Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question about Tannins and Aging

One of my better wine successes was when I purchased a couple of cases
of Milliman Cabernet-Malbec (Curico Valley, Chile) 1999 for $3.99 per
bottle. The wine had received pretty good reviews and this was when my
price point for wines was in the $12.00 range for a decent-to-good
bottle (price creep has moved this number up QUITE significantly!). For
the first year or so the wine was rough and tannic but also showed a lot
of fruit. After holding several bottles for a few years the wine
improved to the point of being really smooth and balanced.

I recently served a bottle of 1994 Pichon-Baron Puillac to some
wine-loving friends before dinner and followed this with a bottle of the
Milliman with dinner. You should have heard them rave about how
wonderful the $3.99 bottle was! Granted, a younger and fruitier wine is
going to make more of an impression on some people than a dry and subtle
Bordeaux, but the lesson for me was that it is possible to pick a young
wine and hold it with great success. This is an obvious fact that you
are all acutely aware of, but it was still exciting for me to experience
on my own.

My question involves a different wine. I have over 6 bottles of a
powerful wine from the Montsant region in Spain that are from the 1999
vintage. The fruit is excellent, but the tannins are pretty harsh and
somewhat bitter. I also have a case of the same wine from the 2000
vintage and the fruit is very similar, but the tannins are much gentler
although still too dominant. Both wines are already seriously dry.
Nevertheless, these wines are totally awesome with Spanish Valdeon Blue
Cheese!!!

1) If there is enough fruit (but not sweetness) in the wine, might the
tannins ever soften to the point that the wine will actually become
smooth?

2) Are some tannins just too strong to be overcome? Might the tannins
actually overtake the wine as the fruit fades?

3) This is a wine that causes me to loose a copious amount of epithelial
cells from my cheeks. Is this caused by the tannins?

Jonathan


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
DaleW
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is always the question in austere tannic vintages- while the fruit
outlast the tannins? In 1975, many wines are still quite tannic, as
fruit fades (not all- there are some nice '75s). In 1988, the balance
seems to have fallen on the fruit side- tannins are resolving, and most
of the better wines are very good in a classic style. The jury is still
out on 1994 (I subtitled a report on a '94 horizontal last year
"tannins run amok!").

  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mr. Mojo
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"DaleW" > wrote in message Blah, Blah, Blah>

A more reasonable answer is. Maye, maybe not. No one knows. It's a crap
shoot.


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mark Lipton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jonathan wrote:
1) If there is enough fruit (but not sweetness) in the wine, might the
> tannins ever soften to the point that the wine will actually become smooth?


Yup. That a large part of what bottle aging is all about: the softening
of tannins with time. In fact, the sediment that forms in older bottles
of red wine is polymerized tannins (no longer bitter, BTW).
>
> 2) Are some tannins just too strong to be overcome? Might the tannins
> actually overtake the wine as the fruit fades?


Aging not only smoothes out tannins; it also reduces that fruitiness of
the wine. If a wine starts out *so* tannic, the tannins will outlast
the fruit and you'll end up with a wine after 20 years of aging that has
no fruit -- usually, not a pleasant experience.

>
> 3) This is a wine that causes me to loose a copious amount of epithelial
> cells from my cheeks. Is this caused by the tannins?


Yup, either that or someone slipped some sandpaper into the glass when
you weren't looking ;-) That's called "astringency" as is the hallmark
of rough (green) tannins. With age or exposure to oxygen, that'll go away.

HTH
Mark Lipton

p.s. Thanks for the thoughts on the '82 G-L. That's an example of a
wine that was hell of tannic in its youth, and see how it's developed!
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark (Dale and Mojo too),

Thanks for the helpful post! So what happens when you start out with a
really fruit-driven wine that lacks tannic structure? Could you
describe what an over-the-hill fruit-driven wine tastes like? I'm
pretty sure I've had them but I'm not sure. I had one Pinot Noir
recently that was so flabby that it tasted like cough syrup. I was
frustrated with myself for lacking the knowledge to pinpoint what the
obvious defect was (lack of acidity, weak tannins, or poor acid/alcohol
balance). I found myself wishing that I could have an expert taste it
and explain the defect to me.

