 | | VinoCellar.com Wine Forums | |
| |
| | | Author | Messages | |
GreenDrazi
Atlanta, GA
Grape Puncher
Posts:917
 | | 02/17/2005 10:50 PM |
| Quote:
Quote:
And that’s what I enjoy about VC - a generally positive debate, free from the posturing, name calling and childish taunts found in other forums.
Who asked for your opinion you ignoramous?  
What Stemor said! Time to cork it. | | | |
| Brent Null
Roseville, CA
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2192
| | 02/17/2005 11:15 PM |
| Quote:
No. Put a cork in it.
 | | | |
| ChangeMe
Master of Wine
Posts:12891
| | 02/17/2005 11:51 PM |
| i know a great place you can all put your corks   | | | |
| wineismylife
Arlington, TX
Master of Wine
Posts:11872
| | 02/18/2005 1:23 AM |
| GD, more like time to un-cork it! | |
Joe
-----
Wine is like potato chips around me...if it's open, it's gone. | |
| ChangeMe
Grape Puncher
Posts:886
| | 02/18/2005 9:42 AM |
| Note: 1= fake cork 2=cork-like closure
This thread has got me thinking. I've liked all the white wines from Chalet Fleur de Lys (Sierra Foothills) on release. They use (1 or 2). While I've never had any trouble getting the (1 or 2)'s out, I've noticed that these wines have a butterscotchy oxidized character after a year in cellar. I was ready to chalk this up to bad bottling practices, like maybe not sparging, and was ready to have a dialogue with Robert (Rho-bair) about it. Now I'm wondering if the use of (1 or 2) is the problem.
By the way, they don't use the Neocork (1 or 2)s. They use those squishy grey ones. | | | |
| Pool Boy
Laurl, MD (DC suburb)
Master of Wine
Posts:13627
| | 02/18/2005 2:16 PM |
| Quote:
I can't believe so many people are posting dictionary entries, etc. on the meaning of the word "fake." Even if one stipulates that's it's a neutral descriptor, the review of the wine itself is not a positive one. I think it plays fairly for the message he's trying to convey - this is an O.K. bottle of wine. Words like "one dimensional" and "fake" go with his rating of 86, which is decidedly mediocre for a $44 bottle of wine. Quibbling over the adjective is missing the forest for the trees.
That said, I personally could not disagree more with the rating and I'm pleased to no end that I ordered a full 6 bottle allocation and was fortunate enough to get three additional at the time of order. I've very much enjoyed the bottles I've opened, as have the people I've shared them with. I may not have the sophisticated palate Jones has, but at the end of the day, I think Andrew and Brian are making their wines for people to enjoy and, in my humble opinion, they have succeeded.
Andrew
86 points is not a mediocre bottle of wine IMO. 86 is a solid 'good', bordering on 'very good' bottle of wine. Granted, I would not want to pay $44 for an 86 pointer if at all possible. I can't directly comment on the wine as I have never had it, but I don't think an 86 rating means it is a lousy wine in the rater's opinion.
JMHO standing here on the sidelines. | |
www.roguefood.com -- www.cellartracker.com | |
| Budman
Master of Wine
Posts:11814
| | 02/18/2005 3:37 PM |
| TJ - I've seen a number of ratings for this wine, both 'professional' and 'amateur'. 86 is by far the lowest score I've seen anywhere.
Stop up sometime. We can share a bottle. | | | |
| PourQue
Barrel Racker
Posts:1765
| | 02/18/2005 4:03 PM |
| Quote:
IMHO...Cork is what it does, not what it is. As in 'put a cork in it'. I don't think it necessarily has to be made of cork to perform the function of a cork to be called a cork. Make sense?
Sort of like people in the South calling Pepsi/Moutain Dew/ Dr. Pepper "a coke"  | | | |
| R8der
Livermore, CA
Barrel Filler
Posts:1024
| | 02/18/2005 4:47 PM |
| Quote:
TJ - I've seen a number of ratings for this wine, both 'professional' and 'amateur'. 86 is by far the lowest score I've seen anywhere.
I agree his wine is far better than an 86, but it's not like Andrew is having a problem selling his wine. Regardless of what one reviewer thinks....Andrew's wine sold out as fast as a U2 concert.
Perhaps a negative review will do us all a favor and allow Andrew to continue to allocate more wine to those of us who appreciate it for what it is.
JW1....can you please write a review about how awful August West and Roar are? Thanks!
Chris | | | |
| love_cab_chard
Master of Wine
Posts:12248
| | 02/18/2005 6:12 PM |
| Bud: I had this wine 2 times now. The first bottle, I had I rated an 87. A nice drinking Pinot, light on the body, pleasant, ready to go. Good effort, things like that.
