miles wrote:
> Mike Tommasi wrote:
>
> > Most wine in every producing country is bulk wine that would not
> > interest anyone here. Italy, France, Australia, name it.
>
> Thats true but Italy is by far the worlds largest producer of jug wine.
> Nobody else comes close. When people here state how Italians have
> wine with every meal they are generally talking about the cheap jug wine.

Home-made, for the most part.

Dave wrote:
> > Burton Anderson.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Overall, I make a point of ignoring most of what the 'wine experts'
> say. My take is, those who can, do. Those who can't, critique.
>
> My senses are my own. My palate, unique. What tastes like a 94 probably
> tastes fine, but still, may not be my personal preference. Who needs
> scoring, anyway?

'Scoring' seems to be an American obsession.

> I think more often than not, scoring is for the
> impatient aficionado (a contradiction in terms given the love, care,
> and patience required to craft an excellent wine). I tend to think
> those who pay most attention to points also happen to be uninformed, as
> they haven't tasted many or any of the wines, don't know what to
> expect, and would rather fall back to using a simple score to serve as
> a basis for their purchasing decision.

Yes. It reduces a complex judgement to a numerical one that is
meaningless.

>Worse still, however, is the
> fact that scoring is most-targeted at wine snobs.

Yes.

>I know of a few
> people who refuse to drink anything under a 94. If it's not a 94, it's
> not worth my time, they say! It all seems like one more step towards
> keeping the enjoyment of wine an exclusive activity.
>
> To the average consumer, scoring can be misread. If you happen to like
> a particular wine, but learn it's scored at a 78, what does that say
> for your palate? Does it make you distrust the reviewer? Or does it
> mean your sense of appreciation is unrefined and, perhaps, even vulgar?
> In any case, does the fact you like a lesser-scored wine make you any
> less a lover of wines?
>
> In any case, I have a positive comment about AFW to share (don't
> faint). I'm glad to see so many good and honest wine reviews on AFW as
> of late. Most read quite well, give some good analysis of the wines,
> and I have found these more helpful than anything I've seen in the
> 'professional' rags. So keep it up, everyone! And thanks for sharing
> your reviews.
>
> Finally... I'd like to hear your own comments as to what you all think
> about wine critics who tout reviews that seem more like a gushing of
> ego than honest analysis.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David

> Both [books] specifically mention that Italian wines are made to accompany
> food. Anyone who looks in any introductory book will come across this.
> So, why the mystery? Why don't people know this?

They don't know this because they don't know this. People don't know
everything. Even =I= don't know everything. There are some elementary
things that I don't know.

People should not be insulted for not knowing something.

> You cannot compare a Pomerol to a
> Taurasi Riserva unless the latter is
> consumed with food. It's not fair to the wines..

Perhaps. However I posit that somebody who has tasted both wines
sufficiently, both with and without food, and has paid attention to the
taste sensations, can learn to correlate the two. One needn't be a pro,
just an interested amateur. It does take experience however to do it well.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Both [books] specifically mention that Italian wines are made to accompany
> > food. Anyone who looks in any introductory book will come across this.
> > So, why the mystery? Why don't people know this?
>
> They don't know this because they don't know this. People don't know
> everything. Even =I= don't know everything. There are some elementary
> things that I don't know.
>
> People should not be insulted for not knowing something.
>
> > You cannot compare a Pomerol to a
> > Taurasi Riserva unless the latter is
> > consumed with food. It's not fair to the wines..
>
> Perhaps. However I posit that somebody who has tasted both wines
> sufficiently, both with and without food, and has paid attention to the
> taste sensations, can learn to correlate the two. One needn't be a pro,
> just an interested amateur. It does take experience however to do it well.
>
> Jose

Perhaps I am not clear. The entire spectrum of activities (tasting,
evaluating, matching with food, describing) wines was established by
the F_____ and British in the 19th c. It does not apply to the rather
different Italian wine world. The notion of '"haute cuisine" and
'gourmet' cooking are F_____, obviously. Italian cooking and dining are
communal. One large pot of something or other is made, from which
everyone takes a share. No little plates with two ounces of something
on it. That's Napoleanic.

> The entire spectrum of activities (tasting,
> evaluating, matching with food, describing) wines was established by
> the F_____ and British in the 19th c. It does not apply to the rather
> different Italian wine world. The notion of '"haute cuisine" and
> 'gourmet' cooking are...

.... not really relevant. I'm not discussing anything like that. It
doesn't matter if you call it "gourmet" or not, if it tastes really
really good, then that's enough to cause an orgasm. If it's ok, then it
isn't. This is true whether Thai, French, I____, Japanese, or anything
else.

Some wines go better with some foods. This is also universal.

Selecting which is which when one does not already know is what we're
discussing. That one does not already know is a =given= here.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > The entire spectrum of activities (tasting,
> > evaluating, matching with food, describing) wines was established by
> > the F_____ and British in the 19th c. It does not apply to the rather
> > different Italian wine world. The notion of '"haute cuisine" and
> > 'gourmet' cooking are...
>
> ... not really relevant. I'm not discussing anything like that. It
> doesn't matter if you call it "gourmet" or not, if it tastes really
> really good, then that's enough to cause an orgasm. If it's ok, then it
> isn't. This is true whether Thai, French, I____, Japanese, or anything
> else.
>
> Some wines go better with some foods. This is also universal.
>
> Selecting which is which when one does not already know is what we're
> discussing. That one does not already know is a =given= here.
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
> it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Perhaps I am still not being clear. F_____ wines can be "works of art",
and can be appreciated on their own somewhat more readily than Italian
wines, which, for the most part have been bred to match local &
regional dishes. They're more 'practical', in that sense, than F_____
wines. They are designed to be appreciated not on their own, but rather
as companions to the regional fare. They are not statues to be
contemplated, but clothing to be worn.

