Betsy's away on some gigs for a few days, I'm in charge of the teen and the
Basset. Monday evening David was eating with friends, and Lucy was content
with kibble (Ok, that's a lie, she wanted my dinner, but didn't get it). I had
some beef leftovers, and the 2000 Ch. Canon Moueix (Fronsac) in 375ml. Not
showing much over several hours. There's a little toasty oak,. some red plum
Merlot fruit. Nothing else. Is this closed, TCA below by threshold, or what?
I've had better bottles. Even at $7/375 this one isn't a bargain. B-

Tuesday is the workday from hell, I leave at 6 and get home as David's math
tutor arrives. They work in dining room, so it's awkward to cook (kitchen
adjoins). And as David (till now the most cosmopolitan-food-wise kid on planet)
is going through some changes, and not eating half my repetoire, we agree on
pizza. I pick up pizza to coincide with end of lesson, and open the 1999
Castello di Volpaia Chianti Classico Riserva. Fair amount of oak on nose, with
some dark cherry fruit. On the palate it's all sweet black cherry fruit, with a
hint of spice and maybe cedar. At $22 dubious QPR, but a nice wine all the
same. B/B+

Tonight I didn't need to think about cooking, as we needed to eat up some
things David's paternal grandmother (who is Hawaiian of Japanese descent) had
left for him. Hawaiian Short ribs, kale, rice, and some fiddleheads I had
sauteed with garlic. As an apertif, I had the 2001 Chateau Montelena Napa
Chardonnay. Full-bodied Chardonnay, nose of mineral and toast big pear fruit,
with a little fig and spice. Plenty of oak, but no butter or tropical fruit.
Crisp, nice, unusual. After emal, it reminds me of a GC Chablis. B+/A-

With the food I segue into the 1999 Penfolds Koonunga Hill Shiraz-Cabernet
Sauvignon (South Australia). Lots of sweet toasty oak, blackberry and black
plum fruit. Ok, but soft and dull. 1998 was far better recently. B/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.

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Dale writes,

[snipping much entertaining content, and thanks for your notes overall!]


>As an apertif, I had the 2001 Chateau Montelena Napa
>Chardonnay. Full-bodied Chardonnay, nose of mineral and toast big pear
>fruit,
>with a little fig and spice. Plenty of oak, but no butter or tropical fruit.
>Crisp, nice, unusual. After emal, it reminds me of a GC Chablis. B+/A-
>

This is Ch. Montelena's gift to the California chardonnay world, and also its
bane.

FYI, your comments, not one American wine drinker in 50 has ever had a true
French Chablis.

Montelena pioneered California chardonnay in the early '70s with a crisp,
citrusy, yet luscious style. In those days, there was scarcely any competition
in California and hence no yardstick for comparison.

They have not deviated much from that style ever since. Meanwhile, the rest of
California went whole hog for superripe, low acid, heavily oaked, malolactic
("buttery"), "sur lie" techniques (yielding an aggressive toastiness not of
barrel origin), which created some amazing, dense yet monstrous wines.

Many California chardonnays today are more a testament to winemaker
manipulation than to terroir and fruit. Some recent examples I have tasted are
almost ludicrous: it's all "process", no fruit.

Extended ageing on the lees, for example, produces at best a remarkable
"toastiness" in the nose, with bread-y aromas like in a bakery; but in extreme
examples the wine is overpowered by this character, to the detriment of what we
should be paying for, which is: clean, floral fruit aromas and refreshing,
multi-layered fruit impressions in the mouth.

Chateau Montelena stuck to what worked for them, and sacrificed all the future
accolades it might have earned had it stayed on the fast track of winemaking
fads in the '80s and '90s.

Now, I'm hoping that we've come full circle, and acknowledge that these
pioneers were on to something, after all.

I like that. Of the California pioneers for chardonnay, I can only think of
Stony Hill, Mayacamas and Hanzell as important "keepers of the old style".

They stayed true to their "formula", even to this day still using French
barrels of Limousin oak, which was the preferred French oak in the 1970s. It
isn't today.

