Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
usually thin, and lacking in fruit.

At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
bought in Bordeaux.

-Indirecto

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:37:37 -0300, "Indirecto"
> wrote:

>Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>usually thin, and lacking in fruit.

Overrated by whom? The wines (especially lower-end stuff) sell in a
pretty free market.

Maybe they are "thin and lacking in fruit" compared with new world
wines. Look beyond that to see other qualities. Some of us like them
that way - they tend to go better with food.

>At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>bought in Bordeaux.

As it happens, I am not a great fan of low-end Bordeaux myself, but
that my personal opinion. And the better Bordeaux needs aging.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:37:37 -0300, "Indirecto"
> wrote:

>Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>usually thin, and lacking in fruit.

Overrated by whom? The wines (especially lower-end stuff) sell in a
pretty free market.

Maybe they are "thin and lacking in fruit" compared with new world
wines. Look beyond that to see other qualities. Some of us like them
that way - they tend to go better with food.

>At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>bought in Bordeaux.

As it happens, I am not a great fan of low-end Bordeaux myself, but
that my personal opinion. And the better Bordeaux needs aging.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

"Indirecto" wrote in message (posted from his Chilean Server!!!)

> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes),
> they are usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles
> I just bought in Bordeaux.

So, you judge the entire French wine industry on a handful of Bordeaux
wines - whilst ignoring Burgundy, the Rhone, Alsace; the Loire; Champagne;
Bandol; Cahors; etc etc etc.

So, what did you buy - some very cheap, nasty, basic stuff which abounds
under 000's of labels - or something vaguely recognisable?

Perhaps you have an interest in your local wine industry, and think that we
should ignore the very French influence apparent in so many Chilean wines!

I too have experienced some pretty crappy stuff, from Bordeaux (and Chile,
Australia, yes, even New Zealand!!!) - but, hey - I purchased it - it is my
fault if I don't do the homework first.

I blame myself - not the entire winemaking industry!

--

st.helier

"Indirecto" wrote in message (posted from his Chilean Server!!!)

> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes),
> they are usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles
> I just bought in Bordeaux.

So, you judge the entire French wine industry on a handful of Bordeaux
wines - whilst ignoring Burgundy, the Rhone, Alsace; the Loire; Champagne;
Bandol; Cahors; etc etc etc.

So, what did you buy - some very cheap, nasty, basic stuff which abounds
under 000's of labels - or something vaguely recognisable?

Perhaps you have an interest in your local wine industry, and think that we
should ignore the very French influence apparent in so many Chilean wines!

I too have experienced some pretty crappy stuff, from Bordeaux (and Chile,
Australia, yes, even New Zealand!!!) - but, hey - I purchased it - it is my
fault if I don't do the homework first.

I blame myself - not the entire winemaking industry!

--

st.helier

"Indirecto" > wrote in message
...
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto


Don't feed the trolls.

Ron Lel

"Indirecto" > wrote in message
...
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto


Don't feed the trolls.

Ron Lel

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:37:37 -0300, "Indirecto" > said:

] Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
] usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
]
] At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
] bought in Bordeaux.
]
] -Indirecto
]
]

That was pretty "directo," actually. This post, as opposed to some others
where you apparently had some knowledge, labels you at best ignorant
and at worse a prat. Sorry, but that's what it looks like from here.

There are many international style fruit bombs I find overbearing, lacking
interest, and downright impossible with food. But just because I don't care
for them doesn't mean I'll pronounce them "over-rated." Plenty of people
-- on this forum and elsewhere -- like them just fine.

No one knowledgeable will deny that there is an ocean of cheap and
nasty Bordeaux on the market. To judge modest Bordeaux by that
standard is like judging all California from Gallo's latest central valley cuvee.
(Note that I assume your tarring all of France with the same brush is
again a question of ignorance of french wines in general.)

There are inexpensive Bordeaux out there that are excellent, to my tastes.
That's not to say they will please someone looking for a fruit bomb. In
any case, here as elsewhere, it is a question of separating the wheat from
the chaff.

BTW, if your post was simply a question of a gaff by a non-native english
speaker, please accept my unreserved apology for the strength of the
response.

HTH,

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to
by removing the well known companies

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:37:37 -0300, "Indirecto" > said:

] Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
] usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
]
] At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
] bought in Bordeaux.
]
] -Indirecto
]
]

That was pretty "directo," actually. This post, as opposed to some others
where you apparently had some knowledge, labels you at best ignorant
and at worse a prat. Sorry, but that's what it looks like from here.

There are many international style fruit bombs I find overbearing, lacking
interest, and downright impossible with food. But just because I don't care
for them doesn't mean I'll pronounce them "over-rated." Plenty of people
-- on this forum and elsewhere -- like them just fine.