> Perhaps I am still not being clear. F_____ wines can be "works of art",
> and can be appreciated on their own somewhat more readily than Italian
> wines, which, for the most part have been bred to match local &
> regional dishes.

Fair enough. I'll take that on faith, having not had much experience
with French or I_____ wines.

> They're more 'practical', in that sense, than F_____ wines.

Would you say they are more versatile, for example, for any given I_____
dish, there are a =much= wider variety of I_____ wines that go well with
it than there would be French wines with any given French dish?

If this is true, would you say that there are fewer I____ wines/dish
matches that are =spectacular= as well as fewer such matches that are
=disastrous= than the French equivalent, with more of them being in the
middle ("pretty good matches - fine with family and friends")?

> They are not statues to be
> contemplated, but clothing to be worn.

Clothing can look awful or stunning too. And clothes look different on
a manniquin than they look on a person.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Perhaps I am still not being clear. F_____ wines can be "works of art",
> > and can be appreciated on their own somewhat more readily than Italian
> > wines, which, for the most part have been bred to match local &
> > regional dishes.
>
> Fair enough. I'll take that on faith, having not had much experience
> with French or I_____ wines.
>
> > They're more 'practical', in that sense, than F_____ wines.
>
> Would you say they are more versatile, for example, for any given I_____
> dish, there are a =much= wider variety of I_____ wines that go well with
> it than there would be French wines with any given French dish?

I don't know that that is necessarily true. Northern, southern, and
central Italian wines are based on different grapes:

Nebbiolo, Dolcetto, Barbera in Piedmont.
Bonarda, Corvina, Rondinella, Molinara in Lombardia and Veneto
Sangiovese in Tuscany
Aglianico in Campania and Basilicata.
Negroamaro in Puglia
Nero d'Avola in Sicily
Carignano in Sardegna

http://www.winecountry.it/regions/lombardy/grapes.php

The dishes in various parts of Italy may feature the same meat (lamb,
for instance) but the local way of preparing it may make the dish match
better with the local wines.

> If this is true, would you say that there are fewer I____ wines/dish
> matches that are =spectacular= as well as fewer such matches that are
> =disastrous= than the French equivalent, with more of them being in the
> middle ("pretty good matches - fine with family and friends")?
>
> > They are not statues to be
> > contemplated, but clothing to be worn.
>
> Clothing can look awful or stunning too. And clothes look different on
> a manniquin than they look on a person.

Right. You understand. Some wines are royal gowns, some are rags, but
they are not "works of art".

UC wrote:


> I, for one, don't buy Italian 'international' style wines. What's the
> bloody point? If I want a generic Cabernoirlotdonnay, why bother with
> something Italian?

Despite my being more on the traditionalist and terrOIrist side, I
can't help asking you: why bloody not? Just because cab, pinotnoir,
merl, chard are not native of Italy's soil, maybe?

> I want the wine to shout of its origin, of its
> summer, of its maker. I want wine that is identifiably Italian and
> localized. I want wine that is identifiably Argiolas, Giacosa, Santadi,
> Mastroberadino, Taurino, Bologna, Ratti, Poliziano, Ambra, Valentini,
> Antinori, Anselmi, Pater Noster, D'Angelo, Hofstätter, Santa Tresa,
> Selvapiana, Sella & Mosca. Wine that is Sicilian, Tuscan, Lombardian,
> Puglian, Sardinian. They can shove their super-Tuscan Cabernets up
> their asses. I have never bought one and never will.

And maybe most of them will..but still, may I ask you if you _tried_
one of them, at least, before thumbing them down like this?



>
> I think the Italians are missing the boat if they think that they have
> to offer "me too" wines. They need to upgrade their image as producers
> of plonk in the south (though much Tuscan wine still benefits illegally
> from southern reinforcment, I hear.) The Italians need to clean up
> their corrupt politics and get down to business. They need to simplify
> their wine laws

You mean: European Union needs to simplify its wine laws, maybe...

> so that labels are intelligible even to beginners,
> perhaps with labels in English for the English-language markets.

That is probably what can be said about most of the
non-English-speaking wine producing countries, is it not? Or is it that
German labels are more beginners-friendly, perhaps those written in
fraktur fonts?

> The
> DOC and DOCG designations are meaningless in some areas. Many Sicilian
> wine-makers are ignoring DOCs and using the IGT designation. Why make
> it overly complicated for consumers?
>
> There are many things that I find irrational in Italian wine
> production, but then it would not be Italian if it were not...

You see.. many things you are saying are more than reasonable. But why
on earth do you need to shoot down your own credibility, with a remark
such as your last one?

