Hunt wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> >
> >
> >Jose wrote:
> >> > Do people need to 'learn' about
> >> > chicken? About steak?
> >>
> >> Well, yes, actually. Ever eaten chicken made by somebody who could
> >> stand to learn about chicken?? More to the point, cooks =do= have to
> >> learn about spices and herbs and seasonings and accompaniments.
> >>
> >> > then why do it with
> >> > wine?
> >>
> >> Because there are few kinds of chicken, a few more kinds of meat, but
> >> lots of kinds of wine. I bet you could list a hundred different kinds
> >> of wine from Italy alone, off the top of your head.
> >>
> >> > It is only because Americans have grown up up in a
> >> > Puritanical society, in which allcohol is viewed as an evil, that there
> >> > is any reason to be unfamiliar with wine drinking.
> >>
> >> Probably true. In Europe people learn about wine too, they just start
> >> younger, and by the time they are of salary age, they already know
> >> enough. Americans aren't that lucky, and we have to make up for it.
> >>
> >> > Talking heads on infomercials tell us...
> >>
> >> That part is all about money. We don't need makeup either, but girls
> >> are taught (falsely) that they look ugly without them.
> >>
> >> > People are told everything except
> >> > that they have a brain of their own
> >>
> >> Where's the profit in that kind of revolutionary thinking?
> >>
> >> > You don't need to be 'educated' about wine
> >>
> >> Well, if you already know about wine, that is true. If you don't, then
> >> that is false.
> >
> >What I mean is we don't need to be 'educated' about wine, in an
> >elaborate, ritualized, manner. We don't need to be 'educated' about
> >walking, though we do need to 'learn' how to walk. We need to learn
> >about wine the way we learn to walk, through experience, not through
> >pretentious 'classes' and reviews. You didn't take a class to learn how
> >to walk, did you?
>
> You are, again, partially correct. Actually, most folk would benefit from
> learning how to walk properly, with good posture, and equal weighting of their
> feet, plus how to chose proper shoes. But I digress from wine, which is, after
> all, why we are here.
>
> If one finds a class, a book, or a discussion "pretentious," they should walk
> (properly) away from it.

What I am trying to do is to remove the 'pseudo-academic' aspect from
the 'learning'. The jargon is largely useless to even experienced
drinkers. It is impossible to convey sensations through words. The
jargon is off-putting to many.

> One should face every day as a "student." There is far too much to be learned
> to miss just one day. I feel that way about wine. I have not sampled it all. I
> have not visited every wine producing region. I do not even know some of the
> major producers, but I am always ready to learn - to be "educated" about wine.
>
> Hunt

Well, try some of the Argiolas wines. They're all excellent. From
Sardinia.

"UC" > skrev i meddelandet
oups.com...

> Europe has made wine
> for millennia, and it is a natural, integral part of European life,
> from Greece to England. You won't find Italians or Hungraians or
> Spaniards or F________ needing to be 'educated' about wine.

<snip>

> If Jenna had been raised in
> Italy, F_____, or Germany, she would have never posed the question she
> did. Of course, she would never have dreamed of drinking wine "with the
> girls" in the way she describes: It would be inconceivable.

Michael, I would like to know how you have come to this conclusion.
Remember, I am a European, I started drinking wine when I was about 8 years
old (diluted with water, it is true, and msotly because my parents were
early adopters). Today, close to 57, I try to learn more, and, being both
francophoe (which you are not) and italophone (which, rather more awkard,
you are not, either), I have followed the French and Italian NGs concerned
with wine, and, know what? People put (almost) the same kind of question
that poor Jenna did. This, good sir, is true. Also, I have had the distinct
pleasure of tasting wines quite off the cuff and without appropriate
foodstuffs with both French and Italian. Please don't tell me this didn't
happen, I was there, and reasonably sober for at least some of the time ...
Stephen Spurrier, who I think is a bit of a gentleman, and whose opinions I
value, in the 70s actually opened a wine shop in Paris to teach the French
to enjoy wine. TYis is to my midn true, and I think it goes to show that the
Europeans do not ahve a natural sense for wine - any more than colored
afroamericans of a necessity have an inherent sense of rythm. (Not
politically correct or what?)

Cheers

Nisl Gusatf


> You don't need to be 'educated' about wine, or visit vinyards as a
> tourist. I find this puzzling behaviour. You just go to the store and
> buy a few bottles. You drink them. You like them or not. The ones you
> like go into your cellar again. That's all there is to it. No speeches,
> essays, or "tasting notes" are necessary. Only enjoyment matters.



--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

"Hunt" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> In article >, nils.
> says...
>
> [SNIP]
>>
>>Xina will, I hope, soon arrive, and she will be greeted with pumpkin soup,
>>baked scallops, a casserole of corn and crab meat, and foie gras with an
>>apple gastrique. Hmmmmm - wonder what will be the main course ?
>>
>>Cheers!
>
> Uh, lutfish? Seriously, it sounds like a great start to the evening. Only
> problem that is see is pairing the wines: soup=PN, scallops=SB, corn&crab=
> Chard, or maybe a white Meritage (not the actual "Meritage" necessarily,
> but a
> nice blend), then the foi gras w/ apple, hm-m, maybe a Muscat de Beaun de
> Venise, or a TBA Riesling? Lotta' possibilities. BTW, how will the lutfish
> be
> prepared?


In fact started with Soave Classico Ca' Rugate 2002 with scallops, soup,.
and crab. Worked very well indeed. With foie gras, Bruno Sorg Gewurztraminer
Vielles vignes 2004. Aso quite acceptable.

Then we emptied the dregs of a Coteaux de Layon Ch Montbenault 1988 from
Tuesday with nothing but our own comapny which was quite enough.

Cheers

Nils Gustaf

--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
> "UC" > skrev i meddelandet
> oups.com...
>
> > Europe has made wine
> > for millennia, and it is a natural, integral part of European life,
> > from Greece to England. You won't find Italians or Hungraians or
> > Spaniards or F________ needing to be 'educated' about wine.
>
> <snip>
>
> > If Jenna had been raised in
> > Italy, F_____, or Germany, she would have never posed the question she
> > did. Of course, she would never have dreamed of drinking wine "with the
> > girls" in the way she describes: It would be inconceivable.
>
> Michael, I would like to know how you have come to this conclusion.
> Remember, I am a European,

Were, Finland? Iceland? Ireland?

> I started drinking wine when I was about 8 years
> old (diluted with water, it is true, and mostly because my parents were
> early adopters). Today, close to 57

Same here. Birthday Nov 3.

>, I try to learn more, and, being both
> francophoe (which you are not) and italophone (which, rather more awkard,
> you are not, either), I have followed the French and Italian NGs concerned
> with wine, and, know what? People put (almost) the same kind of question
> that poor Jenna did. This, good sir, is true.

I find that difficult to believe.

> Also, I have had the distinct
> pleasure of tasting wines quite off the cuff and without appropriate
> foodstuffs with both French and Italian. Please don't tell me this didn't
> happen, I was there, and reasonably sober for at least some of the time ...
> Stephen Spurrier, who I think is a bit of a gentleman, and whose opinions I
> value, in the 70s actually opened a wine shop in Paris to teach the French
> to enjoy wine. This is to my mind true, and I think it goes to show that the
> Europeans do not ahve a natural sense for wine - any more than colored
> afroamericans of a necessity have an inherent sense of rythm. (Not
> politically correct or what?)

There are always going to be exceptions, but in large measure the
Americans are behind the Europeans in wine culture.

> It is impossible to convey sensations through words.

Not a fan of poetry either, I bet.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>> ...after which you
>> started shouting at her in all caps, ending with "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
> That was after her reply that she was "too tired" to cook.

Uh, no it wasn't. It was from your first post, and she hadn't said
anything of the sort. Check google.

>>In some circles that would be taken as a put down.
> My initial response was not what she wanted to hear.

This was your initial response.

> But I have no interest in doing it, so I won't.

Maybe she has no interest in having food with wine with the girls. What
I suggested for you is just as good advice as what you suggested to her.

