What REALLY are good choices for beginners?
Ka6l3279
about the availability of fine wine in the long-term. One reason why I think
wine is unpopular among my generation is that the current "fashionable" wines
really aren't good beginner wines. What do you think? Do you have any
suggestions?
Let's face it, oak is an acquired taste, especially in white wine, where the
oak flavor can easily overpower the fruitiness of the grape. For that reason,
I don't ever recommend Chardonnay to a beginner, even though it's the current
"fashionable" white.
By the same token, Cabernet Sauvignon is too tannic, especially early in its
"life" to be drunk and liked by beginners. Merlot is OK, but I think beginning
wine drinkers should be exposed to a variety of wines.
The following are my recommendations to beginners. Let me know if you think
I'm on target. Add more if you wish.
With respect to whites, I recommend Pinot Gris (primarily from Oregon), and dry
Riesling. Since these are much less likely to be oaked than Chardonnay, I find
them more approachable. Despite what beginners often claim, I find that most
of them actually like dry wines, just as long as they are fruity. Good Pinot
Gris and Rieslings always seem fruitier to me than good Chardonnays. Also,
since the varietals currently are underrated, they generally are considerably
cheaper than good Chardonnays. Pinot Gris also goes well with seafood and
spicy chicken dishes.
With respect to reds, I recommend Pinot Noir (from Oregon and California),
lighter Chiantis, as well as lighter Shirazes from Australia. Pinot Noir seems
to go with just about anything (including seafood, beef, and even vegetarian
dishes), and often is very fruity. It also seems to me to be a good
"beginning" red to white wine drinkers (it was for me!). Unfortunately, good
Pinot Noir also is often expensive. However, it's increasingly available in
restaurants.
Chianti, although fuller-bodied than Pinot Noir, is a perfect companion to
Italian food, and is widely available.
I pick Shiraz because I find it very interesting. It's fun to take a sip of it
and try to detect as many tastes and aromas as possible. I've detected hints
of smoke, leather, berries and a host of other aromas in shiraz. In its
lighter forms it's as approachable and versatile as some Pinot Noir, and in its
heavier forms it's a good "stepping stone" to Merlot and ultimately Cabernet
Sauvignon.
What do you think?
--
Kathryn P. O'Mara
Brad Harrington
Ka6l3279 wrote in message
<199808240253...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Interesting ides Kathryn but I really can't completely agree with you on the
oak. In my experience oak is more meant for the typical uneducated
consumer. Most wine lovers that I come across are downright offended by the
typical use of oak, especially in CA chardonnay.
I agree with some of your suggestions such as Pinot Gris and Riesling. I
think low end shiraz is a good beginner quaff also. But with your statement
that good shiraz/syrah is a stepping stone to merlot and cabernet sauvignon,
I think you've missed the boat. If anything merlot is a stepping stone to
cabernet and syrah/shiraz. High end shiraz/syrahs are incredibly complex
wines which have everything to offer that any great cab does. Syrah is a
noble grape and ranks at the top of the evolutionary wine lovers scale, as
far as I'm concerned. When you get into the great Rhone syrahs,
CA/Washington syrahs and Australian shiraz', you have delved into some of
the finest red wines in the world. These are not simple wines that typical
newbie types are going to understand easily. I'll grant you thought that
there are many great shiraz' that don't have strong coarse tannins and that
may give some people the ability to enjoy them. I just think that the
smoky, oaky, coffee, spice and chocolate aromas and flavors may turn some
newbies off. These aspects can be rather strong at times and in my
experience are not well received by newbie types. Don't underestimate the
greatness of syrah. It is not a stepping stone for merlot!!!!
K. Henderson
>
> Ka6l3279 wrote in message
> <199808240253...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >Let's face it, oak is an acquired taste, especially in white wine, where
> the
> >oak flavor can easily overpower the fruitiness of the grape. For that
> reason,
> >I don't ever recommend Chardonnay to a beginner, even though it's the
> current
> >"fashionable" white.
> Interesting ides Kathryn but I really can't completely agree with you on the
> oak. In my experience oak is more meant for the typical uneducated
> consumer. Most wine lovers that I come across are downright offended by the
> typical use of oak, especially in CA chardonnay.
Well, I just started drinking wine 6 or 7 months ago and still have not
aquired a taste for oak. I can't stand it! I did have a bottle of
Chateau Ste. Michelle Sauvignon Blanc (1996 i think) that was "Barrel
Fermented" in oak barrels. There was the tiniest hint of oak in there.