No one knowledgeable will deny that there is an ocean of cheap and
nasty Bordeaux on the market. To judge modest Bordeaux by that
standard is like judging all California from Gallo's latest central valley cuvee.
(Note that I assume your tarring all of France with the same brush is
again a question of ignorance of french wines in general.)

There are inexpensive Bordeaux out there that are excellent, to my tastes.
That's not to say they will please someone looking for a fruit bomb. In
any case, here as elsewhere, it is a question of separating the wheat from
the chaff.

BTW, if your post was simply a question of a gaff by a non-native english
speaker, please accept my unreserved apology for the strength of the
response.

HTH,

-E
--
Emery Davis
You can reply to
by removing the well known companies

"Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto

Low-end Italian wines are far better.

"Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto

Low-end Italian wines are far better.

Uranium Committee wrote:
> "Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>>usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>>
>>At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>>bought in Bordeaux.
>>
>>-Indirecto
>
>
> Low-end Italian wines are far better.

I'm sticking with two-buck chuck.

Uranium Committee wrote:
> "Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>>usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>>
>>At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>>bought in Bordeaux.
>>
>>-Indirecto
>
>
> Low-end Italian wines are far better.

I'm sticking with two-buck chuck.

"Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto

If that is your complaint look to the south. If you wants something
affordable and gutsy, try a Gigondas, a Coteaux du Langeduoc, or
*maybe* a Madrian. There are plenty of inexpensive fruit forward Cote
du Rhones or Cotes de Provence out there as well.

France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.
That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
gravitate towards the French wines.

Also, If you were fan of whites I would point you towards Alsace...no
shoratge of fruit or body there.

ML

th_duck wrote:
> "Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>>usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>>
>>At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>>bought in Bordeaux.
>>
>>-Indirecto
>
>
> If that is your complaint look to the south. If you wants something
> affordable and gutsy, try a Gigondas, a Coteaux du Langeduoc, or
> *maybe* a Madrian. There are plenty of inexpensive fruit forward Cote
> du Rhones or Cotes de Provence out there as well.
>
> France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.
> That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
> definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
> possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
> styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
> gravitate towards the French wines.
>
> Also, If you were fan of whites I would point you towards Alsace...no
> shoratge of fruit or body there.
>
> ML
First of all, the city of Bordeaux is not necessarily the place to buy
Bordeaux. Every wine dealer has a few favorites and even the larger
merchants are choosy with respect to breadth of their stock.

Secondly to an American used to Napa products, low end bx wines are
commonly thin and acid. and more serious products with little bottle age
tend to still be considered too tannic (puckery) and acid and
non-fruity. What gives Bx wines their distinction is their complexity
and their aging quality.

California reds imho mostly go down hill after bottling and even some
good ones don't last six or seven years without deteriorating.

No question that Bx wines are made to a different standard than most
Cal. wines. But what an opportunity to develop another palate! All
Bordeaux wines are blends of up to four grape varieties, the proportions
of each vary from one appellation to another. This is one factor in the
wines complexity. I would strongly recommend that you read a book on
the wines of Bordeaux so that you can get an idea of what your are buying.

Finally high end Cal wines (greater than $80) are not competitive with
French wines on a price / quality basis. The ordinary Frenchman will
commonly drink wines on an every day basis that would cost the
equivalent of 5-10 dollars US. Some are OK but most of such are not
even exported to the US. Giving you some slack, I don't think that the
frogs have ever made a wine of the same price/quality (such as it was)
as the old Gallo Hearty Burgundy.

th_duck wrote:
> "Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>>usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>>
>>At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>>bought in Bordeaux.
>>
>>-Indirecto
>
>
> If that is your complaint look to the south. If you wants something
> affordable and gutsy, try a Gigondas, a Coteaux du Langeduoc, or
> *maybe* a Madrian. There are plenty of inexpensive fruit forward Cote
> du Rhones or Cotes de Provence out there as well.
>
> France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.
> That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
> definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
> possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
> styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
> gravitate towards the French wines.
>
> Also, If you were fan of whites I would point you towards Alsace...no
> shoratge of fruit or body there.
>
> ML
First of all, the city of Bordeaux is not necessarily the place to buy
Bordeaux. Every wine dealer has a few favorites and even the larger
merchants are choosy with respect to breadth of their stock.

Secondly to an American used to Napa products, low end bx wines are
commonly thin and acid. and more serious products with little bottle age
tend to still be considered too tannic (puckery) and acid and
non-fruity. What gives Bx wines their distinction is their complexity
and their aging quality.

California reds imho mostly go down hill after bottling and even some
good ones don't last six or seven years without deteriorating.