Anyway, imho DOCG, DOC are not meaningless, they are just
self-referential. It is the _name_ chosen for such containers which is
misleading. It must be said that they are misleading to those who
understand the literal meaning of those acronyms. Apart from that there
may be perfectly understandable reasons why a producer may want to
(deceptively) downgrade his/her own wine (because of the increase in
technical freedom, for instance).

filippo wrote:
> UC wrote:
>
>
> > I, for one, don't buy Italian 'international' style wines. What's the
> > bloody point? If I want a generic Cabernoirlotdonnay, why bother with
> > something Italian?
>
> Despite my being more on the traditionalist and terrOIrist side, I
> can't help asking you: why bloody not? Just because cab, pinotnoir,
> merl, chard are not native of Italy's soil, maybe?

Partly. Italies terroirs and grapes together are more interesting to me
than either one alone.
>
> > I want the wine to shout of its origin, of its
> > summer, of its maker. I want wine that is identifiably Italian and
> > localized. I want wine that is identifiably Argiolas, Giacosa, Santadi,
> > Mastroberadino, Taurino, Bologna, Ratti, Poliziano, Ambra, Valentini,
> > Antinori, Anselmi, Pater Noster, D'Angelo, Hofstätter, Santa Tresa,
> > Selvapiana, Sella & Mosca. Wine that is Sicilian, Tuscan, Lombardian,
> > Puglian, Sardinian. They can shove their super-Tuscan Cabernets up
> > their asses. I have never bought one and never will.
>
> And maybe most of them will..but still, may I ask you if you _tried_
> one of them, at least, before thumbing them down like this?

Though I have had Brunello, I was never motivated to try a
Super-Tuscan. The concept makes little sense to me. Feel free to try
one, though.

> >
> > I think the Italians are missing the boat if they think that they have
> > to offer "me too" wines. They need to upgrade their image as producers
> > of plonk in the south (though much Tuscan wine still benefits illegally
> > from southern reinforcment, I hear.) The Italians need to clean up
> > their corrupt politics and get down to business. They need to simplify
> > their wine laws
>
> You mean: European Union needs to simplify its wine laws, maybe...

Perhaps. If you look at it from a marketing standpoint, European wines
are at a disadvantage in the US. Look at the labels! F_____, Italian,
German terms that the purchaser needs to know. WHY? Why should he have
to know what Azienda agricola means? I happen to know, but I am rather
the exception.

> > so that labels are intelligible even to beginners,
> > perhaps with labels in English for the English-language markets.
>
> That is probably what can be said about most of the
> non-English-speaking wine producing countries, is it not? Or is it that
> German labels are more beginners-friendly, perhaps those written in
> fraktur fonts?


>
> > The
> > DOC and DOCG designations are meaningless in some areas. Many Sicilian
> > wine-makers are ignoring DOCs and using the IGT designation. Why make
> > it overly complicated for consumers?
> >
> > There are many things that I find irrational in Italian wine
> > production, but then it would not be Italian if it were not...
>
> You see.. many things you are saying are more than reasonable. But why
> on earth do you need to shoot down your own credibility, with a remark
> such as your last one?
>
> Anyway, imho DOCG, DOC are not meaningless, they are just
> self-referential. It is the _name_ chosen for such containers which is
> misleading. It must be said that they are misleading to those who
> understand the literal meaning of those acronyms. Apart from that there
> may be perfectly understandable reasons why a producer may want to
> (deceptively) downgrade his/her own wine (because of the increase in
> technical freedom, for instance).

Yes. I have been reading up on this lately, and it's quite complex. I
don't understand it all. What does the consumer need to know to buy a
good Nero d'Avola? How much does a local DOC add to my appreciation
that the name of the producer does not? Santa Tresa Nero d'Avola is
sold as IGT Sicilia, and I assure you it is well worth $32. Not every
wine needs single-vinyard designations. What does a DOC like 'Ragusa'
mean to the consumer, that "Avulisi: Nero d'Avola, IGT Sicilia" does
not? How many names is a consumer going to recognize? Presumably, Santa
Tresa knows how to make good wine. I don't give a damn whether it is
DOC or IGT.

See: Brunello to Zibibbo: The Wines of Tuscany, Central and Southern
Italy (Paperback) by Nicolas Belfrage

http://www.amazon.com/Brunello-Zibib.../dp/1840007907

UC wrote:
> filippo wrote:
>
>>UC wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I, for one, don't buy Italian 'international' style wines. What's the
>>>bloody point? If I want a generic Cabernoirlotdonnay, why bother with
>>>something Italian?
>>
>>Despite my being more on the traditionalist and terrOIrist side, I
>>can't help asking you: why bloody not? Just because cab, pinotnoir,
>>merl, chard are not native of Italy's soil, maybe?
>
>
> Partly. Italies terroirs and grapes together are more interesting to me
> than either one alone.

Apparently this kind of joint interest of you does not apply to other
countries' grapes and/or terroirs, does it? May I ask you why.



>>>... They can shove their super-Tuscan Cabernets up
>>>their asses. I have never bought one and never will.
>>
>>And maybe most of them will..but still, may I ask you if you _tried_
>>one of them, at least, before thumbing them down like this?
>
>
> Though I have had Brunello, I was never motivated to try a
> Super-Tuscan. The concept makes little sense to me. Feel free to try
> one, though.