I don't know HOW Limousin oak was so popular in those days; certainly the fact
that wine writers were dropping the name almost reflexively, must have been a
reason.

In those days, EVERYTHING was Limousin oak--yet in France it's unknown in
Bordeaux and NEVER used in Burgundy!

In the 1980s, California winemakers were educated about this subtle difference
of forest wood origin.

French forests such as Allier, Troncais and Vosges dominate the chardonnay
winemaker's spice rack today.

Limousin was prominent at the beginning, only because the best barrel coopers
of the time were located in Cognac.

Almost NOBODY worldwide uses Limousin today. It's an open-grained wood which
was traditional for COGNAC barrels, not wine barrels.

I know, because I'm in the barrel business, and Montelena is one of my
customers.

Yet Montelena early on recognized this French forest as giving a spicey,
citrusy component to their wines which was lacking. To this day, the oak you
taste in a Montelena chardonnay is predominantly Limousin (and yes, mostly from
my barrels).

I applaud them on their choice. I LOVE to confound my French coopers, when I
send in an order, by specifying Limousin for this customer.

It means they have to go out back to the woodyard, sweep off the cobwebs and
dust, and select from some elegant, well-aged, possibly 3 or 4-year air-dried
lumber.

[Most wood has to be seasoned for at least 2 years to make a decent barrel; the
wood tannins would be too green and harsh to make barrels otherwise]

Limousin oak from France (actually from the region which produces Limoges
china), is a different SPECIES of oak from what the rest of the wine world is
now using. As a species, it has more open grain and obviously has a different
flavor profile from the rest of the French forests, which are tight-grained
sessile oak, or Quercus petrea.

Ch. Montelena was the 'winner' of the celebrated 1976 taste-off in Paris,
sponsored by an English wine merchant, Stephen Spurrier, who thought it was
high time to put California wines to the test against the best of France.

We would hardly do that kind of tasting today, because we recognize that each
wine region contributes its own 'character' , unique from the region of its
origin.

We rate (or should rate) wines today based on overall balance, not regional
peculiarities. A wine is rated against itself before it is compared with
others.

Montelena is one of my favorite chardonnays. You may think I have a commercial
interest in this, because they are a customer of mine.

Maybe it is a sentimental favorite; I have loved this wine since I first came
to Napa Valley, to make my career in wine and winemaking, after college in the
1970s.

But other customers of mine are huge in their purchases, for barrels for
chardonnay.

No, I just like Montelena's steadfast and stubborn, contrarian devotion to
principles.

Dale, thanks for the opportunity to respond to your message.

---Bob

(RobertsonChai) wrote:

> In those days, EVERYTHING was Limousin oak--yet in France it's
> unknown in Bordeaux

It's certainly well-known in Bordeaux, since the département
Charente is a direct neighbour to the Gironde: "Limousin oak?
That's for Cognac, not for wine!" is what you can hear.

> and NEVER used in Burgundy!

True, of course.

M.

Thanks Bob for the informative post. I knew Montelena used little or no malo,
but had no idea they marched to a different oak-drummer!

Over the last few years I've probably learned more on oak use from your posts
than every wine book I've ever read.

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

I thought Stephen Spurrier was the former football coach of the UF Gators
and Washington Redskins?

Perhaps you are breathing to much wood!

:-)