No question that Bx wines are made to a different standard than most
Cal. wines. But what an opportunity to develop another palate! All
Bordeaux wines are blends of up to four grape varieties, the proportions
of each vary from one appellation to another. This is one factor in the
wines complexity. I would strongly recommend that you read a book on
the wines of Bordeaux so that you can get an idea of what your are buying.

Finally high end Cal wines (greater than $80) are not competitive with
French wines on a price / quality basis. The ordinary Frenchman will
commonly drink wines on an every day basis that would cost the
equivalent of 5-10 dollars US. Some are OK but most of such are not
even exported to the US. Giving you some slack, I don't think that the
frogs have ever made a wine of the same price/quality (such as it was)
as the old Gallo Hearty Burgundy.

Indirecto wrote:
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto
>
>


It is an often stated position in Australia that what the French drink
Australians would pour down the drain.

This could of course be a marketing ploy for the Australian market. It
also probably is more referring to lowish end wines, not premiums.

The French do seem to drink wine more often than most (good on them,
might help to explain why they live so long and healthily). It is part
of almost every meal, whereas in Australia this is less so.

I have very little experience of French wines, but the mostly low end
CDRs and Bordeaux I have had have been rather poor when compared to much
cheaper Australians.

Plus of course there is the old stereotype of old world versus new. The
wines of Italy and France particularly etc are supposedly much more
subtle than the new world wines of say Australia, which are bold and new
and quite prepared to go outside the normal centuries old Euro-centric
wine making paradigms.

I guess its kind of like being used to strong black coffee with 3
sugars, then you start drinking herbal tea with no milk no sugar. If
you're used to big bold wines (or fruit bombs as they are derogatorily
referred to) then a more subtle wine is going to be rather boring.

Plus of course as other posters have pointed out, low end French wines
are often a pretty poor representation of French wines in general.

Indirecto wrote:
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto
>
>


It is an often stated position in Australia that what the French drink
Australians would pour down the drain.

This could of course be a marketing ploy for the Australian market. It
also probably is more referring to lowish end wines, not premiums.

The French do seem to drink wine more often than most (good on them,
might help to explain why they live so long and healthily). It is part
of almost every meal, whereas in Australia this is less so.

I have very little experience of French wines, but the mostly low end
CDRs and Bordeaux I have had have been rather poor when compared to much
cheaper Australians.

Plus of course there is the old stereotype of old world versus new. The
wines of Italy and France particularly etc are supposedly much more
subtle than the new world wines of say Australia, which are bold and new
and quite prepared to go outside the normal centuries old Euro-centric
wine making paradigms.

I guess its kind of like being used to strong black coffee with 3
sugars, then you start drinking herbal tea with no milk no sugar. If
you're used to big bold wines (or fruit bombs as they are derogatorily
referred to) then a more subtle wine is going to be rather boring.

Plus of course as other posters have pointed out, low end French wines
are often a pretty poor representation of French wines in general.

Uranium Committee wrote:

>> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few
>> bottles I just bought in Bordeaux.

> Low-end Italian wines are far better.

Do you drink Lambrusco from Cantine Riunite?
--
Vilco
Think Pink , Drink Rose'

Uranium Committee wrote:

>> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few
>> bottles I just bought in Bordeaux.

> Low-end Italian wines are far better.

Do you drink Lambrusco from Cantine Riunite?
--
Vilco
Think Pink , Drink Rose'

"Vilco" > wrote:

>> Low-end Italian wines are far better.

> Do you drink Lambrusco from Cantine Riunite?

I don't, but I remember when getting married back in 1982 I
visited my father-in-law who then worked in the Piedmont region.
You could buy a Dolcetto in a local small supermarket for 900
lire. This was slightly spritzy, but then a Dolcetto for 1300 lire
was perfectly drinkable. At the time, there were 1350 lire to the
US Dollar.

M.

"Vilco" > wrote:

>> Low-end Italian wines are far better.

> Do you drink Lambrusco from Cantine Riunite?

I don't, but I remember when getting married back in 1982 I
visited my father-in-law who then worked in the Piedmont region.
You could buy a Dolcetto in a local small supermarket for 900
lire. This was slightly spritzy, but then a Dolcetto for 1300 lire
was perfectly drinkable. At the time, there were 1350 lire to the
US Dollar.

M.

(th_duck) wrote in message . com>...
> "Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
> > Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> > usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
> >
> > At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> > bought in Bordeaux.
> >
> > -Indirecto
>
> If that is your complaint look to the south. If you wants something
> affordable and gutsy, try a Gigondas, a Coteaux du Langeduoc, or
> *maybe* a Madrian. There are plenty of inexpensive fruit forward Cote
> du Rhones or Cotes de Provence out there as well.
>
> France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.