> Most reds are tannic, some are highly so. No mystery what to do with
> red wines (for me).

I know, and I know you know. That's why I picked it as an example. She
probably doesn't.

Tasting wines is analgous to reading a label. The label doesn't taste
like "wine with food". Nonetheless, reading the label, even if only to
see that it says "Chianti" or "riserva" or "Tocai" or "Vintage:
February", gives you a clue as to what the wine might go with. Of
course, you need to know what "Chianti" means, which you do by...
reading labels and trying the associated wine with food! Ditto tasting.

> I don't follow you. My point was that the language used in the trade
> has evolved largely to refer to...

So don't use the language of the trade where it doesn't apply. Use your
own words when they are appropriate and meaningful to you. Sipping a
wine in a wine shop without a meal does not obligate you to pontificate
on it for eight minutes and give it a percent score.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mark Lipton > wrote:

> John, I believe that you are slightly mistaken here. Thomases
> co-edits I Vini Veronelli with, naturally enough, Veronelli.

Not with Veronelli anymore who died in November 2004.

M.

On 29 Sep 2006 15:01:38 -0700, "UC" >
wrote:


> It is impossible to convey sensations through words.

Please don't tell my publisher or editor, it is liable to adversely
effect my royalty checks.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"UC" > skrev i meddelandet
ups.com...
>
> Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
>> "UC" > skrev i meddelandet
>> oups.com...
>>

>> Michael, I would like to know how you have come to this conclusion.
>> Remember, I am a European,
>
> Were, Finland? Iceland? Ireland?
>

For what it's worth, I am, by conquest (1658), Swedish.
Also, I have travelled in the rest of Europe since 1962, spend my summers on
the French Meditteranean, and occasionally (too seldom, more's the pity)
drop into Italy. I get along in French, Italian, and German (apart form
broken English). So I'd say I am as European as they come.

Cheers

Nils Gsutaf


--
Respond to nils dot lindgren at drchips dot se

Jose wrote:
> > It is impossible to convey sensations through words.
>
> Not a fan of poetry either, I bet.

It is possible to suggest them, but impossible to decsribe them.

Mike Tommasi wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > DaleW wrote:
> >
> >>John, as noted below Thomases didn't write for Gambero Rosso. But an
> >>understandable mistake- GR and WA often agree on the wonders of modern
> >>winemaking. I have pretty broad tastes, but up until last two years
> >>the Tuscan and Piedmont sections of GR 3B have read like the de Grazia
> >>Brotherhood of Oaky Winemaking (though Giacosa has always slipped in,
> >>and recently both Mascarellos and Marcarini made the list). We
> >>sometimes joke that Gambero Rosso is Italian for "More Oak! More
> >>Vanilla! More Chocolate", and Tre Bicchieri means " Tres Oaky"
> >>
> >>I've heard good things about the reviewers of the northern white areas
> >>like Friuli. Usually if I think that the few Southern Italians I try
> >>that get 3 glasses are as much the product of lumberyards as vineyards,
> >>but that's a small sample.
> >
> >
> > Interestingly, I just read the introduction to the 2004 edition, and
> > the editors were very specific about stating that they were penalizing
> > producers in scoring for using too much oak. They were very empphatic
> > about wanting more traditional grapes and styles, less use of
> > standardized methods, and planting Cabernet instead of local varities.
> > What they say could not be further from what you say.
> >
>
>
> This is because there has been a genuine reaction by consumers to this
> style. Now both SF and GR are trying to do course correction, but it
> may be too late.

What are 'SF' and 'GR'? Is 'GR' Gambero Rosso?

I, for one, don't buy Italian 'international' style wines. What's the
bloody point? If I want a generic Cabernoirlotdonnay, why bother with
something Italian? I want the wine to shout of its origin, of its
summer, of its maker. I want wine that is identifiably Italian and
localized. I want wine that is identifiably Argiolas, Giacosa, Santadi,
Mastroberadino, Taurino, Bologna, Ratti, Poliziano, Ambra, Valentini,
Antinori, Anselmi, Pater Noster, D'Angelo, Hofstätter, Santa Tresa,
Selvapiana, Sella & Mosca. Wine that is Sicilian, Tuscan, Lombardian,
Puglian, Sardinian. They can shove their super-Tuscan Cabernets up
their asses. I have never bought one and never will.

I think the Italians are missing the boat if they think that they have
to offer "me too" wines. They need to upgrade their image as producers
of plonk in the south (though much Tuscan wine still benefits illegally
from southern reinforcment, I hear.) The Italians need to clean up
their corrupt politics and get down to business. They need to simplify
their wine laws so that labels are intelligible even to beginners,
perhaps with labels in English for the English-language markets. The
DOC and DOCG designations are meaningless in some areas. Many Sicilian
wine-makers are ignoring DOCs and using the IGT designation. Why make
it overly complicated for consumers?

There are many things that I find irrational in Italian wine
production, but then it would not be Italian if it were not...

Jose wrote:
> >> ...after which you
> >> started shouting at her in all caps, ending with "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
> > That was after her reply that she was "too tired" to cook.
>
> Uh, no it wasn't. It was from your first post, and she hadn't said
> anything of the sort. Check google.
>
> >>In some circles that would be taken as a put down.
> > My initial response was not what she wanted to hear.
>
> This was your initial response.
>
> > But I have no interest in doing it, so I won't.
>
> Maybe she has no interest in having food with wine with the girls.

Then she should not complain that her Chianti Classico Riserva was
harsh. Deal with reality.

>What
> I suggested for you is just as good advice as what you suggested to her.
>
> > Most reds are tannic, some are highly so. No mystery what to do with
> > red wines (for me).
>
> I know, and I know you know. That's why I picked it as an example. She
> probably doesn't.

She was thinking that the wine as at fault. The fault rather lies with
the use to which it was put.

> Tasting wines is analgous to reading a label. The label doesn't taste
> like "wine with food". Nonetheless, reading the label, even if only to
> see that it says "Chianti" or "Riserva" or "Tocai" or "Vintage:
> February", gives you a clue as to what the wine might go with. Of
> course, you need to know what "Chianti" means, which you do by...
> reading labels and trying the associated wine with food! Ditto tasting.

She was not just 'tasting' but drinking. I don't follow what you wrote
above at all.

> > I don't follow you. My point was that the language used in the trade
> > has evolved largely to refer to...
>
> So don't use the language of the trade where it doesn't apply. Use your
> own words when they are appropriate and meaningful to you. Sipping a
> wine in a wine shop without a meal does not obligate you to pontificate
> on it for eight minutes and give it a percent score.

Oh, but many would....

>>Maybe she has no interest in having food with wine with the girls.
> Then she should not complain that her Chianti Classico Riserva was
> harsh.

Why not? She was, actually, having it with food. She just chose the
wrong food. And she wasn't complaining about the =wine=, she was
commenting on her choice of wine, hoping to learn better how to choose
wine and (finger) food to go together.

> She was thinking that the wine as at fault. The fault rather lies with
> the use to which it was put.

I didn't read her comments that way at all. Well, ok, a little. (and
who knows... maybe the wine wasn't the best example of the breed). She
chose something, and found it unsatisfactory. She was disappointed.
She wants to learn how to choose better. That's all. But to that
point, one's choice depends on the use to which it will be put, and
given the use (wine with cheese and the girls), which wine would be
best. You have already said that it is the red wines you insist must be
drunk only with a meal, that leaves a lot of white wines, some of which
may go very nicely with cheese. I think she was open to different
cheeses, and even different finger foods. What was the "given" was that
the event was not a meal; it was wine with finger food and the girls.
(Even I'd be interested in that! There are wines that would work
better, and worse, and there are reasons.

She certainly didn't need to be shouted at.

>> Tasting wines is analgous to reading a label.
> She was not just 'tasting' but drinking. I don't follow what you wrote
> above at all.

I guess I was getting back to the "tasting wines is bad" theme.

