I picked up three bottles of Reignac red for about $16 each
at Costco. I've just started getting interested in wines, so
to a large extent I rely on reviews and recommendations.
Parker gave this one a 90, and said it would be fine drinking
over the next eight or so years.

I was underwhelmed. It wasn't nasty -- just not much there.
The nose was spicy (cedar?) but very little fruit evident.
It was fairly tannic, but not over the top tastewise, but
once again,not much there. A good $8 bottle.

I took it in to work to try a couple of wine experts there.
They said it was tight and closed. We decanted it back and
forward a few time, and let it warm up for a few hours, open
to the atmosphere. Very little change.

One of the work guys said to forget the other two bottles
for two or three years, but the other said there was to
much stuff in there (referring to the fact it was unfiltered)
for it to improve with age. I know many people don't agree
with Parker's recommendations, but I can't believe he
and I are that far off.

What's going on here?

I had heard on this group that sometimes low concentrations
of TCA can kill the fruit, but one of the tasters at work, who makes
wine and has taken many courses at UC Davis, said he hadn't
heard of that.

[I have not posted Parker's tasting notes here as I didn't
know if that was considered rude and/or illegal. What is the
thinking on that?]

Thanks.

"Pete Fraser" > wrote in message
...
>I picked up three bottles of Reignac red for about $16 each
> at Costco. I've just started getting interested in wines, so
> to a large extent I rely on reviews and recommendations.
> Parker gave this one a 90, and said it would be fine drinking
> over the next eight or so years.
>
> I was underwhelmed. It wasn't nasty -- just not much there.
> The nose was spicy (cedar?) but very little fruit evident.
> It was fairly tannic, but not over the top tastewise, but
> once again,not much there. A good $8 bottle.
>
> I took it in to work to try a couple of wine experts there.
> They said it was tight and closed. We decanted it back and
> forward a few time, and let it warm up for a few hours, open
> to the atmosphere. Very little change.
>
> One of the work guys said to forget the other two bottles
> for two or three years, but the other said there was to
> much stuff in there (referring to the fact it was unfiltered)
> for it to improve with age. I know many people don't agree
> with Parker's recommendations, but I can't believe he
> and I are that far off.
>
> What's going on here?
>
> I had heard on this group that sometimes low concentrations
> of TCA can kill the fruit, but one of the tasters at work, who makes
> wine and has taken many courses at UC Davis, said he hadn't
> heard of that.
>
> [I have not posted Parker's tasting notes here as I didn't
> know if that was considered rude and/or illegal. What is the
> thinking on that?]
>
> Thanks.

Saying that having, "too much stuff in there (referring to the fact it was
unfiltered)", means the wine will not age well is an absolute nonsense. This
would mean that some of the better Burgundies, which are also unfiltered,
will not age.

As regards Parker's notes, I find Parker's palate in many cases favours big
extractive fruit bombs which I find crass, gross and crude examples, in
other words, caricatures of wine. I am Australian, yet I have very few of
the Australian wines on which Parker lavishes such praise in my cellar. In
my opinion you would do better to either follow your own palate, or if you
want guidance, look to Clive Coates or perhaps Jancis Robinson.

No doubt other posters will vehemently disagree, but as you are going to be
drinking the wines you buy, they ultimately need to appeal to you.

Ron Lel

"Ron Lel" > wrote in message
...

>
> Saying that having, "too much stuff in there (referring to the fact it was
> unfiltered)", means the wine will not age well is an absolute nonsense.
> This would mean that some of the better Burgundies, which are also
> unfiltered, will not age.
>
> As regards Parker's notes, I find Parker's palate in many cases favours
> big extractive fruit bombs which I find crass, gross and crude examples,
> in other words, caricatures of wine. I am Australian, yet I have very few
> of the Australian wines on which Parker lavishes such praise in my cellar.
> In my opinion you would do better to either follow your own palate, or if
> you want guidance, look to Clive Coates or perhaps Jancis Robinson.

I will check out these reviewers. Thanks.
I understand that many people differ with Parker, and I'm just regarding
this
as a starting point untill I collect my own data on what I like and what I
don't. However, there is no way that the bottle I just drank could be
labelled
a "big extractive fruit bomb". It had almost no fruit. I don't think my lack
of
enthusiasm for this wine is because I don't like the Parker style.

>
> No doubt other posters will vehemently disagree, but as you are going to
> be drinking the wines you buy, they ultimately need to appeal to you.
>
Agreed, but it's going to take me months to years to work this stuff out
for myself. In the meantime I'll check out Coates and Robinson.

I'm still wondering about the Reignac though...


Pete

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:23:51 -0800, "Pete Fraser" > said:

[]
] I'm still wondering about the Reignac though...
]
]
Pete,

I don't pay much attention (usually) to Parker and so haven't seen the note,
but I did try a bottle of '01 Reignac.

I also found it closed and tight. There was some fruit layered in there, but
it didn't impress me, I chose not to bite at around 11 euros. Best bet is to
wait 5 years, but I don't guess it will ever amount to great shakes.

HTH,

-E

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

I haven't tried the '01 Reignac, but I thought it might be useful to
point that Reignac's line is rather confusing, so I hope you're all
trying the same bottling.

At least in 2000, Reignac made 3 wines (in descending price):
Reignac (tall thin bottle, beige/tan label)
Ch=E2teau de Reignac cuv=E9e prestige (classic Bordeaux bottle, I think
white label with picture)
Ch=E2teau de Reignac (ditto)

Parker rated the Reignac highly. I found the 2000 to be a very
well-made Napa cab.

Dale

OP here.

"DaleW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I haven't tried the '01 Reignac, but I thought it might be useful to
> point that Reignac's line is rather confusing, so I hope you're all
> trying the same bottling.

> At least in 2000, Reignac made 3 wines (in descending price):
> Reignac (tall thin bottle, beige/tan label)

I think that's the one I've got.

> Parker rated the Reignac highly. I found the 2000 to be a very
> well-made Napa cab.

Yes. I think Parker gave it a 90 and a glowing note.
I found it very tight and very little fruit (but I'm new to this,
so I was looking for other folks' experiences.)

I bought three bottles, so perhaps I'll open another one
and see if it's the same.

Is it OK to quote Parker's notes in the n.g., or is that
considered inappropriate?

Thanks

Pete

Thanks for clearing that up, Dale. In fact I think Pete and I had a different bottle,
mine was just the regular Reignac.

I also tried the '00. Not interesting at the price (a bit higher), but a fellow at
the "Foire aux vins" at the supermarket was really pushing the 01, so I tried.

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:17:35 -0800, "Pete Fraser" > said:

][]
] Is it OK to quote Parker's notes in the n.g., or is that
] considered inappropriate?
]

AFAIK it's fine to quote RP or any critic here, so long as the quotation isn't
copyright protected. In any case he is often quoted on afw.

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