Wow. You have had Brunello, though. Quite a prominent example of
Tuscan cabernet, indeed. Or did you mention it because it is the
only Tuscan wine you have had? Was this the case, on what basis are you
challenging the notions implied in a so called (by Americans, mind you)
super-Tuscan? I am seriously asking. I am curious about the kind of
concepts that people may have about Tuscan wines, particularly people
from more distant locations/traditions; and about the way these
concepts, this perception I mean, develop and evolve.



>>>I think the Italians are missing the boat if they think that they have
>>>to offer "me too" wines. They need to upgrade their image as producers
>>>of plonk in the south (though much Tuscan wine still benefits illegally
>>>from southern reinforcment, I hear.) The Italians need to clean up
>>>their corrupt politics and get down to business. They need to simplify
>>>their wine laws
>>
>>You mean: European Union needs to simplify its wine laws, maybe...
>
>
> Perhaps.

For sure. As far as the rules are concerned, the framework is given by
the EU legislation. Even much more than just a bare framework, lots and
lots of EC regulations. No Italian peculiarity on this. Even DOC/DOCG
etc are but an instance of more general "boxes" provided at EU level,
having their counterpart in other EU countries.


> If you look at it from a marketing standpoint, European wines
> are at a disadvantage in the US. Look at the labels! F_____, Italian,
> German terms that the purchaser needs to know. WHY? Why should he have
> to know what Azienda agricola means? I happen to know, but I am rather
> the exception.

If the purchasers are wine enthusiasts and like wines from a specific
area they would know what those terms mean, and would find their way
anyway, apart from names. If they are not, then other authorities would
guide their shopping choices for sure, anyway. Those authorities are
supposed to know for them (and if they are real authorities they do not
mind educating their audience, so next time they know, too).
I cannot see the problem.

>>>so that labels are intelligible even to beginners,
>>>perhaps with labels in English for the English-language markets.
>>
>>That is probably what can be said about most of the
>>non-English-speaking wine producing countries, is it not? Or is it that
>>German labels are more beginners-friendly, perhaps those written in
>>fraktur fonts?
>
>
>
>>>The
>>>DOC and DOCG designations are meaningless in some areas. Many Sicilian
>>>wine-makers are ignoring DOCs and using the IGT designation. Why make
>>>it overly complicated for consumers?
>>>
>>>There are many things that I find irrational in Italian wine
>>>production, but then it would not be Italian if it were not...
>>
>>You see.. many things you are saying are more than reasonable. But why
>>on earth do you need to shoot down your own credibility, with a remark
>>such as your last one?
>>
>>Anyway, imho DOCG, DOC are not meaningless, they are just
>>self-referential. It is the _name_ chosen for such containers which is
>>misleading. It must be said that they are misleading to those who
>>understand the literal meaning of those acronyms. Apart from that there
>>may be perfectly understandable reasons why a producer may want to
>>(deceptively) downgrade his/her own wine (because of the increase in
>>technical freedom, for instance).
>
>
> Yes. I have been reading up on this lately, and it's quite complex. I
> don't understand it all. What does the consumer need to know to buy a
> good Nero d'Avola?

Pretty much what needs to know to buy a good whatever. He or she needs
to know which ones are the good ones. Am I loosing something maybe, I
cannot see your point. Just try some. If you like what you drink, make a
knot..if you don't try another one. Or ask advice. ..dunno.

> How much does a local DOC add to my appreciation
> that the name of the producer does not?

Depends on the way(s) you approach wine, I guess. And of course on the
particular DOC. If the DOC has no overall well definite style, then the
information about the DOC just tells you that: where that wine is from.
You may mind about it, or not. Again, depends on your approach. But even
if the DOC was one with a more recognizable character, it would still
depend on what you are after when drinking wine. The name of the
producer itself might be of no interest at all, if you want the grape
and nothing else.


> Santa Tresa Nero d'Avola is
> sold as IGT Sicilia, and I assure you it is well worth $32. Not every
> wine needs single-vinyard designations. What does a DOC like 'Ragusa'
> mean to the consumer, that "Avulisi: Nero d'Avola, IGT Sicilia" does
> not?

It may not mean much now. Maybe it will in the future. If a bit of
information is meaningless to you, just disregard it. Ignore it.


> How many names is a consumer going to recognize? Presumably, Santa
> Tresa knows how to make good wine. I don't give a damn whether it is
> DOC or IGT.

That makes sense. Anyway it is also interesting to know if a wine's
origin is traceable or not, and where from.
On the one hand you are saying reasonable things, on the other hand you
have to admit the possibility that there are many other reasonable
alternative things. For instance along with the consumer who
(righteously) cannot recognize all those bloody producers and does not
give a damn whether it is AOC or DOC or whatever, there is also the
producer who (righteously) cannot follow all those bloody markets
around, and does not give a damn whether it is from the far east or the
far west or the far north or the far south that people buy the wine, as
long as they do.
Everybody stick to their slowly growing capital of tested knowledge,
more or less.

filippo wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > filippo wrote:
> >
> >>UC wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I, for one, don't buy Italian 'international' style wines. What's the
> >>>bloody point? If I want a generic Cabernoirlotdonnay, why bother with
> >>>something Italian?
> >>
> >>Despite my being more on the traditionalist and terrOIrist side, I
> >>can't help asking you: why bloody not? Just because cab, pinotnoir,
> >>merl, chard are not native of Italy's soil, maybe?
> >
> >
> > Partly. Italies terroirs and grapes together are more interesting to me
> > than either one alone.
>
> Apparently this kind of joint interest of you does not apply to other
> countries' grapes and/or terroirs, does it? May I ask you why.

