Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
I think Beria said the same thing.
TN: In the, um, "cellar" (Aug. 11, 2018)
- Thread starter Jeff Grossman
- Start date
I think Beria said the same thing.
Pavel Tchichikov
Pavel Tchichikov
there is some irony here, because I am definitely a hardliner when it comes to alcohol, while a softliner when it comes to oak
and yet I've been humbled by some wines around 14% from piedmont and southern rhone lately
and yet I've been humbled by some wines around 14% from piedmont and southern rhone lately
I feel as though it's difficult to talk about ABV in absolute terms as my tolerance for it changes. The confounding variable might be dry extract as wines with greater dry extract tend to hold their alcohol better IMO. All I know for certain is that there are some wines with 14.5% ABV (I'm looking at you, Mr. Ridge) that don't bother me at all but others with 12.5% where the alcohol sticks out like a sore thumb. Go figger.
Mark Lipton
Mark Lipton
Pavel Tchichikov
Pavel Tchichikov
it's not so much the tolerance but the ageing curve
I wish La Rioja Alta SA still had their old website that contained a wonderful discussion of how different observed ageing process is for wines below and above X (I think the number was 14, or something around there); that the higher ABV wines didn't really gain requisite complexity but rather, as they put it in the English translation, merely "smoothed out" in time. Last time I checked, all of this material was gone, for reasons perhaps not too surprising. If anyone can somehow dig up these old backdoor URLs, it's a nice read.
This is good news. I often find various components of Savennieres (and Anjou wines more broadly) to be attractive (certain aromas, textures), but getting everything to click in harmony seems more difficult compared to other regions. So any improvement in that direction is worth noting and may inspire me to part with more money.
On the alcohol thing, I think everyone agrees that all else equal it is more attractive to be closer to 12 than to 15. But how can you have strict cutoffs when I assumed that the numbers on the bottle were not usually very precise?
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Moi? I am less opposed to mild SO2 at bottling, mild tartaric additions, and mild sugar additions (none of which I like) than I am to oak because the first three are found in grapes. Oak, otoh, is an excrescence for which habit begat acquiescence.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
I recently had a nice California Valdiguié that rang in at 9.5%. I think there is room to better define what is possible at the bottom end of the alcohol spectrum, rather than the top.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
As usual, many thanks to The Scribe and to everyone’s generosity. From the peanut-gallery, before all this flows out of my brain:
Closel 1998 Savennieres "Clos du Papillon" - *meh*. Comes off flat to me although not over-alcoholed. I kept trying to like it more.
Barraud 2014 Pouilly-Fuisse "Sur La Roche" - Ira’s favorite white of the day. I really like the texture, oldish vines grip, juiciness, and minerality but wonder if it wouldn’t have been better if it was aged entirely in well aged neutral barrels rather than the 20% new oak it does see. I like Barraud’s wines but it would be so interesting to see what the Thevenets would do with Barraud’s best sites like this one.
Taittinger 2004 Champagne Brut, Blanc de Blancs, "Comtes de Champagne" - I love this Comtes. So crystalline. For not the first time, I am happy to be the beneficiary of Jay’s Comtes supply.
Alzinger 2001 Loibner Steinertal Gruner Veltliner Smaragd - that this was corked is a great disappointment. My last bottle.
Claire Naudin 2016 VdF "Le Clou 34" - what Jeff said. Clean and precise. Don’t know if there was sulfur or not, Pavel, but if so, little and didn’t affect how this was drinking. Very nice.
Edmunds St John 1995 "Les Cotes Sauvages" - I’ve come to the conclusion that, like CNDP, these GSM blends are not for me. I can appreciate this, and that others might like it, but it’s not for me. I.e., same thing I said when we opened this in December, which I only remembered after the fact.
Breton 2004 Bourgueil "Les Perrieres" - fine aromatically but still resolving significant tannins that affect the rich midpalate and finish. Based on experience with the 1996 and 1997, this should be gorgeous starting in another 5-10 years and then drink well thereafter for who knows how long. I don’t own this one, but I have the Clos Senechal and the Chinon Picasses from 2004 - from “before the dark times”.
Breton 1999 Bourgueil "Les Perrieres" - a slimmer, much more resolved and transparent version of the 2004. In a very nice place if not the potential of the 2004.
Huet 2008 Vouvray Demi-Sec "Le Mont" - this was just as good if not better on the third day open.
Allemand 2004 Cornas "Chaillot" - as gorgeous as this was, the bottle in June at the Juge thing may have been even better. In any case this wine is in a fantastic place right now and I’ll be interested to see how it ages. Thanks to whoever brought this.
Luigi Baudana 2013 Barolo - like Jeff, I like this a lot right now. But it is modern Barolo in the sense that it’s drinking young, it’s more acid driven than is typical in young Barolo, and it doesn’t have much tannins from grape or oak, so I’m curious about the elevage and whether it can age. Anyone have insight? In any case it is a very nice wine.
