John Gilman has a very nice article here

originally posted by VLM:
and that Leve guy may combine pompous and stupid in ways that are not yet understood. He is a national treasure.
Click to expand...

I find it even more amazing that someone gave Barney Fife a badge and a gun.
 
I've been traveling, but nothing makes me feel more like Chris than having no idea what you all are on about.

It's pretty good, actually. Look at me in my alohawear!
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
Just re-looking at a Gilman article during lunch, I am shocked than none of you have put out a hit on him for misusing varietal. He even switches between variety (correctly) and varietal (incorrectly) in the same paragraph.
Click to expand...
The article contained numerous grievous grammatical flaws. We are still preparing the indictments.
Click to expand...

'Twasn't published on Disorder, so fall be outside of your jurisdiction.
 
Actually, Nathan was quite civil. He argues very forcefully, in fact, when his mind is not being hijacked by extraneous anglo-saxon colloquialisms.
 
The thread is still there, you just can't post on it. Too bad...

I perked up when I read that Gilman had called the 1990 La Chapelle "road kill". Now this is a comment I can understand--a more monolithic, impenetrable downright sullen wine at age 18 is hard to imagine. Somebody then said that Gilman had actually made the comment about the 1989, which I thought was a pretty good wine, although shown up by the 1989 Chave next to it.

Otherwise, that Parker's palate has at least drifted and that many winemakers have followed in the direction of the drift that THEY perceive seems indisputable...

However, I have never got the impression that Parker came down strongly on the question of oak, on either side. So he seems to have no problem with traditionalist wine makers (e.g., in Piedmont) using little new oak. I see his biggest blind spot being the higher acid wines either taking some years to flesh out (this is an evolutionary trend he doesn't seem to recognize) or lighter bodied wines relying on finesse (perhaps aromatic) and lacking the huge concentration of his favorites.
 
I think that diagnosis is absolutely right, Carl. It's not oak Parker likes but WEIGHT. He will on occasion criticize a wine for being too oaky. He will never criticize it for being too heavy. "Putting on weight" is always cited as a developmental change that will earn a wine a few more points; being "on steroids" is always cited as a positive trait and not a pejorative -- as is "glycerine," which he seems to use as just a synonym for thickness (always good, of course).
 
The 'what would you buy with $1000 for your cellar' question was very interesting...makes me want to take a look at some of those Loire reds. I fell trap to buying Bordeaux as my first French wines for the cellar, and while I love Bordeaux, I also equally enjoy Rhones, so perhaps Loire is worth a try, particularly given they are value-driven.
 
originally posted by Todd F r e n c h:
The 'what would you buy with $1000 for your cellar' question was very interesting...makes me want to take a look at some of those Loire reds. I fell trap to buying Bordeaux as my first French wines for the cellar, and while I love Bordeaux, I also equally enjoy Rhones, so perhaps Loire is worth a try, particularly given they are value-driven.
Click to expand...

Loire Valley wines are quality driven, just like anywhere else. They just happen to be unfashionable, so they are often values.

Bon voyage!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top