On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:44:39 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>Vincent Vega wrote:
>
>>a very small residual of sulfites remain in wine due to the process of
>>fermentation. (less than 10 parts per million).
>>
>Here are some of the sulfides that are natural to the wine process and
>you can see the ppm are even greater.
>
>hydrogen sulfide H2S rotten egg, sewage-like 0.9-1.5
>ethyl mercaptan CH3CH2SH burnt match, sulfidy, earthy 1.1-1.8
>methyl mercaptan CH3SH rotten cabbage, burnt rubber 1.5
>diethy sulfide CH3CH2SCH2CH3 rubbery 0.9-1.3
>dimethyl sulfide CH3SCH3 canned corn, cooked cabbage, asparagus 17-25
>diethyl disulfide CH3CH2SSCH2CH3 garlic, burnt rubber 3.6-4.3
>dimethyl disulfide CH3SSCH3 vegetal, cabbage, onion-like at high levels
>9.8-10.2
>carbon disulfide CS2 sweet, ethereal, slightly green, sulfidy 5
>
>
>
>Given this much sulfide already there, why would anyone want to add more.
>
The compounds you list are sulfides which, according to the chemical
formulas you cite, do not contain oxygen. The discussion here is about
sulfites, which by definition DO contain oxygen. The characteristics
of the two classes of compounds are completely different.

I'm curious about where your figures for sulfide concentrations came
from.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Vincent Vega wrote:

> According to your link, The worst wine was scored higher than the best wine
> by 3 seperate judges. This only reinforces my point. I once had an HONEST
> conversation with a winemaker as to how he recieved Gold medals for all of
> his wines. His secret was to enter every competition he could. "If your
> wine isnt flawed and you enter enough competitions you are bound to recieve
> a Gold medal" LOL

That there's not uniform agreement among 11 judges is a far cry from "totally
inconsistent." You seem to have a gift for hyperbole, "Vincent." Where you
get into trouble is in branding the winner the "best" and the loser the
"worst" wine. All that we can really say from those results is that the panel
on the whole liked one wine more than another. YMMV, as they say on
Usenet. However, it *is* quite instructive to look at the correlation
constants in the right hand column of the judges' scores. What it shows us
is that certain judges' scores (such as Albert de Villaine) were much more in
tune with the overall sentiment than others'. Again, if the scoring were
truly random, all those correlation constants would be exprected to be zero.
Regarding panel tastings, though, your honest winemaker was dead on. Most
savvy consumers pay no attention to the gold medals, as most panel tastings
devolve to a lower common denominator sort of wine. To repeat my earlier
point, if you don't know who it is judging a wine, why should you give their
opinion any weight at all?

>
>
> The other point I was trying to make that seems to be so controversial is
> the comment made about Northern California wines about acidity.

No controversy there that I can detect. I merely pointed out that your
insinuation that acidification is regularly practiced everywhere was
inconsistent with reality. Your main point, that claiming to place a CA wine
on the basis of its acidity is ludicrous, I agree with. Sorry if it seemed
otherwise.

Mark Lipton

Vincent Vega wrote:

>
> This is another myth. Thanks for pointing it out. I hear alot of
> winemakers who dont like to admint (for unknown reasons) that they add SO2
> directly to their wine so they claim that residual SO2 gets into their wine
> by using it as a sterilizer. This is even more dubious considering the fact
> that SO2 is an anti-oxidizing agent and DOES NOT STERILIZE.

Who told you that nonsense? SO2 (and metabisulfite) is both an antioxidant and
an antimicrobial. Here's a link if you doubt my word:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...o/v38aje11.htm

> I can believe you people claim to be wine experts and you dispute the fact
> that SO2 is commonly added to ALL quality wines throughout the world. If we
> cant agree on this FACT then I dont see any any education or enlightenment
> can occur here.

Who's disagreeing with that obvious fact? Like Ian, I've only encountered one
winemaker who claimed (correctly) to bottle a wine with minimal sulfite. That
was Marcel Lapierre in Morgon, who made a special cuvée with low SO2. He'd
only sell it if you could make assurances that it would never get warmer than
20 C, as it would become a bacteriological time bomb otherwise. Tasting it
side by side with the more heavily sulfited wine showed a significant
difference, though. The fact that you encounter so many winemakers who deny
the obvious makes me wonder just what sort of winemakers you're visiting. And
who in this group has claimed to be a wine expert? We're just a bunch of
people interested in wine.

>
>
>
> > >In France, this law does not exist so the French simply tell their
> customers
> > >that they dont add sulphits. After all, this is what the customer wants
> to
> > >hear.
> >
> > Absolutely untrue.
>
> There is a law in France where sulphites need to be posted on the wine
> label? Please show me this law so I can correct myself.

I believe that Ian was disagreeing with your assertion that French winemakers
are telling their customers that they don't add sulfites. FWIW, I've visited
over a dozen winemakers in France and have never heard that claim once.

