A long Friday, and we weren't eating till late. I decided to have an
apertif with a snack of leftover sashimi from Betsy's lunch, the 1997
Baumard Savennieres. Lots of reports of these being over the hill, but
this wasn't showing really any oxidation. Still, not the most exciting
Chenin in the world. Moderate acidity, a solid waxy note, green
apples, and yes a touch of asparagus. Pleasant wine, but not sure it
really deserved a slot in the cellar for 10 years. B/B-

Dinner was simple pangrilled/broiled salmon, a corn/bean salad,and
pasta with pesto, peas, and spinach. My wine choice was the 2007
Madelin-Petit Cotes D'Auxerre. Pretty color, nice strawberry/cherry
fruit spoiled by wet cardboard. Argghh! Damn the Portugese menace!

A quick dash downstairs for a replacement, pretty much grabbing the
first bottle of PN that didn't demand cellaring I spotted. The 2007
Lafouge “les Duresses” Auxey-Duresses actually probably does need a
little time in the cellar. Quite tight at first, and I enjoyed more
after dinner than before. At first seemed a bit thin, some red fruit,
acids, but not much body. Picked up weight over a couple of hours,
much more expressive, in the end a rich blend of chocolate covered
cherries, candied orange peel, and earth. Good sappy fruit, not a big
wine but with real character. We'll see how it fared overnight, but
very good showing for an Auxey. A-/B+

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.*

>"DaleW" > wrote in message
....
>.......
>A long Friday, and we weren't eating till late. I decided to have an
>apertif with a snack of leftover sashimi from Betsy's lunch, the 1997
>Baumard Savennieres. Lots of reports of these being over the hill, but
>this wasn't showing really any oxidation...
>.......

OK, so I was a bit distracted and started reading this while
thinking about something else. I suddenly did a double-take
and looked more closely at what you wrote. What I had read
was "...leftover sashimi from Betsy's lunch, the 1997..."
which my mind translated into sashimi leftover from a 1997
lunch, just as one would expect to see "Ch. Petrus, the 1997."

The double-take was the mental question of how you saved it
for that long a time. Sigh, time to go take a walk.

pavane

On Aug 29, 7:10*am, DaleW > wrote:

> Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
> wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
> drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
> promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.*

DaleW:

I like your wine rating system. I have been invited to be a judge
before, on a wine tasting panel for a now defunct wine magazine.
Rating on a 100 point scale is still so subjective that there's no
science to it at all. My personal system is:

1. Are there any obvious flaws? If so, is it winemaking, or is it
storage/cellaring? Wines which are "corked" don't even rate, because
no one's at fault.

2. Are any of the normally positive components out of balance? Too
much acid, not enough acid, too much oak, too much tannin? From a
winemaker's perspective, I tend to be very critical about these
factors, because they are very controllable in the cellar.

3. Aroma is about 65% of a wine's charm, for me at least. I can sniff
a great pinot noir or riesling for half an hour before I even take a
sip.

4. Flavor is all in the mind. But texture, mouth feel, balance and
length (finish) are objective.

Overall, I tend to score wine more on the aromas than on the palate,
but that's just me. Obviously, a wine which is unbalanced on the
palate is clumsy, but if it's got great fruit in the nose and taste, I
give it a pass.

Because wine is a product of fruit, it must express fruit (which is
why I'm getting away from older wines these days). Wines which are
dull or unfocused on delivering fruit aromas and flavors get a lower
score with me, even if technically correct.

And yes, A, B, C is a perfectly legitimate scoring system. I wish I
had thought of it, LOL! [wink!]

--Bob

On Aug 29, 4:11*pm, "pavane" > wrote:
> >"DaleW" > wrote in message
> .....
> >.......
> >A long Friday, and we weren't eating till late. I decided to have an
> >apertif with a snack of leftover sashimi from Betsy's lunch, the 1997
> >Baumard Savennieres. Lots of reports of these being over the hill, but
> >this wasn't showing really any oxidation...
> >.......
>
> OK, so I was a bit distracted and started reading this while
> thinking about something else. *I suddenly did a double-take
> and looked more closely at what you wrote. *What I had read
> was "...leftover sashimi from Betsy's lunch, the 1997..."
> which my mind translated into sashimi leftover from a 1997
> lunch, just as one would expect to see "Ch. Petrus, the 1997."
>
> The double-take was the mental question of how you saved it
> for that long a time. *Sigh, time to go take a walk.
>
> pavane

Ah, 12 year old sashimi! :
Even from lunch to dinner, one must be careful. Betsy eats at a local
Japanese place often, she tends to save me th "hardiest" pieces- ebi,
clam, roe, tamago, maybe tuna. White fleshed fish seem to do poorly
even over 5 hours.