On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:37:37 -0300, "Indirecto" said:

] Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
] usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
]
] At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
] bought in Bordeaux.
]
] -Indirecto
]
]

That was pretty "directo," actually. This post, as opposed to some others
where you apparently had some knowledge, labels you at best ignorant
and at worse a prat. Sorry, but that's what it looks like from here.

There are many international style fruit bombs I find overbearing, lacking
interest, and downright impossible with food. But just because I don't care
for them doesn't mean I'll pronounce them "over-rated." Plenty of people
-- on this forum and elsewhere -- like them just fine.

No one knowledgeable will deny that there is an ocean of cheap and
nasty Bordeaux on the market. To judge modest Bordeaux by that
standard is like judging all California from Gallo's latest central valley cuvee.
(Note that I assume your tarring all of France with the same brush is
again a question of ignorance of french wines in general.)

There are inexpensive Bordeaux out there that are excellent, to my tastes.
That's not to say they will please someone looking for a fruit bomb. In
any case, here as elsewhere, it is a question of separating the wheat from
the chaff.

BTW, if your post was simply a question of a gaff by a non-native english
speaker, please accept my unreserved apology for the strength of the
response.

HTH,

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to
by removing the well known companies