On the same subject, is a lack of tannins what accounts for the softness
that makes alot of "quaffers" unappealing to me? I'm thinking of some
of the cheap Australian Shirazes such as Yellow Tail.

It really is amazing how many elements must come together to provide a
perfectly balanced wine. It's exciting when it happens -- enough to
send people like us on our quests for really great wine!

Jonathan

>
> p.s. Thanks for the thoughts on the '82 G-L. That's an example of a
> wine that was hell of tannic in its youth, and see how it's developed!


How long do you intend to hold your last bottle of the '82 G-L?


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
jcoulter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jonathan > wrote in
:

> Mark (Dale and Mojo too),
>
> Thanks for the helpful post! So what happens when you start out with
> a really fruit-driven wine that lacks tannic structure?

imagine the fruit is lacking and you are left with?


not much good sweetish water with alcohol mixed in.dead wine is not gross
but sure aint pretty
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
jcoulter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jonathan > wrote in
:

> Mark (Dale and Mojo too),
>
> Thanks for the helpful post! So what happens when you start out with
> a really fruit-driven wine that lacks tannic structure?

imagine the fruit is lacking and you are left with?


not much good sweetish water with alcohol mixed in.dead wine is not gross
but sure aint pretty
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Streuth Cor Blimey
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan wrote:
> 1) If there is enough fruit (but not sweetness) in the wine, might the
>> tannins ever soften to the point that the wine will actually become
>> smooth?

>
> Yup. That a large part of what bottle aging is all about: the softening
> of tannins with time. In fact, the sediment that forms in older bottles
> of red wine is polymerized tannins (no longer bitter, BTW).
>>
>> 2) Are some tannins just too strong to be overcome? Might the tannins
>> actually overtake the wine as the fruit fades?

>
> Aging not only smoothes out tannins; it also reduces that fruitiness of
> the wine. If a wine starts out *so* tannic, the tannins will outlast the
> fruit and you'll end up with a wine after 20 years of aging that has no
> fruit -- usually, not a pleasant experience.
>
>>
>> 3) This is a wine that causes me to loose a copious amount of epithelial
>> cells from my cheeks. Is this caused by the tannins?

>
> Yup, either that or someone slipped some sandpaper into the glass when you
> weren't looking ;-) That's called "astringency" as is the hallmark of
> rough (green) tannins. With age or exposure to oxygen, that'll go away.
>
> HTH
> Mark Lipton
>
> p.s. Thanks for the thoughts on the '82 G-L. That's an example of a wine
> that was hell of tannic in its youth, and see how it's developed!


> Aging not only smoothes out tannins; it also reduces that fruitiness of
> the wine. If a wine starts out *so* tannic, the tannins will outlast the
> fruit and you'll end up with a wine after 20 years of aging that has no
> fruit -- usually, not a pleasant experience.


So then, it possible to blend one's own wines for reserve, or is that
a "black art" of the grower/Vintner?

--
Streuth


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I recently finished my last bottle of 1981 Ridge Monte Bello Cabernet.
I bought a case of this on futures and a few other bottles from someone
else in the mid 80s. I remember tasting it shortly after it was
released. It tasted very well made, but it was very tight and tannic.
It seemed to have fruit, but it was hard to tell what the fruit was
like buried under the tannins. By the mid 90s, it was a fantastic wine.
The tannins had become much softer and it had elegant, complex fruit
flavors. The tasting notes from my last bottle a few weeks ago a

Medium color, little brownish around the edges. Nose has cherry,
chassis and violet aromas. The fruit had cherry, plums, and chassis
with hints of licorice and mushroom earthiness, moderate acid, very
soft tannins, and a long fruity finish. This is a very good wine that
still has good structure and lots of complex fruit flavors, but it is
clear this wine is fully mature and is not improving. My rating 90.