Mark Lipton

> >
> >Given this much sulfide already there, why would anyone want to add more.
> >
> The compounds you list are sulfides which, according to the chemical
> formulas you cite, do not contain oxygen. The discussion here is about
> sulfites, which by definition DO contain oxygen. The characteristics
> of the two classes of compounds are completely different.
>
> I'm curious about where your figures for sulfide concentrations came
> from.
>
> Vino
> To reply, add "x" between
> letters and numbers of
> e-mail address.

I wouldnt dispute those numbers but I am curious as to where they came from.
I never saw these components broken down like this.

Salut/Hi Vincent Vega,

This is my last reply to what I am increasing finding a rancunious and
trollish post.

le/on Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:41:47 GMT, tu disais/you said:-


>> yes you've said that at least three times. I didn't comment on this, as I
>> think it's ludicrous. What I commented upon was what seemed to me to be
>> false presumptions.
>
>Well, they only way for me to prove I am right is to do some blind wine
>tasting and unfortunatly we can not do this over the internet.

What I don't understand is the _assumptions_ you make about the people here.
You're assuming that your knowledge and information is the only truth and
that we're a bunch of ignorant peasants whose lives have been blighted by
the lack of your postings. (Caricature admittedly, but that's the TONE of
what you've been posting)

> My experience has been that the judging of non-flawed wines is totally
>inconsistant.

Well, that's NOT my experience. I have found, for example, that Tom Shudic
and I, tasting white (mainly SB) non faulty wines, marked them almost
identically, with our assessments of two wines reversed by one point (he
gave one 17, and another 16) I gave them 16, and 17 respectively. I've found
the same sort of consistance with Markl Lipton and Andrew Bourne, I've found
substantially the same thing with Michael Pronay. This is MY experience with
a number of other people all of whom post here.

>can choose not to believe me, you can choose to believe me or you can do
>some controlled experimentation for yourself and gather your own empirical
>data.

That's what I mean by arrogance. The assumption that we haven't.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> "Vincent Vega" > wrote:
>
> > Note: Champagne properly includes several kinds not only of
> > sparkling but of still wines;
>
> Wrong. "Champagne" - if you are talking about the wines grown in
> the French province of Champagne - by law can only be sparkling
> wine, period. Still wines have to be labelled "Côteaux
> Champenois", with the only exception of "Rosé des Riceys", a still
> rosé wine.

You might want to send a note to Websters dictionary and let them know they
made a mistake.

> Otoh, you say that climatic conditions can lead to the need of
> acidification just about anywhere in the world.

No,, I never said that. Its unbelievable,, you people must all share one
mind. Someone shows up that has diversity of opinion and you distort my
words and slander me. Let me guess,, you are all left-wing socialist
liberals also?


This is *plain
> wrong*, as in Germany and Austria - and in the champagne region in
> France - never ever has thought about that. Quite in contrary, in
> Germany high levels of acidity is the usual problem winemakers
> have to face in just about every except the very best years.
>
> M.

> So why would acid be added in countries like Germany or Austria or much of
> France or New Zealand?

The same reason as it is used in much of the rest of the world. The trend
today is to overwrippen grapes inorder to get big complex high alcohol
wines. As the brix raises the TA is reduced along with that the PH
increases. If you are drinking a wine above 13% alcohol, than that grape
was harvested at about 24-26 brix. A grape at this high of a sugar content
would taste flat from lack of acidity and PH would make the wine unstable.
Climate doesnt have much to do with it. Its simple chemestry/biology.

In some locations acidity is naturally high because ripeness doesnt
complete. In this case no acid is added but sugar would have to be added to
increase the alcohol content. (oh yeah,, this is illegal too, and
nobodydoes this either). Well you cant have your cake and eat it too.
Either the fruit is under ripe and high in acid or it is rippend and acid is
added.

But dont take my word for it. Im simply a winemaker whose patience has run
out for "the wine experts".

"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> The former estate - (Castello di) Poggio alle Mura - at the time
> bottled just about the worst Brunello I ever had in my life.

I'd have to give that dubious distinction to the 1981 Biondi Santi. After
shelling out $40 US for it, and patiently cellaring it for about ten years a
friend and I shared a bottle. Simply awful - and not IMO an off bottle. It
wasn't corked.

Tom S

"Vincent Vega" > wrote in message
...
> If you are drinking a wine above 13% alcohol, than that grape
> was harvested at about 24-26 brix. A grape at this high of a sugar
content
> would taste flat from lack of acidity and PH would make the wine unstable.
> Climate doesnt have much to do with it. Its simple chemestry/biology.

Your information is out of date. Conversion efficiencies of 60% are not at
all unusual in cool fermentations. IOW, the fruit could come in at 22° Brix
and ferment to 13+% alcohol.

For that matter, fruit at 23-24° Brix often arrives at the winery with TA
close to 10g/l and pH of 3.3 or so IF it is grown in a cool climate region:
e.g., Santa Barbara, Monterey, Sonoma and Mendocino Counties.