It was pretty nice. It actually reminded me of a bottle of 1995 Roland
Lavantureaux Chablis I had a couple weeks before. But at $17 a bottle,
it's near the upper end of my price range (I'm a poor college student).
Which brings me to a question, Any reccomendations for good Chablis that
has very little or no oak that's under $20?
Anyways... CA chardonnay is evil.
Since I'm new to wine, Here's some of the wine's I've liked a lot:
WHITE
Gewurztraminer - I love the ones from Alsace but Washington makes
some good ones too.
Riesling - Franz Kunstler 1996 ($18) was very good. A few days
ago, there was discussion about Schmitt Sohne Riesling. There is no
comparison to the Franz Kunstler but for the money, ($6 - $8) I thought it
was good.
Pinot Gris - Oregon Pinot Gris is da bomb! :) I also like pinot
grigio from Italy
Vouvray/Chenin Blanc - I like the off-dry ones...
RED
Pinot Noir, Merlot, Barbaresco, Barolo, and Chianti are my
favorites
Zinfandel, Cabernet Sauvignon, Shiraz, and Barbera are okay...
PORT
I LOVE Tawny Port. Whiskers Blake, Taylors 10 and 20 year. My
favorite of the 3 is of course the Taylors 20 year...
Hope that's useful to someone out there...
Another Question. Any recommendations on wines I should try next?
-Kris
--
There is still so much we have to learn about TV!
- Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
"Hocus Pocus"
Brad Harrington
wines. At first people seem to go after the fruity wines without much
structure, (tannins and acidity), all the wines you mentioned are the ones.
As they get more accustomed to the wines they begin to delve into the more
robust varieties such as zinfandel, cabernet sauvignon, syrah, etc. As they
begin to appreciate these more robust wines they seem to slowly gravitate
towards the bigger structured wines. Remember even within a more robust
variety there are lighter styled wines. As they move towards the heavier
wines, they seem to like the oaked wines, because the oak adds a lot to the
body and structure of a wine. Somewhere along that course they begin to
realize that in many cases the oak isn't really adding to the wine, rather
it is often covering the wine up. Oak is needed and desirable but there are
so many over-oaked wines on the market. They often don't have the
concentration of fruit to stand up to the oak. They can be great out the
door but within 6 months to a year, the fruit fades and the oak dominates.
Of course some of these wines will come back into balance in 5 to 10 years.
The trick is knowing which ones will and which ones won't. So after a bit
of experience and tasting the range of styles that are on the market, it
appears to me that the majority of wine lovers begin to reject all that oak.
I guess I think that most people are still in the newbie stage until they
have run the gamut and learned to understand many styles of wines and are
able to appreciate these many styles. I've been drinking wine for around 20
years or so but did not get really into it until around 4 years ago. I
still consider myself close to be a newbie. Perhaps just on the edge of
actually knowing and understanding a bit about wine.
K. Henderson wrote in message ...
Jason Gill
>
> Riesling - Franz Kunstler 1996 ($18) was very good. A few days
>ago, there was discussion about Schmitt Sohne Riesling. There is no
>comparison to the Franz Kunstler but for the money, ($6 - $8) I thought it
>was good.
Reinhold Haart 1997 Kabinett is great. HUGE fruit, nice acidity for backbone.
Around $13.
Almost anything by Dr. Loosen is good, even the $9 estate Riesling.
Unfortunately, I heard that Rudi Wiest (the importer) and Loosen had a falling
out, so there isn't a distributer in Southern California at the moment.
--
Jason Gill
"Power without morality is disaster.
Morality without power is useless."
L.E. Modesitt, Jr. _The Paradigms of Power_
Gematria
>
> Being one of the few "Gen Xers" who likes wine on a regular basis, I worry
> about the availability of fine wine in the long-term. One reason why I think
> wine is unpopular among my generation is that the current "fashionable" wines
> really aren't good beginner wines. What do you think? Do you have any
> suggestions?
Bolla Bardolino Classico - the younger, the better. Classico.
Nuuanu Menehune
I have been drinking wines for some time and do not consider myself a
beginner. I have had some of the best oaked chardonnays and
cabernet/bordeaux wines. I think your list is a good not only for beginners
but also for long time wine drinkers. I enjoy all of the wines on your list.
I would add reislings in general to your list. They do not have to be dry
although the sweeter ones from germany (spatlese and sweeter) may tend to be
pricey for a beginner.