>>Sipping a wine in a wine shop
>> without a meal does not obligate you to pontificate
>> on it for eight minutes and give it a percent score.
>
> Oh, but many would....

Then they are providing entertainment for the likes of you and I, should
we choose to enjoy their unwitting comedy channel.

I agree that many get overly pretentious, but that is not fatal. It is
but one (side-)step on the road to learning, after which we all will
feed the daisies.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> It is possible to suggest [sensations], but impossible to decsribe them.

What is the critical difference you are trying to convey?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> >>Maybe she has no interest in having food with wine with the girls.
> > Then she should not complain that her Chianti Classico Riserva was
> > harsh.
>
> Why not? She was, actually, having it with food. She just chose the
> wrong food. And she wasn't complaining about the =wine=, she was
> commenting on her choice of wine, hoping to learn better how to choose
> wine and (finger) food to go together.

Here's what she wrote:

"Every Friday evening, the girls and I get together and drink some
wine.

'Drink', not 'taste'.

"It is nice but we have our differences when it comes to picking wine.
The other girls will pick a wine based on its price, the size of the
bottle, and the label. I have taken it upon myself to start picking the

wine in order to curb this practice."

She entertains a few criteria. She thinks her associates are silly in
the way they are making their choices. She can do better, she thinks.

"Last week, I did a bit of research in an attempt to pick a good wine
that is under $20 a bottle and pair it with wine."

Typo for 'cheese'?

"Unfortuanately, I hated the wine and the cheese. I was severly
disapointed. I thought that I would pick up a nice chianti and some
goat cheese. The wine was extremely bitter. I know that chiantis are
acidic and have a lot of tannins, but I wasn't expecting that."

Why, pray tell? What would lead her to believe that tannins would
magically soften themselves?

"I even picked one that was labeled 'risevera' as was the advice I had
received."

>From whom?

"I really like sangiovese and assumed that chianti would be similar
because it is made up of mostly those grapes."

Sangiovese is a variety of grape, originally from Tuscany.

"I feel kind of dumb because I live in wine country. My grandparents
own a vineyard and yet I can't pick any new wines that I like. Does
anyone have any suggestions?"

The reason is that one must put wine and food together in an
appropriate way. Tuscan Sangiovese wines, in particular, demand meals.
Some other Italian wines might fare better alone. Dolcetto and Monica
di Sardengna come to mind. A Chianti Classico Riserva was probably the
worst wine imaginable to have with a goat cheese.

> > She was thinking that the wine as at fault. The fault rather lies with
> > the use to which it was put.
>
> I didn't read her comments that way at all. Well, ok, a little. (and
> who knows... maybe the wine wasn't the best example of the breed).

Chiantis can vary a lot. I don't buy much Chianti. Sangiovese is not my
favorite grape variety.

> She
> chose something, and found it unsatisfactory. She was disappointed.
> She wants to learn how to choose better. That's all. But to that
> point, one's choice depends on the use to which it will be put, and
> given the use (wine with cheese and the girls), which wine would be
> best. You have already said that it is the red wines you insist must be
> drunk only with a meal, that leaves a lot of white wines, some of which
> may go very nicely with cheese.

I already pointed that out.

> I think she was open to different
> cheeses, and even different finger foods. What was the "given" was that
> the event was not a meal; it was wine with finger food and the girls.
> (Even I'd be interested in that! There are wines that would work
> better, and worse, and there are reasons.

Toasted garlic bread with some olive oil, even bruschetta would work.
Takes seconds to make.

http://italianfood.about.com/od/vegg.../r/blr0204.htm

> She certainly didn't need to be shouted at.

It was unbelievably naive, what she said, and why she complained.

> >> Tasting wines is analgous to reading a label.
> > She was not just 'tasting' but drinking. I don't follow what you wrote
> > above at all.
>
> I guess I was getting back to the "tasting wines is bad" theme.

I never said that. I said for AMATEURS to do it is pointless.
Professional-style tasting should be left to professionals with the
skills to do it. The people who taste wines for Gambero Rosso's
"Italian Wines" book are experts on how to taste wines. They know the
regions' potential and the styles that are typical of the regions and
the grapes of the regions. I am completely at a loss on why so many
American wine books suggest 'tasting' wine when most people will gain
absolutely nothing useful from it, and may lead them seriously to
misjudge the wine.

> >>Sipping a wine in a wine shop
> >> without a meal does not obligate you to pontificate
> >> on it for eight minutes and give it a percent score.
> >
> > Oh, but many would....
>
> Then they are providing entertainment for the likes of you and I, should
> we choose to enjoy their unwitting comedy channel.

I try to avoid such people.
>
> I agree that many get overly pretentious, but that is not fatal. It is
> but one (side-)step on the road to learning, after which we all will
> feed the daisies.

What wine goes well with daisies?
..

Mike Tommasi wrote:
> UC wrote:
>
> > What are 'SF' and 'GR'? Is 'GR' Gambero Rosso?
>
> Yes, and SF is Slow Food. Incredibly, they co-edit the Guida.
>
> > I, for one, don't buy Italian 'international' style wines. What's the
> > bloody point? If I want a generic Cabernoirlotdonnay, why bother with
> > something Italian? I want the wine to shout of its origin, of its
> > summer, of its maker. I want wine that is identifiably Italian and
> > localized. I want wine that is identifiably Argiolas, Giacosa, Santadi,
> > Mastroberadino, Taurino, Bologna, Ratti, Poliziano, Ambra, Valentini,
> > Antinori, Anselmi, Pater Noster, D'Angelo, Hofstätter, Santa Tresa,
> > Selvapiana, Sella & Mosca.
>
> Agree, but the names you mention are not immune from internationalism.

OK, maybe Antinori. But surely not D'Angelo or Pater Noster!

> Argiolas makes good wine, I have discussed this with Mariano Murru, the
> wood is not subtle, at least it takes a long time to calm down.

I love Argiolas wines. They're close to perfect. Great for the price,
too.

>Ratti is
> definitely in the international style, and in fact not particularly
> good these days (since Ratti died in the late 80s things have not
> improved). Antinori is INTERNATIONAL in capital letters,

OK

>Selle & Mosca also.

WHAT? Hardly
>
> OK Valentini and Hofstatter are not...
>
> Bruno Giacosa is not a modernist maybe, but can you realy afford his top
> wines?

Not often. I have not seen them around much lately. His Barbera was
great, and under $20, last of it I had.
>
> >
> > I think the Italians are missing the boat if they think that they have
> > to offer "me too" wines. They need to upgrade their image as producers
> > of plonk in the south (though much Tuscan wine still benefits illegally
> > from southern reinforcment, I hear.)
>
> But the southern revoilution has already happened, the plonk is now
> replaced by (mostly) international style wine.

What are you talking about? Grillo? Nero d'Avola? Insolia? These are
not Chardonnays and Merlots!

>Sicily is the
> quintessence of high quality high technolgy soulless wine.

I beg to differ. Try an Avulisi and tell me that.

http://www.santatresa.it/wines.html

"Grapes: 100% Nero d'Avola.
Vineyard area: Feudo Santa Tresa estate, Vittoria, south east Sicily.
The terroir is ideally suited to the production of great red wines: the
unique microclimate combines a very fertile topsoil of terra rossa over
a layer of water-retaining calcareous clay.

Vineyard management is intensive, to ensure that we achieve perfect
concentration in the grapes. Vine density is high, over 5,000 vines per
hectare, with production per vine kept strictly to a minimum in order
to maximise the concentration.

Harvest: We take enormous care to use only the absolute best quality
Nero d'Avola grapes the Santa Tresa estate has to offer. The grapes
are picked meticulously by hand only when perfectly ripe. Picking takes
place only in the cool early hours of the morning to ensure the grapes
remain in top condition. Grapes are placed into small containers so
that they do not become crushed by their own weight.