Pierre Moncuit NV Champagne Brut GC, Blanc de Blancs - good but hard to drink next to Comtes. Would be better on its own. Might be a touch too much dosage.
Fontodi 1995 Chianti Classico Riserva "Vigna del Sorbo" - a tired bottle that is not where it should be, which is flat-out outstanding. After about 3 hours in the decanter, it’s a little cleaner and finer, redder fruit showing better, but still not what it should be from a good bottle.
Seehof 2017 Pinot Noir Trocken Rose - another *meh* wine. I wasn’t getting the varietal character of a good Pinot Rose.
Closel 1998 Savennieres "Clos du Papillon" - *meh*. Comes off flat to me although not over-alcoholed. I kept trying to like it more.
Barraud 2014 Pouilly-Fuisse "Sur La Roche" - Ira’s favorite white of the day. I really like the texture, oldish vines grip, juiciness, and minerality but wonder if it wouldn’t have been better if it was aged entirely in well aged neutral barrels rather than the 20% new oak it does see. I like Barraud’s wines but it would be so interesting to see what the Thevenets would do with Barraud’s best sites like this one.
Taittinger 2004 Champagne Brut, Blanc de Blancs, "Comtes de Champagne" - I love this Comtes. So crystalline. For not the first time, I am happy to be the beneficiary of Jay’s Comtes supply.
Alzinger 2001 Loibner Steinertal Gruner Veltliner Smaragd - that this was corked is a great disappointment. My last bottle.
Claire Naudin 2016 VdF "Le Clou 34" - what Jeff said. Clean and precise. Don’t know if there was sulfur or not, Pavel, but if so, little and didn’t affect how this was drinking. Very nice.
Edmunds St John 1995 "Les Cotes Sauvages" - I’ve come to the conclusion that, like CNDP, these GSM blends are not for me. I can appreciate this, and that others might like it, but it’s not for me. I.e., same thing I said when we opened this in December, which I only remembered after the fact.
Breton 2004 Bourgueil "Les Perrieres" - fine aromatically but still resolving significant tannins that affect the rich midpalate and finish. Based on experience with the 1996 and 1997, this should be gorgeous starting in another 5-10 years and then drink well thereafter for who knows how long. I don’t own this one, but I have the Clos Senechal and the Chinon Picasses from 2004 - from “before the dark times”.
Breton 1999 Bourgueil "Les Perrieres" - a slimmer, much more resolved and transparent version of the 2004. In a very nice place if not the potential of the 2004.
Huet 2008 Vouvray Demi-Sec "Le Mont" - this was just as good if not better on the third day open.
Allemand 2004 Cornas "Chaillot" - as gorgeous as this was, the bottle in June at the Juge thing may have been even better. In any case this wine is in a fantastic place right now and I’ll be interested to see how it ages. Thanks to whoever brought this.
Luigi Baudana 2013 Barolo - like Jeff, I like this a lot right now. But it is modern Barolo in the sense that it’s drinking young, it’s more acid driven than is typical in young Barolo, and it doesn’t have much tannins from grape or oak, so I’m curious about the elevage and whether it can age. Anyone have insight? In any case it is a very nice wine.
Pierre Moncuit NV Champagne Brut GC, Blanc de Blancs - good but hard to drink next to Comtes. Would be better on its own. Might be a touch too much dosage.
Fontodi 1995 Chianti Classico Riserva "Vigna del Sorbo" - a tired bottle that is not where it should be, which is flat-out outstanding. After about 3 hours in the decanter, it’s a little cleaner and finer, redder fruit showing better, but still not what it should be from a good bottle.
Seehof 2017 Pinot Noir Trocken Rose - another *meh* wine. I wasn’t getting the varietal character of a good Pinot Rose.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Not liking something seems to be a better reason not to want it than a theoretical objection. I don't like oak because I don't like oak. One can carry theoretical consistency too far.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Have you never liked oak or were you ok with it, or even liked it for some time, and then changed?
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I never really much liked it. I also don't have a sweet tooth. But that's neither here nor there. Acquired tastes are still tastes, even theoretically driven ones. I just don't see why one would want to change one's taste as a matter of non-ethical theory. Ethically held vegetarisnism, leading one to dislike meat is obviously a different matter. And, no, I'm not a vegetarian.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
My acquired distaste for oak derives from an theoretical position, so will you allow me to have it, since acquired tastes are still tastes, even theoretically driven ones?
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I can't stop you from having it and wouldn't if I could. It just seems to me an odd practice. Rather like asceticism without a religious underpinning.