You have good taste and judgment.
How long have you been drinking wine?
Nuuanu Menehune
Ka6l3279 wrote in message
<199808240253...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Being one of the few "Gen Xers" who likes wine on a regular basis, I worry
>about the availability of fine wine in the long-term. One reason why I
think
>wine is unpopular among my generation is that the current "fashionable"
wines
>really aren't good beginner wines. What do you think? Do you have any
>suggestions?
>
>Let's face it, oak is an acquired taste, especially in white wine, where
the
>oak flavor can easily overpower the fruitiness of the grape. For that
reason,
>I don't ever recommend Chardonnay to a beginner, even though it's the
current
>"fashionable" white.
>
Ka6l3279
>but also for long time wine drinkers. I enjoy all of the wines on your list.
>
>You have good taste and judgment.
Thanks.
>How long have you been drinking wine?
Less than one year.
Ka6l3279
>I guess there is kind of a degree of gradual change in what people want from
>wines. At first people seem to go after the fruity wines without much
>structure, (tannins and acidity), all the wines you mentioned are the ones.
Don't let anyone in Burgundy hear you! I'm sure you would get some strong
disagreement about pinot noir and lack of structure!
In all seriousness, pinot noir is quite a complex and "regal" wine. It also
happens to be one of the few "big names" that is approachable to beginners.
If pinot noir weren't so difficult to grow, it likely would enjoy just as high
a reputation among "serious" wine drinkers as cabernet sauvignon, if not
higher.
>As they get more accustomed to the wines they begin to delve into the more
>robust varieties such as zinfandel, cabernet sauvignon, syrah, etc.
Actually, zinfandel can be quite fruity and "unstructured" as well. It depends
on how it's vinified.
> As they move towards the heavier
>wines, they seem to like the oaked wines, because the oak adds a lot to the
>body and structure of a wine.
This is definitely the case with most chardonnay.
>Oak is needed and desirable
Not necessarily. True Chablis is generally unoaked. Sauvignon Blanc (another
of my favorites, but definitely NOT for most beginners) can be excellent with
or without oak.
Ka6l3279
>has very little or no oak that's under $20?
>
Almost all Chablis is unoaked. I've never bought a bottle of Chablis so I
don't have any recommendations.
Ka6l3279
>consumer.
Which might be why the uneducated Gen X consumer isn't buying wine.
> Most wine lovers that I come across are downright offended by the
>typical use of oak, especially in CA chardonnay.
Me too. I avoid most chardonnay, and don't order it in restaurants.
Fortunately there are a great many wine conscious restaurants where I live.
Which brings up another point.
Something that really riles me is when I see people go to a Italian or French
restaurant and automatically order a CA chardonnay or cabernet sauvignon.
They seem to forget about pinot grigio, Chianti, Montepulciano, Barbera,
Tokay-Pinot Gris, Pouilly-Fume, and even red Burgundy..
20 years ago, people walked into a restaurant and automatically ordered a
"white wine." Today they automatically order a "chardonnay." Has anything
really changed?
>But with your statement
>that good shiraz/syrah is a stepping stone to merlot and cabernet sauvignon,
>I think you've missed the boat.
I'm not sure I said exactly that. I said that a lighter shiraz is a stepping
stone to merlot and cabernet sauvignon. It's also a stepping stone to better
shirazes and syrah.
>Syrah is a
>noble grape and ranks at the top of the evolutionary wine lovers scale, as
>far as I'm concerned
I guess taste is a personal matter. As far as I'm concerned, pinot noir is the
"ultimate," since it doesn't compromise between complexity and approachability.
It gives you both!
>I just think that the
>smoky, oaky, coffee, spice and chocolate aromas and flavors may turn some
>newbies off. These aspects can be rather strong at times and in my
>experience are not well received by newbie types
I'm not so sure. How often does any other wine, red or white, display these
tastes? Shiraz is certainly different, and something an "over-cab"-ed person
might enjoy.
St.Helier
>If pinot noir weren't so difficult to grow, it likely would enjoy just as
high
>a reputation among "serious" wine drinkers as cabernet sauvignon, if not
>higher.
In my experience, Pinot Noir will grow like a weed.
However, to make good wine, the right climatic conditions (particularly as
regards temparature) is critical.
A high diurnal differential is the No. 1 requirement; that is a high
differential between the daytime high, and the nighttime low temparature
(something like 30deg C days, and 5degC nights.