The 2nd bottle I had was with my brother. Some here know that he also has some experience with drinking wine: collecting/drinking for the last 13-14 years or so with a cellar of about 1,500 bottles…
I served that bottle to him BLIND. He did not know the variety, he does NOT know anything about AP Vin @ all. I did not tell him (or his wife) anything about that bottle @ all.Talking about a BLIND, fair-minded, impartial tasting. THIS IS IT, baby!!! you know what I mean...
By the way, the 2nd bottle was similar results to me: about 87, 88 (@ most). 88 is a stretch (for me).
My brother’s (& his wife) comments: This is of course an American pinot. A nice bottle of pinot, nothing more nothing less. Light on the body, not much on the finish, one-dimensional (I believe someone-Jones-posted similar phrase when describing this bottle). Not a bad bottle to drink during the week… Rating 86-87, drink now. I would pay about $20.00-$27.00 for it.
His question to me: how much did you pay for this Pinot. I may want some for every day drinking?
My reply: Dude, $41.00.
His reply: Too much, I pass, not worth the money. Not interested.
So, you see, not every one thinks it is a 92 point Pinot.
I also think it is a nice Pinot if it was about $25.00 or so… | | | |
| love_cab_chard
Master of Wine
Posts:12248
| | 02/18/2005 6:13 PM |
| I am NOT telling this story to bring down AP Vin. I am telling this story the way it happened (just about word for word). I congratulate Andrew on his success & hope it continues. And, it seems like it will. BUT, to suggest that no one else rated it 86 & that Jones did so because it’s AP Vin, is NOT fair (in my opinion) & NOT fair to Jones. He stated that he conducted a fair & just tasting. To challenge him on that & basically call him a liar, is not @ all fair & nice (in my opinion).
Sorry, if I was a bit insensitive, Bud. But, no one has done more to introduce us to new vins, & expand our knowledge than Jones. His taste may or may not match with some. That’s good, that is we are here… If we all agree on the wine every time, we would not be here. Thus, the beauty of wine. But, if Jones rated it an 86. I believe that is what he thought the bottle deserved.
I am done with this topic because it is getting personal @ this point. | | | |
| ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts:4877
| | 02/18/2005 6:37 PM |
| i am a little late to the game, but i have two comments.
i dislike fake corks. i have had poor results aging any wine with a fake cork. behrens and hitchcock has used fake corks for years and the incidence of cork failure in their wines seem to be very high. in fact, behrens and hitchcock wines would be a good case study to determine the quality of fake corks as it pertains to the aging process. if the answer is that abc wine should be cunsummed in the first two years, than why not a srew cap? in fact, any wine that is meant to be drunk in its first 6-8 years should have a screw cap.
i was with lcc the first time he drank the ap wine in question. i thought his rating was too generous. i thought the wine was flawed and definitely out of balance. | | | |
| Budman
Master of Wine
Posts:11814
| | 02/18/2005 8:10 PM |
| LCC - All I said was, that of all the scores I had personally seen published, that 86 was the lowest I had seen. This is no reflection on JW1's score. It was merely an observation based on my own personal experience.
Personally, I tend to agree with most of the reviews/scores I've seen in Oenophile.
Lighten up, folks. I'm not calling anybody a liar. Where the hell did that come from???
Go home, open up a nice bottle of wine, and chill. | | | |
| love_cab_chard
Master of Wine
Posts:12248
| | 02/18/2005 8:24 PM |
| | Budman, sorry then. I misunderstood in that case. Sometimes communicating over the Internet is hard to comprehend exactly what a person means. Especially, if that person is in a hurry or something like that & types only a few words... | | | |
| Budman
Master of Wine
Posts:11814
| | 02/18/2005 9:09 PM |
| No problem. LCC. Sorry if my intent was not clear. I meant no disrespect to anyone's evaluation of this wine, either positive or less than positive.
Now, let's get back to the enjoyment part of this obsession! | | | |
| Randy Wigginton
Wine Connoisseur
Posts:5359
| | 02/19/2005 4:44 AM |
| Quote:
I But, no one has done more to introduce us to new vins, & expand our knowledge than Jones. His taste may or may not match with some. That’s good, that is we are here…
Um, wow. Jones has told you about more new wines than anyone else? Can I tell you about this publication called "Burghound", another called "Wine Advocate" and another one called "Wine Spectator"? | | | |
| Randy Wigginton
Wine Connoisseur
Posts:5359
| | 02/19/2005 4:54 AM |
| Quote:
Quote:
fake is negative imo, plain and simple. when i read fake my mind immediately thinks cheap and that leads to negative thoughts. everyone here can play words games all day, but at the end of the day, i would be willing to bet the farm, the average person equates fake with bad.
