Robert Parke: How to gauge his authority ?
willia...@my-deja.com
another, since, being a novice wine lover, I have more questions than
the glasses of wine I can consume daily :)
It seems that Robert Parker, "the man who can make or break a wine", as
they say, has become a universally looked upon figure for wine ratings.
Many wine catalogues (Sherry & Lehmann included) conveniently inserts
RP's short remarks and rating as the description of a wine listed.
Prices seem also to corrolate closely with the RP rating.
Obviously I'm not equipped enough to judge for myself, novice as I am,
but I couldn't help wondering "Jeez, there is actualy one powerful
individual out there who can sway this and that wine's rating and value
as his tongue (and pen) pleases".
What is you folks' take on RP's rating ? Does he have a particular
forte in certain wines (or even a particular bias ?) ? Are there wines
that he unjustly praise or condemn ?
I guess before I'm good enough to judge for myself, I'd have to take a
RP 87 wine over a RP 82 wine, given identical prices.
William Hsieh
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dlpruk
The key line in your question is where you said: "I guess before I'm good
enough to judge for myself, I'd have to take a RP 87 wine over a RP 82 wine,
given identical prices," because that is really all he claims himself. And
given a career as a full-time taster he is in a far better position to make
that judgement than I am so I welcome his notes.
However you should be aware that RP appears to favour the fruit-laden
powerhouse style of wine, rather than the elegant, and that all wine makers
are well aware of that. So there is a tendency for them to try to make wine
in that style in the hope that they will get a positive report that will
increase the value of their products. (He is often criticised for this
effect, but unfairly in my opinion.)
Also you should always try to read his full notes and not just rely on the
points score. He is generally very clear in his descriptions and will
highlight elegant and lighter weight wines that may suit your taste better
than they do his, even though they are marked down a few points.
But if you really are a novice then I'd suggest you try to join a wine
appreciation class, your local wine merchant will be able to put you in
touch, and explore the world of wine and the many different styles in a
tutored environment before you worry too much about the Parker ratings.
David Ling
<willia...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pri4p$s89$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Jason O'Rourke
>Prices seem also to corrolate closely with the RP rating.
Sometimes there is a short lag - prices go up soon after a good
rating. Sometimes *way* up, just look at Martinelli Wines after one of
their Zins got a 100pt rating.
>What is you folks' take on RP's rating ? Does he have a particular
>forte in certain wines (or even a particular bias ?) ? Are there wines
>that he unjustly praise or condemn ?
He made his name in bordeaux, and he definitely prefers more 'powerful'
styles of winemaking. You may not, or not all the time. I'd strongly
second the notion to take a wine appreciation class. You didn't say where
you are, but I'll note that the Univ of California extension programs
throughout California are a good example of this.
>I guess before I'm good enough to judge for myself, I'd have to take a
>RP 87 wine over a RP 82 wine, given identical prices.
Be careful here. Again, style comes into play. (though 82 is a pretty
poor score in the current day of winemaking. Not so many flawed wines
now)
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
Last dive @ HMCS Yukon. 37 mins @ 100ft depth max
Elpaninaro
Parker is quite a figure, that is for sure. His books are great references and
I think that on Bordeaux and Rhone he is often reliable. But lately it is hard
to say since his love of the steroid wines seems to be taking over. Still I
find him useful in those arenas.
Dependence on his scores is a reality, more on that in a second, and I think
today it arises from two factors,
1. There has been a widespread popularization of wine in recent years. Many new
people are getting into it and need guidance to get them started. With his
consumer-minded advocacy and in many cases "right-on" notes, Parker has become
their teacher.
2. Prices. With this new popularity prices have risen dramatically. I bought a
half case of 1993 Lafite on futures for $50 per bottle. These days the decent (
yes I tried it, this is a genuine opinion :) ) and not as good 1997 sells for
$125+ per bottle. In the past it was easier to buy a lot of a wine and test it
young. Now prices and demand for the best wines often restrict one's purchases.
Hence I think people often rely on notes and buy 1-3 bottles for later rather
than try it themselves on release first.
