This is because "tastes great and makes me drunk" is not regarded as sufficiently evocative ...
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
mostly wine stuff
- Thread starter Tony S
- Start date
One of the things neurologists have learned about the sense of smell/taste is that it has a chicken/egg relationship with language. They develop together. So the more you taste and talk about it, the more developed and discriminatory your sense of smell/taste becomes.
Talking about what you taste with a compatible friend makes drinking wine more fun. And the more you practice, the finer distinctions you notice.
Sometimes my wife and I will open a bottle, and say to one another, "nothing wrong with it, but doesn't have much going on." So yeah, interesting wines do have a "ton going on."
I don't have as nuanced a palate as Tony, but I suspect that's one reason I like bigger wines than he does.
So if I can talk a good line of BS about wine my taste buds will develop. It seems to me that it is more in the mind than in the glass. I will admit some wine tastes better than others but that is to individual liking. This other pretentious BS is more about being able to charge more for a bottle of wine and feeding the egos of wine snobs. Sorry if this doesn't go along with the sophistication of the wine world it is just one individuals opinion.
That definitely happens in the mid-range. There are some relatively expensive bottles that are designed to be unobjectionable to customers who are buying prestige. At a wine tasting my wife and I frequently find our favorites are the least expensive bottle and the most expensive bottle (selected before looking at the prices).
But it is not all imaginary -- there is a foundation of something real underneath it all, and there are some expensive bottles that really are worth it.
There is no doubt that there is a lot of overpriced wine out there (although few appreciate what it can actually cost to bring to market). But to say that great wine must be a scam because you can't taste the difference . . . well, maybe you should just be glad that you don't have expensive taste?
Thread Starter
TS
On this site we pursue the nth degree of arcane detail when it comes to ski reviews, boot fitting, technique analysis, and any number of other topics. That level of detail outstrips my wine posts by orders of magnitude. We explore these skiing-related ideas in a broader context of international discourse about skiing, which has its own vocabulary, values, assumptions, history, rock stars, journalists, long-standing organizations, publications, etc.
Pursing this degree of detail is snobism only when we give gratuitous feedback to someone who is content to cruise blue goomers on old equipment, using crappy technique, to the effect that she needs to shape up or ship out. (Feedback that is explicitly requested is another matter.) I like to think we don't do that too often, and that someone will call us on it if we do.
If your point is that (what you see as) arcane detail about wine that might be fine on a dedicated wine site doesn't belong on a ski-centric forum, I can imagine why you might say that. I don't agree because one of the things I love about PugSki is that many topics besides skiing are discussed by people who have interesting and meaningful levels of experience with them.
By analogy, our undemanding blue groomer skier is more than welcome here because of his/her enthusiasm for skiing - the thing we all have in common. However, I'm not going to be bothering to read her posts about gear or technique if she has already declared herself a happy philistine on those matters, let alone take seriously her criticism of my reflections.
Central Otago was all the rage ~10 years ago. To my taste, it comes across as an inferior version of Willamette Valley Pinot. Clean, crisp, and one-dimensional. Now, I have no knowledge whatsoever of that particular bottle, so please understand that is a generalization only.
Thread Starter
TS
Believe it or not, I was saying that to my son the other day. Even for the same wine, same vintage, there is always the element of surprise. As they say, there is no such thing as a good wine, but there is such a thing as a great bottle.
Try that with beer!
Funny that you mention that
Because I rarely drink pure varietals. I don't get this thing in the Americas about using one grape 100%. I am not a wine maker or even a connoisseur, just a slightly overweight wino. But I dig the concept of blending. See? I am a home cook, and I appreciate building flavors, and frankly, I never ran into a restaurant where the server offers this "100% beef dish, no salt, no pepper, no nothing, pure beef". Umm, ok, I guess?Btw, the best Argie Malbec I had was a high end Catena. It reads Malbec but in the label they mentioned a 5% blend of petit verdot. Gosh, that was spectacular. And the best Cali Red Zin I ever had also had a little blending. Aldo a bit of petit verdot if I am not mistaken.
Cheers for wine and the memorable moments it brings us in life!
I know that no one wins a debate on the internet, you will believe what you think and I will believe what I think and we will not change each other's mind. I am wondering what the women of our community are going to think about your comparison and attempt to to belittle me and in turn them. I would not be upset about being compared to a woman they are superior to us in so many ways.
Erath used to be a reliable bargain. St Michelle bought it about 10 years ago. They tend to tread more lightly than many of the big corporate operations, but I haven't had it lately to know whether it is still good or not.
Drouhin might be a little above that price point, but still a screaming bargain.
A to Z is not as good as it used to be.
Joe Dobbes used to make a bargain bottle under $20 that was great for the price. Not sure what $ is now and haven't had it in awhile.
Chehalem has a few bottles close to your range and you can never go wrong with them.
There is a tiny little producer that had a few bottles under $30 that were knock your socks off good. I will ask my buddy who introduced me, as the name is eluding me at the moment.
The most worrying trend I've seen has been a tendency in recent years toward a more international style. IMHO, Willamette can be the best Pinot outside of Burgundy when everything is done right. The sad thing about the attempts to make "Syrah Jr." is that Willamette Pinot is wholly unsuited to it. So those wines drink like . . . say inferior Carneros from a large winery.
I remember now: Cardwell Hill. I was really blown away by the quality for the money. Strikes me as one of those great finds where they are much more savvy at growing and making wine than marketing wine, so the prices have lagged the quality. Great fine tannins and minerality. Aged well, I had several vintages from like 2009 to maybe 2015. Very Burgundy like winemaking, but unmistakably Willamette. They have some library selections going back to 2004 for $30 on their website!
Library Selections - Cardwell Hill Cellars
cardwellhillwine.com
I'd be jumping all over those, but not buying wine right now because of an upcoming move.
Yep, that is normally my take too. Haven’t opened this one up yet. I don’t always drink Borgogne, and when I don’t, I prefer Oregon Pinot.
Are you able to find Oregon Pinot in Sweden? Or perhaps when you travel. Whenever I talk to Oregon pinot makers I always try to get them excited about being Burgundian. But there has definitely been a drift in recent years toward California :-(.
I do travel, normally. But can get a few Oregon Pinot’s here in Stockholm. California central coast also which I (most of the time) prefer to the ones from further north in Sonoma.
A couple of Russian River outliers: Littorai, Freeman, Small Vines. Some great Pinot there.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2016
- Posts
- 2,727
Hard to beat Anderson Valley for CA pinots.