Vinification: We strongly believe that great wine is made in the
vineyard, and we therefore ensure the winemaking process handled as
gently as possible. The grapes are de-stemmed and soft crushed.
Fermentation is initiated by the addition of selected yeasts, and takes
place at a temperature of 28-30°C. Malolactic fermentation is carried
out in oak barriques, where the wine is aged for at least 12 months
until it is perfectly integrated. We select barriques with a
particularly fine grain, and which have been air-dried for a minimum of
24 months.

Alcohol: 14 %
Winemaker's notes: With Avulisi, we have strived to produce the
quintessential Nero d'Avola. The colour is an intense purple-red,
Avulisi has a bouquet of wild berries, blackcurrants and spices. On the
palate it is full-bodied, with supple, soft tannins and a long finish."

> Tuscan wines?
> Chianti producers constantly violate the DOCG rules and put in huge
> amounts of Cab and Merlot, I would say MOST of them do. In order to be
> more international.

Tuscan wines, for the most part, are my least favorite. I said this
already.

> > The Italians need to clean up
> > their corrupt politics and get down to business.
>
> What has this got to do with wine UC? ;-0

Lots.
>
> --
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

> She thinks her associates are silly in
> the way they are making their choices. She can do better, she thinks.

I agree with her. More correctly, she can learn to do better, and
learning comes with experience. She had her first experience, and
learned something. Her next experience is likely to be better (except
that, alas, it was on Usenet)

>> "Last week, I did a bit of research in an attempt to pick a good wine
>> that is under $20 a bottle and pair it with wine."
>
> Typo for 'cheese'?

Almost certainly. Was there any doubt?

> Why, pray tell? What would lead her to believe that tannins would
> magically soften themselves?

Nothing. She expected tannins. She didn't expect them to be so strong.
Perhaps the Chianti she got was more tannic than most. Perhaps it was
the pairing that brought out that flavor. This is part of learning.
Talking about it (nicely) is also part of learning, so she came here.

>> "I even picked one that was labeled 'risevera' as was the advice I had
>> received."
>From whom?

I would imagine from the wine shop. Of course I don't know, I wasn't
there, it could have been from the guy down the street drinking out of a
paper bag.

>> "I really like sangiovese and assumed that chianti would be similar
>> because it is made up of mostly those grapes."
> Sangiovese is a variety of grape, originally from Tuscany.

Yes, it is a large consituent of Chianti. She made a reasonable
inference. It might have been incorrect, but as a wine novice it was
entirely reasonable.

>> "I feel kind of dumb because I live in wine country. My grandparents
>> own a vineyard and yet I can't pick any new wines that I like. Does
>> anyone have any suggestions?"
>
> The reason is that one must put wine and food together in an
> appropriate way. Tuscan Sangiovese wines, in particular, demand meals.
> Some other Italian wines might fare better alone. Dolcetto and Monica
> di Sardengna come to mind. A Chianti Classico Riserva was probably the
> worst wine imaginable to have with a goat cheese.

That was =much= better stated than your original response, which I won't
quote here again.

> Toasted garlic bread with some olive oil, even bruschetta would work.
> Takes seconds to make.

That would have been another good suggestion to make to her, with the
comment that it would have acted as a good foil to the tannins. They
would therefore have seemed less bitter.

>>She certainly didn't need to be shouted at.
> It was unbelievably naive, what she said, and why she complained.

Only to you, who knows wine. Remember, she doesn't know wine. She is
not familiar with how (and why) it pairs (or doesn't) with various
foods. She is merely ignorant (and I mean it in the neutral sense).
And neither ignorance nor naivety is a sin; neither is worthy of being
berated for.

> I said for AMATEURS to do it is pointless.
> Professional-style tasting should be left to
> professionals with the skills to do it.

I don't think amateurs do professional style tasting.

> I am completely at a loss on why so many
> American wine books suggest 'tasting' wine when most people will gain
> absolutely nothing useful from it, and may lead them seriously to
> misjudge the wine.

I haven't read all those books. I don't think that people gain
"absolutely nothing useful" from tasting wines. I am no pro, and I gain
quite a bit by tasting wines; at the very least I get to decide which
wines I want to cart home for three thousand miles. That's worth it.

I agree that amateur "professional style" blind tastings (five whites,
five reds, guess the type, the vintage, the region, the winery, and tell
me the weather on the last three weeks of growing) are probably often
little more than fun and games. There is however nothing wrong with fun
and games, even with wine.

I will say that there are some useful things that =could= come from
tasting wines that I do not yet have the skills for. One example is
discerning the various flavor elements in a wine. One could then
predict good pairings, even if the wine will taste different. In this
case, what the wine "tastes like" (in the tasting) is not really
relevant, but "does the wine have citrus flavorings", "is there cherry"
and the like is. It is not at all the same as enjoying wine with food,
but then no analysis is.

> What wine goes well with daisies?

Whatever wine you were drinking before you were buried.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > She thinks her associates are silly in
> > the way they are making their choices. She can do better, she thinks.
>
> I agree with her.

I'm not sure.

> More correctly, she can learn to do better, and
> learning comes with experience. She had her first experience, and
> learned something. Her next experience is likely to be better (except
> that, alas, it was on Usenet)
>
> >> "Last week, I did a bit of research in an attempt to pick a good wine
> >> that is under $20 a bottle and pair it with wine."
> >
> > Typo for 'cheese'?
>
> Almost certainly. Was there any doubt?
>
> > Why, pray tell? What would lead her to believe that tannins would
> > magically soften themselves?
>
> Nothing. She expected tannins. She didn't expect them to be so strong.
> Perhaps the Chianti she got was more tannic than most. Perhaps it was
> the pairing that brought out that flavor. This is part of learning.
> Talking about it (nicely) is also part of learning, so she came here.
>
> >> "I even picked one that was labeled 'risevera' as was the advice I had
> >> received."

> >From whom?
>
> I would imagine from the wine shop. Of course I don't know, I wasn't
> there, it could have been from the guy down the street drinking out of a
> paper bag.

Advice from someone who perhaps assumed she was going to have it with a
meal?

> >> "I really like sangiovese and assumed that chianti would be similar
> >> because it is made up of mostly those grapes."

> > Sangiovese is a variety of grape, originally from Tuscany.
>
> Yes, it is a large consituent of Chianti. She made a reasonable
> inference. It might have been incorrect, but as a wine novice it was
> entirely reasonable.

I have no idea what she meant by "I really like sangiovese" if she had
not had a Chianti before.

> >> "I feel kind of dumb because I live in wine country. My grandparents
> >> own a vineyard and yet I can't pick any new wines that I like. Does
> >> anyone have any suggestions?"
> >
> > The reason is that one must put wine and food together in an
> > appropriate way. Tuscan Sangiovese wines, in particular, demand meals.
> > Some other Italian wines might fare better alone. Dolcetto and Monica
> > di Sardengna come to mind. A Chianti Classico Riserva was probably the
> > worst wine imaginable to have with a goat cheese.
>
> That was =much= better stated than your original response, which I won't
> quote here again.

Thanks.

> > Toasted garlic bread with some olive oil, even bruschetta would work.
> > Takes seconds to make.
>
> That would have been another good suggestion to make to her, with the
> comment that it would have acted as a good foil to the tannins. They
> would therefore have seemed less bitter.
>
> >>She certainly didn't need to be shouted at.
> > It was unbelievably naive, what she said, and why she complained.
>
> Only to you, who knows wine. Remember, she doesn't know wine. She is
> not familiar with how (and why) it pairs (or doesn't) with various
> foods. She is merely ignorant (and I mean it in the neutral sense).
> And neither ignorance nor naivety is a sin; neither is worthy of being
> berated for.
>
> > I said for AMATEURS to do it is pointless.
> > Professional-style tasting should be left to
> > professionals with the skills to do it.
>
> I don't think amateurs do professional style tasting.

Yes, they do. The books show how to hold the glass, how to look at the
color, the legs, how to sniff, the whole thing. It's disgusting.

> > I am completely at a loss on why so many
> > American wine books suggest 'tasting' wine when most people will gain
> > absolutely nothing useful from it, and may lead them seriously to
> > misjudge the wine.
>
> I haven't read all those books. I don't think that people gain
> "absolutely nothing useful" from tasting wines. I am no pro, and I gain
> quite a bit by tasting wines; at the very least I get to decide which
> wines I want to cart home for three thousand miles. That's worth it.