There is definitely a backlash effect to that though. A lot of people buy on
critical opinions and never taste the wines young! And sometimes they have to
since prices go up so fast for highly rated wines. With the popularity of
barrel samples a wine's high price and short supply is often set in stone
before the wine is even released.
The reason I am reluctant to blame Parker for this is because it was going to
happen to someone. Somebody was going to be the voice of wine when it was once
again en vogue and he just happened to be the one. A lot of the negative
results of his presence ( excessive oak, a good showing now at the expense of
balance etc. etc. ) is not due to Parker as a specific person but rather due to
his status as the wine authority most follow, and the natural results of a
market with high demand and numerous competitors chasing dollars. Many
winemakers make the wine they think Parker wants since they know that is what
makes the difference between a wine that sits on the shelf for $50 and a wine
that sells out at $150. And that is due not only to his great gift but also to
timing. He was the champion of 1982 Bordeaux when the others sat on the fence,
and so he is now accorded the throne.
I disagree with him on many things- mostly Burgundy- but wine is a personal
thing. Different people like different things. I think only Broadbent today can
be called a universally unbiased critic- but then you have issues of loyalty to
deal with. I like Broadbent a lot and his approach is the most sound of
everyone, but his unfailing support of certain growths ( notably Chateau
Margaux in the 1960s and early 1970s ) is troubling. Wine is just too wide and
comprehensive a field ( and too fraught with conflicts of interest for those
who have the benefit of free tastings all the time ) for any one person to be
truly objective about it all. One thing I will always say for Parker is that he
is not afraid to trash anyone who is slacking no matter how important they are.
And this was true back when he needed the wineries more than they needed him (
the opposite being true today. )
As for influence, Parker has plenty of it. Three years ago I did a study for a
stat class in the graduate business school at the University of Texas at
Austin. We looked at the price increase at auction of many Bordeaux from top
vintages during the 1993-1995 period when prices really took off. We looked at
top investment wines from good to excellent vintages.
We examined the correlation of the increase in the price percentage wise over
that time for pristine bottles in a 750ml format.
Our factors for testing were Parker's score, Broadbent's score, WS score,
vintage quality ( 1-5 scale amalgum of the three critic's opinions ),
production level, Big Eight status ( yes or no ), and age.
All of the factors had less than a 10% correlation except for one...
Parker's score had a whopping 56% correlation to the increase in the wine's
auction market value during that time.
Not totally conclusive evidence, but a very strong indication :)
Anyone who never tastes what they are buying is a fool I think. Parker is not
the problem, it is overdependence on him and the skewed market demand that
results that is to blame. The fact remains that he was the ONLY person to stand
up for better shipment and handling of wine among other things for consumers.
In the end I think he has done far more good than bad.
But I still think he is WRONG about 1993 burgundies in the latest issue of the
Wine Advocate :) They are magnificent. 20 years from now the 1993 DRCs will be
known as the legends they are. Across the board it is good with DRC and Drouhin
turning in wines of amazing splendor. In fact I would go so far as to say 1993
is one of the best vintages Drouhin has ever had- for both the whites and the
reds!
Take care,
Tom.
Darko Vusir
Only you can judge Parker's (or anyone else's) preferences
compared to your own.
Your best bet would be to obtain some wines rated by Parker or Wine
Spectator etc, and compare their notes to your own impressions of the same
wine. Only this way will you be able to decide who's rating is in tune with
your own tastes.
Even the "big boys" don't always agree on a particular wine, for example,
Jaboulet's '97 Hermitage la Chapelle... WS says it's not as big as other
vintages, is drinking well now, and will last 5 to 7 years. Parker thinks it
should be good for 20+ years.
Don't forget, these guys have been tasting all sorts of different wines
for many years(and not having to pay for them, which makes it a lot easier
to try many different wines), and are aware of the different nuances between
areas, vintages etc etc, and based on that knowledge assign a point score
that in the end, is still based on their personal preference. Your job
it's a tough one!) is to decide whose opinion meshes closely with your
taste in wine and then use that to help you choose which wines to buy.
Regards
Darko
<willia...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pri4p$s89$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I hope you folks here don't mind my firing away one question after
> another, since, being a novice wine lover, I have more questions than
> the glasses of wine I can consume daily :)
>
> It seems that Robert Parker, "the man who can make or break a wine", as
> they say, has become a universally looked upon figure for wine ratings.
