Which one is good example of better Chardonnay or more similer to a good
burgundy?

* Shaw & Smith Reserve Chardonnay (Australia)

* Beringer Chardonnay Napa Valley Private Reserve (California)

* Cape Mentelle Chardonnay (Australia)

* Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars Chardonnay Reserve (California)

* Yarra Yering Chardonnay (Australia)

In article >,
Eric lee > wrote:
>
>Which one is good example of better Chardonnay or more similer to a good
>burgundy?
>
>* Beringer Chardonnay Napa Valley Private Reserve (California)
>
>* Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars Chardonnay Reserve (California)


I haven't had the Australians, but neither of these are very exciting.


Dimitri

"Eric lee" > wrote in message
...
> Which one is good example of better Chardonnay or more similer to a good
> Burgundy?

Those are really two different questions. For the first part, I'd put my $$
on the Beringer, but I have to confess that I have little experience with
Australian Chardonnay.

For a California wine that's not on the list, I'd suggest Kistler. It's
rather pricy at ~$75 US (if you can find it, at all), but that's not bad
compared to top white Burgundies.

As for wines that resemble Burgundy, I doubt that any of them really do - at
least not any more than Burgundy resembles Californian or Australian
Chardonnay. That's rather clumsily worded, but I think you get what I mean.

Tom S

>For a California wine that's not on the list, I'd suggest Kistler. It's
>rather pricy at ~$75 US (if you can find it, at all), but that's not bad
>compared to top white Burgundies.

I would add Konsgaard to that list. Expensive but delicious and quite
Burgundian. Ramey also makes a great Chardonnay as does Lambert Bridge and
Rosenblum at the value end (under $20.00) of the market.
Bi!!

In article >,
RV WRLee > wrote:
>>For a California wine that's not on the list, I'd suggest Kistler. It's
>>rather pricy at ~$75 US (if you can find it, at all), but that's not bad
>>compared to top white Burgundies.
>
>I would add Konsgaard to that list. Expensive but delicious and quite
>Burgundian. Ramey also makes a great Chardonnay as does Lambert Bridge and
>Rosenblum at the value end (under $20.00) of the market.


I like Kongsgaard and the wines he made for Livingston-Moffet as well, but
they don't strike me as Burgundian in any way. They are big, massive fruit
bombs. If you want to spend $60+ on Cal chardonnay then I recommend
Peter Michael over Kistler or Kongsgaard. As half that price I like
Tablas Creek Antithesis, which is in my opinion the best chardonnay under
$50.


Dimitri

Where would you place Chateau Montelenas Chard?

dick


"D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> RV WRLee > wrote:
> >>For a California wine that's not on the list, I'd suggest Kistler. It's
> >>rather pricy at ~$75 US (if you can find it, at all), but that's not bad
> >>compared to top white Burgundies.
> >
> >I would add Konsgaard to that list. Expensive but delicious and quite
> >Burgundian. Ramey also makes a great Chardonnay as does Lambert Bridge
and
> >Rosenblum at the value end (under $20.00) of the market.
>
>
> I like Kongsgaard and the wines he made for Livingston-Moffet as well, but
> they don't strike me as Burgundian in any way. They are big, massive fruit
> bombs. If you want to spend $60+ on Cal chardonnay then I recommend
> Peter Michael over Kistler or Kongsgaard. As half that price I like
> Tablas Creek Antithesis, which is in my opinion the best chardonnay under
> $50.
>
>
> Dimitri
>

In article et>,
dick > wrote:
>
>Where would you place Chateau Montelenas Chard?


I like it a lot, too. In fact, I think it is more French in style than
Kongsgaard and Kistler as well. What do you think of it?


Dimitri

Neyers, the company that produces an "over-the-top" Zindandel, also
produces an "over-the-top" Chardonnay. It costs around $50/bottle and
may be worth it.