I'm Italian.
>
>
>
> >>>... They can shove their super-Tuscan Cabernets up
> >>>their asses. I have never bought one and never will.
> >>
> >>And maybe most of them will..but still, may I ask you if you _tried_
> >>one of them, at least, before thumbing them down like this?

No, as I said the whole concept does not make sense to me.

> > Though I have had Brunello, I was never motivated to try a
> > Super-Tuscan. The concept makes little sense to me. Feel free to try
> > one, though.
>
> Wow. You have had Brunello, though. Quite a prominent example of
> Tuscan cabernet, indeed.

??? Brunello is pure Sangiovese. No Cabernet at all (officially).

>Or did you mention it because it is the
> only Tuscan wine you have had?

No, but I drink very little Tusacn. Most Sangiovese wines do not appeal
to me. Chianti Rufina and Morellino are exceptions, but other wines
from other regions appeal to me even more.

> Was this the case, on what basis are you
> challenging the notions implied in a so called (by Americans, mind you)
> super-Tuscan? I am seriously asking. I am curious about the kind of
> concepts that people may have about Tuscan wines, particularly people
> from more distant locations/traditions; and about the way these
> concepts, this perception I mean, develop and evolve.

It's not traditional Italian wine. Simple.
>
> >>>I think the Italians are missing the boat if they think that they have
> >>>to offer "me too" wines. They need to upgrade their image as producers
> >>>of plonk in the south (though much Tuscan wine still benefits illegally
> >>>from southern reinforcment, I hear.) The Italians need to clean up
> >>>their corrupt politics and get down to business. They need to simplify
> >>>their wine laws
> >>
> >>You mean: European Union needs to simplify its wine laws, maybe...
> >
> >
> > Perhaps.
>
> For sure. As far as the rules are concerned, the framework is given by
> the EU legislation. Even much more than just a bare framework, lots and
> lots of EC regulations. No Italian peculiarity on this. Even DOC/DOCG
> etc are but an instance of more general "boxes" provided at EU level,
> having their counterpart in other EU countries.
>
>
> > If you look at it from a marketing standpoint, European wines
> > are at a disadvantage in the US. Look at the labels! F_____, Italian,
> > German terms that the purchaser needs to know. WHY? Why should he have
> > to know what Azienda agricola means? I happen to know, but I am rather
> > the exception.
>
> If the purchasers are wine enthusiasts and like wines from a specific
> area they would know what those terms mean, and would find their way
> anyway, apart from names. If they are not, then other authorities would
> guide their shopping choices for sure, anyway. Those authorities are
> supposed to know for them (and if they are real authorities they do not
> mind educating their audience, so next time they know, too).
> I cannot see the problem.

I happen to watch shopping behaviour in stores. Most people know only a
few labels. Most people are not wine geeks like us.
>
> >>>so that labels are intelligible even to beginners,
> >>>perhaps with labels in English for the English-language markets.
> >>
> >>That is probably what can be said about most of the
> >>non-English-speaking wine producing countries, is it not? Or is it that
> >>German labels are more beginners-friendly, perhaps those written in
> >>fraktur fonts?
> >
> >
> >
> >>>The
> >>>DOC and DOCG designations are meaningless in some areas. Many Sicilian
> >>>wine-makers are ignoring DOCs and using the IGT designation. Why make
> >>>it overly complicated for consumers?
> >>>
> >>>There are many things that I find irrational in Italian wine
> >>>production, but then it would not be Italian if it were not...
> >>
> >>You see.. many things you are saying are more than reasonable. But why
> >>on earth do you need to shoot down your own credibility, with a remark
> >>such as your last one?
> >>
> >>Anyway, imho DOCG, DOC are not meaningless, they are just
> >>self-referential. It is the _name_ chosen for such containers which is
> >>misleading. It must be said that they are misleading to those who
> >>understand the literal meaning of those acronyms. Apart from that there
> >>may be perfectly understandable reasons why a producer may want to
> >>(deceptively) downgrade his/her own wine (because of the increase in
> >>technical freedom, for instance).
> >
> >
> > Yes. I have been reading up on this lately, and it's quite complex. I
> > don't understand it all. What does the consumer need to know to buy a
> > good Nero d'Avola?
>
> Pretty much what needs to know to buy a good whatever. He or she needs
> to know which ones are the good ones. Am I loosing something maybe, I
> cannot see your point. Just try some. If you like what you drink, make a
> knot..if you don't try another one. Or ask advice. ..dunno.
>
> > How much does a local DOC add to my appreciation
> > that the name of the producer does not?
>
> Depends on the way(s) you approach wine, I guess. And of course on the
> particular DOC. If the DOC has no overall well definite style, then the
> information about the DOC just tells you that: where that wine is from.
> You may mind about it, or not. Again, depends on your approach. But even
> if the DOC was one with a more recognizable character, it would still
> depend on what you are after when drinking wine. The name of the
> producer itself might be of no interest at all, if you want the grape
> and nothing else.
>
>
> > Santa Tresa Nero d'Avola is
> > sold as IGT Sicilia, and I assure you it is well worth $32. Not every
> > wine needs single-vinyard designations. What does a DOC like 'Ragusa'
> > mean to the consumer, that "Avulisi: Nero d'Avola, IGT Sicilia" does
> > not?
>
> It may not mean much now. Maybe it will in the future. If a bit of
> information is meaningless to you, just disregard it. Ignore it.
>
>
> > How many names is a consumer going to recognize? Presumably, Santa
> > Tresa knows how to make good wine. I don't give a damn whether it is
> > DOC or IGT.
>
> That makes sense. Anyway it is also interesting to know if a wine's
> origin is traceable or not, and where from.
> On the one hand you are saying reasonable things, on the other hand you
> have to admit the possibility that there are many other reasonable
> alternative things. For instance along with the consumer who
> (righteously) cannot recognize all those bloody producers and does not
> give a damn whether it is AOC or DOC or whatever, there is also the
> producer who (righteously) cannot follow all those bloody markets
> around, and does not give a damn whether it is from the far east or the
> far west or the far north or the far south that people buy the wine, as
> long as they do.
> Everybody stick to their slowly growing capital of tested knowledge,
> more or less.