They often misjudge the wine from such tastings.

> I'm not sure.

You think maybe bottle size and price are better ways to pick wine? You
think maybe ordinary folk are unable to learn how to do better?

> Advice from someone who perhaps assumed she was going to have it with a
> meal?

Probably not. If the assumption were that it was to be with a meal, the
natural question of what foods to be served would have likely been
asked. She would likely answer saying what she intended to do with it.
I suspect that, at the very least, she was told that the "riserva" is
a "better" wine than the chianti next to it. I wouldn't hang much on that.

> I have no idea what she meant by "I really like sangiovese" if she had
> not had a Chianti before.

Are there no other wines made with sangiovese? I have bought
(California) Sangiovese that was not called chianti.

> Yes, they do. The books show how to hold the glass, how to look at the
> color, the legs, how to sniff, the whole thing. It's disgusting.

Well, ok. I never understood what difference the color makes in the
enjoyment of wine (except red wines that turned brown are probably
oxidized, and if it came out green, I'd be worried). It's an
observation, sure, but not one I find especially valuable. Ditto the
legs (although I do notice that the whites I drink tend to leave
droplets of something clear on the glass, whereas the reds don't (when
the glass is merely left out without washing). I'm curious about that,
but it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the wine itself.

So, yes, you are right. Those books do not =emphasize= what you and I
find important in the enjoyment of wine, instead covering the gamut of
observations used in professional wine evaluation (and of little use to
amateurs). But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are
a few observations that are useful to amateurs, and those are the ones I
think most people concentrate on when they are tasting wine at a winery
or a wine store.

1: nose (ok, a wine jargon word for "smell", but every field has its
jargon)

2: mouthfeel (wine jargon again, but useful since there isn't a good
alternate word)

3: palate (or any of a few other words for "taste")

And those are the same qualities considered primary with food: taste,
texture, smell. These are the ones that help us pair flounder with
broccoli rabe (or not!) at a meal. And yes, broccoli rabe tastes
different with different foods too.

>>> I am completely at a loss on why so many
>>> American wine books suggest 'tasting' wine when most people will gain
>>> absolutely nothing useful from it, and may lead them seriously to
>>> misjudge the wine.
>> I haven't read all those books. I don't think that people gain
>> "absolutely nothing useful" from tasting wines. I am no pro, and I gain
>> quite a bit by tasting wines; at the very least I get to decide which
>> wines I want to cart home for three thousand miles. That's worth it.
> They often misjudge the wine from such tastings.

Perhaps, especially at first. But I think people learn as they do it.

I would say that the problem isn't that "wine tasting" is inherently a
bad thing for amateurs to do, but rather, that the wrong things are
emphasized (to and by) amateurs when they do this, especially at first.
They learn, eventually, but much impedes them.

1: Wineries and wine shops are in the business of selling wine. They
want to show their wine off at its best so people walk out with a case.
To this end I'm mystified as to why they don't serve at least an
appropriate finger food at tastings, although I suppose costs and the
health department enter into the equation. They naturally don't want to
serve food that =doesn't= go with their wine, even as a contrast, and
even if it would educate the patron. I bet lots of people go to
wineries, taste, and don't buy, so it gets expensive.

2: When there is a mystique, people like to shroud themselves in this
mystique. It can be fun (if not taken to excess, or in an inappropriate
setting), but it can also be counterproductive (as you rant about, and I
agree with, though not militantly).

3: There is money to be made with "wine classes". Where there is money
to be made, you will find it difficult to impede it.

However, you might consider writing a book, or at least a web site,
wherein you can take people through a professional wine tasting, and
pick the parts that are of no benefit to the amateurs (and why).

Then go into why an amateur might want to sample wine at a winery or
wine store, and what he or she should take away from such a tasting. My
opinion: to identify flavor elements (and thus pairing possibilities),
to record one's impressions well enough that a year or three from now,
in the cellar, reviewing those notes will bring back some of the
experience (helpful when picking between several zins, or several
different chiantis, or even between this pinot and that merlot)

Were it I, I would concentrate on the three basics, nose, mouthfeel, and
palate (or taste, smell, and texture). I'd reccomend that wine be
sampled without food, with an appropriate food, and with an
inappropriate food, so that one can learn how to "calibrate" one's
sensations.

I think there is a big market for such a work.

btw, I haven't read it, but what do you think of "Wine for dummies" (or
similar books)?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > I'm not sure.
>
> You think maybe bottle size and price are better ways to pick wine? You
> think maybe ordinary folk are unable to learn how to do better?

Not the point. I don't think she actually did any better.
>
> > Advice from someone who perhaps assumed she was going to have it with a
> > meal?
>
> Probably not. If the assumption were that it was to be with a meal, the
> natural question of what foods to be served would have likely been
> asked. She would likely answer saying what she intended to do with it.
> I suspect that, at the very least, she was told that the "riserva" is
> a "better" wine than the chianti next to it. I wouldn't hang much on that.

Nor I.
>
> > I have no idea what she meant by "I really like sangiovese" if she had
> > not had a Chianti before.
>
> Are there no other wines made with sangiovese? I have bought
> (California) Sangiovese that was not called chianti.

I'm not at all sure what she meant.

> > Yes, they do. The books show how to hold the glass, how to look at the
> > color, the legs, how to sniff, the whole thing. It's disgusting.
>
> Well, ok. I never understood what difference the color makes in the
> enjoyment of wine (except red wines that turned brown are probably
> oxidized, and if it came out green, I'd be worried). It's an
> observation, sure, but not one I find especially valuable. Ditto the
> legs (although I do notice that the whites I drink tend to leave
> droplets of something clear on the glass, whereas the reds don't (when
> the glass is merely left out without washing). I'm curious about that,
> but it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the wine itself.

Right. All this stuff is useless. An expert can tell something about
the wine and its color and legs, but most people cannot.

> So, yes, you are right. Those books do not =emphasize= what you and I
> find important in the enjoyment of wine, instead covering the gamut of
> observations used in professional wine evaluation (and of little use to
> amateurs). But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are
> a few observations that are useful to amateurs, and those are the ones I
> think most people concentrate on when they are tasting wine at a winery
> or a wine store.
>
> 1: nose (ok, a wine jargon word for "smell", but every field has its
> jargon)

Yes. The aroma is important.
>
> 2: mouthfeel (wine jargon again, but useful since there isn't a good
> alternate word)

'Sensation(s)'.

> 3: palate (or any of a few other words for "taste")

Not terribly specific, is it?

> And those are the same qualities considered primary with food: taste,
> texture, smell. These are the ones that help us pair flounder with
> broccoli rabe (or not!) at a meal. And yes, broccoli rabe tastes
> different with different foods too.
>
> >>> I am completely at a loss on why so many
> >>> American wine books suggest 'tasting' wine when most people will gain
> >>> absolutely nothing useful from it, and may lead them seriously to
> >>> misjudge the wine.
> >> I haven't read all those books. I don't think that people gain
> >> "absolutely nothing useful" from tasting wines. I am no pro, and I gain
> >> quite a bit by tasting wines; at the very least I get to decide which
> >> wines I want to cart home for three thousand miles. That's worth it.
> > They often misjudge the wine from such tastings.
>
> Perhaps, especially at first. But I think people learn as they do it.
>
> I would say that the problem isn't that "wine tasting" is inherently a
> bad thing for amateurs to do, but rather, that the wrong things are
> emphasized (to and by) amateurs when they do this, especially at first.

Yes.

> They learn, eventually, but much impedes them.
>
> 1: Wineries and wine shops are in the business of selling wine. They
> want to show their wine off at its best so people walk out with a case.
> To this end I'm mystified as to why they don't serve at least an
> appropriate finger food at tastings, although I suppose costs and the
> health department enter into the equation. They naturally don't want to
> serve food that =doesn't= go with their wine, even as a contrast, and
> even if it would educate the patron. I bet lots of people go to
> wineries, taste, and don't buy, so it gets expensive.

