On Mar 20, 5:52 pm, filippo > wrote:
> 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.



Maybe you should try to get some of this wine; maybe I was wrong about
it. I need a second opinion.