> Many wine catalogues (Sherry & Lehmann included) conveniently inserts
> RP's short remarks and rating as the description of a wine listed.
> Prices seem also to corrolate closely with the RP rating.
>
> Obviously I'm not equipped enough to judge for myself, novice as I am,
> but I couldn't help wondering "Jeez, there is actualy one powerful
> individual out there who can sway this and that wine's rating and value
> as his tongue (and pen) pleases".
>
> What is you folks' take on RP's rating ? Does he have a particular
> forte in certain wines (or even a particular bias ?) ? Are there wines
> that he unjustly praise or condemn ?
>
> I guess before I'm good enough to judge for myself, I'd have to take a
> RP 87 wine over a RP 82 wine, given identical prices.
>
>
Joseph B. Rosenberg
5 points for each wine spilled during a tasting, extra 10 points if
spilled
on something white ie tablecloth, shirt, Tom Wolfe suit or if you're at a
Klan tasting a bed sheet. Also bonus points if wine spilled was from
trying
to pronounce unctuous, fruit bomb or one of Marvin Shankins favorite
cigars.
5 points for aberrant behavior at tasting; this includes vomiting,
wine coming out your nose or other orifice, belching, some form of
flatulence, rolfing, discussions of EST, Zen, Christian Science,
zoroaterism, keynesian economics, Dan Qualye's hat size.
10 points for showing up
5 points for using any of the following at the tasting
Grecian formula, Midol, bidol, viagra, delaudid, kj jelly. bisquick,
fat free-sugar free mineral water.
5 points for reading this far.
Da Bep
CBailis
appreciation class, your local wine merchant will be able to put you in touch,
and explore the world of wine and the many different styles in atutored
environment before you worry too much about the Parker ratings.>>
You've been given wonderful advice. The best judge of a wine is your own
palate. If you can identify your own tastes and compare them to Parker's you
can eliminate a lot of highly touted wine that will result in wasted money
should you be the one spending it. On the other hand, if his description
matches your own preferences, than you've received a good tip. Trust yourself
and hope that you find reasonably priced wines that Mr. Parker hasn't reported
upon at all.
Ian Hoare
On 15 Sep 2000 03:05:08 GMT, elpan...@aol.com (Elpaninaro) wrote:
This is getting boring.....
>Parker is quite a figure,
[snip - lost in admiration]
>Not totally conclusive evidence, but a very strong indication :)
>
>Anyone who never tastes what they are buying is a fool I think.
Couldn't agree with you more. The only reason _not_ to do it, and to
rely 100% on a critic, is if one has often, over many years, tasted the
wines and always agreed fully with the critic. One can then have learnt
to have confidence that his is close to your taste.
>the problem, it is overdependence on him and the skewed market demand that
>results that is to blame.
Absolutely right. (And I agree with your comments on Broadbent too, btw,
on both counts).
>In the end I think he has done far more good than bad.
Tom, as I said, this is getting boring. You've said _far_ better than I
could, _exactly_ what I'd have wanted to say on the subject.
>But I still think he is WRONG about 1993 burgundies in the latest issue of the
>Wine Advocate :)
Shushh. Don't _tell_ everyone, that's the way to keep the price down.
All the Best
--Ian Hoare--
rbailey
Couldn't agree more - Parker gives good advice, but like anyone likes
certain styles of wine, The more you taste wine, the more you know which
areas you can trust Parker on.
Richard Bailey
dlpruk <dlp...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jEcw5.2750$h21....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> William,
>
> The key line in your question is where you said: "I guess before I'm good
> enough to judge for myself, I'd have to take a RP 87 wine over a RP 82
wine,
> given identical prices," because that is really all he claims himself. And
> given a career as a full-time taster he is in a far better position to
make
> that judgement than I am so I welcome his notes.
>
> However you should be aware that RP appears to favour the fruit-laden
> powerhouse style of wine, rather than the elegant, and that all wine
makers
> are well aware of that. So there is a tendency for them to try to make
wine
> in that style in the hope that they will get a positive report that will
> increase the value of their products. (He is often criticised for this
> effect, but unfairly in my opinion.)