Perhaps.

> 2: When there is a mystique, people like to shroud themselves in this
> mystique. It can be fun (if not taken to excess, or in an inappropriate
> setting), but it can also be counterproductive (as you rant about, and I
> agree with, though not militantly).
>
> 3: There is money to be made with "wine classes". Where there is money
> to be made, you will find it difficult to impede it.

Classes on how to take classes about books for dummies?

> However, you might consider writing a book, or at least a web site,
> wherein you can take people through a professional wine tasting, and
> pick the parts that are of no benefit to the amateurs (and why).

Why should I bother?

> Then go into why an amateur might want to sample wine at a winery or
> wine store, and what he or she should take away from such a tasting. My
> opinion: to identify flavor elements (and thus pairing possibilities),
> to record one's impressions well enough that a year or three from now,
> in the cellar, reviewing those notes will bring back some of the
> experience (helpful when picking between several zins, or several
> different chiantis, or even between this pinot and that merlot)
>
> Were it I, I would concentrate on the three basics, nose, mouthfeel, and
> palate (or taste, smell, and texture). I'd reccomend that wine be
> sampled without food, with an appropriate food, and with an
> inappropriate food, so that one can learn how to "calibrate" one's
> sensations.
>
> I think there is a big market for such a work.
>
> btw, I haven't read it, but what do you think of "Wine for dummies" (or
> similar books)?

Unfamiliar with them. I may have glanced at one once, but it did not
leave much of an impression. I prefer books that focus on Italian wine.
I have a nice collection of Italian regional cookbooks.

>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>>You think maybe bottle size and price are better ways to pick wine? You
>>> think maybe ordinary folk are unable to learn how to do better?
> Not the point. I don't think she actually did any better.

Yes the point. She didn't do better =this= time. Sample size of one.
Not statistically meaningful.

And she recognized this. =Her= reasoning didn't work. This is not to
say that =reasoning= (coupled with a database composed of memories of
tastes she's had with and without foods) =could= not work better, which
seems to be your point.

>> 2: mouthfeel (wine jargon again, but useful since there isn't a good
>> alternate word)>
> 'Sensation(s)'.

No, that is not specific enough. "sensations" is a word generally used
to mean =any= of many sensory inputs, including the pain of a stubbed
toe, the dizziness of spinning in circles, the boom-boom in your gut
from a teenager driving by in a car with the radio going, and the bright
flash of lightning (let alone the sound thunder). We need a word
indicating that the specific sensation being described is akin to
texture, but for a liquid, as it is felt in the mouth. "Mouthfeel"
works for me, though I suppose "texture" would do. "Texture" would be a
little confusing, since we're talking about a liquid however, and
literally speaking the actual texture is all pretty much the same. So,
I'll go with "mouthfeel" as being most descriptive.

>>3: palate (or any of a few other words for "taste")
> Not terribly specific, is it?

No, not really, but the word means more than just the actual flavors.
What more, it's hard to say, but at least "palate" does not limit it to
"flavor" or "taste", and indicates that it involves the mouth (rather
than the nose or the dribbles down the chin). "Palate" is not otherwise
used as a "flavor" word, so its use does not conflict with generally
accepted use of the word. I'm ok with it, but I suppose "taste" or
"flavor" would be adequate if you want to strongly de-jargonize (ick)
the vocabulary here.

>> 3: There is money to be made with "wine classes". Where there is money
>> to be made, you will find it difficult to impede it.
> Classes on how to take classes about books for dummies?

Hey, go for it!

>> However, you might consider writing a book, or at least a web site,
>> wherein you can take people through a professional wine tasting, and
>> pick the parts that are of no benefit to the amateurs (and why).
> Why should I bother?

Because you have something valuable to offer and you are passionate
about it. I think you go overboard, at least here on these newsgroups,
but much of what you say has merit, and there are few people saying it.

If you could say it gently and carefully, I think you'd have a wide
audience, including Jenn.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mike, we had a similar discussion when the 2004 list came out:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W230221ED

I think it's encouraging that GR at least included some traditional
producers in some regions, but still there's probably 3 producers of
the Altare/Moccagatta/LaSpinetta ilk for every Mascarello or Giacosa.
As you know I'm no rigid doctrinaire-driven idealogue. I like some
modern Barolos, and even some non-Sangiovese Supertuscans. But the GR
love of oak, etc often seems to out-Parker Parker.

Ah yes, the grand old Italian tradition of nero d'avola doing malo in
new barriques!

Nils Gustaf Lindgren wrote:
> A snob is, then, "a person that adopts the world-view that other people are
> inherently inferior for any one of a variety of reasons including supposed
> intellect, wealth, education, ancestry, etc".

> Do we do that? Does anybody here consider other people "inherently inferior"
> because of their taste in wines? Harsh words, dangerous grounds ... Anybody
> tempted to share their thoughts?

If you go to a Cigar Bar you really should not be surpised that you
will have smoke on you when you leave if you smoked or did not smoke.
That said if you come to a usenet group for wine, you should expect
discussions about wine.

Other issues in this group might be the tone of which people discuss
and try to control the discussion.

Internet usenet groups seem mostly to be loosly structured and not
moderated. Perhaps those working on your FAQ's might really join a
moderated group. While the info might be very good it does seem more
like a few contributors want to control discussion. This is like those
that join boards of Homeowners Associations because they are not happy
with the way other mow their yards.

I do know I was not welcomed here and then was accused of being someone
else. Not a nice thing to do to me. And the other person accused of
being me did not seem to care for that either.

Now the same people doing the accusing are writing a structured
methodology. Simply crap.

Audrey.

Hi UC,

> talk to me if he wants to make a sale. I don't give a shit how many
> 'points' Parker or Anderson gives it. What matters is what I think of
> it.

I definitely second you on the anti- take for points lists, magazine
reviews, and such. Typically make a point of avoiding anything Wine
"Expectorator" touts as a top choice, because like most things in this
world, great rankings, points, and reviews are most often *bought*, not
earned.

Still... who is this Anderson you're talking about? From what you've
repeatedly said about him, he sounds like quite the trite *******...
and so thought I'd inquire.

Cheers,

David

> I do know I was not welcomed here and then was accused of being someone
> else. Not a nice thing to do to me. And the other person accused of
> being me did not seem to care for that either.
>
> Now the same people doing the accusing are writing a structured
> methodology. Simply crap.

Audrey... is that you?

I have to admit, it's nice to see AFW working together for a change,
instead of the rantings, accusations, and fanatical utterings that have
tended to dominate the list as of late.

cheers,

David

Jose wrote:
> >>You think maybe bottle size and price are better ways to pick wine? You
> >>> think maybe ordinary folk are unable to learn how to do better?
> > Not the point. I don't think she actually did any better.
>
> Yes the point. She didn't do better =this= time. Sample size of one.
> Not statistically meaningful.
>
> And she recognized this. =Her= reasoning didn't work. This is not to
> say that =reasoning= (coupled with a database composed of memories of
> tastes she's had with and without foods) =could= not work better, which
> seems to be your point.

It's not a matter of 'reasoning' but knowledge.

> >> 2: mouthfeel (wine jargon again, but useful since there isn't a good
> >> alternate word)>
> > 'Sensation(s)'.
>
> No, that is not specific enough. "sensations" is a word generally used
> to mean =any= of many sensory inputs, including the pain of a stubbed
> toe, the dizziness of spinning in circles, the boom-boom in your gut
> from a teenager driving by in a car with the radio going, and the bright
> flash of lightning (let alone the sound thunder). We need a word
> indicating that the specific sensation being described is akin to
> texture, but for a liquid, as it is felt in the mouth. "Mouthfeel"
> works for me, though I suppose "texture" would do. "Texture" would be a
> little confusing, since we're talking about a liquid however, and
> literally speaking the actual texture is all pretty much the same. So,
> I'll go with "mouthfeel" as being most descriptive.
>
> >>3: palate (or any of a few other words for "taste")
> > Not terribly specific, is it?
>
> No, not really, but the word means more than just the actual flavors.