"RobertsonChai" > wrote in message
...
> Dale writes,
>
> [snipping much entertaining content, and thanks for your notes overall!]
>
>
> >As an apertif, I had the 2001 Chateau Montelena Napa
> >Chardonnay. Full-bodied Chardonnay, nose of mineral and toast big pear
> >fruit,
> >with a little fig and spice. Plenty of oak, but no butter or tropical
fruit.
> >Crisp, nice, unusual. After emal, it reminds me of a GC Chablis. B+/A-
> >
>
> This is Ch. Montelena's gift to the California chardonnay world, and also
its
> bane.
>
> FYI, your comments, not one American wine drinker in 50 has ever had a
true
> French Chablis.
>
> Montelena pioneered California chardonnay in the early '70s with a crisp,
> citrusy, yet luscious style. In those days, there was scarcely any
competition
> in California and hence no yardstick for comparison.
>
> They have not deviated much from that style ever since. Meanwhile, the
rest of
> California went whole hog for superripe, low acid, heavily oaked,
malolactic
> ("buttery"), "sur lie" techniques (yielding an aggressive toastiness not
of
> barrel origin), which created some amazing, dense yet monstrous wines.
>
> Many California chardonnays today are more a testament to winemaker
> manipulation than to terroir and fruit. Some recent examples I have
tasted are
> almost ludicrous: it's all "process", no fruit.
>
> Extended ageing on the lees, for example, produces at best a remarkable
> "toastiness" in the nose, with bread-y aromas like in a bakery; but in
extreme
> examples the wine is overpowered by this character, to the detriment of
what we
> should be paying for, which is: clean, floral fruit aromas and refreshing,
> multi-layered fruit impressions in the mouth.
>
> Chateau Montelena stuck to what worked for them, and sacrificed all the
future
> accolades it might have earned had it stayed on the fast track of
winemaking
> fads in the '80s and '90s.
>
> Now, I'm hoping that we've come full circle, and acknowledge that these
> pioneers were on to something, after all.
>
> I like that. Of the California pioneers for chardonnay, I can only think
of
> Stony Hill, Mayacamas and Hanzell as important "keepers of the old style".
>
> They stayed true to their "formula", even to this day still using French
> barrels of Limousin oak, which was the preferred French oak in the 1970s.
It
> isn't today.
>
> I don't know HOW Limousin oak was so popular in those days; certainly the
fact
> that wine writers were dropping the name almost reflexively, must have
been a
> reason.
>
> In those days, EVERYTHING was Limousin oak--yet in France it's unknown in
> Bordeaux and NEVER used in Burgundy!
>
> In the 1980s, California winemakers were educated about this subtle
difference
> of forest wood origin.
>
> French forests such as Allier, Troncais and Vosges dominate the chardonnay
> winemaker's spice rack today.
>
> Limousin was prominent at the beginning, only because the best barrel
coopers
> of the time were located in Cognac.
>
> Almost NOBODY worldwide uses Limousin today. It's an open-grained wood
which
> was traditional for COGNAC barrels, not wine barrels.
>
> I know, because I'm in the barrel business, and Montelena is one of my
> customers.
>
> Yet Montelena early on recognized this French forest as giving a spicey,
> citrusy component to their wines which was lacking. To this day, the oak
you
> taste in a Montelena chardonnay is predominantly Limousin (and yes, mostly
from
> my barrels).
>
> I applaud them on their choice. I LOVE to confound my French coopers, when
I
> send in an order, by specifying Limousin for this customer.
>
> It means they have to go out back to the woodyard, sweep off the cobwebs
and
> dust, and select from some elegant, well-aged, possibly 3 or 4-year
air-dried
> lumber.
>
> [Most wood has to be seasoned for at least 2 years to make a decent
barrel; the
> wood tannins would be too green and harsh to make barrels otherwise]
>
> Limousin oak from France (actually from the region which produces Limoges
> china), is a different SPECIES of oak from what the rest of the wine world
is
> now using. As a species, it has more open grain and obviously has a
different
> flavor profile from the rest of the French forests, which are
tight-grained
> sessile oak, or Quercus petrea.
>
> Ch. Montelena was the 'winner' of the celebrated 1976 taste-off in Paris,
> sponsored by an English wine merchant, Stephen Spurrier, who thought it
was
> high time to put California wines to the test against the best of France.
>
> We would hardly do that kind of tasting today, because we recognize that
each
> wine region contributes its own 'character' , unique from the region of
its
> origin.
>
> We rate (or should rate) wines today based on overall balance, not
regional
> peculiarities. A wine is rated against itself before it is compared with
> others.
>
> Montelena is one of my favorite chardonnays. You may think I have a
commercial
> interest in this, because they are a customer of mine.
>
> Maybe it is a sentimental favorite; I have loved this wine since I first
came
> to Napa Valley, to make my career in wine and winemaking, after college in
the
> 1970s.
>
> But other customers of mine are huge in their purchases, for barrels for
> chardonnay.
>
> No, I just like Montelena's steadfast and stubborn, contrarian devotion to
> principles.
>
> Dale, thanks for the opportunity to respond to your message.
>
> ---Bob

Michael Pronay wrote:

>>In those days, EVERYTHING was Limousin oak--yet in France it's
>>unknown in Bordeaux

> It's certainly well-known in Bordeaux, since the département
> Charente is a direct neighbour to the Gironde: "Limousin oak?
> That's for Cognac, not for wine!" is what you can hear.