Tom S

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:12:34 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> wrote:

>
>"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
>> "Vincent Vega" > wrote:
>>
>> > Note: Champagne properly includes several kinds not only of
>> > sparkling but of still wines;
>>
>> Wrong. "Champagne" - if you are talking about the wines grown in
>> the French province of Champagne - by law can only be sparkling
>> wine, period. Still wines have to be labelled "Côteaux
>> Champenois", with the only exception of "Rosé des Riceys", a still
>> rosé wine.
>
>You might want to send a note to Websters dictionary and let them know they
>made a mistake.
>

From Webster's dictionary :

Main Entry: cham·pagne
Pronunciation: sham-'pAn
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Champagne, France
1 : a white sparkling wine made in the old province of Champagne,
France; also : a similar wine made elsewhere


Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

"Vincent Vega" > wrote in
:

>
>> So why would acid be added in countries like Germany or
Austria or
>> much of France or New Zealand?
>
> The same reason as it is used in much of the rest of the
world. The
> trend today is to overwrippen grapes inorder to get big
complex high
> alcohol wines. As the brix raises the TA is reduced along
with that
> the PH increases. If you are drinking a wine above 13%
alcohol, than
> that grape was harvested at about 24-26 brix. A grape at
this high of
> a sugar content would taste flat from lack of acidity and
PH would
> make the wine unstable. Climate doesnt have much to do with
it. Its
> simple chemestry/biology.
>
> In some locations acidity is naturally high because
ripeness doesnt
> complete. In this case no acid is added but sugar would
have to be
> added to increase the alcohol content. (oh yeah,, this is
illegal
> too, and nobodydoes this either). Well you cant have your
cake and
> eat it too. Either the fruit is under ripe and high in acid
or it is
> rippend and acid is added.
>
> But dont take my word for it. Im simply a winemaker whose
patience
> has run out for "the wine experts".
>
>
>

Look , First of all you walk into the room screaming "you are
all a bunch of phonies!" Ok we are now go away.

Or, have meaningful dialogue. SO2 gets added. there are areas
where acids are added and there are areas where sugar is
added. These things are not outlawed uniformly throughout the
world. but what is your point?

The folks who post here come from around the world and
represent a wide variety of taste and experience. Some like
wines tlike the $7 pound Rooster, I can't stand it and
wouldn't buy it a $2 a bottle, does that make me better?
probably not. I like the Crozes Hermitage made by the Coop in
Tain l'Hermitage but I wouldn't buy their Hermitage. Does
that make me snob or a value conscious purchaser.

Some folks regularly report on wines I can only dream of. I
value that addition to my life. If ever I should be able to
drink wines such as these I will have a better idea of which
ones I might like by seeing those "experts" opinions of my
favorites.

Is there a company line at AWF? perhaps that Parker isn't God
and that many California, though I am discovering not all,
wines are over oaked. Is there room for disagreement has been
in the past. Is there need for civility? Yes, but walking
into the room screaming you are phonies, excuse me implying
that we are wine snobs, is not a good way to promote the
concept.

A wine snob by my definition is someone who thinks they know
much and is unwilling to listen and learn from others like
the fellow running a tasting stand who smiled and said "as
you wish" when I commented on the parentage of Cabernet
Sauvignon. He somehow thought that when I indicated a cross
that I was implying a mixture of SB and Cab Franc. I might be
wrong about things but I am willing to learn. I just ask that
you offer instruction and not just berate. I try to speak
French my Frech friends patiently correct my pronounciation
and I learn, my daughter laughs and repeats my errors, I only
learn that I did something wrong but cannot correct the
error, indeed I become self conscious and repeat the errors.

So what do you like and why?

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:15:18 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> wrote:

>
>> Otoh, you say that climatic conditions can lead to the need of
>> acidification just about anywhere in the world.
>
>No,, I never said that. Its unbelievable,, you people must all share one
>mind. Someone shows up that has diversity of opinion and you distort my
>words and slander me. Let me guess,, you are all left-wing socialist
>liberals also?

We all belong to the marxist-leninist wine appreciation wing of the
AFW (Anarchist Freethinking Whiners). If you cannot understand the
relationship between dialectical materialism and the use of selected
yeast cultures, if you see no link between class struggle and
acidification, then you are not going to understand what we write.



Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

>
> Or, have meaningful dialogue. SO2 gets added. there are areas
> where acids are added and there are areas where sugar is
> added. These things are not outlawed uniformly throughout the
> world. but what is your point?

That is my point. I dont understand why you are all attacking me for saying
this.

> A wine snob by my definition is someone who thinks they know
> much and is unwilling to listen and learn from others

Agreed. People here seem unwilling to listen to what I have to say from
personal experience.

> So what do you like and why?

Are you asking what types of wines do I like?