How?

> What more, it's hard to say, but at least "palate" does not limit it to
> "flavor" or "taste", and indicates that it involves the mouth (rather
> than the nose or the dribbles down the chin). "Palate" is not otherwise
> used as a "flavor" word, so its use does not conflict with generally
> accepted use of the word. I'm ok with it, but I suppose "taste" or
> "flavor" would be adequate if you want to strongly de-jargonize (ick)
> the vocabulary here.

This page discusses Mundgefühl (mouthfeel) and Körper (body)

http://www.cafe-libertad.de/shop/ass...faq/index.html

"Körper, "Mundgefühl"

Körper ist die Empfindung von Schwere im Mund, Mouthfeel ist die
Empfindung der Konsistenz: buttrig, ölig, grobkörnig, dünn,
wässrig, mager, beißend. Körper ist mehr eine Empfindung als eine
messbare Tatsache, obwohl Körper tatsächlich mit der Menge der
gelösten Feststoffe die der Kaffee in das Getränk abgibt in Beziehung
steht.

My translation: " 'Body' is the sensation of weight in the mouth;
mouthfeel is the sensation of consistency: buttery. oily,
coarse-grained, thin, lean, biting. 'Body' is more a sensation than
something quantifiable...."

So, I would say 'consistency' is a better term than 'mouthfeel', as it
is a term that people understand quite universally.

> >> 3: There is money to be made with "wine classes". Where there is money
> >> to be made, you will find it difficult to impede it.
> > Classes on how to take classes about books for dummies?
>
> Hey, go for it!
>
> >> However, you might consider writing a book, or at least a web site,
> >> wherein you can take people through a professional wine tasting, and
> >> pick the parts that are of no benefit to the amateurs (and why).
> > Why should I bother?
>
> Because you have something valuable to offer and you are passionate
> about it. I think you go overboard, at least here on these newsgroups,
> but much of what you say has merit, and there are few people saying it.
>
> If you could say it gently and carefully, I think you'd have a wide
> audience, including Jenn.
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dave wrote:
> Hi UC,
>
> > talk to me if he wants to make a sale. I don't give a shit how many
> > 'points' Parker or Anderson gives it. What matters is what I think of
> > it.
>
> I definitely second you on the anti- take for points lists, magazine
> reviews, and such. Typically make a point of avoiding anything Wine
> "Expectorator" touts as a top choice, because like most things in this
> world, great rankings, points, and reviews are most often *bought*, not
> earned.
>
> Still... who is this Anderson you're talking about? From what you've
> repeatedly said about him, he sounds like quite the trite *******...
> and so thought I'd inquire.

Burton Anderson.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David

UC wrote:
> Jose wrote:
> > >>You think maybe bottle size and price are better ways to pick wine? You
> > >>> think maybe ordinary folk are unable to learn how to do better?
> > > Not the point. I don't think she actually did any better.
> >
> > Yes the point. She didn't do better =this= time. Sample size of one.
> > Not statistically meaningful.
> >
> > And she recognized this. =Her= reasoning didn't work. This is not to
> > say that =reasoning= (coupled with a database composed of memories of
> > tastes she's had with and without foods) =could= not work better, which
> > seems to be your point.
>
> It's not a matter of 'reasoning' but knowledge.
>
> > >> 2: mouthfeel (wine jargon again, but useful since there isn't a good
> > >> alternate word)>
> > > 'Sensation(s)'.
> >
> > No, that is not specific enough. "sensations" is a word generally used
> > to mean =any= of many sensory inputs, including the pain of a stubbed
> > toe, the dizziness of spinning in circles, the boom-boom in your gut
> > from a teenager driving by in a car with the radio going, and the bright
> > flash of lightning (let alone the sound thunder). We need a word
> > indicating that the specific sensation being described is akin to
> > texture, but for a liquid, as it is felt in the mouth. "Mouthfeel"
> > works for me, though I suppose "texture" would do. "Texture" would be a
> > little confusing, since we're talking about a liquid however, and
> > literally speaking the actual texture is all pretty much the same. So,
> > I'll go with "mouthfeel" as being most descriptive.
> >
> > >>3: palate (or any of a few other words for "taste")
> > > Not terribly specific, is it?
> >
> > No, not really, but the word means more than just the actual flavors.
>
> How?
>
> > What more, it's hard to say, but at least "palate" does not limit it to
> > "flavor" or "taste", and indicates that it involves the mouth (rather
> > than the nose or the dribbles down the chin). "Palate" is not otherwise
> > used as a "flavor" word, so its use does not conflict with generally
> > accepted use of the word. I'm ok with it, but I suppose "taste" or
> > "flavor" would be adequate if you want to strongly de-jargonize (ick)
> > the vocabulary here.
>
> This page discusses Mundgefühl (mouthfeel) and Körper (body)
>
> http://www.cafe-libertad.de/shop/ass...faq/index.html
>
> "Körper, "Mundgefühl"
>
> Körper ist die Empfindung von Schwere im Mund, Mouthfeel ist die
> Empfindung der Konsistenz: buttrig, ölig, grobkörnig, dünn,
> wässrig, mager, beißend. Körper ist mehr eine Empfindung als eine
> messbare Tatsache, obwohl Körper tatsächlich mit der Menge der
> gelösten Feststoffe die der Kaffee in das Getränk abgibt in Beziehung
> steht.
>
> My translation: " 'Body' is the sensation of weight in the mouth;
> mouthfeel is the sensation of consistency: buttery. oily,
> coarse-grained, thin, lean, biting. 'Body' is more a sensation than
> something quantifiable...."
>
> So, I would say 'consistency' is a better term than 'mouthfeel', as it
> is a term that people understand quite universally.

I did not notice that this was a page about coffee, but the terminology
is used in the same way. Therefore I stand by my suggestion that
'consistency' be used instead of 'mouthfeel'.

> It's not a matter of 'reasoning' but knowledge.

.... which is what I meant by "(coupled with a database composed of
memories of tastes she's had with and without foods)". Not exact, but
close enough after a glass or two.
>>No, not really, but the word means more than just the actual flavors.
> How?

I don't know, really, but the word "flavors" is a bit limiting. Maybe
the are the same. It's what I meant by

>> What more, it's hard to say, but at least "palate" does not limit it to
>> "flavor" or "taste", and indicates that it involves the mouth (rather
>> than the nose or the dribbles down the chin).

For this I prefer "palate" but would go for "flavors" or "taste" if we
are being ruthless in de-jargonizing.

> So, I would say 'consistency' is a better term than 'mouthfeel', as it
> is a term that people understand quite universally.

Problem with that one is that the word "consistency" is also used to
mean "similarity over time", and "mouthfeel" doesn't have this against
it. The word is not all that hard for someone who hasn't heard it to
figure out either. It "seems like" it should mean pretty much what it
does mean.

> I did not notice that this was a page about coffee, but the terminology
> is used in the same way. Therefore I stand by my suggestion that
> 'consistency' be used instead of 'mouthfeel'.

Ok, one point for you, one point for me. I don't do coffee.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > It's not a matter of 'reasoning' but knowledge.
>
> ... which is what I meant by "(coupled with a database composed of
> memories of tastes she's had with and without foods)". Not exact, but
> close enough after a glass or two.
> >>No, not really, but the word means more than just the actual flavors.
> > How?
>
> I don't know, really, but the word "flavors" is a bit limiting. Maybe
> the are the same. It's what I meant by
>
> >> What more, it's hard to say, but at least "palate" does not limit it to
> >> "flavor" or "taste", and indicates that it involves the mouth (rather
> >> than the nose or the dribbles down the chin).
>
> For this I prefer "palate" but would go for "flavors" or "taste" if we
> are being ruthless in de-jargonizing.
>
> > So, I would say 'consistency' is a better term than 'mouthfeel', as it
> > is a term that people understand quite universally.
>
> Problem with that one is that the word "consistency" is also used to
> mean "similarity over time", and "mouthfeel" doesn't have this against
> it. The word is not all that hard for someone who hasn't heard it to
> figure out either. It "seems like" it should mean pretty much what it
> does mean.