That's a lie. The F_____ can't hold a candle to Italy.

> That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
> definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
> possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
> styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
> gravitate towards the French wines.

Another outright lie. Italy has more grapes and varieties than any other country.

"Vilco" > wrote in message >.. .
> Uranium Committee wrote:
>
> >> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few
> >> bottles I just bought in Bordeaux.
>
> > Low-end Italian wines are far better.
>
> Do you drink Lambrusco from Cantine Riunite?

No. I'm talking about $10-15 bottles from Puglia, Sicily, and Sardinia.

I'm pretty Italian-centric myself, but have found some great French wines
that I do enjoy. For something that you don't have to wait around for, try
Joseph Drouhin Chambolle-Musigny 2001 Burgundy. It's easily the best Pinot
Noir that I've had. I intend to bring a couple to Thanksgiving dinner.


"Indirecto" > wrote in message
...
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto
>
>

I'm pretty Italian-centric myself, but have found some great French wines
that I do enjoy. For something that you don't have to wait around for, try
Joseph Drouhin Chambolle-Musigny 2001 Burgundy. It's easily the best Pinot
Noir that I've had. I intend to bring a couple to Thanksgiving dinner.


"Indirecto" > wrote in message
...
> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> bought in Bordeaux.
>
> -Indirecto
>
>

I'm sorry I offended some of you out there...

My post was a result of opening a bottle of 1998 Chateau Magdelaine that I
bought for about US$40 a bottle, and kind of thinking... "am I missing
something?". Also coming to the conclusion that for less than Euro$30,
spanish wine, in general, tasted much better.

I don't think I'm ignorant... although apparently not as knowlegable as some
here. Or is it perhaps that my pallate is too used to fruitier wine.

Sometimes I feel french wine is like scotch whisky. People drink it more
for the status than the actual content. No doubt there are notable
exceptions.

-Indirecto



"Emery Davis" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:37:37 -0300, "Indirecto" >
> said:
>
> ] Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> ] usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
> ]
> ] At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> ] bought in Bordeaux.
> ]
> ] -Indirecto
> ]
> ]
>
> That was pretty "directo," actually. This post, as opposed to some others
> where you apparently had some knowledge, labels you at best ignorant
> and at worse a prat. Sorry, but that's what it looks like from here.
>
> There are many international style fruit bombs I find overbearing, lacking
> interest, and downright impossible with food. But just because I don't
> care
> for them doesn't mean I'll pronounce them "over-rated." Plenty of people
> -- on this forum and elsewhere -- like them just fine.
>
> No one knowledgeable will deny that there is an ocean of cheap and
> nasty Bordeaux on the market. To judge modest Bordeaux by that
> standard is like judging all California from Gallo's latest central valley
> cuvee.
> (Note that I assume your tarring all of France with the same brush is
> again a question of ignorance of french wines in general.)
>
> There are inexpensive Bordeaux out there that are excellent, to my tastes.
> That's not to say they will please someone looking for a fruit bomb. In
> any case, here as elsewhere, it is a question of separating the wheat from
> the chaff.
>
> BTW, if your post was simply a question of a gaff by a non-native english
> speaker, please accept my unreserved apology for the strength of the
> response.
>
> HTH,
>
> -E
> --
> Emery Davis
> You can reply to
> by removing the well known companies

I'm sorry I offended some of you out there...

My post was a result of opening a bottle of 1998 Chateau Magdelaine that I
bought for about US$40 a bottle, and kind of thinking... "am I missing
something?". Also coming to the conclusion that for less than Euro$30,
spanish wine, in general, tasted much better.

I don't think I'm ignorant... although apparently not as knowlegable as some
here. Or is it perhaps that my pallate is too used to fruitier wine.

Sometimes I feel french wine is like scotch whisky. People drink it more
for the status than the actual content. No doubt there are notable
exceptions.