That is why it is regarded as a cool climate variety.
>
>>As they get more accustomed to the wines they begin to delve into the more
>>robust varieties such as zinfandel, cabernet sauvignon, syrah, etc.
Without putting a fine point on it, I have had robust Zin, and some pretty
wishy-washy ones; Some Cabernets which have more weight and structrure
than a Cadillac, and others like paint thinner (with a dash of red paint).
Shiraz also can be "absolutely HUGE" - as in some of those fantastic
Australian monsters; or relatively lightweight affairs.
Pinot Noir likewise can be pathetically skinny (IMHO usually when the grapes
are not grown in optimum locations - ie too hot, grapes ripen too quickly,
acid starts dropping rapidly, harvest and make a easy drinking lightweight
style) - or wines of structure and extract and acid which are a real
oy - eg great Burgundy, or PN from the cooler reaches of California,
Oregon, Victoria (Australia) and the southern growing areas of New Zealand.
Ka6l3279
>are not grown in optimum locations - ie too hot, grapes ripen too quickly,
>acid starts dropping rapidly,
Which is why it took over 20 years for American winemakers to get it right.
California probably is the most reliable source for decent pinot noir, given
the relative stability of its climate. Burgundy and Oregon in good years,
however, top anything California has to offer. I haven't tried pinot noir from
Australia or New Zealand.
Cabernet sauvignon can be used to make decent wine almost anywhere. Pinot noir
shines only in a select few areas. Some Italian varietals, such as nebbiolo,
and to a certain extent sangiovese are the same way. As a result, there is
much more cabernet sauvignon to go around than pinot noir. "Decent" PN also
costs more than decent cabernet for this very reason. This is part of the
reason why the "newbie" wine drinkers will automatically order a cabernet
rather than a pinot noir. The situation is slowly changing, however.
Ka6l3279
>bought a number of them, and tasted them blind alongside some of our
>favorite CA pinots in the same price range of $8-15 (Napa Ridge, Wild Hog,
>Olivet Lane, etc.). Frankly the CA wines blew the OR wines away...I'm sure
>there are excellent OR pinots, but seems to me they're a bit harder to
>find.
Which Oregon pinots did you try? There are very few good ones in the $8-15
range. In fact, I'm surprised you found ANY in that price range. Most OR
wineries are small (less than 15,000 cases per year), so their prices are
higher. Try Oregon pinot in the $15-25 range instead. The best pinots, like
the better CA pinots, are even higher.
Archery Summit makes a good OR pinot. It's owned by a Napa winery, which
should tell you something about Oregon's potential. Domaine Drouhin is also
renowned. It's owned by a Burgundian, which should tell you even more.
Broadley is another good choice.
Also, remember that 1995 wasn't a particularly good year for OR pinot. Oregon
is much more like Burgundy in that it is inconsistent. Remember too that OR
pinot usually isn't as fruity as CA pinot. It tends to be more austere, and
occasionally a bit earthy. In this respect, OR pinot is a bit more like aged
burgundy than CA pinot. This is partly the result of the different
environment.
I suggest you try:
Torii Mor (their 1995 was quite good)
Cooper Mountain Pinot Noir Reserve (another good 1995)
Erath and Elk Cove are two reliable pinot producers as well.
Avoid Amity at all costs. If you tried this, don't let it ruin your impression
of OR pinots. I've yet to meet anyone who liked their wine.
Finally, I'll remind you that OR shines in yet another pinot that CA wineries
just can't seem to produce as well, pinot gris!
Happy drinking!
Timothy H T Christenfeld
> >Which brings me to a question, Any reccomendations for good Chablis that
> >has very little or no oak that's under $20?
> >
>
for $10-15/bottle. These wines are probably the best bargain in Chablis,
but I don't know how widely available they are. Try the Burgundy Wine Co.
in NYC to see if they have any of the 1996 left.
Will Borgeson
: Which Oregon pinots did you try? There are very few good ones in the $8-15
: range. In fact, I'm surprised you found ANY in that price range. Most OR
: wineries are small (less than 15,000 cases per year), so their prices are
: higher. Try Oregon pinot in the $15-25 range instead. The best pinots, like
: the better CA pinots, are even higher.