>
> Also you should always try to read his full notes and not just rely on the
> points score. He is generally very clear in his descriptions and will
> highlight elegant and lighter weight wines that may suit your taste better
> than they do his, even though they are marked down a few points.
>
> But if you really are a novice then I'd suggest you try to join a wine
> appreciation class, your local wine merchant will be able to put you in
> touch, and explore the world of wine and the many different styles in a
> tutored environment before you worry too much about the Parker ratings.
>
> David Ling
>
> <willia...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8pri4p$s89$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I hope you folks here don't mind my firing away one question after
> > another, since, being a novice wine lover, I have more questions than
> > the glasses of wine I can consume daily :)
> >
> > It seems that Robert Parker, "the man who can make or break a wine", as
> > they say, has become a universally looked upon figure for wine ratings.
> > Many wine catalogues (Sherry & Lehmann included) conveniently inserts
> > RP's short remarks and rating as the description of a wine listed.
> > Prices seem also to corrolate closely with the RP rating.
> >
Elpaninaro
>the
>>Wine Advocate :)
>Shushh. Don't _tell_ everyone, that's the way to keep the price down.
>
haha, yea that is a funny thing. I am wondering what might happen. I am not
sure. I have not tracked it closely, but it does not appear that Parker
retractions create a selling surge. Once the news is out for the first time, it
usually sticks.
I liked the 1993 DRC Grands Echezeaux on release but not enough to buy any of
the DRCs. Reading the lackluster critical reviews at the time affirmed my naive
impression.
Over the following year I helped a few friends locate a total of 20 cases of
DRC wines for warehouse prices ( it would make you cry to compare them to
today's prices. ) But even at those prices I thought they were nuts to want so
much of the stuff.
Then in 1998 I went to a tasting in LA where the 1993 RSV spanked the 1995 and
by this time it was far to late to get more at a good price since the auction
fever had just about had its run through Bordeaux and burgundy was at center
stage. This is the year that the $500 bottles of Romanee Conti became $1,000
bottles of Romanee Conti. Now of course it is even worse. Last I checked the
1997 was $1350 and a major low price retailer here in town has the 1995 for
$2000. Ouch!
Long story made short- the 1993s, as often happens with many wines, just needed
a little bottle age to settle down and show their best. When I first started
seeing the 1993 DRCs come into their own in 1998 and 1999 I realized my
mistake! But it happens. :)
In any case, whenever I want a DRC opinion, I now consult my friends with
cellars full of 1993, not Parker/Rovani or the WS!
Take care,
Tom.
Mark Slater
>In any case, whenever I want a DRC opinion, I now consult my friends with
>cellars full of 1993, not Parker/Rovani or the WS!
>
>Take care,
>
>Tom.
Tom , you are such a smart man. You should shout this from the rooftops!! I
have been buying and selling '93s for several years now, and they are VERY
tasty.
Mark Slater
"Bon vin ne peut mentir"
Espen H. Koht
"dlpruk" <dlp...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>The key line in your question is where you said: "I guess before I'm good
>enough to judge for myself, I'd have to take a RP 87 wine over a RP 82
>wine,
>given identical prices," because that is really all he claims himself.
The only time it makes sense to base a decision on RP score alone is
when caeteris paribus. I rarely find myself in situations where that is
true. First and foremost I buy a wine for a specific purpose, if the
wine that fits the purpose scores a RP 82, it makes no difference at all
to me whether there is a differnent type of wine with an RP 87 on the
shelf next to at the same or lower price.
Espen
dlpruk
Unfortunately few of us can match your superior knowledge and tasting
experience so for us lesser mortals a gentle guide from Mr Parker is
actually quite helpful. He believes his use of scores is a convenient way of
communicating a summary of his opinion in a way that is immediately
understandable to everyone; but no more than that. And I agree with him.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that someone who approaches Ch
Phelan-Segur, say, for the first time might prefer to start with the 1988,
with Mr Parker's help, rather than the 1986, given identical prices.
David Ling
"Espen H. Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ehk20-EA351F....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
Espen H. Koht
"dlpruk" <dlp...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately few of us can match your superior knowledge and tasting
>experience so for us lesser mortals a gentle guide from Mr Parker is
>actually quite helpful.