I have many more favourites than I did 15 years ago, but there is a
limit on how much work I am willing to put into shopping for wine..

UC wrote:
> filippo wrote:
>
>>UC wrote:

>>>Partly. Italies terroirs and grapes together are more interesting to me
>>>than either one alone.
>>
>>Apparently this kind of joint interest of you does not apply to other
>>countries' grapes and/or terroirs, does it? May I ask you why.
>
>
> I'm Italian.

I see. So, since you are Italian you are less forgiving about
Italians departures from tradition than you are about others'.

>>>>>... They can shove their super-Tuscan Cabernets up
>>>>>their asses. I have never bought one and never will.
>>>>
>>>>And maybe most of them will..but still, may I ask you if you _tried_
>>>>one of them, at least, before thumbing them down like this?
>
>
> No, as I said the whole concept does not make sense to me.

I know you said so. Thas is why I asked this in the firs place.

>>>Though I have had Brunello, I was never motivated to try a
>>>Super-Tuscan. The concept makes little sense to me. Feel free to try
>>>one, though.
>>
>>Wow. You have had Brunello, though. Quite a prominent example of
>>Tuscan cabernet, indeed.
>
>
> ??? Brunello is pure Sangiovese. No Cabernet at all (officially).

I know, so why did you mention Brunello when I asked if you ever tried
one of those super-tuscans you were talking about?


>>Or did you mention it because it is the
>>only Tuscan wine you have had?
>
>
> No, but I drink very little Tusacn. Most Sangiovese wines do not appeal
> to me. Chianti Rufina and Morellino are exceptions, but other wines
> from other regions appeal to me even more.

You do not like sangiovese. But you like even less the fact that Tuscans
may want to make wine with other grapes. What can I say? you do not seem
to like Tuscans fullstop.;-)

>>Was this the case, on what basis are you
>>challenging the notions implied in a so called (by Americans, mind you)
>>super-Tuscan? I am seriously asking. I am curious about the kind of
>>concepts that people may have about Tuscan wines, particularly people
>>from more distant locations/traditions; and about the way these
>>concepts, this perception I mean, develop and evolve.
>
>
> It's not traditional Italian wine. Simple.

Very.

....

>>>If you look at it from a marketing standpoint, European wines
>>>are at a disadvantage in the US. Look at the labels! F_____, Italian,
>>>German terms that the purchaser needs to know. WHY? Why should he have
>>>to know what Azienda agricola means? I happen to know, but I am rather
>>>the exception.
>>
>>If the purchasers are wine enthusiasts and like wines from a specific
>>area they would know what those terms mean, and would find their way
>>anyway, apart from names. If they are not, then other authorities would
>>guide their shopping choices for sure, anyway. Those authorities are
>>supposed to know for them (and if they are real authorities they do not
>>mind educating their audience, so next time they know, too).
>>I cannot see the problem.
>
>
> I happen to watch shopping behaviour in stores. Most people know only a
> few labels. Most people are not wine geeks like us.

And sure enough, I am no wine geek either ;-) But I can't see the
problems you say about labels, not one of preventing me from becoming a
more aknowledged person, at least. If there is a "problem" is that
Italian wine has changed a lot and is still changing. This makes it
a bit trickier keeping track of things.

filippo wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > filippo wrote:
> >
> >>UC wrote:
>
> >>>Partly. Italies terroirs and grapes together are more interesting to me
> >>>than either one alone.
> >>
> >>Apparently this kind of joint interest of you does not apply to other
> >>countries' grapes and/or terroirs, does it? May I ask you why.
> >
> >
> > I'm Italian.
>
> I see. So, since you are Italian you are less forgiving about
> Italians departures from tradition than you are about others'.

Not at all. I simply want to explore regional Italian cooking and
regional traditional wines. I'm not a "typical American" who might want
to explore Italian-made wine.