Actually I find quite a few (what I consider to be) good CA pinot
noirs in the $8-15 range. These include Napa Ridge, Beautour, Fleur de
Carneros, Wild Hog, Olivet Lane, and Mt. St. Edna. One can certainly pay
much more, but I think one of the fun things about wine shopping is
finding good stuff for not too much $. While I don't know their
case-per-year stats, the latter three are smaller wineries, but still
manage to keep the price down, so far. Wild Hog is particularly good for
the $...the estate bottled and Sara Lee pinots, and for that matter the
estate bottled and Porter-Bass zins, are about $12-14 retail, and rival
bottles that cost much more. Wild Hog wines come from Cazadero, near the
coastal end of the Russian River Valley.
: Also, remember that 1995 wasn't a particularly good year for OR pinot. Oregon
: is much more like Burgundy in that it is inconsistent. Remember too that OR
: pinot usually isn't as fruity as CA pinot. It tends to be more austere, and
: occasionally a bit earthy. In this respect, OR pinot is a bit more like aged
: burgundy than CA pinot. This is partly the result of the different
: environment.
I have no problem with austere and/or earthy. CA pinots do of
course include many microclimates, and many vinification styles. The Wild
Hog estate are in the direction of austere and earthy, while the Sara Lee
is a mega fruit-bomb. Both are delicious! The '94's especially so, but
the '95's aren't far behind.
<snip suggestions>
Thanks Kathryn, we'll check those out next time we head north.
Will
Nuuanu Menehune
Oregon Pinot for $10 or less, try Firesteed 1996. It tasted austere at
first, but developed nicely. It has great depth and developed quite a bit
of complexity. It eventually blew my mind. It is a very classy wine.
Other good Oregon Pinots which I have enjoyed over the years are Panther
Creek, St. Innocent, Ponzi, Willamette Valley and McKinlay (not necessarily
in that order). I think that the top St. Innocents (single vineyard) and the
Ponzi Reserves are great (with a big exclamation point). I really like
Adelsheim (over the years) but have found that their wines have received
mixed reviews lately although I still really like them.
I had a shocking experience a couple of weeks ago when I opened a 1989
Montinore Oregon Pinot. I expected it to be over the hill. It was great.
Cherries exploded from the glass and it was not one bit over the hill. The
balance was fantastic with fine tannins which were integrated with the fruit
and acid. There was no oxidation in taste or in color. The edges were not
brown or even orange. It cost me only about $10 back in 91. This is not a
typical experience. When I first got the wine, it was extremely fruity and
never thought it would evolve at all. I had actually avoided bringing it
anywhere over the last couple of years because I didn't want to bring an
over the hill dud. But I had a dinner at home and opened it because I could
easily bring out a backup bottle if it turned out to be a dud as I expected.
This clearly demonstrates the quality and ultimate potential for Oregon if
this can happen to a $10 bottle of wine.
Ka6l3279 wrote in message
<199808292320...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Having heard that OR pinots are great, on a recent trip there we
>>bought a number of them, and tasted them blind alongside some of our
>>favorite CA pinots in the same price range of $8-15 (Napa Ridge, Wild Hog,
>>Olivet Lane, etc.). Frankly the CA wines blew the OR wines away...I'm sure
>>there are excellent OR pinots, but seems to me they're a bit harder to
>>find.
>
>
>Which Oregon pinots did you try? There are very few good ones in the $8-15
>range. In fact, I'm surprised you found ANY in that price range. Most OR
>wineries are small (less than 15,000 cases per year), so their prices are
>higher. Try Oregon pinot in the $15-25 range instead. The best pinots,
like
>the better CA pinots, are even higher.
>
>Archery Summit makes a good OR pinot. It's owned by a Napa winery, which
>should tell you something about Oregon's potential. Domaine Drouhin is
also
>renowned. It's owned by a Burgundian, which should tell you even more.
>Broadley is another good choice.
>
>Also, remember that 1995 wasn't a particularly good year for OR pinot.
Oregon
>is much more like Burgundy in that it is inconsistent. Remember too that
OR
>pinot usually isn't as fruity as CA pinot. It tends to be more austere,
and
>occasionally a bit earthy. In this respect, OR pinot is a bit more like
aged
>burgundy than CA pinot. This is partly the result of the different
>environment.
>
Sterling Morrison
: I love Oregon Pinots but agree that 1995 was a hit or miss year. For a good
Sokol Blosser's Pinot Noir is quite the iron fist in the velvet glove,
imho.
Justin Christoph
Christoph's Quarterly of The Good Life
www.bcity.com/winepoet
chri...@monet.vill.edu