-Indirecto



"Emery Davis" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:37:37 -0300, "Indirecto" >
> said:
>
> ] Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> ] usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
> ]
> ] At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> ] bought in Bordeaux.
> ]
> ] -Indirecto
> ]
> ]
>
> That was pretty "directo," actually. This post, as opposed to some others
> where you apparently had some knowledge, labels you at best ignorant
> and at worse a prat. Sorry, but that's what it looks like from here.
>
> There are many international style fruit bombs I find overbearing, lacking
> interest, and downright impossible with food. But just because I don't
> care
> for them doesn't mean I'll pronounce them "over-rated." Plenty of people
> -- on this forum and elsewhere -- like them just fine.
>
> No one knowledgeable will deny that there is an ocean of cheap and
> nasty Bordeaux on the market. To judge modest Bordeaux by that
> standard is like judging all California from Gallo's latest central valley
> cuvee.
> (Note that I assume your tarring all of France with the same brush is
> again a question of ignorance of french wines in general.)
>
> There are inexpensive Bordeaux out there that are excellent, to my tastes.
> That's not to say they will please someone looking for a fruit bomb. In
> any case, here as elsewhere, it is a question of separating the wheat from
> the chaff.
>
> BTW, if your post was simply a question of a gaff by a non-native english
> speaker, please accept my unreserved apology for the strength of the
> response.
>
> HTH,
>
> -E
> --
> Emery Davis
> You can reply to
> by removing the well known companies

I tried about 10 wines, price $20-$30... consider it a random sample.
Perhaps I was just unlucky.

Yeah, Chile has tons of nasty stuff too... especially low-end carmenere and
merlot.

-Indirecto


"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> "Indirecto" wrote in message (posted from his Chilean Server!!!)
>
>> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes),
>> they are usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>>
>> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles
>> I just bought in Bordeaux.
>
> So, you judge the entire French wine industry on a handful of Bordeaux
> wines - whilst ignoring Burgundy, the Rhone, Alsace; the Loire; Champagne;
> Bandol; Cahors; etc etc etc.
>
> So, what did you buy - some very cheap, nasty, basic stuff which abounds
> under 000's of labels - or something vaguely recognisable?
>
> Perhaps you have an interest in your local wine industry, and think that
> we
> should ignore the very French influence apparent in so many Chilean wines!
>
> I too have experienced some pretty crappy stuff, from Bordeaux (and Chile,
> Australia, yes, even New Zealand!!!) - but, hey - I purchased it - it is
> my
> fault if I don't do the homework first.
>
> I blame myself - not the entire winemaking industry!
>
> --
>
> st.helier
>
>

I tried about 10 wines, price $20-$30... consider it a random sample.
Perhaps I was just unlucky.

Yeah, Chile has tons of nasty stuff too... especially low-end carmenere and
merlot.

-Indirecto


"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> "Indirecto" wrote in message (posted from his Chilean Server!!!)
>
>> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes),
>> they are usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>>
>> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles
>> I just bought in Bordeaux.
>
> So, you judge the entire French wine industry on a handful of Bordeaux
> wines - whilst ignoring Burgundy, the Rhone, Alsace; the Loire; Champagne;
> Bandol; Cahors; etc etc etc.
>
> So, what did you buy - some very cheap, nasty, basic stuff which abounds
> under 000's of labels - or something vaguely recognisable?
>
> Perhaps you have an interest in your local wine industry, and think that
> we
> should ignore the very French influence apparent in so many Chilean wines!
>
> I too have experienced some pretty crappy stuff, from Bordeaux (and Chile,
> Australia, yes, even New Zealand!!!) - but, hey - I purchased it - it is
> my
> fault if I don't do the homework first.
>
> I blame myself - not the entire winemaking industry!
>
> --
>
> st.helier
>
>

I am starting to give it a try to the Rhone stuff (I believe it would be
mainly Grenache and Syrah?). Unfortunately, all I've tried so far is a 1996
Chanteneuf-du-Pape, and it... well, sucked. I hope I have better luck next
time.

-Indirecto


"th_duck" > wrote in message
om...
> "Indirecto" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>>
>> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>> bought in Bordeaux.
>>
>> -Indirecto
>
> If that is your complaint look to the south. If you wants something
> affordable and gutsy, try a Gigondas, a Coteaux du Langeduoc, or
> *maybe* a Madrian. There are plenty of inexpensive fruit forward Cote
> du Rhones or Cotes de Provence out there as well.
>
> France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.
> That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
> definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
> possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
> styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
> gravitate towards the French wines.
>
> Also, If you were fan of whites I would point you towards Alsace...no
> shoratge of fruit or body there.
>
> ML

Thanks for the suggestion.

Unfortunately I only drink Pinot Noir when I meet my dad and we have fish.
He can't drink white wine (makes him sick), so we go for the lightest red
possible that we can drink cold.

For light european wines I prefer italian chiantis. Though ,of course, I
usually drink local carmenere.

Burgundy is usually too expensive for me.

-Indirecto


"SJP" > wrote in message
newsEdnd.531168$mD.134044@attbi_s02...
> I'm pretty Italian-centric myself, but have found some great French wines
> that I do enjoy. For something that you don't have to wait around for,
> try Joseph Drouhin Chambolle-Musigny 2001 Burgundy. It's easily the best
> Pinot Noir that I've had. I intend to bring a couple to Thanksgiving
> dinner.
>
>
> "Indirecto" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>> usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>>
>> At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>> bought in Bordeaux.
>>
>> -Indirecto
>>
>>
>
>

Overrated by the trade-rags.