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
I think it's odd too, but this business seems to be rife with such judgements. (Why are oak barrels OK for some people, yet not oak chips made from the exact same wood and toast level?) But Oswaldo could derive more satisfaction from consistency of philosophy than dissatisfaction from missing out on some wine he might otherwise like. Fortunately, there are plenty of wines in most production and flavor categories, so Oswaldo's suffering in this case is only theoretical.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I've never understood why oak chips are worse than new oak barriques either. I expect it has something to do with the notion that barriques are still containers for elevage, whereas chips are just adulteration. Such are the caprices of pure reason.But you are right. The costs of making such distinctions are small, give how many wines are out there.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Yes, if one sets up something as a virtue, whether others agree with it or not, there is satisfaction in pursuing that virtue for its own sake. And, as you both point out, it's a painless restriction, given the dizzying number of options.
That said, at some point in my wine journey, after being hammered right and left, genuinely or mostly hypocritically about the "importance of terroir," the thing I gradually came to find most fun about wine, beyond the pure sensory pleasure, was investigating, and attempting to understand, how taste varied from place to place as a function of the place, not the winemaking. Oak gradually became verboten, since it is not only a mask, but a mask from another place. The process-ethic drove the esthetic. If one could add oak, why not add cinnamon and spice and anything else one wanted? Like flavored coffee? Drawing the line at what the vine gives is a rubicon (and if rubicons are crossed, civilization of course goes to the dogs, except when it doesn't).
So, my principal interest in natural wines is not that they are better for my health (thought there is that too), or that esthetically-driven non-intervention is more virtuous than profit-driven intervention (though there is that too). I am mostly interested in the implicit attempt to get closer to the "truth of the material," a quest which, incidentally, was also important for some time in the plastic arts, when every kind of illusionism was rejected and painting had to adhere to the "flatness of the picture plane."
So, the kinds of things that "preoccupy" me in natural wine are whether techniques like carbonic and skin contact interfere with the expression of place by imposing such a strong signature on the result. Perhaps even as strong as oak, though at least, in the case of these techniques, nothing external is being added, so there wouldn't be an process-ethic issue as much an interference issue. In short, there is no lack of complexity or self-questioning involved, even in a quest that may appear to others as excessively clear cut or free from underpinnings.
That said, at some point in my wine journey, after being hammered right and left, genuinely or mostly hypocritically about the "importance of terroir," the thing I gradually came to find most fun about wine, beyond the pure sensory pleasure, was investigating, and attempting to understand, how taste varied from place to place as a function of the place, not the winemaking. Oak gradually became verboten, since it is not only a mask, but a mask from another place. The process-ethic drove the esthetic. If one could add oak, why not add cinnamon and spice and anything else one wanted? Like flavored coffee? Drawing the line at what the vine gives is a rubicon (and if rubicons are crossed, civilization of course goes to the dogs, except when it doesn't).
So, my principal interest in natural wines is not that they are better for my health (thought there is that too), or that esthetically-driven non-intervention is more virtuous than profit-driven intervention (though there is that too). I am mostly interested in the implicit attempt to get closer to the "truth of the material," a quest which, incidentally, was also important for some time in the plastic arts, when every kind of illusionism was rejected and painting had to adhere to the "flatness of the picture plane."
So, the kinds of things that "preoccupy" me in natural wine are whether techniques like carbonic and skin contact interfere with the expression of place by imposing such a strong signature on the result. Perhaps even as strong as oak, though at least, in the case of these techniques, nothing external is being added, so there wouldn't be an process-ethic issue as much an interference issue. In short, there is no lack of complexity or self-questioning involved, even in a quest that may appear to others as excessively clear cut or free from underpinnings.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
I have lost most of my taste for oak over the years, for essentially the same reason as Oswaldo elaborates. But I have not found 'natural' to be any kind of shelter against unfortunate wines. (Recognizing that there are at least two kinds of unfortunate wines: ones that are flawed and ones that taste like nothing in particular.)
This one's a minefield, but I'll dip a toe in (mixed metaphor?). Leaving aside one's ability to perceive it, we can all agree that TCA is a flaw, but after that everyone here will have a slightly different definition for flaw or flawed wine. I don't think that wines with flaws are unfortunate until the level or number of flaw(s) become(s) so intrusive as to mask many other positive characteristics. But nothing is a shelter from that - natural or not.
By "nothing in particular" I read anonymous or without a sense of place. Ergo, under that latter rubric I would squarely place spoofulated wines, but I'm just guessing at what you mean.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
I read the brilliant mixed metaphor about 5 times.
Personally I won’t touch the minefield with a ten-foot pole.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
As someone who considers brett in small amounts a feature, I nevertheless think there are other "flaws" most of us would agree are not features: oxidation on non-ouille wines, extreme reductiveness. Over the course of tastings, I've encountered wines that I and the whole table thought were off even though we weren't sure what the cause was, though we were all pretty sure it wasn't TCA. While natural wines may have "features" that some consider "flaws," probably some also have "flaws" that no one would consider a "feature."