Less is more. Well...maybe not


Regards,


Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com

Sorry to followup my own post, but another Cal chard that I like is
Flowers. I once bought a bottle for $10 mismarked and it was the best
$10 wine I think anyone anywhere has ever had!


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:

> Sorry to followup my own post, but another Cal chard that I like is
> Flowers. I once bought a bottle for $10 mismarked and it was the best
> $10 wine I think anyone anywhere has ever had!

Agreed - Flowers Chard is delightful and much more Burgundian.
I also enjoy the recent two vintages of Lazy Creek's Chard, also
quite Burgundian in spirit.

Dana

>I like Kongsgaard and the wines he made for Livingston-Moffet as well, but
>they don't strike me as Burgundian in any way. They are big, massive fruit
>bombs. If you want to spend $60+ on Cal chardonnay then I recommend
>Peter Michael over Kistler or Kongsgaard. As half that price I like
>Tablas Creek Antithesis, which is in my opinion the best chardonnay under
>$50.
>
I would agree that the wines that he made for Newton especially and Luna were
fruit bombs but his own label made from his own fruit has evolved away (since
1996) from the huge fruit bomb into a Chardonnay with a bit more balance and
acidity, and more citrus and mineral than tropical fruit and creamy, buttery
profiles as is the case in Newton.
Bi!!

"RV WRLee" > wrote in message
...
> Ramey also makes a great Chardonnay <snip>

I tried the Ramey recently. I can't say it's not a good bottle of wine, but
it had a very strong flavor of botrytis that completely concealed the fruit.
IMO botrytis has no place in Chardonnay. I'm a purist on that issue.

Tom S

>I tried the Ramey recently. I can't say it's not a good bottle of wine, but
>it had a very strong flavor of botrytis that completely concealed the fruit.
>IMO botrytis has no place in Chardonnay. I'm a purist on that issue.

Perhaps it was an off bottle. I haven't had any botrytis issues. Which
vineyard designation was it?
Bi!!

"RV WRLee" > wrote in message
...
> >I tried the Ramey recently. I can't say it's not a good bottle of wine,
but
> >it had a very strong flavor of botrytis that completely concealed the
fruit.
> >IMO botrytis has no place in Chardonnay. I'm a purist on that issue.
>
> Perhaps it was an off bottle. I haven't had any botrytis issues. Which
> vineyard designation was it?

IIRC, it was the 2001 Russian River Valley Chardonnay. I purchased it
recently at a local wine shop on the clerk's *stellar* recommendation. It
was just under $40. I expected much more classic California style. BTW,
this was not a "corked" or "off" bottle. I know botrytis when it hits me in
the face!

Tom S

Salut/Hi Tom S,

le/on Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:30:25 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>
>"RV WRLee" > wrote in message
...
>> Ramey also makes a great Chardonnay <snip>
>
>I tried the Ramey recently. I can't say it's not a good bottle of wine, but
>it had a very strong flavor of botrytis that completely concealed the fruit.
>IMO botrytis has no place in Chardonnay. I'm a purist on that issue.

Remind me to open a bottle of the Macon Domaine du Bon Gran Cuvée Botrytis
by Thevenet, when you come to the afw week. Maybe I can persuade Michael to
contribute one of the better Austrian Trock chardonnays to compare.

I find both fascinating and excellent.

Which isn't to say that I find botrytis the BEST expression of the grape.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:29:48 +0100, Ian Hoare
> wrote:

>
>Remind me to open a bottle of the Macon Domaine du Bon Gran Cuvée Botrytis
>by Thevenet

That's Domaine de la Bongran, Monsieur Hoare... ;-)

Excellent wine, and even in its more affordable Cuvee Levroutee it is
wonderful. The dry version is one of the best QPR wines in Burgundy,
with the chardonnay ripening fully in this very southern end of
Burgundy, and a winemaker that likes to let his grapes ripen all the
way.

BTW, the botrytis is only made very seldom, in suitable years, hence
these wines are a true treat, and rare.


>I find both fascinating and excellent.
>
>Which isn't to say that I find botrytis the BEST expression of the grape.