I obviously owe you a most profound apology. I've either triggered a
colossal misinterpretation of my knowledge and experience or an
arbitrary bout of sarcasm.
>He believes his use of scores is a convenient way
>of
>communicating a summary of his opinion in a way that is immediately
>understandable to everyone; but no more than that. And I agree with him.
I'm afraid I haven't even reach the level where I can even pretend that
a score like 87 by itself has much real meaning to me, especially not
what it summerises without having read the opinion. I was merely making
the rather obvious point that a white wine scoring 87 is hardly going to
distract me from a robust red scoring 82 at the same price if I'll be
eating pheasant. If it was different vintages of the same wine that
would be a different matter, although here again there might be other
considerations to make (for example, are you getting a high scoring wine
cheap because it is past its peak?)
>It seems perfectly reasonable to me that someone who approaches Ch
>Phelan-Segur, say, for the first time might prefer to start with the 1988,
>with Mr Parker's help, rather than the 1986, given identical prices.
It seems quite reasonable to me too, as it is a scenario that meets the
caeteris paribus condition (vertical comparison) quite reasonably.
CDwin
You are right on the money with your temperate comments on a contentious
subject.
I would, however, take issue with your comment that "Anyone who never tastes
what they are buying is a fool I think." I would suggest that those fortunate
enough to be able to taste all of the available wines in which they are
interested before they buy should realize that many people are simply not so
fortunate. Even those living in retail markets with wine retailers with superb
selections are often not given an opportunity to taste before buying except
lower end wines at store tastings and, if they are lucky, at occasional wine
dinners. In both cases, what they taste is controlled not by them but by the
retailer and or wholesaler and producer. These people, and I would suggest that
they are the vast majority of the more than occasional wine purchasers, have a
choice of buying without tasting or not buying at all under your rubric. I
would suggest that they would be 'foolish' to follow the latter course since
they would be missing out on a large part of the best wines in their market.
For these wine lovers, prior experience, ratings of years in various regions,
and, yes, the wine writers and raters are the only available pre-purchase
guides.
Clearly pre-purchase tasting is the best course -if- it is available but most
times for most people for most wines it is simply not an available option.
It is great to have you back in the group.
Chuck
dlpruk
Apology accepted. But if you're inviting me to join you with that pheasant,
may I please have an 87-point Chablis and a glass of water?
David Ling
"Espen H. Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ehk20-91175A....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <RjUw5.2629$ap5....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "dlpruk" <dlp...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately few of us can match your superior knowledge and tasting
> >experience so for us lesser mortals a gentle guide from Mr Parker is
> >actually quite helpful.
>
> I obviously owe you a most profound apology. I've either triggered a
> colossal misinterpretation of my knowledge and experience or an
> arbitrary bout of sarcasm.
>
> >He believes his use of scores is a convenient way
> >of
> >communicating a summary of his opinion in a way that is immediately
> >understandable to everyone; but no more than that. And I agree with him.
>
> I'm afraid I haven't even reach the level where I can even pretend that
> a score like 87 by itself has much real meaning to me, especially not
> what it summerises without having read the opinion. I was merely making
> the rather obvious point that a white wine scoring 87 is hardly going to
> distract me from a robust red scoring 82 at the same price if I'll be
> eating pheasant. If it was different vintages of the same wine that
> would be a different matter, although here again there might be other
> considerations to make (for example, are you getting a high scoring wine
> cheap because it is past its peak?)
>
> >It seems perfectly reasonable to me that someone who approaches Ch
> >Phelan-Segur, say, for the first time might prefer to start with the
1988,
> >with Mr Parker's help, rather than the 1986, given identical prices.
>
> It seems quite reasonable to me too, as it is a scenario that meets the
> caeteris paribus condition (vertical comparison) quite reasonably.
>
Elpaninaro
Good to be back :)
I guess I was a little overenthusiastic about my comment on how it is foolish
to not taste before you buy. I did not mean everything by any means :) I know
of noone in the envious position of being able to taste everything before they
buy.
