On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:48:43 -0600, Bill Hogsett >
wrote:


>I'll be interested in your opinion of the 04. It may very well be that I
>haven't had enough New Zealand sauvignon blanc to judge what is good and
>what is not. But, I didn't find the Kim Crawford (Marlborough) to be
>very interesting.
>
>
>Bill Hogsett

I've always been somewhat quizzical about the fans of NZ sauvignon
blanc. The wine is very respected and regularly gets high ratings in
tastings, yet the relatively common descriptor that the tasters use is
"cat pee". Frankly, that isn't high on my list of potential flavor
favorites--although I must confess to having little experience
first-hand. The end result is that my experience with NZ SB has been
limited and the wines I've tried weren't high on my list. I've done
the Cloudy Bay thing as well as a number of Marlboroughs and it just
didn't float my boat.

In SB, I've always found two distinct flavor profiles. One is a
bright, tart, fruit group--you'll hear of citrus, kiwi, etc. The other
is more mineral--things like flint, stoniness, etc. My usual
preference is for the flinty form. I'd rather find the tart fruit
profiles in whites of Italy, Alsace, Spain, etc.

But, that's just my opinion.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org