QED

Mike

Ian Hoare > wrote:

> Maybe I can persuade Michael to contribute one of the better
> Austrian Trock chardonnays to compare.

Hmmm - I guess I'll contact Alois Kracher on that subject.

M.

P.S.: Done. I just mailed him from his homepage, <www.kracher.at>
- quite interesting read, btw!

> Which one is good example of better Chardonnay or more similer to a good
> burgundy?
>
> * Shaw & Smith Reserve Chardonnay (Australia)
>
> * Beringer Chardonnay Napa Valley Private Reserve (California)
>
> * Cape Mentelle Chardonnay (Australia)
>
> * Stag's Leap Wine Cellars Chardonnay Reserve (California)
>
> * Yarra Yering Chardonnay (Australia)

All of these wines are good examples of Chardonnay (Beringer and the Shaw &
Smith really stand out) because they do not resemble Burgundy.

The standard St Francis Sonoma Chardonnay is another anti-Burgundy that will
get your attention.

Sean

"Eric lee" > wrote in news:bsmum2$61o$1
@mawar.singnet.com.sg:

> Which one is good example of better Chardonnay or more similer to a good
> burgundy?
>
> * Shaw & Smith Reserve Chardonnay (Australia)
>
> * Beringer Chardonnay Napa Valley Private Reserve (California)
>
> * Cape Mentelle Chardonnay (Australia)
>
> * Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars Chardonnay Reserve (California)
>
> * Yarra Yering Chardonnay (Australia)
>
>
>
>

Are you equating good Chardonnay with better brugundy or contrasting? None
of your examples are very burgundian though the one thing that they share
with Burgundy is the varietal. FWI I have had some French Burgundy made for
the US market that tastes somewhat like a Beringer (DeBoeuf's Pouilly
Fuisse and Jadot's "Chardonnay" come to mind)

"jcoulter" > wrote in message
. 204.17...

> FWIW I have had some French Burgundy made for
> the US market that tastes somewhat like a Beringer (DeBoeuf's Pouilly
> Fuisse and Jadot's "Chardonnay" come to mind)

Speaking of Pouilly Fuisse, This one I tasted recently is pretty nice:
Louis Tête 2002 ($15US)
I don't know if it's made for the California market, but it's pretty good by
my admittedly Californian standards. :^)

Tom S

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:21:13 GMT, jcoulter
> wrote:

> I have had some French Burgundy made for
>the US market that tastes somewhat like a Beringer (DeBoeuf's Pouilly
>Fuisse and Jadot's "Chardonnay" come to mind)

If a Burgundian winemaker can make a wine that tastes like a
"California chardonnay" (whatever that means) from grapes grown in
Burgundy, what does that say about the French insistence on the
primacy of terroir?

Not trying to start another argument over terroir. Just asking a
(somewhat) loaded question.

Vino

Vino wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:21:13 GMT, jcoulter
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I have had some French Burgundy made for
>>the US market that tastes somewhat like a Beringer (DeBoeuf's Pouilly
>>Fuisse and Jadot's "Chardonnay" come to mind)
>
>
> If a Burgundian winemaker can make a wine that tastes like a
> "California chardonnay" (whatever that means) from grapes grown in
> Burgundy, what does that say about the French insistence on the
> primacy of terroir?

This issue is as old as the hills, it was decisively answered
in 1976 - see:

http://wine.about.com/library/weekly/aa032303.htm

(and yes, I live in California).

Dana

Dana Myers posts....

>This issue is as old as the hills, it was decisively answered
>in 1976 - see:
>
>http://wine.about.com/library/weekly/aa032303.htm

And always for good measu

http://www.petedesrochers.com/epicur...eyes/july1.htm

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>
> And always for good measu
>
> http://www.petedesrochers.com/epicur...eyes/july1.htm

One interesting quote: "Incredibly, not a single wine expert noticed that
the "red" wine they were drinking was actually white. This is astonishing,
since the difference between white and red is not unlike the difference
between beer and rye. It's so obvious, even I can tell the difference."