-Indirecto


"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:37:37 -0300, "Indirecto"
> > wrote:
>
>>Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
>>usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
>
> Overrated by whom? The wines (especially lower-end stuff) sell in a
> pretty free market.
>
> Maybe they are "thin and lacking in fruit" compared with new world
> wines. Look beyond that to see other qualities. Some of us like them
> that way - they tend to go better with food.
>
>>At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
>>bought in Bordeaux.
>
> As it happens, I am not a great fan of low-end Bordeaux myself, but
> that my personal opinion. And the better Bordeaux needs aging.
>
> --
> Steve Slatcher
> http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

In message >
"Indirecto" > wrote:

> I'm sorry I offended some of you out there...
>
> My post was a result of opening a bottle of 1998 Chateau Magdelaine that I
> bought for about US$40 a bottle, and kind of thinking... "am I missing
> something?". Also coming to the conclusion that for less than Euro$30,
> spanish wine, in general, tasted much better.
>
> I don't think I'm ignorant... although apparently not as knowlegable as some
> here. Or is it perhaps that my pallate is too used to fruitier wine.
>
> Sometimes I feel french wine is like scotch whisky. People drink it more
> for the status than the actual content. No doubt there are notable
> exceptions.
>
> -Indirecto

Assuming the Ch. Magdelaine you drank was the Premier Brand Cru Classé from
St. Emilion and not Ch. Magdeleine-Bouhou from Blaye, it is perhapos npt
surpris9ng tthat you were somewhat disappointed. You would be disappointed
by the life work of any victim of infanticide. Moroeover, although I have
not tasted the 1998 Magdelaine yet I would have expected that it is closed
and asleep at the moment. If you want to try St. Emilions of this quality
and are not prepared to wait for the great years until they are at their
best to drink may I suggest either that you drink them before they close
down and sleep or, better still, try more precocious years. Some 1997 GCCs
and PGCCs will be drinking reasonably now and you might just get away with
some of the 1999s but to drink either 1998 or 2000 and expect them to be
ready is a trifle optimistic. Even amongst the better Grand Crus sensible
people are drinking the 99s before either of the other two years and are
looking for the bargains amongst the 1997s, some of which are lovely. You
would do very well to buy it in England for the equivalent of $40 and I am
sorry that such a good buy of what would have been a great bottle was wasted.

Timothy Hartley

In message >
"Indirecto" > wrote:

> I'm sorry I offended some of you out there...
>
> My post was a result of opening a bottle of 1998 Chateau Magdelaine that I
> bought for about US$40 a bottle, and kind of thinking... "am I missing
> something?". Also coming to the conclusion that for less than Euro$30,
> spanish wine, in general, tasted much better.
>
> I don't think I'm ignorant... although apparently not as knowlegable as some
> here. Or is it perhaps that my pallate is too used to fruitier wine.
>
> Sometimes I feel french wine is like scotch whisky. People drink it more
> for the status than the actual content. No doubt there are notable
> exceptions.
>
> -Indirecto

Assuming the Ch. Magdelaine you drank was the Premier Brand Cru Classé from
St. Emilion and not Ch. Magdeleine-Bouhou from Blaye, it is perhapos npt
surpris9ng tthat you were somewhat disappointed. You would be disappointed
by the life work of any victim of infanticide. Moroeover, although I have
not tasted the 1998 Magdelaine yet I would have expected that it is closed
and asleep at the moment. If you want to try St. Emilions of this quality
and are not prepared to wait for the great years until they are at their
best to drink may I suggest either that you drink them before they close
down and sleep or, better still, try more precocious years. Some 1997 GCCs
and PGCCs will be drinking reasonably now and you might just get away with
some of the 1999s but to drink either 1998 or 2000 and expect them to be
ready is a trifle optimistic. Even amongst the better Grand Crus sensible
people are drinking the 99s before either of the other two years and are
looking for the bargains amongst the 1997s, some of which are lovely. You
would do very well to buy it in England for the equivalent of $40 and I am
sorry that such a good buy of what would have been a great bottle was wasted.

Timothy Hartley

"Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
> I am starting to give it a try to the Rhone stuff (I believe it would be
> mainly Grenache and Syrah?). Unfortunately, all I've tried so far is a 1996
> Chanteneuf-du-Pape, and it... well, sucked. I hope I have better luck next
> time.
>
> -Indirecto
>
>
Chateauneuf is an interesting wine in that it can vary so much from
producer to producer what quality one is going to get. Also, the
proportion of Grenache blend can make it lighter than if it has a lot
of Syrah and Mouvedre. The year also matters. 1998, (to a lesser
extent 99),00', and 01' were all great years and you would be more
likely to find a nice bottle here. You should be prepared to spend a
bit of money, a good CdP for less than $30 US is a bit of a rare bird.