> >>>>>... They can shove their super-Tuscan Cabernets up
> >>>>>their asses. I have never bought one and never will.
> >>>>
> >>>>And maybe most of them will..but still, may I ask you if you _tried_
> >>>>one of them, at least, before thumbing them down like this?
> >
> >
> > No, as I said the whole concept does not make sense to me.
>
> I know you said so. Thas is why I asked this in the first place.
>
> >>>Though I have had Brunello, I was never motivated to try a
> >>>Super-Tuscan. The concept makes little sense to me. Feel free to try
> >>>one, though.
> >>
> >>Wow. You have had Brunello, though. Quite a prominent example of
> >>Tuscan cabernet, indeed.
> >
> >
> > ??? Brunello is pure Sangiovese. No Cabernet at all (officially).
>
> I know, so why did you mention Brunello when I asked if you ever tried
> one of those super-tuscans you were talking about?

Because they are often made by the same producers. Brunello is
traditional and Sangiovese; Super-Tuscans are non-traditional and often
Cabernet.
>
> >>Or did you mention it because it is the
> >>only Tuscan wine you have had?
> >
> >
> > No, but I drink very little Tusacn. Most Sangiovese wines do not appeal
> > to me. Chianti Rufina and Morellino are exceptions, but other wines
> > from other regions appeal to me even more.
>
> You do not like sangiovese.

Not what I said. I don't like a lot of wine made from that grape.

> But you like even less the fact that Tuscans
> may want to make wine with other grapes. What can I say? you do not seem
> to like Tuscans fullstop.;-)

Not what I said. I prefer northern and southern wines of late, but in
the past I have enjoyed some stunning Tuscan wines. Perhaps the sheer
number ofTuscan wines overwhelms. I like Morellino, Chianti Rufina, and
VNdM.

> >>Was this the case, on what basis are you
> >>challenging the notions implied in a so called (by Americans, mind you)
> >>super-Tuscan? I am seriously asking. I am curious about the kind of
> >>concepts that people may have about Tuscan wines, particularly people
> >>from more distant locations/traditions; and about the way these
> >>concepts, this perception I mean, develop and evolve.
> >
> > It's not traditional Italian wine. Simple.
>
> Very.
>
> ...
>
> >>>If you look at it from a marketing standpoint, European wines
> >>>are at a disadvantage in the US. Look at the labels! F_____, Italian,
> >>>German terms that the purchaser needs to know. WHY? Why should he have
> >>>to know what Azienda agricola means? I happen to know, but I am rather
> >>>the exception.
> >>
> >>If the purchasers are wine enthusiasts and like wines from a specific
> >>area they would know what those terms mean, and would find their way
> >>anyway, apart from names. If they are not, then other authorities would
> >>guide their shopping choices for sure, anyway. Those authorities are
> >>supposed to know for them (and if they are real authorities they do not
> >>mind educating their audience, so next time they know, too).
> >>I cannot see the problem.
> >
> >
> > I happen to watch shopping behaviour in stores. Most people know only a
> > few labels. Most people are not wine geeks like us.
>
> And sure enough, I am no wine geek either ;-) But I can't see the
> problems you say about labels, not one of preventing me from becoming a
> more aknowledged person, at least. If there is a "problem" is that
> Italian wine has changed a lot and is still changing. This makes it
> a bit trickier keeping track of things.

That is true, but labelling is still a challenge for non-Italians.

In article .com>,
"DaleW" > wrote:

> Ich bin ein Winesnob (I am a wine shoemaker)
>
> As noted in our periodic courtesy reminders:
> "No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
> simplicity or elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big
> enough for someone to have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to
> have rack of lamb with a fine Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to
> read about a meal you wouldn't eat yourself? If someone says that they
> will not drink certain types of wines, don't waste your time worrying
> about their opinions of those wines, listen to those that do. "
>
> I personally enjoy posting notes from a great QPR wine like the '04
> Heretiques (last night, yum) or the Pepiere Muscadet as much as a great
> mature Bordeaux. But I do take exception to the idea that "all wines
> are equal." If there is any point to having a wine newsgroup, it is
> for people to voice opinions on wines (regardless of
> price), pairings, travel, etc. That's not snobbery.

There is such a major difference between being a snob about wine or
simply having a good palate and trying to get others to expand theirs. I
have friends who like box white Zindfandel so I always try to get them
to at least taste other wines to see what they may be missing. I still
buy the white zind for them.

Lawrence Leichtman wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "DaleW" > wrote:
>
> > Ich bin ein Winesnob (I am a wine shoemaker)
> >
> > As noted in our periodic courtesy reminders:
> > "No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
> > simplicity or elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big
> > enough for someone to have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to
> > have rack of lamb with a fine Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to
> > read about a meal you wouldn't eat yourself? If someone says that they
> > will not drink certain types of wines, don't waste your time worrying
> > about their opinions of those wines, listen to those that do. "
> >
> > I personally enjoy posting notes from a great QPR wine like the '04
> > Heretiques (last night, yum) or the Pepiere Muscadet as much as a great
> > mature Bordeaux. But I do take exception to the idea that "all wines
> > are equal." If there is any point to having a wine newsgroup, it is
> > for people to voice opinions on wines (regardless of
> > price), pairings, travel, etc. That's not snobbery.
>
> There is such a major difference between being a snob about wine or
> simply having a good palate and trying to get others to expand theirs. I
> have friends who like box white Zindfandel so I always try to get them
> to at least taste other wines to see what they may be missing. I still
> buy the white zind for them.