>>and NEVER used in Burgundy!

A corollary to that might be that American oak is good for
bourbon not wine

Michael Pronay > wrote in message >...
> (RobertsonChai) wrote:
>
> > In those days, EVERYTHING was Limousin oak--yet in France it's
> > unknown in Bordeaux
>
> It's certainly well-known in Bordeaux, since the département
> Charente is a direct neighbour to the Gironde: "Limousin oak?
> That's for Cognac, not for wine!" is what you can hear.
>
> > and NEVER used in Burgundy!
>
> True, of course.
>
> M.

On a related note I was told something interesting by a winemaker at a
recent tasting (haven't had the chance to confirm yet)

He said prior to WW2, oak for barrels was sourced from all over
Europe, but mainly Eastern Europe where it was cheap and plentiful.
IOW Ch. Margeaux 1900 was probably aged in Hungarian or Salvonian for
example oak rather than French oak.
After WW2, a little something called the Iron Curtain dried up all
that supply.
So winemakers started using French oak since that what was nearby.
Today, the perception is "French oak is the best"
This makes a lot of sense to me since a lot of what is considered best
practise for winemaking is not so much objective but simply what the
French do/did and because of their enormous influence on modern
winemaking, has become the de facto standard.

Peter

Bill wrote:

> A corollary to that might be that American oak is good for
> bourbon not wine

That'd be news to the winemakers of Rioja, Bill! ;-)

Mark Lipton

dick wrote:

> I thought Stephen Spurrier was the former football coach of the UF Gators
> and Washington Redskins?

Nope. He is the former QB for UF and the Niners. :P

HTH
Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> A corollary to that might be that American oak is good for
>> bourbon not wine
>
> That'd be news to the winemakers of Rioja, Bill! ;-)
> Mark Lipton

And certainly Australia as well.

Mark Lipton wrote:
> dick wrote:
>
>> I thought Stephen Spurrier was the former football coach of the UF Gators
>> and Washington Redskins?
>
>
> Nope. He is the former QB for UF and the Niners. :P
>
> HTH
> Mark Lipton

He resigned as coach of the Redskins last year (or this year).
Of note, he is a well known wine collector.

Bill wrote:

> Mark Lipton wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> >> A corollary to that might be that American oak is good for
> >> bourbon not wine
> >
> > That'd be news to the winemakers of Rioja, Bill! ;-)
> > Mark Lipton
>
> And certainly Australia as well.

Doesn't Silver Oak (Napa) "brag" about their use of 100% American oak?

--
Regards,

- Roy

=*=*=
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. - Oscar Wilde

(Peter Muto) wrote:

> IOW Ch. Margeaux 1900 was probably aged in Hungarian or
> Salvonian for example oak rather than French oak.

Just to be precise: Until 1919 Slavonia was part of Hungary.

M.

Michael Pronay > wrote in message >...
> (Peter Muto) wrote:
>
> > IOW Ch. Margeaux 1900 was probably aged in Hungarian or
> > Salvonian for example oak rather than French oak.
>
> Just to be precise: Until 1919 Slavonia was part of Hungary.
>
> M.


I didn't know that; makes sense since WWI formally ended the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, changing borders.

But I'm gathering then that French oak has only been common for the
past 60-odd years then?

Seems like there's a lot of room to experiment with other kinds of
oak, e.g. different species or sources rather than the too little
examined opinion on French oak.

Peter

(Peter Muto) wrote:

> Seems like there's a lot of room to experiment with other kinds of
> oak, e.g. different species or sources rather than the too little
> examined opinion on French oak.