I would maybe stay away from 2002's rhones in general if body is what
you are after...with one caveat, because it is such a poor year, some
of the big Chateauneuf names have declassified their juice into a
"Cote du Rhone" wine. One that I have tried which I though was pretty
good is from Pegau...they have made a wine called "Plan Pegau" that
sells for around $15 wheras the usual Chateauneuf du Pape they make is
around $45. "Vieux Telegraph" has done something similiar and released
a cheaper wine with a different name (cant remember what it is, Vieux
something!). These might be worth checking out if you can't find the
years I mentioned.

But if you are going for a southern rhone with straight ahead guts I
would really look to Chateauneuf's less famous neighbours Gigondas or
a Vacqueras. these wines are maybe a bit more rustic than a CdP, but
have a lot more raw power for the buck. A good Gigondas can be had for
less than $20 USD. A Vacqueras for less than $16. Also don't overlook
the wines of the Languedoc...many of these are plenty powerful and
less than $15, Domaine de L'Hortus is pretty common and around $10
....also, try a Madrian maybe.

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com>...
> (th_duck) wrote in message . com>...
> > "Indirecto" > wrote in message >...
> > > Except for the real expensive stuff (and even those sometimes), they are
> > > usually thin, and lacking in fruit.
> > >
> > > At least that's what I'm finding out after opening a few bottles I just
> > > bought in Bordeaux.
> > >
> > > -Indirecto
> >
> > If that is your complaint look to the south. If you wants something
> > affordable and gutsy, try a Gigondas, a Coteaux du Langeduoc, or
> > *maybe* a Madrian. There are plenty of inexpensive fruit forward Cote
> > du Rhones or Cotes de Provence out there as well.
> >
> > France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.
>
> That's a lie. The F_____ can't hold a candle to Italy.

Give me a break. I agree that Italy makes some incredible reds, but
give me a list of some Italian whites that can touch a great white
Burgundy. Where is Italy's Alsace? If we want to ga back to the reds,
name me some great Italian Pinot noir producers...
>
> > That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
> > definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
> > possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
> > styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
> > gravitate towards the French wines.
>
> Another outright lie. Italy has more grapes and varieties than any other country.

The operative phrase is "profound bottles of more different varieties"
with the emphasis on "profound" Again show me Italy's great
Gewertztraminers and Rieslings. Pinot Grigio does not hold a candle to
great Alsatian Pinot Gris. Italian Chardonnay is way behind the
French. I have no animus towards Italy. I love a great Barolo,
Barbaresco, and Chianti as much as the next guy...I even like a nice
Amarone now and again, but that is all Italian wine holds for me. I
never buy an Italian white except for the occasional Arneis because
quite honestly they are not very interesting.

Also (and this is diverging a bit), If your myriad of Italian
varieties have such widespread appeal, why have they not caught on in
either Australia or America. You don't see great new plantings of
Nebbiolo in Napa and most of the briefly captivating Sangiovese is now
being ripped up. What are vintners planting? Yep, more French
Varieties...sorry to say, but just about everyone in the new world is
following the lead of the French.

Michael Leduc

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll see what I can find localy

-Indirecto


"th_duck" > wrote in message
om...
> "Indirecto" > wrote in message
> >...
>> I am starting to give it a try to the Rhone stuff (I believe it would be
>> mainly Grenache and Syrah?). Unfortunately, all I've tried so far is a
>> 1996
>> Chanteneuf-du-Pape, and it... well, sucked. I hope I have better luck
>> next
>> time.
>>
>> -Indirecto
>>
>>
> Chateauneuf is an interesting wine in that it can vary so much from
> producer to producer what quality one is going to get. Also, the
> proportion of Grenache blend can make it lighter than if it has a lot
> of Syrah and Mouvedre. The year also matters. 1998, (to a lesser
> extent 99),00', and 01' were all great years and you would be more
> likely to find a nice bottle here. You should be prepared to spend a
> bit of money, a good CdP for less than $30 US is a bit of a rare bird.
>
> I would maybe stay away from 2002's rhones in general if body is what
> you are after...with one caveat, because it is such a poor year, some
> of the big Chateauneuf names have declassified their juice into a
> "Cote du Rhone" wine. One that I have tried which I though was pretty
> good is from Pegau...they have made a wine called "Plan Pegau" that
> sells for around $15 wheras the usual Chateauneuf du Pape they make is
> around $45. "Vieux Telegraph" has done something similiar and released
> a cheaper wine with a different name (cant remember what it is, Vieux
> something!). These might be worth checking out if you can't find the
> years I mentioned.
>
> But if you are going for a southern rhone with straight ahead guts I
> would really look to Chateauneuf's less famous neighbours Gigondas or
> a Vacqueras. these wines are maybe a bit more rustic than a CdP, but
> have a lot more raw power for the buck. A good Gigondas can be had for
> less than $20 USD. A Vacqueras for less than $16. Also don't overlook
> the wines of the Languedoc...many of these are plenty powerful and
> less than $15, Domaine de L'Hortus is pretty common and around $10
> ...also, try a Madrian maybe.