I think you'll lose that farm. As Mike points out above, (or, more accurately, the definitions he cites point out), the word fake is often placed before the words "fur", "pearls", and "teeth". Now in the latter two, we use "faux", and "false", but the meaning is the same. Do you think of someone with "false teeth" to be cheap? Is someone with a fake fur cheap, or are they trying to stay warm within certain ethical bounds that they have set for themselves? I'll bet my farm that your wife has fake pearl earrings and/or a necklace. Is she cheap? Are you, if you gave them to her?
Again this proves that the word fake only has negative implications if you want it to. It isn't mandated.
Really Jimmy???? Which of those things would you like? The Fake fur? The Fake Pearls? The Fake teeth? How about I pay you with fake dollars? It is clear and evident -- especially to someone whose command of the english language is at the level of Jones - that Fake has an extremely negative bias. Look in the thesaurus -- synonyms for fake are words like bogus, mock, phony, pretend, imposter, bullshit, etc. Jones knew perfectly well that he was insulting the "anti-cork" when he wrote that review.
On this particular point, I side with Brian. The use of the word Fake was not at all "fair and balanced". It was clearly not reporting the facts in any kind of unbiased fashion. This is an example of extremely biased reporting. If you like biased reporting, great, check out wnd.com or salon.com. In general I prefer that my news (and reviews) keep the bias to a minimum.
Jones is human, so there will be bias. The request is to keep bias to a minimum. If the review had said, "My experience with synthetic corks has been that the wines are best consumed young", it would have had a completely different impact. Of course, then we would have missed this thread, so there is some positive. | | | |
| love_cab_chard
Master of Wine
Posts:12248
| | 02/19/2005 6:05 AM |
| Randy, yes I heard of those publications. Between my brother & I we have about 2,500 bottles. If even 100 of those were bought based on professional ratings &/or those publications, I would be exaggerating. About 2,450 of those bottles were bought as recommendations from wino-friends...
Case/point: I saw your TNs on the 02 Drinkward Peschon (as well as some others here). I will buy 3-4 bottles now... If WS &/or WA rate this wine an 84, would not matter to me @ all.
But, I do enjoy WS's articles on travel & dining. I find it very informative & useful. | | | |
| ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts:4877
| | 02/19/2005 3:36 PM |
| the current issue of wine spectator (3/31/05) has its cover article devoted to the great cork debate. suckling takes the " why i love cork " side and laube the " why i hate cork " side. interesting article. what they both, plus studies seem to agree on is and i quote laube " i don't like synthetic stoppers. i have found them difficult to remove and, im my experience, over time they can impart a slight chemical flavor and lead to high levels of oxidation. " later in the article it is noted that " synthetics are considered effective in maintaining wine quality for only two years, after which oxidation occurs and the wine deteriorates. "
in fact, when is the last time anyone saw a disclaimer on a synthetic cork closed bottle, stating that its contents should be consumed within two years? that my friends is a fake cork. | | | |
| GreenDrazi
Atlanta, GA
Grape Puncher
Posts:917
| | 02/19/2005 5:03 PM |
| OK, so now this thread is drifting into a debate on which is the best cork - it had to happen, right?
From what I've read (and I haven't read much on neocork), Stelvins are currently perhaps the best alternative to natural cork. It appears Australia is quickly moving towards screw caps and I wouldn’t be surprised if it or the better synthetics also sweep here soon. Probably in 3 to 5 years here, especially with white wines and a little later on the reds, with all but the most conservative and high-end winemakers.
Here is a link to an interesting thread (all 14 pages of it) on ebob about screw caps vs natural cork.
ebob: Corks, screw caps and oxygen ingress - the answer at last? | | | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 |
| |
| |
|
| | Proposed Change to American Viticultural Appellation Naming Standards Monday, March 10, 2008
| Wine Primers - Links to Your Wine Education Tuesday, February 12, 2008
| Wine Country Report: Day trip to the Willamette Valley Monday, February 11, 2008
| VinoCellar's Favorite Wine Links Saturday, February 09, 2008
| Wine Retailer Reports - Thanks Winetex! Monday, February 04, 2008
|
|
| |
| |
| |  | Membership: |  | Latest:richard09 |  | New Today:1 |  | New Yesterday:0 |  | Overall:1962 |
 | People Online: |  | Visitors:105 |  | Members:4 |  | Total:109 |
|
|
| |
| |
|