Many months ago a friend gave me a bottle of this Oregon PN, with the
comment that this wine "proved that Pinots are almost always
pver-priced". This wine was, in his opinion, an excellent Oregon PN,
but sold for about $16.

The wine was securely nestled into the cellar and then opened last
night to accompany an informal meal of a stir-fried pork with fruit and
vegetables.

The wine was allowed to decant for about 45 minutes. First impression
was of a slightly earthy PN nose - encouraging. But on the palate the
wine absolutely fell apart. Thin and acidic, and lacking any fruit
character whatsoever. The wine reminded of a wine we made a few years
ago when the grapes were harvested too early. The wine wasn't tainted
in any way - but came across simply as poor quality fruit. We let the
wine stand for another hour and tried again. Same result. We chose to
open one of our own estate Syrah's for the dinner, and eventually
poured the offending PN down the drain. It's been at least a couple
years since I dumped a wine because it was crappy wine - but neither
Mrs. Axis or I had any second thoughts - the wine was simply
unappealing.

Your mielage may vary - but this wine shall never interfere with a
dinner in our house again.

AxisOfBeagles wrote:
It's been at least a couple years since I
dumped a wine because it was crappy wine - but neither Mrs. Axis or I
had any second thoughts - the wine was simply unappealing.

Surely that should be Mrs. Beagles? :P In this case, "you get what you
pay for" (YGWYPF?) might apply.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

In either case, it is still SWMBO - "She Who Must Be Obeyed"



On 2007-12-12 09:49:08 -0800, Mark Lipton said:

Surely that should be Mrs. Beagles? :P

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:49:08 -0500
Mark Lipton wrote:

AxisOfBeagles wrote:
It's been at least a couple years since I
dumped a wine because it was crappy wine - but neither Mrs. Axis or I
had any second thoughts - the wine was simply unappealing.

Surely that should be Mrs. Beagles? :P In this case, "you get what you
pay for" (YGWYPF?) might apply.


cmon, 16 bucks ought to buy something decent and drinkable. Otherwise, it's just
crazy.

Anyway, I assumed it was Mrs. Beagle, singular. That way several of 'em could
form up and do an axis, uh, thing.

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to ecom
by removing the well known companies
Questions about wine? Visit http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Dec 12, 12:25�pm, AxisOfBeagles wrote:
Many months ago a friend gave me a bottle of this Oregon PN, with the
comment that this wine "proved that Pinots are almost always
pver-priced". This wine was, in his opinion, an excellent Oregon PN,
but sold for about $16.

The wine was securely nestled into the cellar and then opened last
night to accompany an informal meal of a stir-fried pork with fruit and
vegetables.

The wine was allowed to decant for about 45 minutes. First impression
was of a slightly earthy PN nose - encouraging. But on the palate the
wine absolutely fell apart. Thin and acidic, and lacking any fruit
character whatsoever. The wine reminded of a wine we made a few years
ago when the grapes were harvested too early. The wine wasn't tainted
in any way - but came across simply as poor quality fruit. We let the
wine stand for another hour and tried again. Same result. We chose to
open one of our own estate Syrah's for the dinner, and eventually
poured the offending PN down the drain. It's been at least a couple
years since I dumped a wine because it was crappy wine - but neither
Mrs. Axis or I had any second thoughts - the wine was simply
unappealing.

Your mielage may vary - but this wine shall never interfere with a
dinner in our house again.

I had this wine a few months back and had a similar opinion. It
seemed that the fruit was picked before it was ripe leaving an empty
acidic shell with little dicernable fruit. $16 USD is acutally about
$4 cheaper than the listed price of $19.99.

In article 2007121209251875249-me@donotreplycom,
AxisOfBeagles wrote:

Many months ago a friend gave me a bottle of this Oregon PN, with the
comment that this wine "proved that Pinots are almost always
pver-priced". This wine was, in his opinion, an excellent Oregon PN,
but sold for about $16.

The wine was securely nestled into the cellar and then opened last
night to accompany an informal meal of a stir-fried pork with fruit and
vegetables.

The wine was allowed to decant for about 45 minutes. First impression
was of a slightly earthy PN nose - encouraging. But on the palate the
wine absolutely fell apart. Thin and acidic, and lacking any fruit
character whatsoever. The wine reminded of a wine we made a few years
ago when the grapes were harvested too early. The wine wasn't tainted
in any way - but came across simply as poor quality fruit. We let the
wine stand for another hour and tried again. Same result. We chose to
open one of our own estate Syrah's for the dinner, and eventually
poured the offending PN down the drain. It's been at least a couple
years since I dumped a wine because it was crappy wine - but neither
Mrs. Axis or I had any second thoughts - the wine was simply
unappealing.

Your mielage may vary - but this wine shall never interfere with a
dinner in our house again.

Should have been used for vinegar. Always better than the drain.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:57:11 GMT, AxisOfBeagles
wrote:

In either case, it is still SWMBO - "She Who Must Be Obeyed"


Gosh, we may be husbands-in-law....

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

In article ,
Mark Lipton wrote:

AxisOfBeagles wrote:
It's been at least a couple years since I
dumped a wine because it was crappy wine - but neither Mrs. Axis or I
had any second thoughts - the wine was simply unappealing.

Surely that should be Mrs. Beagles? :P In this case, "you get what you
pay for" (YGWYPF?) might apply.