Michael Leduc wrote.....

> Give me a break.

Michael,

Don't waste your time or effort responding to this bozo - he is so FITH that
he cannot see past anything Italian.

I mean, take a look at these words of wisdom...

>>
>> That's a lie. The F_____ can't hold a candle to Italy.


He is so screwed up that he cannot even write the words France or French!

And while most of us recognise that some producers in some areas in Italy
make some wonderful wines, UC is convinced that the most obscure local
varieties, tucked away in some backwater, are the great undiscovered
revelations to the winemaking world.

Many of us have simply kill filed UC - because trying to reason with him
always ends up with the same result - we are liars; he is the enlightened
one.

The truth is, he has a head of solid bone, and eyesight so tunnel-visioned
that it is impossible for him to comprehend that anything can exist anywhere
outside of I____y.

Imagine, we live on this earth for 60/70/80 years; there are so many
countries to visit; places to see; foods to try and wines to experience, and
here we have someone so bigoted that he cannot even comprehend the
excellence of -

A ravishing Riesling or great Gewurz from Alsace
The floral elegance of Mosel
The power and "Australian brashness" of Grange
Or one of those superb Champagnes of which Michael Tommasi writes
Or Cabernet and Merlot in its many guises from Bordeaux
Seafood and salad and Marlborough Sauvignon
Or the special produce of Austria and Spain and Portugal and Hungary etc etc
etc

What a waste of a life!!!

--

st.helier

(th_duck) wrote in message . com>...


> > > France simply does more things better in wine than any other country.
> >
> > That's a lie. The F_____ can't hold a candle to Italy.
>
> Give me a break. I agree that Italy makes some incredible reds, but
> give me a list of some Italian whites that can touch a great white
> Burgundy.

Valentini Trebbiano d'Abruzzo is superb.

http://www.bbr.com/US/db/product/50769B?ID=null

http://www.italianwinemerchant.com/F...ntini_Page.htm

Not that white wine really matters...

> Where is Italy's Alsace? If we want to ga back to the reds,
> name me some great Italian Pinot noir producers...

Uh, what? Why would they produce that crap, when they have all the
best red wine grapes, which are all native to Italy?

Barbera
Dolcetto
Nebbiolo
Sangiovese
Aglianico
Negro Amaro
Cannonou
etc., etc., etc.


> >
> > > That said one can easily drink a mediocre bottle--so the worst is also
> > > definately out there. But on balance, it is safe to say that is
> > > possible to have more profound bottles of more different varieties and
> > > styles than of any other region in the world. This is why so many
> > > gravitate towards the French wines.
> >
> > Another outright lie. Italy has more grapes and varieties than any other country.
>
> The operative phrase is "profound bottles of more different varieties"
> with the emphasis on "profound" Again show me Italy's great
> Gewertztraminers and Rieslings.

You make me laugh. Real wine is RED, Bucko!

> Pinot Grigio does not hold a candle to
> great Alsatian Pinot Gris. Italian Chardonnay is way behind the
> French. I have no animus towards Italy. I love a great Barolo,
> Barbaresco, and Chianti as much as the next guy...I even like a nice
> Amarone now and again, but that is all Italian wine holds for me. I
> never buy an Italian white except for the occasional Arneis because
> quite honestly they are not very interesting.

Try a Vermentino di Sardegna from Argiolas...or the Tuscan Vermentino

> Also (and this is diverging a bit), If your myriad of Italian
> varieties have such widespread appeal, why have they not caught on in
> either Australia or America. You don't see great new plantings of
> Nebbiolo in Napa and most of the briefly captivating Sangiovese is now
> being ripped up. What are vintners planting? Yep, more French
> Varieties...sorry to say, but just about everyone in the new world is
> following the lead of the French.

Uh, I'm talking about ITALIAN WINE, not Italian grapes grown
elsewhere......

>
> Michael Leduc

Typical deluded American....

You probably participate in 'tastings', don't you?