"Tom S" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Vincent Vega" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you are drinking a wine above 13% alcohol, than that grape
> > was harvested at about 24-26 brix. A grape at this high of a sugar
> content
> > would taste flat from lack of acidity and PH would make the wine
unstable.
> > Climate doesnt have much to do with it. Its simple chemestry/biology.
>
> Your information is out of date. Conversion efficiencies of 60% are not
at
> all unusual in cool fermentations. IOW, the fruit could come in at 22°
Brix
> and ferment to 13+% alcohol.

22 brix would not ferment any higher than 13%

>
> For that matter, fruit at 23-24° Brix often arrives at the winery with TA
> close to 10g/l and pH of 3.3 or so IF it is grown in a cool climate
region:
> e.g., Santa Barbara, Monterey, Sonoma and Mendocino Counties.

more like 4-6g/l,, My experience shows differently.

"Mike Tommasi" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:15:18 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >> Otoh, you say that climatic conditions can lead to the need of
> >> acidification just about anywhere in the world.
> >
> >No,, I never said that. Its unbelievable,, you people must all share one
> >mind. Someone shows up that has diversity of opinion and you distort my
> >words and slander me. Let me guess,, you are all left-wing socialist
> >liberals also?
>
> We all belong to the marxist-leninist wine appreciation wing of the
> AFW (Anarchist Freethinking Whiners). If you cannot understand the
> relationship between dialectical materialism and the use of selected
> yeast cultures, if you see no link between class struggle and
> acidification, then you are not going to understand what we write.

"your comment"
"my head"
but French thinking never made much sense to me. If it did, we would all be
speaking German .


>
>
>
> Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
> email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Vincent, like I said in earlier post I am simply a wine enthusiast of 25
years. My first real experience of wine was in honeymoon in France and my
wife and I visited Bordeaux.

You are sharing interesting information and I don't mind that your posts are
somewhat inflammatory. This thread is long and the subject is interesting
regardless of the manner in which you choose to post.

But I wanted to ask with your wine producing knowledge...where are you
located and are you in the wine making bussiness or were you?

I have no knowledge of winemaking. I do enjoy wine however.

Please advise.

Thanks.


"Vincent Vega" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "Vincent Vega" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > If you are drinking a wine above 13% alcohol, than that grape
> > > was harvested at about 24-26 brix. A grape at this high of a sugar
> > content
> > > would taste flat from lack of acidity and PH would make the wine
> unstable.
> > > Climate doesnt have much to do with it. Its simple chemestry/biology.
> >
> > Your information is out of date. Conversion efficiencies of 60% are not
> at
> > all unusual in cool fermentations. IOW, the fruit could come in at 22°
> Brix
> > and ferment to 13+% alcohol.
>
> 22 brix would not ferment any higher than 13%
>
> >
> > For that matter, fruit at 23-24° Brix often arrives at the winery with
TA
> > close to 10g/l and pH of 3.3 or so IF it is grown in a cool climate
> region:
> > e.g., Santa Barbara, Monterey, Sonoma and Mendocino Counties.
>
> more like 4-6g/l,, My experience shows differently.
>
>

Dick

Thanks for your comment. I dont try to be inflamitory but I have no
patience for people who cant handle a diversity of opinion. Although I grew
up in a winemaking and wine drinkng family I also became a wine enthusiast
in France when I enjoyed a $3.00 bordeaux that left a significant
impression. I am still trying to find a wine that tastes the way that one
did. Not sure if it was the wine, the atmosphere or my young tastes.

As for where I am and what I do,, I would generalize and say that I am in
the USA and have made my share of wine. If I have insulted my patrons I
would prefer that they not know who I am I am however, as brutally honest
with my customers as i am here in the forum and I believe that they
appreciate the honesty. I believe this trend of "wine snobbery" is bad for
the industry. Again,, I dont claim to be an "expert" on wines of the world
nor do I claim to have an exceptional nose for wine. I would say that my
nose and tastes are typical of the average wine consumer.

"dick" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Vincent, like I said in earlier post I am simply a wine enthusiast of 25
> years. My first real experience of wine was in honeymoon in France and my
> wife and I visited Bordeaux.
>
> You are sharing interesting information and I don't mind that your posts
are
> somewhat inflammatory. This thread is long and the subject is interesting
> regardless of the manner in which you choose to post.
>
> But I wanted to ask with your wine producing knowledge...where are you
> located and are you in the wine making bussiness or were you?
>
> I have no knowledge of winemaking. I do enjoy wine however.
>
> Please advise.
>
> Thanks.
>

Vincent Vega wrote:


>>Vincent Vega wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is another myth. Thanks for pointing it out. I hear alot of
>>>winemakers who dont like to admint (for unknown reasons) that they add
>
> SO2
>
>>>directly to their wine so they claim that residual SO2 gets into their
>
> wine
>
>>>by using it as a sterilizer. This is even more dubious considering the
>
> fact
>
>>>that SO2 is an anti-oxidizing agent and DOES NOT STERILIZE.
>>
>>Who told you that nonsense? SO2 (and metabisulfite) is both an
>
> antioxidant and
>
>>an antimicrobial. Here's a link if you doubt my word:
>>
>>http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...o/v38aje11.htm
>
>
> Mark, I am not disputing anything in that link you posted. Winemakers do
> not sterilize with S02. The quantity of sulfite that you would need makes
> it impractical.
>
> USE As an antimicrobial preservative and as an
> anti-browning agent
>
> It is used to slow the growth of microbial agents. I am not saying that
> massive amounts of SO2 wont kill bacteria. Large amounts of Coca-Cola will
> kill bacteria,, but that is not the typical use of sulfites. They are used
> as a preservative.

The concentration of SO2 needed to kill most microorganisms is typically
estimated to be ~200 mg/L (aka 200 ppm), which is not a truly massive
concentration. So now I understand you to be saying that sulfites are
not typically used in concetrations sufficient to kill microorganisms.
However, that will depend on the pH, the type of microorganism present
and what other antimicrobials are present (e.g., sorbate) and whether a
sterile filtration is performed. Additionally, SO2 and metabisulfite
are used at various points in the winemaking process: to prevent
secondary fermentation and as a dosage during racking and bottling. In
the case of sweet wines, I think that it's safe to say that the sulfites
are indeed used to sterilize the wine, else we'd see secondary
fermentation in any sweet wine that we tried to age. I'd suspect that
even dry red wines are truly sterile by the time they're bottled, but
whether the SO2 is the principal agent used to sterilize them is perhaps
debatable.

>
> Nonsense? why the hostility. I am not feeding you lies. I am trying to
> share some infomation.

No hostility. But compare your current, nuanced position to your
earlier statement ("DOES NOT STERILIZE"). I labeled that earlier
categorical statement nonsense because it is: SO2 can sterilize and is
used to do so in a variety of applications. Whether it does so in all
cases is another question altogether.

Mark Lipton

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:12:34 GMT, "Vincent Vega"
> wrote:

>
>"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
>> "Vincent Vega" > wrote:
>>
>> > Note: Champagne properly includes several kinds not only of
>> > sparkling but of still wines;
>>
>> Wrong. "Champagne" - if you are talking about the wines grown in
>> the French province of Champagne - by law can only be sparkling
>> wine, period. Still wines have to be labelled "Côteaux
>> Champenois", with the only exception of "Rosé des Riceys", a still
>> rosé wine.
>
>You might want to send a note to Websters dictionary and let them know they
>made a mistake.
>
Like Ian earlier, this will be my last posting (and last download) in
this thread because of the nasty turn that it has taken. This is
entirely the responsibility of one very arrogant poster who has made
some very stupid and uninformed statements. But I am responding to
this one.

First of all, "Websters" (or, more accurately, "Webster's", the
possessive case) is a generic term. In other words, anyone can publish
a dictionary and call it a "Webster's". So neither I nor anyone else
here has any idea what dictionary you are referring to.

Secondly, all of us "wine snobs" who post here do truly believe that
true "Champagne" can only be made in and from grapes grown in the
Champagne region of France. Sparkling wine, of which Champagne is an
example, can be made anywhere. It can even be made anywhere by the
same method used to make Champagne. In the US we can even label it
"Methode Champenoise". In the EU I understand that this term is not
allowed (except in Champagne, of course) and the term "Methode
Traditionelle" must be used.

As I said earlier, this thread has been poisoned and this will be my
last contribution to it.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

>This is my last reply to what I am increasing finding a rancunious and
>trollish post.

'Rancunious?

Yep, them damned rancoons are always digging up my edging stones in the garden
- causing untold cooncern, coonsternation and coonfusion.

But I have to ask, Ian - can you supply a definition for this novel word, or
was it a typo for 'rancourous'?

>I'd have to give that dubious distinction to the 1981 Biondi Santi. After
>shelling out $40 US for it, and patiently cellaring it for about ten years a
>friend and I shared a bottle. Simply awful -

Biondi Santi is highly over-rated and rides on the past glory of having been
first to produce Brunello. This is always reflected in the price but seldom in
the quality of the wine.

On 06 Apr 2004 17:29:30 GMT, (Bill Spohn) wrote:

>>This is my last reply to what I am increasing finding a rancunious and
>>trollish post.
>
>'Rancunious?
>
>Yep, them damned rancoons are always digging up my edging stones in the garden
>- causing untold cooncern, coonsternation and coonfusion.
>
>But I have to ask, Ian - can you supply a definition for this novel word, or
>was it a typo for 'rancourous'?

It's franglais, you get to use it without realising it, once you have
spent a few years abroad... happens to me all the time...