But it is obviously a German word translated literally into English. I
knew that the first time I saw it.

"Mouthfeel: Literally the impression the wine makes on the palate,
whether light or heavy, silky or astringent."

http://www.goosecross.com/education/glossary.html

This is clearly better described by 'consistency'.

>
> > I did not notice that this was a page about coffee, but the terminology
> > is used in the same way. Therefore I stand by my suggestion that
> > 'consistency' be used instead of 'mouthfeel'.
>
> Ok, one point for you, one point for me. I don't do coffee.
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> But it is obviously a German word translated literally into English. I
> knew that the first time I saw it.
>
> "Mouthfeel: Literally the impression the wine makes on the palate,
> whether light or heavy, silky or astringent."
>
> http://www.goosecross.com/education/glossary.html
>
> This is clearly better described by 'consistency'.

Many English words are stolen. But in any case, if you like
"consistency", fine. I can deal with it.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > But it is obviously a German word translated literally into English. I
> > knew that the first time I saw it.
> >
> > "Mouthfeel: Literally the impression the wine makes on the palate,
> > whether light or heavy, silky or astringent."
> >
> > http://www.goosecross.com/education/glossary.html
> >
> > This is clearly better described by 'consistency'.
>
> Many English words are stolen. But in any case, if you like
> "consistency", fine. I can deal with it.
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I looked in a couple of intoductory books yesterday:

Wine for Dummies

http://www.amazon.com/Wine-Dummies-P...e=UTF8&s=books

Everything Wine Book

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Win...e=UTF8&s=books

Both specifically mention that Italian wines are made to accompany
food. Anyone who looks in any introductory book will come across this.
So, why the mystery? Why don't people know this? This means that the
approach in 'tastings' of Italian wines must be somewhat different. You
cannot compare a Pomerol to a Taurasi Riserva unless the latter is
consumed with food. It's not fair to the wines..

UC wrote:

> Both specifically mention that Italian wines are made to accompany
> food.

Italy makes more wine than anyone else in the world. Almost all of it
cheap jug wine that yes, is made to drink with a meal. It's horrible on
it's own and can only be slightly tolerated with food. Hardly
compatible to a fine wine from elsewhere or even from Italy.

miles wrote:
> UC wrote:
>
> > Both specifically mention that Italian wines are made to accompany
> > food.
>
> Italy makes more wine than anyone else in the world. Almost all of it
> cheap jug wine that yes, is made to drink with a meal. It's horrible on
> it's own and can only be slightly tolerated with food. Hardly
> compatible to a fine wine from elsewhere or even from Italy.

The books were discussing fine bottled wines

Mike Tommasi wrote:
> miles wrote:
> > UC wrote:
> >
> >> Both specifically mention that Italian wines are made to accompany
> >> food.
> >
> >
> > Italy makes more wine than anyone else in the world. Almost all of it
> > cheap jug wine that yes, is made to drink with a meal. It's horrible on
> > it's own and can only be slightly tolerated with food. Hardly
> > compatible to a fine wine from elsewhere or even from Italy.
>
>
> Most wine in every producing country is bulk wine that would not
> interest anyone here. Italy, France, Australia, name it.

Is the wine of Spain more like that of F_____ or Italy? I have had
only one bottle of Spanish wine, called Muga, I think (not counting
that Garnache i spoke about last month), so I have not had enough to
get any idea.


>
> --
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

On 2 Oct 2006 11:55:37 -0700, "UC" > wrote:

>Is the wine of Spain more like that of F_____ or Italy? I have had
>only one bottle of Spanish wine, called Muga, I think (not counting
>that Garnache i spoke about last month), so I have not had enough to
>get any idea.
>

Are we expressing some sort of political message with the
"fill-the-blank" section? If so, it demonstrates a remarkable
extension of political naivete into an unrelated area of discussion.
It is also a bit pointless. If I know what you are referencing, you've
accomplished nothing by the cuteness. If I don't know what you mean,
you've then wasted time by failing to communicate.

I'll assume here that you mean FRANCE. France is somewhat west of
G____ and east of S_____. It also share a bit of border with S______to
the southeast as well. There are other borders with B______ as well as
L_______, but only a tunnel linking them to E________. They are
northwest of the northernmost reaches of I______ as well.

Did you have the Muga with food? Was it appropriate regional cuisine?
Hopefully it would not be Basque, Andalusian or Extramaduran. Better
if the cuisine was Castillian or Aragonese.

The simple answer after fiddling with you a bit is that the wines of
Spain are as varied as the wines of France, Italy, the US or Oz. They
make excellent reds from a wide range of varietals. They produce some
reasonably nice dry whites and some worthwhile sparkling wines which
are quite reasonable. They also have an incredible range of fortified
wines from Jerez which showcase how much variance can come from how a
wine is stored, mixed and aged. Their brandies offer the age and
complexities of the finest cognac as well.

And, they produce tank cars full of plonk, equivalent to the worst
varnish-remover found in the most rural regions of Italy or France.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

UC wrote:

> The books were discussing fine bottled wines

Doesn't matter. I prefer individuality over doing things just because
thats they way 'they' say. I drink the wines I like, when I like them.
Don't care what works for someone else unless I'm serving them food
and wine. Then I try to serve what they like.

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> Most wine in every producing country is bulk wine that would not
> interest anyone here. Italy, France, Australia, name it.

Thats true but Italy is by far the worlds largest producer of jug wine.
Nobody else comes close. When people here state how Italians have
wine with every meal they are generally talking about the cheap jug wine.

> Burton Anderson.

Thanks.

Overall, I make a point of ignoring most of what the 'wine experts'
say. My take is, those who can, do. Those who can't, critique.

My senses are my own. My palate, unique. What tastes like a 94 probably
tastes fine, but still, may not be my personal preference. Who needs
scoring, anyway? I think more often than not, scoring is for the
impatient aficionado (a contradiction in terms given the love, care,
and patience required to craft an excellent wine). I tend to think
those who pay most attention to points also happen to be uninformed, as
they haven't tasted many or any of the wines, don't know what to
expect, and would rather fall back to using a simple score to serve as
a basis for their purchasing decision. Worse still, however, is the
fact that scoring is most-targeted at wine snobs. I know of a few
people who refuse to drink anything under a 94. If it's not a 94, it's
not worth my time, they say! It all seems like one more step towards
keeping the enjoyment of wine an exclusive activity.

To the average consumer, scoring can be misread. If you happen to like
a particular wine, but learn it's scored at a 78, what does that say
for your palate? Does it make you distrust the reviewer? Or does it
mean your sense of appreciation is unrefined and, perhaps, even vulgar?
In any case, does the fact you like a lesser-scored wine make you any
less a lover of wines?

In any case, I have a positive comment about AFW to share (don't
faint). I'm glad to see so many good and honest wine reviews on AFW as
of late. Most read quite well, give some good analysis of the wines,
and I have found these more helpful than anything I've seen in the
'professional' rags. So keep it up, everyone! And thanks for sharing
your reviews.

Finally... I'd like to hear your own comments as to what you all think
about wine critics who tout reviews that seem more like a gushing of
ego than honest analysis.

Cheers,

David

Dave wrote:
> If you happen to like
> a particular wine, but learn it's scored at a 78, what does that say
> for your palate?

Of the varietals I enjoy, I find I have about a 10% chance of enjoying a
wine thats rated 78. I have about a 50% chance of enjoying a wine thats
rated 90+. So if I am looking for something new to try should I go for
the 78 rated one or the 90+ one all other things being equal (price etc.).

Now if someone else buys them, I will try them both! Wines always taste
better when someone else pays for them. That rule should be in some of
the wine books!

That said, I have found several inexpensive wines poorly rated that I
find very enjoyable especially for their price.