Mark Lipton

Unfortunately, Oregon Pinot Noirs are expensive. I have had this one as
a wine by the glass and sent it back as undrinkable.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:25:18 GMT, AxisOfBeagles
wrote:

Many months ago a friend gave me a bottle of this Oregon PN, with the
comment that this wine "proved that Pinots are almost always
pver-priced". This wine was, in his opinion, an excellent Oregon PN,
but sold for about $16.

The wine was securely nestled into the cellar and then opened last
night to accompany an informal meal of a stir-fried pork with fruit and
vegetables.

The wine was allowed to decant for about 45 minutes. First impression
was of a slightly earthy PN nose - encouraging. But on the palate the
wine absolutely fell apart. Thin and acidic, and lacking any fruit
character whatsoever. The wine reminded of a wine we made a few years
ago when the grapes were harvested too early. The wine wasn't tainted
in any way - but came across simply as poor quality fruit. We let the
wine stand for another hour and tried again. Same result. We chose to
open one of our own estate Syrah's for the dinner, and eventually
poured the offending PN down the drain.


If the wine wasn't "tainted in any way," why didn't you save it for
cooking? You don't need great wine for cooking, and a wine without
flaws, even if you didn't like it, should be good enough for cooking.

--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Dec 12, 11:25 am, AxisOfBeagles wrote:
Many months ago a friend gave me a bottle of this Oregon PN, with the
comment that this wine "proved that Pinots are almost always
pver-priced". This wine was, in his opinion, an excellent Oregon PN,
but sold for about $16.

The wine was securely nestled into the cellar and then opened last
night to accompany an informal meal of a stir-fried pork with fruit and
vegetables.

The wine was allowed to decant for about 45 minutes. First impression
was of a slightly earthy PN nose - encouraging. But on the palate the
wine absolutely fell apart. Thin and acidic, and lacking any fruit
character whatsoever. The wine reminded of a wine we made a few years
ago when the grapes were harvested too early. The wine wasn't tainted
in any way - but came across simply as poor quality fruit. We let the
wine stand for another hour and tried again. Same result. We chose to
open one of our own estate Syrah's for the dinner, and eventually
poured the offending PN down the drain. It's been at least a couple
years since I dumped a wine because it was crappy wine - but neither
Mrs. Axis or I had any second thoughts - the wine was simply
unappealing.

Your mielage may vary - but this wine shall never interfere with a
dinner in our house again.

I have little experience with Oregon Pinot Noir. It sounds as if the
main problem is under-ripe grapes. I have found that some unripe
Burgundy from years such as 1972 can be very acid and soon seem to
lose all fruit. For me, it can be undrinkable for at least the first
10 years. However in some cases, when from a top vineyard, the wine
seems to just do nothing for many years after that. Then at perhaps 15
- 25 years it begins to develop bottle fruit bouquet and the apparent
acid is reduced. In some cases the bouquet is not attractive,
reminding one of something from an old fashioned paint shop that sold
oil based paint. In other cases the bouquet is attractive. I once
tasted an off vintage Romanee-Conti, perhaps from 1963, but I am not
for sure. I was told it was very acid and undrinkable when young. Yet
it had developed considerable attractive bouquet. It was only a shadow
of Romanee-Conti from a decent year, but it could be drunk with
pleasure, especially with food. If I had more than one bottle of the
wine you mention, I think I would just leave it alone for at least 15
years to see what happens. It likely will just become more
undrinkable, but if you already owned the wine, you would have nothing
to lose but perhaps some vinegar.

Fair quesion. And the honest answer is; as a winemaker, I have way more
than enough mediocre stuff on hand to keep us in cooking wine for a few
lifetimes!



On 2007-12-12 14:00:51 -0800, Ken Blake
said:



If the wine wasn't "tainted in any way," why didn't you save it for
cooking? You don't need great wine for cooking, and a wine without
flaws, even if you didn't like it, should be good enough for cooking.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:47:34 -0800, AxisOfBeagles
wrote:

Fair quesion. And the honest answer is; as a winemaker, I have way more
than enough mediocre stuff on hand to keep us in cooking wine for a few
lifetimes!



That sounds like a good answer to me. Thanks.



On 2007-12-12 14:00:51 -0800, Ken Blake
said:



If the wine wasn't "tainted in any way," why didn't you save it for
cooking? You don't need great wine for cooking, and a wine without
flaws, even if you didn't like it, should be good enough for cooking.


--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"AxisOfBeagles" wrote in message news:2007121209251875249-me@donotreplycom...
Many months ago a friend gave me a bottle of this Oregon PN, with the comment that this wine "proved that
Pinots are almost always pver-priced". This wine was, in his opinion, an excellent Oregon PN, but sold for
about $16.

The wine was securely nestled into the cellar and then opened last night to accompany an informal meal of a
stir-fried pork with fruit and vegetables.

The wine was allowed to decant for about 45 minutes. First impression was of a slightly earthy PN nose -
encouraging. But on the palate the wine absolutely fell apart. Thin and acidic, and lacking any fruit
character whatsoever. The wine reminded of a wine we made a few years ago when the grapes were harvested
too early. The wine wasn't tainted in any way - but came across simply as poor quality fruit. We let the
wine stand for another hour and tried again. Same result. We chose to open one of our own estate Syrah's
for the dinner, and eventually poured the offending PN down the drain. It's been at least a couple years
since I dumped a wine because it was crappy wine - but neither Mrs. Axis or I had any second thoughts - the
wine was simply unappealing.

Your mielage may vary - but this wine shall never interfere with a dinner in our house again.

Ditto for the 2006...

--
Lew/+Silat