And this really applies to all economic levels I think too. There are some guys
out there who drink $10 bottles and maybe a $40 Lynch Bages is their special
one bottle purchase for later. And then there are those who taste all the first
growths on release and cellar a case each but can only afford ( or find ) one
bottle of a great Montrachet or Romanee Conti to lay down for later.
As you mention, prior experience counts for a lot. What I did was to set out a
certain group of wines each vintage. Then I would taste those and based on
whether the critics thought those wines were in their usual place among others,
or especially bad or good that year, I would decide whether to go for those
single bottles of items out of my reach price wise or that were limited to the
extent I could only have one. I also tasted a lot of the great wines in off
vintages and learned a lot of what to expect too. Among my first growth tasting
notes you will find usually 1-3 bottles from top vintages and then 10-15 from
lesser to bad vintages that I somehow got at fire sale prices ( I paid $5 each
for pristine bottles of 1963 Petrus and Latour and 1960 Latour and all were
alive and kicking when tasted in 1998. ) The lesser ones taught me a lot though
about how each first growth tastes.
In Bordeaux, I used Leoville Barton and Lynch Bages as my benchmarks- two
overachieving and relatively inexpensive wines ( well they used to be anyway...
) I would taste others as I could, but those wines combined with all the
opinions of the critics would strongly dictate any purchases of big name
bottles.
When I make that attack on non-tasters I am thinking of a couple of people I
knew a while back who would buy 1 bottle each of 4-5 top name Bordeaux each
vintage and then save them for later. One of these guys had never even tasted a
top classified Bordeaux, yet he was blowing almost all of his wine budget on
single bottles and then waiting to see how they did. He was new to wine and
after over $2000 invested he had a lot of pretty bottles, but zero tastings to
have any idea what he had. And he also had pretty strong opinions about anyone
who would open such a wine before its due time according to whatever critical
opinion convinced him to buy that bottle :)
But on Italian wines he was very knowledgeable because he would taste first and
then buy. But here he was spending $30-50 a bottle. This was more his price
range and so he was able to enjoy it more.
Everyone cellar I know of has a few single or two bottle lots that go untasted
for a long time. It is part of the adventure and fun to have something out of
the ordinary and above your usual budget to look forward to. But it distresses
me to see those who go for the big stuff all the time and never take time to
enjoy what is easily found and afforded.
Once in grad school I sold my big cellar and scaled back big time. I found
myself buying a lot more $10 and $15 wines and testing them out. It was cheaper
and more fun that way. And I discovered a lot of really great wines along the
way that I have been able to recommend to others and get them interested too.
I started off as what I preach against. My first case of wine was 1-2 bottles
each of all of the Big Eight wines from 1990. A lot of money saved and spent
for it, but no good tasting experiences during that time. It is a tempting
trap... :)
And the reason I am not doing wine bigtime right now is it is not possible to
do my old thing anymore. I used to be able to taste Lynch and Leoville for $50
or less total! These days it would be $150 or so just to even begin to see what
to expect. I cannot afford that, and so I am waiting until the market slows and
I advance in my career.
In the mean time, I have been enjoying many a great $10 bottle :)
Tom.
Elpaninaro
>have been buying and selling '93s for several years now, and they are VERY
>tasty.
They are! Mark, have you ever encountered Bachelet's 1993 Gevrey-Chambertin? It
is AMAZINGLY good. Rich hearty wine with massive doses of ripe wild cherries.
Perfect balance too. It is perfect now and will age well for a good 5 more
years. It could almost be grand cru Griottes ( it is certainly better than some
of the ones I have tasted. ) And at $20 a bottle...
A recent visit to Spec's in Houston on Smith street ( massive wine store from
White Zin and Gallo to Romanee Conti and large formats of Petrus ) showed me
there are still a LOT of good 1993s sitting on store shelves- and at low prices
too. In many cases even lower than the lackluster 1994s.
Tom.
Tom.