Mike


Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Vincent Vega wrote:
>
>
> >>Vincent Vega wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>This is another myth. Thanks for pointing it out. I hear alot of
> >>>winemakers who dont like to admint (for unknown reasons) that they add
> >
> > SO2
> >
> >>>directly to their wine so they claim that residual SO2 gets into their
> >
> > wine
> >
> >>>by using it as a sterilizer. This is even more dubious considering the
> >
> > fact
> >
> >>>that SO2 is an anti-oxidizing agent and DOES NOT STERILIZE.
> >>
> >>Who told you that nonsense? SO2 (and metabisulfite) is both an
> >
> > antioxidant and
> >
> >>an antimicrobial. Here's a link if you doubt my word:
> >>
> >>http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...o/v38aje11.htm
> >
> >
> > Mark, I am not disputing anything in that link you posted. Winemakers
do
> > not sterilize with S02. The quantity of sulfite that you would need
makes
> > it impractical.
> >
> > USE As an antimicrobial preservative and as an
> > anti-browning agent
> >
> > It is used to slow the growth of microbial agents. I am not saying that
> > massive amounts of SO2 wont kill bacteria. Large amounts of Coca-Cola
will
> > kill bacteria,, but that is not the typical use of sulfites. They are
used
> > as a preservative.
>
> The concentration of SO2 needed to kill most microorganisms is typically
> estimated to be ~200 mg/L (aka 200 ppm), which is not a truly massive
> concentration. So now I understand you to be saying that sulfites are
> not typically used in concetrations sufficient to kill microorganisms.
> However, that will depend on the pH, the type of microorganism present
> and what other antimicrobials are present (e.g., sorbate) and whether a
> sterile filtration is performed. Additionally, SO2 and metabisulfite
> are used at various points in the winemaking process: to prevent
> secondary fermentation and as a dosage during racking and bottling. In
> the case of sweet wines, I think that it's safe to say that the sulfites
> are indeed used to sterilize the wine, else we'd see secondary
> fermentation in any sweet wine that we tried to age. I'd suspect that
> even dry red wines are truly sterile by the time they're bottled, but
> whether the SO2 is the principal agent used to sterilize them is perhaps
> debatable.
>
> >
> > Nonsense? why the hostility. I am not feeding you lies. I am trying
to
> > share some infomation.
>
> No hostility. But compare your current, nuanced position to your
> earlier statement ("DOES NOT STERILIZE"). I labeled that earlier
> categorical statement nonsense because it is: SO2 can sterilize and is
> used to do so in a variety of applications. Whether it does so in all
> cases is another question altogether.
>
> Mark Lipton

Mark,, I dont understand you. I keep agreeing with you and you reply that
you disagree with me? When got on this topic about the use of sulfites
sterilize equipment. Now you are talking about their use in wines. I am
not disputing anything you just posted.

"Vincent Vega" > wrote:

> Let me guess,, you are all left-wing socialist
> liberals also?

Of course we are. *plonk*

M.

"Vincent Vega" > wrote:

>> Or, have meaningful dialogue. SO2 gets added. there are areas
>> where acids are added and there are areas where sugar is added.
>> These things are not outlawed uniformly throughout the world.
>> but what is your point?

> That is my point. I dont understand why you are all attacking
> me for saying this.

You seems to have an extremely strange conception of what "all"
means.

M.

Michael Pronay > wrote in
:

> "Vincent Vega" > wrote:
>
>> Let me guess,, you are all left-wing socialist
>> liberals also?
>
> Of course we are. *plonk*
>
> M.
>

I don't see Ed Rasimus Osorry about the spelling) in that
category, but if you use a big enough shotgun you are going to
hit some pigeons. I'm proud to be with Mike on this one. ;-)

"Vincent Vega" generalised yet again.....
>
> > So why would acid be added in countries like Germany
> > or Austria or much of France or New Zealand?
>
> The same reason as it is used in much of the rest of the world.


In your vast winemaking experience, where in the rest of the world???

Spain? Italy? Swaziland? Uzbekistan?



> The trend today is to overwrippen grapes inorder
> to get big complex high alcohol wines.


More generalising bullshit - if there is any trend at all, it would be away
from over-oaked, over alcoholic wines to those with subtlety and elegance.

> If you are drinking a wine above 13% alcohol, than that grape
> was harvested at about 24-26 brix.

> A grape at this high of a sugar content would taste flat
> from lack of acidity.

Again, your generalisation is laughable - what grape variety, grown where?


> Climate doesnt have much to do with it.

Ho ho ho ho - yes, I am awaiting with interest the forthcoming vintage
from both Greenland and Chad!

--
st.helier

In article >,
(Bill Spohn) writes:

>I'd have to give that dubious distinction to the 1981 Biondi Santi. After
>>shelling out $40 US for it, and patiently cellaring it for about ten years a
>>friend and I shared a bottle. Simply awful -
>
>Biondi Santi is highly over-rated and rides on the past glory of having been
>first to produce Brunello. This is always reflected in the price but seldom
>in
>the quality of the wine.