Some people never 'get' wine. Pity, that.

In article om>,
"Dave" > wrote:

> > Burton Anderson.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Overall, I make a point of ignoring most of what the 'wine experts'
> say. My take is, those who can, do. Those who can't, critique.
>
> My senses are my own. My palate, unique. What tastes like a 94 probably
> tastes fine, but still, may not be my personal preference. Who needs
> scoring, anyway? I think more often than not, scoring is for the
> impatient aficionado (a contradiction in terms given the love, care,
> and patience required to craft an excellent wine). I tend to think
> those who pay most attention to points also happen to be uninformed, as
> they haven't tasted many or any of the wines, don't know what to
> expect, and would rather fall back to using a simple score to serve as
> a basis for their purchasing decision. Worse still, however, is the
> fact that scoring is most-targeted at wine snobs. I know of a few
> people who refuse to drink anything under a 94. If it's not a 94, it's
> not worth my time, they say! It all seems like one more step towards
> keeping the enjoyment of wine an exclusive activity.
>
> To the average consumer, scoring can be misread. If you happen to like
> a particular wine, but learn it's scored at a 78, what does that say
> for your palate? Does it make you distrust the reviewer? Or does it
> mean your sense of appreciation is unrefined and, perhaps, even vulgar?
> In any case, does the fact you like a lesser-scored wine make you any
> less a lover of wines?
>
> In any case, I have a positive comment about AFW to share (don't
> faint). I'm glad to see so many good and honest wine reviews on AFW as
> of late. Most read quite well, give some good analysis of the wines,
> and I have found these more helpful than anything I've seen in the
> 'professional' rags. So keep it up, everyone! And thanks for sharing
> your reviews.
>
> Finally... I'd like to hear your own comments as to what you all think
> about wine critics who tout reviews that seem more like a gushing of
> ego than honest analysis.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David

Scoring only helps you get into the range of what you might like.
Typically, based on the Parker system wines are routinely over-scored
for what reasons I don't always know but mostly to improve sales I
think. The only palate that counts is yours so you can score a wine or
not on a 50-100 or A-F like Dale or anything that suits you and still be
valid. Personal scoring is good so maybe you won't make the same mistake
twice at the store or at the restaurant.

In article > ,
Jose > wrote:

> > I am militantly anti-wine snob.
>
> ... and think yourself superior because of it. Thus...
>
> > The core of snobbery is actually ignorance.
>
> No, the core of snobbery is pretention - making of something what it
> isn't, and thinking (or portraying) yourself as superior because of it.
>
> > When I visit shops, if a clerk tells me "this wine earned 93 points in
> > the Spectator" I immediately make it clear that that is not the way to
> > talk to me if he wants to make a sale. I don't give a shit how many
> > 'points' Parker or Anderson gives it. What matters is what I think of
> > it.
>
> So, how do you know what to think of a wine you haven't had?
>
> Yanno, it's sort of like going to the movies. A new movie comes out,
> and you haven't seen it. Will you go see it? Obviously, after you've
> seen it, you'll know whether or not you should have spent the time, but
> that is not useful information any more. Among the alternatives are the
> equivalent of Parker (reviewer comments). I may not agree with reviewer
> comments, and I think that there are some reviewers who are buffoons. I
> don't pick a film because a reviewer said "two thumbs up", nonetheless I
> find the reviews useful.
>
> Theaters also host "tastings". In fact, they foist them upon the
> audience before the main feature. While it is true that any given scene
> in a movie needs to be appreciated "with food", that is, along with the
> surrounding scenes, and in the previews such scenes are taken out and
> reassembled in some other sequence. However, having seen many such
> tastings, and later, seen the entire movie "with food", I have learned
> how to correlate the two. Having done so, I find movie tastings to be
> useful too.
>
> > After 4 or 5 purchases, all of which
> > were substandard, I dismissed Vietti wine as
> > plonk.
>
> So you disagree with the reviewer. So you even disagree with Parker.
> So, like me, you don't revere them as gods. I don't revere Siskel and
> Ebert as gods either, but I still taste movies, and I still read
> reviews, and I still find that it's a better way to pick flicks than
> looking at the titles alone.
>
> I present to you a bottle of Domaine Chartruse Le Feet 1994. The bottle
> is somewhat short, with a pronounced shoulder. The label consists
> primarily of the name of the wine ("Chartruse Le Feet"), an indication
> that it's a blend of Cabernet, Petit Syrah, Pinot Noir, Nebbiolo, and
> Cabernet Franc, and a picture. This shows a pastoral scene showing two
> young girls in a field; there is a barrel in the field and the two girls
> are barefoot and dressed in off-white peasant clothing. One is blond,
> the other isn't. The wine comes from Monterrey from a small vintner
> neither of us has ever heard of. The bottle is dark green, and one
> presumes it's a red wine. It is sealed with a stopper of some sort, and
> there is a foil seal around the top of the bottle.
>
> Is it any good? What would you drink it with? Is it worth the $22.50
> price tag?
>
> Jose

You do it by tasting as much as you can and comparing your taste with
the reviewers. If you are in agreement most of the time you might be a
bit more reliant on their reviews than others.