That just isn't so. It's surprisingly hard to tell some whites from some
reds when your eyes are closed. (Kind of like telling what kind of fruit
juice you're drinking if your nose is plugged.) Granted, any "experts"
should be able to.

>> If a Burgundian winemaker can make a wine that tastes like a
>> "California chardonnay" (whatever that means) from grapes grown in
>> Burgundy, what does that say about the French insistence on the
>> primacy of terroir?

>This issue is as old as the hills, it was decisively answered
>in 1976 - see:
>
>http://wine.about.com/library/weekly/aa032303.htm

No Dana. I don't think this web reference to the competition between French and
CA wines answers the question. In fact, it's only tangentially related to the
question.

The question is whether producing a product true to the soils, climate and
native yeasts produces a distincive wine. I believe that it does. Whether the
wines wins (or loses) a competition with a CA wine is another issue.

Moreover, terrior is important in CA also. A Napa Cab is different than a
Sonoma Cab. etc. That's why wines are labelled as to their origin. I do not
know CA Chardonnay, but I presume that the top wines are not blends from
different areas, but wines taken from select plots, and labelled as such.

I think it's too bad when the French producer wants produce a California-like
chardonnay. I hope it's mostly in the mass-marketed (read Debeouf, Jadot etc.)
wines, but I have tasted some creamy, buttery Chablis as of late, and in my
opinion, they have no place on the shelves.

Down with standardization!

Tom Schellberg

"Dana Myers" > wrote in message news:3fefc55a$1@wobble...
> >
> > If a Burgundian winemaker can make a wine that tastes like a
> > "California chardonnay" (whatever that means) from grapes grown in
> > Burgundy, what does that say about the French insistence on the
> > primacy of terroir?
>
> This issue is as old as the hills, it was decisively answered
> in 1976 - see:
>
> http://wine.about.com/library/weekly/aa032303.htm

I don't see how that answers his question, interesting though it is. By the
way, based on the list shown (top Cabernet Californian, and 2nd 3rd and 4th
Cabernets French), which would you rather drink in general?

"jeffc" > wrote in message
r.com...
> > http://wine.about.com/library/weekly/aa032303.htm
>
> I don't see how that answers his question, interesting though it is. By
the
> way, based on the list shown (top Cabernet Californian, and 2nd 3rd and
4th
> Cabernets French), which would you rather drink in general?

My preference from that list would be the 9th place 1970 Heitz "Martha's
Vineyard". I'd bet that wine scored so low because the French tasters
easily identified it as non-French. It was a blockbuster in its youth, and
is still holding well (tasted ~1 year ago).

In general, I prefer big California Cabernets, but I do have a taste for
good Bordeaux - particularly Haut Brion and Lafite. I'm just not willing to
PAY for them! >:^[

Tom S

In article >,
Vino > wrote:
>
>If a Burgundian winemaker can make a wine that tastes like a
>"California chardonnay" (whatever that means) from grapes grown in
>Burgundy, what does that say about the French insistence on the
>primacy of terroir?
>
>Not trying to start another argument over terroir. Just asking a
>(somewhat) loaded question.


Terroir is only evident if the winemaker wishes for it to be. In many
wines, it's not evident even *if* the winemaker wants it to be. Terroir
is the most important thing, but viticulture and winemaking are extremely
important. Cal chards usually don't *try* to express terroir and many
consumers prefer it that way. There is something to be said for it,
certainly. I am not sure I want the Modesto terroir expressed in my budget
wine.


Dimitri

We need to report you to the FBI---you must be one of those terroirists.



