interview with Michel Bettane in the 1980s or the early 1990s in La Revue du vin de France, Peynaud said that the reason he did this is because he had spent some time in Calvet's Beaune operation and went back to Bordeaux wanting to make wines like they made in Burgundy. So all the legendary clarets of 1945, 1947, 1949, etc. didn't impress him, I guess, and he wanted to make something different.
i thought the legendary wine = hot year shit died with the retards who didn't care about about marginal ripeness and wine as a table beverage.
did i just enter a fatwarp? are teh necrophiles really back in charge?
fb.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
Well, you're guessing on his impression of a trio of vintages, exceptional in many ways, which he would have changed. I'm guessing that he was responding to what he saw as a broad, enduring trend, and would have admitted some exceptions.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
Peynaud, no doubt, merits the snark. But this statement may be a bit off the mark.originally posted by Claude Kolm:
So all the legendary clarets of 1945, 1947, 1949, etc. didn't impress him, I guess, and he wanted to make something different.
Can you explain? He knew those wines when he said he wanted to make something different.
Sorry, I'm just taking him at his word. He said that he didn't like to drink Bordeaux. Hence, he didn't like to drink 1945, 1947, 1949. It's simple logic. The burden of proof is on you to show that he meant something other than what he said, not to supply speculation for what he might have meant but clearly did not say.
Howard Cooper
Howard Cooper
I have been drinking a more California wines the last few years, but the winemakers have not been the millenials. Frankly, I don't know the new wineries very well and could not tell you the good ones from the ones on the dark side. I have been going back to the past and drinking:
Ridge
Montelena
Stony Hill
Mayacamas
Kalin
and one or two others (love old Sterling, but somehow don't have any Forman - currently listening to Levi's interview).
Ridge
Montelena
Stony Hill
Mayacamas
Kalin
and one or two others (love old Sterling, but somehow don't have any Forman - currently listening to Levi's interview).
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
Levi (and Mr. Forman) inspired me to bring a '90 Forman cab to dinner the other night. It didn't suck. And seems nowhere close to fading.
originally posted by kirk wallace:
Levi (and Mr. Forman) inspired me to bring a '90 Forman cab to dinner the other night. It didn't suck. And seems nowhere close to fading.
Agreeing with all of the above, the label on that bottle claims only 12.7% abv.
Howard Cooper
Howard Cooper
originally posted by kirk wallace:
Levi (and Mr. Forman) inspired me to bring a '90 Forman cab to dinner the other night. It didn't suck. And seems nowhere close to fading.
I have had his 74 sterlings a couple of times in recent years and they are still really tasty and going strong.
Michael Dashe
Michael Dashe
Just ran across this thread and thought I'd chime in.
I attended Davis in the mid-80's, and at that time, anyway, the emphasis was indeed on producing "sound wines." I certainly don't remember them pushing any particular agenda of wine style, beyond trying to make non-defective wines, and contrary to what some on the board claim, I didn't hear any promotion of acidulating or de-acidifying wines, or really any particularly manipulative techniques of winemaking beyond the use of commercial yeast and ML bacteria strains, and sanitation. I would say that the curriculum focused on analysis rather than on production. A recipe for safe, but somewhat boring wines.
I learned about "physiogical ripeness" not from Davis but from Paul Draper at Ridge, who taught me much about evaluating ripening grapes and making picking decisions based on changes in flavors, seed tannins, and acidity. I don't think anyone would accuse Paul of being a manipulative winemaker (and indeed, of loving UC Davis or its graduates; it's to his credit that he employed me for nine years as his asst. winemaker despite my education), and his emphasis on native yeast fermentations and coaxing vineyard-specific flavors from wine have stood me in good stead for many years now.
When I joined Ridge in 1989, most of the wines were quite low alcohol compared to typical alcohols today--Cabernet at 12.5 and 13.5 alcohols were common, and even zinfandels weren't much higher than high-13 percents. My personal opinion is that the higher alcohols came with climate changes that seemed to push sugars much earlier, before the grapes appeared at all ripe or ready to harvest. We picked when the flavors seemed right, which happened at higher and higher sugars as the 90s progressed. Of course, with wine writers giving high scores to over-ripe wines, lots of wineries jumped on the bandwagon and the 16% and 17% monstrosities were a logical result of 94+ scores. But at Ridge, we didn't make riper wines because of the trends, we made riper wines because the grapes didn't taste right at lower sugars.
The vast majority of California winemakers that I talk to certainly talk almost exclusively about emphasizing balance in winemaking, and I believe that the more drinkable, interesting, and balanced wines reaching the marketplace now are the start of a renaissance in California winemaking. I myself search for slightly cooler-climate vineyards that allow for earlier (lower-sugar) picking, and have been pleased with results.
This thread started by asking whether there are changes happening in California winemaking that should be acknowledged. Those changes are unmistakable and getting to be widespread, at this point (except in Napa Cabernet, and that's a whole other subject....)
I attended Davis in the mid-80's, and at that time, anyway, the emphasis was indeed on producing "sound wines." I certainly don't remember them pushing any particular agenda of wine style, beyond trying to make non-defective wines, and contrary to what some on the board claim, I didn't hear any promotion of acidulating or de-acidifying wines, or really any particularly manipulative techniques of winemaking beyond the use of commercial yeast and ML bacteria strains, and sanitation. I would say that the curriculum focused on analysis rather than on production. A recipe for safe, but somewhat boring wines.
I learned about "physiogical ripeness" not from Davis but from Paul Draper at Ridge, who taught me much about evaluating ripening grapes and making picking decisions based on changes in flavors, seed tannins, and acidity. I don't think anyone would accuse Paul of being a manipulative winemaker (and indeed, of loving UC Davis or its graduates; it's to his credit that he employed me for nine years as his asst. winemaker despite my education), and his emphasis on native yeast fermentations and coaxing vineyard-specific flavors from wine have stood me in good stead for many years now.
When I joined Ridge in 1989, most of the wines were quite low alcohol compared to typical alcohols today--Cabernet at 12.5 and 13.5 alcohols were common, and even zinfandels weren't much higher than high-13 percents. My personal opinion is that the higher alcohols came with climate changes that seemed to push sugars much earlier, before the grapes appeared at all ripe or ready to harvest. We picked when the flavors seemed right, which happened at higher and higher sugars as the 90s progressed. Of course, with wine writers giving high scores to over-ripe wines, lots of wineries jumped on the bandwagon and the 16% and 17% monstrosities were a logical result of 94+ scores. But at Ridge, we didn't make riper wines because of the trends, we made riper wines because the grapes didn't taste right at lower sugars.
The vast majority of California winemakers that I talk to certainly talk almost exclusively about emphasizing balance in winemaking, and I believe that the more drinkable, interesting, and balanced wines reaching the marketplace now are the start of a renaissance in California winemaking. I myself search for slightly cooler-climate vineyards that allow for earlier (lower-sugar) picking, and have been pleased with results.
This thread started by asking whether there are changes happening in California winemaking that should be acknowledged. Those changes are unmistakable and getting to be widespread, at this point (except in Napa Cabernet, and that's a whole other subject....)
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Thank you, Michael, very helpful.
Wow, just leave us hanging, like Cabernet in late September....originally posted by Michael Dashe:
(except in Napa Cabernet, and that's a whole other subject....)
But thanks, Mike.