CDwin
>When I make that attack on non-tasters I am thinking of a couple of people I
>knew a while back who would buy 1 bottle each of 4-5 top name Bordeaux each
>vintage and then save them for later. One of these guys had never even tasted
>a
>top classified Bordeaux, yet he was blowing almost all of his wine budget on
>single bottles and then waiting to see how they did. He was new to wine and
>after over $2000 invested he had a lot of pretty bottles, but zero tastings
>to
>have any idea what he had. And he also had pretty strong opinions about
>anyone
>who would open such a wine before its due time according to whatever critical
>opinion convinced him to buy that bottle :)
Tom,
You are describing what I refer to as a " bottle collector". It is having a
bottle of this and that to show others that is the important thing. It is their
money so they are free to spend it as they will but they are not wine lovers so
much as wine bottle possessors. They, of course, would deny that.
My classic example of a similar phenomenon involves an evening at a Michelin 3
star restaurant in Italy. An American (that is, United States) couple were
seated next to us. The waiter offered the menu (we were having the incredible
tasting menu) which they rejected and asked for a plain veal chop a bottle of
third rate wine and coffee. They were gone before we finished the second
course. They were restaurant collecting. They could go back home tell their
friends and associates that they had eaten there and then opine on the quality
of the food. [Bill, when this happens my wife and I start talking sotto voce
about all the things we have to do when we get back to Toronto. ;-)]
Chuck
Elpaninaro
restaurant collecting?! Now that IS a new one to me :) The reason I avoid nicer
restaurants these days is that I know I will overindulge ( gastronomically and
financially ) if I set foot in there. Now I can understand the appeal of
collecting bottles, but I would be hard pressed to enter a 3 star Michelin
restaurant and order a glass of the house wine and a pork chop :)
Tom.
Elpaninaro
>This is my budget range for wine and I would love some
>recommendations!
>
>Thank you.
>
> ==> Lin
Sure,
Okay here goes. This is my list of the best wines I have had ( off the top of
my head mind you ) under $20. Some are cellar-worthy and some are just nice
drinking wines. In any case, all of them are very tasty. Here goes
Sauzet Bourgogne Blanc
Ramonet Bourgogne Aligote
Amiot Chassagne Vielles Vignes
Leroy Bourgogne ( rouge et blanc )
Chateau Timberlay ( 1989 is awesome! )
Hess Collection ( 1987 still evolving )
Anything from Rabbit Ridge
Sin Zin
Hess Select
Burgess Cabernet Vintage Selection
Cristalino ( killer $6 champagne )
Souverain Merlot
Andre Brunel Cotes de Rhone
Serafin Bourgogne rouge
Claude Dugat Bourgogne ( outta sight! )
Domaine de Pouy ( from Gascony )
Saucelito Canyon Zin ( the BEST! )
Taylor 10 Year Tawny Port
Franz Kunstler Spatlese ( German )
Anything from Zind-Humbrecht in this range ( in any range, but they go from $8
to $500- the cheap ones are good too! )
Caymus Conundrum
Rosemount Estate Shiraz
Beaucastel Coudolet de Beaucastel
Los Vascos Cabernet
Anything from Bodega Weinert
There are more I have tasted and liked, but these come to mind right now. There
is a LOT of good wine under $20 out there :)
Tom.
Ian Hoare
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:46:58 +0100, "dlpruk" <dlp...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>Espen,
>Apology accepted. But if you're inviting me to join you with that pheasant,
>may I please have an 87-point Chablis and a glass of water?
Yeuch!!
A red wine goes FAR better. I'd be looking at a nicely mature Burgundy.
Chablis is lovely, but NOT, IMO, with game of any kind.
dlpruk
Sorry but you missed the point. I planned to drink the Chablis before the
pheasant; the water with it! (Not a very good joke I admit.)
David
"Ian Hoare" <ianh...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:9e3css4mhstmhniv7...@4ax.com...
John D. Seelbinder
Iron Stone Cabernet Franc ($9)
Domaine Clavel La Copa Santa (Coteaux du Languedoc) - about $20 (and *highly*
recommended)
Zaca Mesa Syrah ($19) and Zaca Mesa Cuvee Z ($17)
John
Ian Hoare
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:56:48 +0100, "dlpruk" <dlp...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>Ian,
>Sorry but you missed the point.
Oops, completely missed!!
> I planned to drink the Chablis before the pheasant; the water with it! (Not a very good joke I admit.)
You put me in a difficulty. If I agree.... and if I disagree, I'm
arguing. Grin!