TN: Diinner at Dino's (3/8/17)

originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As for biodynamie, you know as well as I do that planting a goat's horn full of goatshit in a vineyard and dancing around it when the moon is full doesn't disallow every godforsaken process you can think of in the cellar, not to mention overripening in the vineyard and r.v.-ing or watering back to bring alcohol down to 15% and make sure all the tannins are slush--or polished if you prefers.
Click to expand...

Leaving the spoof timeline aside, everything you have said about BD farming and allowed cellar practices under International Demeter standards is completely wrong. Every "godforsaken process" is not allowed. Harvesting overripe fruit is definitely not a viticultural or cellar practice, though I doubt it is prohibited.
Click to expand...

Mark is correct. Begin reading on page 51.
 
Yet it is without question that the Biodynamie label still allows for a good deal of spoofulation in the cellar. And, Brad, timelines aside, I can tell you that the '95 was built along classic lines. It had none of the glossiness that I associate with spoofulation.

Mark Lipton
 
So, Brad, did they move to new oak in 94? Did they micro ox? What was the alcohol? I know what the wines taste like and it isn't Monbousquet. There is recent evidence of me admitting error on this board? Can you say the same.

With regard to Demeter standards, I admit ignorance. Are they a legal standard for being bio in France? And are you really saying that they don't t allow oak, which is not quite what is said, or overipening, which I know happens in GDP with bio wines?
 
So I read Demeter, whose legal status I don't know. As far as I can read, you can ripen the wine until forever and doctor it back by adding water (and, as far as I can see, reverse oxidizing though I may have missed something about that) without problem. And you can oak it as long as you don't think the oak obscures the character of the wine (who who oaksever think it does?). So exactly what did I say it permits that it doesn't?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
So I read Demeter, whose legal status I don't know. As far as I can read, you can ripen the wine until forever and doctor it back by adding water (and, as far as I can see, reverse oxidizing though I may have missed something about that) without problem. And you can oak it as long as you don't think the oak obscures the character of the wine (who who oaksever think it does?). So exactly what did I say it permits that it doesn't?
Click to expand...

So, I'll attempt to answer a few things from both of your latest posts:

Are they a legal standard for being bio in France?

No. Bio means organic, as I'm sure you know, not biodynamic. So EcoCert is an example of a French organic certifier. Demeter (the BD certifier around the world) has more rigorous standards, but no standard addresses the question of Brix at harvest. You are correct that the BD standard requires that the oak does not "obscure" the wine (and you are right again if you think that is almost impossible to judge.)

As far as I know reverse osmosis (which is what you probably mean) is not allowed. Water (and sugar) addition is likely regulated by the AOC and French law in general. I can't answer right now how that is regulated by the Demeter International Standards.

Everything you say about BD farming is obviously nonsense. No goat shit, no dancing under the full moon, not that anything is wrong with the latter per se.
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
"1995 Chateau Pontet-Canet, a wonderfully nostalgic claret with a nose of pencil lead and dark fruit and a finely balanced, mid-weight palate of tobacco and plum. This wine is still youthful, showing little tertiary character, but a delight to drink as we rhapsodized about our claret-drinking days of years gone by.

Those were the days. That '95 and the '96 that followed have always been favorites around here. If I want to see Lisa's eyes light up at Christmas or Thanksgiving I'll dust off a bottle of one or the other. Great balance, contemplative wine.
Click to expand...

I recently sold my remaining bottles. They had gone spoofy with the '94 (though I hear they've come back) and I found the '94-'96 Trio soulless.
Click to expand...

Fabulous to see the wheel has come full circle and you've become the knight of soulful purity! :)
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
So, Brad, did they move to new oak in 94?
Click to expand...

Yes and they had started green harvesting and I was told on release by the supplier as well as Garnet's Bordeaux manager (I was working there on those releases) that other things had changed in the cellar. Good luck getting anyone at the winery to publicly admit RO, MO, or any other spoofery. But, at the time it was largely discussed in the trade that the wine had become "Parkerized."

Frankly, I don't really care what your tastebuds tell you. I've had plenty of people tell me they taste oak in wine done in stainless. You want to know what the alcohol levels are, go look them up. I sold my bottles. You seem incapable of accepting the fact that there are various levels of spoof. Just because you like these vintages more than later bottlings doesn't mean the spoof started later. It just means the spoof changed thanks to hotter vintages, plus a tenure by Rolland. We recently had this spoof discussion with Sasha over the '96 Leoville Poyferre, which he didn't believe was spoofed. Well, he conceded that I was right when I let him know that Rolland had started there with the '94. Some spoof works better than others. The '98 Pape Clement is a good example of this. Totally spoofy, but it still works thanks to that Graves earth.

Maybe stick to being grammar policeman instead of incorrectly correcting people with actual wine knowledge.

Over and out.
 
Hi everyone. Fun dinner. Not yet publicly known is the fact that one of the bottles Ian brought but did not open (given that we had so much wine) was a 2002 Huet. In light of how angry Brad is already, can you imagine how intense this thread would be right now if we had to layer in a 2002 Huet premox discussion on top of the Pontet Canet spoof discussion?
 
originally posted by mark e:
As far as I know reverse osmosis (which is what you probably mean) is not allowed. Water (and sugar) addition is likely regulated by the AOC and French law in general. I can't answer right now how that is regulated by the Demeter International Standards.
Click to expand...
12.1.9 Concentration of must is not permitted.

12.4 Acid and sugar adjustment: Acid and sugar adjustment is not permitted. Sugar adjustment is not permitted except for sparkling wines requiring a secondary fermentation.
 
Obviously, I was joking about dancing in moonlight. I don't know what manure they are supposed to put in what horns. I readily accept that it's not goatshit in goat horns, but you knew what I was talking about. If biodynamics does not permit reverse osmosis, the document you cite doesn't seem to say that. [Late addition because I had read Jeff's post sloppily--apologies-- and didn't realize that he was citing concentration of must as refering to reverse osmosis. Butconcentration of must cannot refer to that since must is the unfermented juice. It is usually concentrated through additives, which I am not surprised biodynamics would regulate.] But there are a fair number of Southern Rhone wines that have gone biodynamic that are also modernist wine fruit drinks.

Brad is getting to be the new Levi and will brook no opposition.
 
originally posted by VLM:
When people talk about making WD great again, this is what they mean.
Click to expand...

Nathan, next time you're in the Bay, reach out to me (or ask Ian or Cory to), and we'll do a memorable dinner. I know where to find the ammo.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
My pre-jeeb ordeal concluded when I discovered that the Yellow Line was truncated and wouldn't get me to my desired station, resulting in a final jaunt in a cab in the rain to get myself to my destination.
Click to expand...

Mark, since we discussed this at dinner and you mentioned it in your post, I thought I would post the below explanation, which I read in the comments of a local blog today, but did not know at the time of our discussion:

There’s a pocket track (i.e. a third track segment) between Mt. Vernon [where your train ended, Mark] and Shaw, which allows trains to reverse direction there without temporarily blocking the two main tracks. Sadly, no pocket tracks exist on yellow/green north of there, so any trains running past Mt. Vernon would have to either go all the way to Greenbelt (which is already at capacity) or block other trains. Keep in mind that the engineer has to run from one end of the train to the other in order to start going in the other direction.
 
Very useful discussion. I, too, thought BD was only about agriculture, not cellar work, so I always snidely smirked that a BD wine was not necessarily a natural wine. Now I'll have to eat my snides and smirks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top