Not only experiments: You can buy casks from russian oak from just
about every cooper.

M.

"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> (Peter Muto) wrote:
>
> > Seems like there's a lot of room to experiment with other kinds of
> > oak, e.g. different species or sources rather than the too little
> > examined opinion on French oak.
>
> Not only experiments: You can buy casks from russian oak from just
> about every cooper.

That's the first I've heard of Russian oak. This year I'm experimenting
with Hungarian oak on one barrel of Chardonnay. I like the price better
than French, and I expect it to be similar to French oak.

Tom S

"RobertsonChai" > wrote in message
...
> Montelena pioneered California chardonnay in the early '70s with a crisp,
> citrusy, yet luscious style. In those days, there was scarcely any
competition
> in California and hence no yardstick for comparison.
>
> They have not deviated much from that style ever since.

Except for the loss of the winemaker who made the Chardonnay that won that
tasting in Paris: Mike Grgich.

Meanwhile, the rest of
> California went whole hog for superripe, low acid, heavily oaked,
malolactic
> ("buttery"), "sur lie" techniques

But there was a brief reactionary phase to that, prompted by wine critics
who complained that California wines didn't go as well with food as French
e.g. Thus began an era of too early harvested, high acid, fruitless,
soulless wines that had more in common with battery acid than with potable
beverages. Winemakers came back to their senses eventually.

> Many California chardonnays today are more a testament to winemaker
> manipulation than to terroir and fruit. Some recent examples I have
tasted are
> almost ludicrous: it's all "process", no fruit.

Care to cite a few examples of that? I can't say I've ever tasted such a
wine.

> Extended ageing on the lees, for example, produces at best a remarkable
> "toastiness" in the nose, with bread-y aromas like in a bakery; but in
extreme
> examples the wine is overpowered by this character, to the detriment of
what we
> should be paying for, which is: clean, floral fruit aromas and refreshing,
> multi-layered fruit impressions in the mouth.

That's a matter of opinion - not fact. I happen to _like_ the effect of sur
lie aging.

> I like that. Of the California pioneers for chardonnay, I can only think
of
> Stony Hill, Mayacamas and Hanzell as important "keepers of the old style".
>
> They stayed true to their "formula", even to this day still using French
> barrels of Limousin oak, which was the preferred French oak in the 1970s.
It
> isn't today.

I've observed that Allier seems to be the forest of choice for Chardonnay
these days, along with a smattering of others. If I'm not mistaken, mine
are the _only_ Limousin barrels in the co-op winery I work in. I've used
mainly Limousin for 20 years, with an occasional experiment with other
forests. I like mostly Limousin (med+ toast) with a dash of Tronçais.

> Montelena early on recognized this French forest as giving a spicey,
> citrusy component to their wines which was lacking. To this day, the oak
you
> taste in a Montelena chardonnay is predominantly Limousin (and yes, mostly
from
> my barrels).
>
> I applaud them on their choice. I LOVE to confound my French coopers, when
I
> send in an order, by specifying Limousin for this customer.

LOL! I didn't know I'd been missing out on all the fun! I'll have to ask
Mel Knox about that. :^)

> Limousin oak from France (actually from the region which produces Limoges
> china), is a different SPECIES of oak from what the rest of the wine world
is
> now using. As a species, it has more open grain and obviously has a
different
> flavor profile from the rest of the French forests, which are
tight-grained
> sessile oak, or Quercus petrea.

Are you certain of that? I'd always thought that it simply rained more in
that area, thus promoting faster growth of the trees, which results in
looser grain.

Interesting comments, Bob.

Tom S

Tom S wrote:
>>Montelena pioneered California chardonnay in the early '70s with a crisp,
>>citrusy, yet luscious style. In those days, there was scarcely any
> competition
>>in California and hence no yardstick for comparison.
>>They have not deviated much from that style ever since.
> Except for the loss of the winemaker who made the Chardonnay that won that
> tasting in Paris: Mike Grgich.
> Meanwhile, the rest of
>>California went whole hog for superripe, low acid, heavily oaked,
> malolactic
>>("buttery"), "sur lie" techniques
>>Many California chardonnays today are more a testament to winemaker
>>manipulation than to terroir and fruit. Some recent examples I have
> tasted are
>>almost ludicrous: it's all "process", no fruit.
>
> Care to cite a few examples of that? I can't say I've ever tasted such a
> wine.