"D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Vino > wrote:
> >
> >If a Burgundian winemaker can make a wine that tastes like a
> >"California chardonnay" (whatever that means) from grapes grown in
> >Burgundy, what does that say about the French insistence on the
> >primacy of terroir?
> >
> >Not trying to start another argument over terroir. Just asking a
> >(somewhat) loaded question.
>
>
> Terroir is only evident if the winemaker wishes for it to be. In many
> wines, it's not evident even *if* the winemaker wants it to be. Terroir
> is the most important thing, but viticulture and winemaking are extremely
> important. Cal chards usually don't *try* to express terroir and many
> consumers prefer it that way. There is something to be said for it,
> certainly. I am not sure I want the Modesto terroir expressed in my budget
> wine.
>
>
> Dimitri
>

>Cal chards usually don't *try* to express terroir and many
>consumers prefer it that way.

Is this right, in the higher end CA Chardonnays? I have tasted so few of these.
Do the better examples have distinct qualities representative of their origin?

This is a legitimate question I have, that I believe others in the group could
answer.


Tom Schellberg

In article >,
Xyzsch > wrote:
>>Cal chards usually don't *try* to express terroir and many
>>consumers prefer it that way.
>
>Is this right, in the higher end CA Chardonnays? I have tasted so few of these.
>Do the better examples have distinct qualities representative of their origin?
>
>This is a legitimate question I have, that I believe others in the group could
>answer.


It depends in what you mean by "higher end" and "better examples". If you
mean "expensive" then my statement is completely true. The same if you
mean "popular" or "rated highly by Spectator". If you mean "the wines that
taste the best" then it is not necessarily so, but that group is only a
subset at best of the "expensive, highly rated, high end" group.


In California there has been a movement towards vineyard designated (or
even block designated) boutique wines. However, the average winemaker
(even of high-end wine) doesn't really try to evoke terroir and instead
tries to make a tasty wine. The French, on the other hand, will evoke
terroir even if it means the wine tastes like mud, manure, and ash. It is
important to the French.


If I randomly selected a dozen Cal chards (even $50+) I don't think you'd be
able to tell where the fruit came from. There are wines that do try to evoke the
terroir. Stag's Leap makes a point of this in their SLV vs. Fay (cab) tastings.
The vineyards are right next to each other, but the wines are distinct.
This is not typical for California and it is a matter of winemaking mostly.
Highly quality viticulture and good climate are essential, of course, but
not sufficient.


Dimitri

"D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message
...
> Terroir
> is the most important thing <snip>

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that theory. The strong differences from
year to year in the fruit from a given location clearly disproves that
notion. Clearly, _climate_ is the #1 influence on the quality of the fruit.

Cal chards usually don't *try* to express terroir and many
> consumers prefer it that way.

I don't know about that last bit, but I've found that it's nearly impossible
to conceal terroir if it's there to begin with. Chardonnays from different
regions within California all speak to me differently: Santa Barbara has
loads of tropical fruit flavors; Monterey has an almost candy-like quality;
Napa has a definite flavor of earth; Russian River is a bit like Napa and
Santa Barbara combined, etc.

The point is that although the fruit tends to be strongly in the fore,
terroir is there in evidence too. It's just a bit more subtle.

Tom S

Vino > wrote in news:7advuvsgr7gvulk5u7k5iptfdlist2cq0g@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:21:13 GMT, jcoulter
> > wrote:
>
>> I have had some French Burgundy made for
>>the US market that tastes somewhat like a Beringer (DeBoeuf's Pouilly
>>Fuisse and Jadot's "Chardonnay" come to mind)
>
> If a Burgundian winemaker can make a wine that tastes like a
> "California chardonnay" (whatever that means) from grapes grown in
> Burgundy, what does that say about the French insistence on the
> primacy of terroir?