IIRC, didn't B-S have a commanding lead (well, maybe neck and neck with Opus
One) in the most overrated/overpriced wine thread a while back?
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

bugger bugger bugger bugger
Salut/Hi Bill Spohn,

le/on 06 Apr 2004 17:29:30 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>>This is my last reply to what I am increasing finding a rancunious and
>>trollish post.
>
>'Rancunious?

bugger bugger bugger

>Yep, them damned rancoons are always digging up my edging stones in the garden
>- causing untold cooncern, coonsternation and coonfusion.

>But I have to ask, Ian - can you supply a definition for this novel word, or
>was it a typo for 'rancourous'?

bugger bugger bugger bugger bougre de brigand!

As Mike T points out it's Franglais. I typed it, looked at it, thought about
it and couldn't work out what was wrong, 'cos the french word is "rancunier"
so I send it!

I meant to write "rancorous" (and thanks very much for your kind gesture of
a speeling mistook!) of course.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

amnspam (Dale Williams) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> (Bill Spohn) writes:
>
>>I'd have to give that dubious distinction to the 1981
Biondi Santi.
>>After
>>>shelling out $40 US for it, and patiently cellaring it for
about ten
>>>years a friend and I shared a bottle. Simply awful -
>>
>>Biondi Santi is highly over-rated and rides on the past
glory of
>>having been first to produce Brunello. This is always
reflected in the
>>price but seldom in
>>the quality of the wine.
>
> IIRC, didn't B-S have a commanding lead (well, maybe neck
and neck
> with Opus One) in the most overrated/overpriced wine thread
a while
> back? Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply
>

More than Far Niente? I thought that was pretty good hype
wine.

>
> > A grape at this high of a sugar content would taste flat
> > from lack of acidity.
>
> Again, your generalisation is laughable - what grape variety, grown
where?
>

Laughable? Why is this funny? Does TA increase as sugar rises in your
parallel universe? What is your experience with growing grapes? Where do
you grow grapes that this happens? I dont think you have a clue.

"Rich R" > wrote in message
m...
> I am replying way up on the food chain.
>
> 1. You can not spell.
> 2. You can not parse a sentance.
> 3. You used the word "semantics", but you probalby can not define it.
> 5. Using just first predicate logic, so far, you know nothing.
>
> Rich
>
Here are the facts I gleamed from your post:

The book you read is a great read.
(assertion)

At least 90% of wine drinkers are wine snobs.
(An opinion) The qualifier "at least" qualifies this as an opinion.

Wine snobs really don't know much about wine.
(Opinion) The word "really" qualifies this as an opinion. To what degree?

Wine snobs can't objectively evaluate a wine.
(Transitive assertion. Therefore 9 out of 10 wine drinkers cannot evalutate
a wine)

Wine makers make wine according to a high rated style.
(An assertion) True in all cases?. Is this what you meant?

You are never influenced by writers.
(An assertion)

A wine cannot be identified by region.
(An assertion)

You are not a beginner.
(Assertion)

Acidity does not determine where a wine is from.
(Assertion)

Wine makers add ingredients.
(Assertion)

Marketing is insane.
(Assertion)

You will write a book.
(Assertion)


So here is what I understand:

You read a great book.

90% of wine drinkers cannot evaluate a wine.

Winemakers make a wine that judges will like.

You never fall for this.

Climate does not influence a wine's style.

You drink alot of wine and know the difference between plonk and the good
stuff.

Marketing is a bad thing.

You will write a book and explain your assertions.

Rich

Here is the full initial post you get when you bounce the post. A search
of domains available for sale revealed that the mentioned
vegaindustries.com is available. Posts contain much more infomation than
appears on the board.

