UC wrote:
> filippo

>> Relative notions of "good", "bad", and "ugly", I suppose.
>> A wine which is:
>>
>> a- neutral tasting
>> b- like water
>> c- deeply coloured
>> d- "not 'watery' " in texture (i.e. tannins like a tarmac, I guess)
>>
>> we may dispute about whether it is "not good" or "bad", as long and
>> fiercely as we want, but:
>> I think I will hardly find myself fighting in order to get the last
>> glass of it.
>
> What I mean was the bottle was not spoilt, but it wasn't 'good'.

I understand, but I believe that by now (at least since the advent of
widespread oenological wisdom and common sense) we can rule out the
cases of blatantly faulty wine, and speak of the above mentioned kind of
wines in terms of "bad" wine.
The faulty ones may well deserve the appellative of "ugly", I think.