I can cite you a prime example Tom, Chalk Hill. They take some great
fruit and manipulate it until you can hardly tell it came from grapes.
The greatest abomination in California is their Sauvignon Blanc.

A winery that I think that has never followed the over oaked, over
fermented trend is Sonoma Cutrer which supposedly tries to emulate
Burgundian methods. Having said that, they are well known for screw
ups and up until they were sold a couple of years back, I think that
they operated in the red every year.

"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S wrote:
> >>Many California chardonnays today are more a testament to winemaker
> >>manipulation than to terroir and fruit. Some recent examples I have
> > tasted are
> >>almost ludicrous: it's all "process", no fruit.
> >
> > Care to cite a few examples of that? I can't say I've ever tasted such
a
> > wine.
>
> I can cite you a prime example Tom, Chalk Hill. They take some great
> fruit and manipulate it until you can hardly tell it came from grapes.
> The greatest abomination in California is their Sauvignon Blanc.

Hmm, I'm not much of an expert on Sauvignon Blanc. Also, there are
distinctly different styles that further confuses the issue. How about an
example of Chardonnay? I know this grape very well.

> A winery that I think that has never followed the over oaked, over
> fermented trend is Sonoma Cutrer which supposedly tries to emulate
> Burgundian methods.

When they first hit the market, I was really impressed with their wines -
particularly the Les Pierre Vyd. They seem to have lost their way over the
years though. I don't know why. Their website details methods that are
scrupulously good - even to the point of being anal retentive!

FWIW, my current favorite from other wineries is Kistler. Expensive, but it
delivers the goods.

Tom S

"Tom S" > wrote:

>> Not only experiments: You can buy casks from russian oak from just
>> about every cooper.

> That's the first I've heard of Russian oak.

I have spoken both with Austrian and Italian coopers, they both
confirmed the use of Russian oak lately.

M.

"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> I have spoken both with Austrian and Italian coopers, they both
> confirmed the use of Russian oak lately.

I believe you, Michael, but what does it _taste_ like? Or, to put it in
perspective, how does it taste compared to French oak?

Tom S

I agree with you Tom. I've lost my notes from my recent Ca trip but Kistler
was one of the wines that impressed me most favourably.
--
Regards
Chuck
So much wine; So little time!

To reply, delete NOSPAM from return address

> FWIW, my current favorite from other wineries is Kistler. Expensive, but
it
> delivers the goods.
>
> Tom S
>
>

Tom S wrote:

>>I can cite you a prime example Tom, Chalk Hill. They take some great
>>fruit and manipulate it until you can hardly tell it came from grapes.
>>The greatest abomination in California is their Sauvignon Blanc.

What I was trying to tell you Tom is that Chalk Hill is the most over
manipulated Chardonnay that I have ever come across. Another is Murphy
Goode reserve Chards.


> FWIW, my current favorite from other wineries is Kistler. Expensive, but it
> delivers the goods.

Kistler and Matanzas Creek are my two favorite Chardonnays.

"Pantheras" > wrote in message
...
> What I was trying to tell you Tom is that Chalk Hill is the most over
> manipulated Chardonnay that I have ever come across. Another is Murphy
> Goode reserve Chards.

I guess I'll just have to try a bottle. I think Trader Joe's carries Chalk
Hill, and it isn't very expensive.

Tom S

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:12:53 GMT, "Tom S" >
wrote:

>"RobertsonChai" > wrote in message
...

>> Limousin oak from France (actually from the region which produces Limoges
>> china), is a different SPECIES of oak from what the rest of the wine world
>is
>> now using. As a species, it has more open grain and obviously has a
>different
>> flavor profile from the rest of the French forests, which are
>tight-grained
>> sessile oak, or Quercus petrea.
>
>Are you certain of that? I'd always thought that it simply rained more in
>that area, thus promoting faster growth of the trees, which results in
>looser grain.
>
I also question the statement that Limousin oak is a different species
of oak from "what the rest of the wine world is now using". My
understanding has been that there are actually two different species
of European oak that are commonly used for wine barrels. These two
species differ only with regard to things other than grain structure
and are therefore considered interchangeable as far as their
suitability for wine barrels.

