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

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

Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
usually thin, and lacking in fruit.

Overrated by whom? The wines (especially lower-end stuff) sell in a
pretty free market.

Maybe they are "thin and lacking in fruit" compared with new world
wines. Look beyond that to see other qualities. Some of us like them
that way - they tend to go better with food.

At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
bought in Bordeaux.

As it happens, I am not a great fan of low-end Bordeaux myself, but
that my personal opinion. And the better Bordeaux needs aging.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

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

Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
usually thin, and lacking in fruit.

Overrated by whom? The wines (especially lower-end stuff) sell in a
pretty free market.

Maybe they are "thin and lacking in fruit" compared with new world
wines. Look beyond that to see other qualities. Some of us like them
that way - they tend to go better with food.

At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
bought in Bordeaux.

As it happens, I am not a great fan of low-end Bordeaux myself, but
that my personal opinion. And the better Bordeaux needs aging.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

"Indirecto" wrote in message (posted from his Chilean Server!!!)

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.

So, you judge the entire French wine industry on a handful of Bordeaux
wines - whilst ignoring Burgundy, the Rhone, Alsace; the Loire; Champagne;
Bandol; Cahors; etc etc etc.

So, what did you buy - some very cheap, nasty, basic stuff which abounds
under 000's of labels - or something vaguely recognisable?

Perhaps you have an interest in your local wine industry, and think that we
should ignore the very French influence apparent in so many Chilean wines!

I too have experienced some pretty crappy stuff, from Bordeaux (and Chile,
Australia, yes, even New Zealand!!!) - but, hey - I purchased it - it is my
fault if I don't do the homework first.

I blame myself - not the entire winemaking industry!

--

st.helier

"Indirecto" wrote in message (posted from his Chilean Server!!!)

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.

So, you judge the entire French wine industry on a handful of Bordeaux
wines - whilst ignoring Burgundy, the Rhone, Alsace; the Loire; Champagne;
Bandol; Cahors; etc etc etc.

So, what did you buy - some very cheap, nasty, basic stuff which abounds
under 000's of labels - or something vaguely recognisable?

Perhaps you have an interest in your local wine industry, and think that we
should ignore the very French influence apparent in so many Chilean wines!

I too have experienced some pretty crappy stuff, from Bordeaux (and Chile,
Australia, yes, even New Zealand!!!) - but, hey - I purchased it - it is my
fault if I don't do the homework first.

I blame myself - not the entire winemaking industry!

--

st.helier

"Indirecto" wrote in message
...
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


Don't feed the trolls.

Ron Lel

"Indirecto" wrote in message
...
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


Don't feed the trolls.

Ron Lel

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

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

"Indirecto" wrote in message ...
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

Low-end Italian wines are far better.

"Indirecto" wrote in message ...
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

Low-end Italian wines are far better.

Uranium Committee wrote:
"Indirecto" wrote in message ...

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


Low-end Italian wines are far better.

I'm sticking with two-buck chuck.

Uranium Committee wrote:
"Indirecto" wrote in message ...

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


Low-end Italian wines are far better.

I'm sticking with two-buck chuck.

"Indirecto" wrote in message ...
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

If that is your complaint look to the south. If you wants something
affordable and gutsy, try a Gigondas, a Coteaux du Langeduoc, or
*maybe* a Madrian. There are plenty of inexpensive fruit forward Cote
du Rhones or Cotes de Provence out there as well.

France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.
That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
gravitate towards the French wines.

Also, If you were fan of whites I would point you towards Alsace...no
shoratge of fruit or body there.

ML

th_duck wrote:
"Indirecto" wrote in message ...

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


If that is your complaint look to the south. If you wants something
affordable and gutsy, try a Gigondas, a Coteaux du Langeduoc, or
*maybe* a Madrian. There are plenty of inexpensive fruit forward Cote
du Rhones or Cotes de Provence out there as well.

France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.
That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
gravitate towards the French wines.

Also, If you were fan of whites I would point you towards Alsace...no
shoratge of fruit or body there.

ML
First of all, the city of Bordeaux is not necessarily the place to buy
Bordeaux. Every wine dealer has a few favorites and even the larger
merchants are choosy with respect to breadth of their stock.

Secondly to an American used to Napa products, low end bx wines are
commonly thin and acid. and more serious products with little bottle age
tend to still be considered too tannic (puckery) and acid and
non-fruity. What gives Bx wines their distinction is their complexity
and their aging quality.

California reds imho mostly go down hill after bottling and even some
good ones don't last six or seven years without deteriorating.

No question that Bx wines are made to a different standard than most
Cal. wines. But what an opportunity to develop another palate! All
Bordeaux wines are blends of up to four grape varieties, the proportions
of each vary from one appellation to another. This is one factor in the
wines complexity. I would strongly recommend that you read a book on
the wines of Bordeaux so that you can get an idea of what your are buying.

Finally high end Cal wines (greater than $80) are not competitive with
French wines on a price / quality basis. The ordinary Frenchman will
commonly drink wines on an every day basis that would cost the
equivalent of 5-10 dollars US. Some are OK but most of such are not
even exported to the US. Giving you some slack, I don't think that the
frogs have ever made a wine of the same price/quality (such as it was)
as the old Gallo Hearty Burgundy.