It rally means nothing as these wines are deliberately made to conform to a
style other than the native terroir driven style. The competition that Dana
mentioned doesn't adress terroir as much as taste, the taster's prefered
the taste of the CA wines but I would never pick the two I mentioned above
as the best in any competition. If they were the "best" I'd flunk 'em all.
>
> Not trying to start another argument over terroir. Just asking a
> (somewhat) loaded question.
>
> Vino
>

jcoulter wrote:

> It rally means nothing as these wines are deliberately made to conform to a
> style other than the native terroir driven style. The competition that Dana
> mentioned doesn't adress terroir as much as taste, the taster's prefered
> the taste of the CA wines

Actually, if you can't taste it, it doesn't exist. So, the 1976 competition
clearly indicated that the panel could not taste which wine was French
and which wine was Californian in a blind setting, if we presume that the
French tasters were looking for what they considered to be characteristics
of French wine. One of those characteristics is terroir - whether amplified
in the wine-making or not.

Personally, I think "terrior" is somewhat overblown and is primarily a
marketing tactic. It's used to create a perception of exclusivity
that otherwise isn't there. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate terroir
and terroir-driven wines, and can actually taste some terror-driven
differences sometimes - but if terroir doesn't speak from the glass,
it's meaningless. If terroir speak only from the label, it's marketing.

Dana

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:06:49 GMT, jcoulter
> wrote:

>The competition that Dana mentioned [Spurrier's "Judgment of Paris" in 1976]
>doesn't adress terroir as much as taste, the taster's prefered
>the taste of the CA wines but I would never pick the two I mentioned above
>as the best in any competition. If they were the "best" I'd flunk 'em all.

Which raises the question of what is most important to judges at wine
tasting events: how good the wine tastes or how well it expresses
whatever it is supposed to express, i.e. varietal, terroir, etc.

None of these factors are mutually exclusive. Ideally the top wines
would both taste good and be very expressive. But in a world where few
if any wines are perfect (whatever that might mean), which factor(s)
get the most weight?

Vino

Vino wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:06:49 GMT, jcoulter
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The competition that Dana mentioned [Spurrier's "Judgment of Paris" in 1976]
>>doesn't adress terroir as much as taste, the taster's prefered
>>the taste of the CA wines but I would never pick the two I mentioned above
>>as the best in any competition. If they were the "best" I'd flunk 'em all.
>
>
> Which raises the question of what is most important to judges at wine
> tasting events: how good the wine tastes or how well it expresses
> whatever it is supposed to express, i.e. varietal, terroir, etc.

I suspect the answer to this is extremely variable and is largely
based on the expectations of the individual judges.

In the case of the 1976 Paris tasting, the panel *knew* they were
tasting California vs. France and they doubtlessly had specific
expectations of what a good French wine should taste like and
were inclined to select French over Californian, all other things
equal. In fact, the judges were documented making biased judgments:

“Ah, back to France!” exclaimed Oliver after sipping a 1972
Chardonnay from the Napa Valley. “That is definitely California.
It has no nose,” said another judge – after downing a Batard
Montrachet ’73.

From: http://www.montelena.com/our_winery/paris_1976.html
and: http://weeklywire.com/ww/04-12-99/au..._feature1.html

I suppose we can debate it, but it's clear to me that terrior
was an important element of the judge's expectations, and they
simply couldn't taste it.

If those judges were tasting truly blind, no idea what was
being poured, their expectations would certainly have been
different. I believe this is true of anyone tasting wine,
myself included.

Dana

That's tough. When I think of Burgandy, I think of Batard Montrachet. In
California, I might look towards Talbott (Sleepy Hollow). The flavor profile
isn't quite the same, but I do think of Batard Montrachet when I drink this.
Additionally, I think (??) they're the only CA Chardonnay ever to get a 100
point rating from Wine Spectator, which they specifically equate with a
Condrieu (1990 Talbott).


"Eric lee" > wrote in message
...
> Which one is good example of better Chardonnay or more similer to a good
> burgundy?
>
> * Shaw & Smith Reserve Chardonnay (Australia)
>
> * Beringer Chardonnay Napa Valley Private Reserve (California)
>
> * Cape Mentelle Chardonnay (Australia)
>
> * Stag's Leap Wine Cellars Chardonnay Reserve (California)
>
> * Yarra Yering Chardonnay (Australia)
>
>
>