______________________________________

From: "Vincent Vega" >
Newsgroups: alt.food.wine
Subject: Insanity of the wine industry
Lines: 49
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: >
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:29:14 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.150.245.72
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1081099754 141.150.245.72 (Sun, 04 Apr
2004
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A013:29:14 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 13:29:14 EDT
I just read the "Official Guide to Wine Snobbery"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...7594829-92751=
34?v=3Dglance
The book is a great read and reinforces my speculation about the wine
industry and wine snobs. I have come to the conclusion that most (90%
and above) wine snobs really don't know much about wine. These people
simply repeat what it is they heard other people say about wine.
Person "B" who knows little about wine could convince Person "A", who
knows nothing about wine, that he/she is a wine expert. Person "C", who
has a moderate knowledge of wine, could convince Person "B" that he/she
is an expert on wine. Person "B", would then mimic what Person "C" says
about wine and will pass this knowledge onto Person "A".
Meanwhile, Person "C" knows that no matter what he says about wine
(within reason), Persons "B" and "A" will eventually consider fact. With
this type of persuasion Person "C" is free to say or make up anything
he/she wants. Person "C" eventually gets a job as a wine judge or wine
columnist while his subjectiveness permeates the industry and
"winemakers" shake their head in confusion. The winemakers are left to
face the fact that subjectiveness, copycatting and creative writing will
dictate the industry.
I never listen to wine TV shows and only read the wine spectator and
such to keep up on industry trends. But I was flicking the channels the
other day and I heard this wine connoisseur on the food network talking
to a chef in California when she made the comment that "the Sauvignon
Blanc they were drinking was clearly from the Northern Coast of
California because it was high in acidity" =A0 LOL ROFLMAO. Now I know
someone watching that program is going to repeat that, the next time
they drink a white from Northern Cali. And they will convince people
that they know a lot about wines for making such an observant statement.
And that statement will get passed meanwhile building the credentials of
whoever repeats the line.
The only problem is that anyone who has a beginners knowledge of
winemaking knows that acid additions are currently practiced by just
about wine producing nation in the world,, even if they don't tell you.
The fact that a wine is high in acidity could not possibly indicate
where it is from. A few grams per liter tartaric/citric addition to an
over ripened Napa valley grape would produce the same effect. But who
cares? All anyone is looking for is a new witty comment to make in order
to impress people who know as little or less than themselves about wine.
The more I am force to understand the marketing of this industry, the
more I am convinced of its insanity. I think someday I will write a book
that exposes the foolishness and symantics of the wine industry.

______________________________________

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:26:01 -0500 (CDT),
(Cwdjrx _) wrote:

>Here is the full initial post you get when you bounce the post. A search
>of domains available for sale revealed that the mentioned
>vegaindustries.com is available. Posts contain much more infomation than
>appears on the board.
>
Thanks.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Here is a bonce of a posting in another thread by the same person.
Notice this one seems to go through Google which allows NG posts, but
apparently points back to the same place.

When one has a mail address at a domain, things can be a little
different than normal. My domain is on a Unix(Apache) server and has 20
pop mail accounts, none of which I will use on NG postings because of
spam problems. If someone sends an email to anything, such as
, it will be automatically be delivered to the
postmaster box if no such mail address exists on the domain. However you
can reconfigure the mail so that it will accept only real addresses you
have on the domain. The point is that I probably could give a domain
name that is available for sale or an active one for my address when
signing up for email or posting at places such as Yahoo, Google, and
many others. If the domain has not been configured to accept only
specific addresses, the mail will be received in case the mail or NG
service provider checks. Many people including myself have domain email
addresses, but I always keep the above in mind when I see an address at
a domain.

______________________________________

From: "Vincent Vega" >
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.winemaking,alt.food.wine
References: >
Subject: Organic Wine Now
Lines: 9
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: >
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:46:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.150.245.72
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1081097218 141.150.245.72 (Sun, 04 Apr
2004
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A012:46:58 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:46:58 EDT
You are kidding right? The whole organic wine industry is a sham.

______________________________________

(Cwdjrx _) wrote in news:16070-40735AEE-384
@storefull-3175.bay.webtv.net:


you
> have on the domain. The point is that I probably could give a domain
> name that is available for sale or an active one for my address when
> signing up for email or posting at places such as Yahoo, Google, and
> many others. If the domain has not been configured to accept only
> specific addresses, the mail will be received in case the mail or NG
> service provider checks. Many people including myself have domain email
> addresses, but I always keep the above in mind when I see an address

There actually is a French company located in the Loire valley using
www.vegaindustries.com

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:47:44 -0500, jcoulter > wrote:
>
>There actually is a French company located in the Loire valley using
>www.vegaindustries.com

I went to the website and can find only a homepage with no links that
I can detect. Am I missing something?

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Enough is enough Vincent or Jeremy or Shirley or Abu or whatever your name
is...

The classic sign of a troll is someone who simply ignores the hard
questions, which they cannot answer (elsewise they are proved to a trolling
moron) and throws deflecting questions, hoping to change the subject, and
attack others.

Well it won't work.

You are the one writing asinine statements, such as "acidification is
practiced in every wine producing nation - even if they don't tell you!" and
"This is the dark secret of the wine industry" or supposing that "most
people can only remember 1 comment in the past" (you arrogant ****!!!) -
or what about "Sorry, you are wrong. Obviously you havent had any HONEST
conversations with French winemakers" (like you have!!!!!)

You write like a troll; you read like a troll; you have a long history of
being a troll!

Go back and inhabit some of the other ngs who also understand that you are
nothing but a troll.

Vino > wrote in news:jqn670pr3g8rc6qaf7c1qi8pivit3qi8qf@
4ax.com:

> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:47:44 -0500, jcoulter > wrote:
>>
>>There actually is a French company located in the Loire valley using
>>www.vegaindustries.com
>
> I went to the website and can find only a homepage with no links that
> I can detect. Am I missing something?
>
> Vino
> To reply, add "x" between
> letters and numbers of
> e-mail address.
>

there is a place to click for the next page try this
http://vegaindustries.com/index.htm