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

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:36:29 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>Tom S wrote:
>>>Montelena pioneered California chardonnay in the early '70s with a crisp,
>>>citrusy, yet luscious style. In those days, there was scarcely any
>> competition
>>>in California and hence no yardstick for comparison.
>>>They have not deviated much from that style ever since.
>> Except for the loss of the winemaker who made the Chardonnay that won that
>> tasting in Paris: Mike Grgich.
>> Meanwhile, the rest of
>>>California went whole hog for superripe, low acid, heavily oaked,
>> malolactic
>>>("buttery"), "sur lie" techniques
>>>Many California chardonnays today are more a testament to winemaker
>>>manipulation than to terroir and fruit. Some recent examples I have
>> tasted are
>>>almost ludicrous: it's all "process", no fruit.
>>
>> Care to cite a few examples of that? I can't say I've ever tasted such a
>> wine.
>
>I can cite you a prime example Tom, Chalk Hill. They take some great
>fruit and manipulate it until you can hardly tell it came from grapes.
>The greatest abomination in California is their Sauvignon Blanc.
>
>A winery that I think that has never followed the over oaked, over
>fermented trend is Sonoma Cutrer which supposedly tries to emulate
>Burgundian methods. Having said that, they are well known for screw
>ups and up until they were sold a couple of years back, I think that
>they operated in the red every year.

Hmm. I'm not personally familiar with any of these wines, but I can't
refrain from making a couple of observations. Chalk Hill, which
presumably makes an abominable SB, is still in business and,
presumably, is profitable. Sonoma Cutrer, OTH, which tried to emulate
"Burgundian methods", lost money until they were sold. What are we to
make of this?

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

"Tom S" > wrote:

>> I have spoken both with Austrian and Italian coopers, they both
>> confirmed the use of Russian oak lately.

> I believe you, Michael, but what does it _taste_ like? Or, to
> put it in perspective, how does it taste compared to French oak?

No idea, I haven't tasted wines directly from the barrels yet. But I
will ask growers and report in due course.

M.

Vino wrote:

> Hmm. I'm not personally familiar with any of these wines, but I can't
> refrain from making a couple of observations. Chalk Hill, which
> presumably makes an abominable SB, is still in business and,
> presumably, is profitable. Sonoma Cutrer, OTH, which tried to emulate
> "Burgundian methods", lost money until they were sold. What are we to
> make of this?

Chalk Hill makes that buttery Chardonnay that threatens to clog your
arteries with one glass and sells like mad.

Sonoma Cutrer, run by Bruce Jones, was a cooperative venture to loose
money for tax write offs as far as I can tell. They planted Cabernet
and then found out the soil was not right. Then plant Chardonnay and
had to rip it out because it was not aligned with the sun. Then their
wine maker told them to get rid of all the modern stainless steel
equipment that they had built the winery around and they did. So you
have a mentality of doing everything wrong except their marketing.
They reserved 88% of their wine for restaurants originally so a
broader range of people would get to taste it.

On 6 Jun 2004 07:23:54 GMT, Michael Pronay > wrote:

>"Tom S" > wrote:
>
>>> Not only experiments: You can buy casks from russian oak from just
>>> about every cooper.
>
>> That's the first I've heard of Russian oak.
>
>I have spoken both with Austrian and Italian coopers, they both
>confirmed the use of Russian oak lately.
>
I am aware that barrels made from Russian oak have been offered for
sale to several (I have no idea how many) US wineries. I don't know if
any have actually been purchased. I know of no good reason why Russian
oak could not be used since presumably what is being offered for sale
is made from the same species of oak that barrels from France and
Hungary are made from. OTOH, the French have done a good job of
managing their oak forests for several hundred years. Under the
communists, the Russians didn't manage anything well.

Vino

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