I find it hard to predict how wines will evolve. Many Bordeaux are very
tight and tannic when young, but seem to open up and reveal the fruit
as the tannins soften. Some California wines are that way too. In other
wines, when the tannins soften out, the fruit seems to have faded away.
Maybe there never was any fruit there in the first place.

------------------------------------
Mike's Wine Blog
http://mikeswinecellar.blogspot.com

  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike, you are right. It is very hard to tell how a tannic wine will
age. Tonight I had an Artadi Vinas de Gain, 2001 that was pretty dry
and tannic but with excellent depth. I gave my neighbor a glass to try
and he recpiroated by giving me a bottle of Ravenswood Shiraz. It was
literally night and day! The Aussie shiraz was all fruit and softness,
and to my palate, devoid of any complexity. The Artadi Rioja seemed to
offer something new with every sip. As it opened up it became wonderful
and a joy to experience. I can only assume that with age, the Ravenswood
will become sappy and unpalatable, and the Artadi will gain in complexity.

Jonathan

wrote:
> I recently finished my last bottle of 1981 Ridge Monte Bello Cabernet.
> I bought a case of this on futures and a few other bottles from someone
> else in the mid 80s. I remember tasting it shortly after it was
> released. It tasted very well made, but it was very tight and tannic.
> It seemed to have fruit, but it was hard to tell what the fruit was
> like buried under the tannins. By the mid 90s, it was a fantastic wine.
> The tannins had become much softer and it had elegant, complex fruit
> flavors. The tasting notes from my last bottle a few weeks ago a
>
> Medium color, little brownish around the edges. Nose has cherry,
> chassis and violet aromas. The fruit had cherry, plums, and chassis
> with hints of licorice and mushroom earthiness, moderate acid, very
> soft tannins, and a long fruity finish. This is a very good wine that
> still has good structure and lots of complex fruit flavors, but it is
> clear this wine is fully mature and is not improving. My rating 90.
>
> I find it hard to predict how wines will evolve. Many Bordeaux are very
> tight and tannic when young, but seem to open up and reveal the fruit
> as the tannins soften. Some California wines are that way too. In other
> wines, when the tannins soften out, the fruit seems to have faded away.
> Maybe there never was any fruit there in the first place.
>
> ------------------------------------
> Mike's Wine Blog
>
http://mikeswinecellar.blogspot.com
>



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mark Lipton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jonathan wrote:
> Mike, you are right. It is very hard to tell how a tannic wine will
> age. Tonight I had an Artadi Vinas de Gain, 2001 that was pretty dry
> and tannic but with excellent depth. I gave my neighbor a glass to try
> and he recpiroated by giving me a bottle of Ravenswood Shiraz. It was
> literally night and day! The Aussie shiraz was all fruit and softness,
> and to my palate, devoid of any complexity. The Artadi Rioja seemed to
> offer something new with every sip. As it opened up it became wonderful
> and a joy to experience. I can only assume that with age, the Ravenswood
> will become sappy and unpalatable, and the Artadi will gain in complexity.


And to round out this discussion I will add that the '99 Viñas de Gain
has not yet reached full maturity and is indeed gaining some leather and
smoke notes with age. You might be surprised by the Shiraz, though. I
haven't had it, so I can't say anything specific, but just because it's
got less acidity than the Rioja doesn't mean that it's incapable of
aging (although it well may be). Some "fruit bomb" wines will age
reasonably well, though whether they improve with age is another
question altogether.

Mark Lipton
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
says...
>
>Mike, you are right. It is very hard to tell how a tannic wine will
>age. Tonight I had an Artadi Vinas de Gain, 2001 that was pretty dry
>and tannic but with excellent depth. I gave my neighbor a glass to try
>and he recpiroated by giving me a bottle of Ravenswood Shiraz. It was
>literally night and day! The Aussie shiraz was all fruit and softness,
>and to my palate, devoid of any complexity. The Artadi Rioja seemed to
>offer something new with every sip. As it opened up it became wonderful
>and a joy to experience. I can only assume that with age, the Ravenswood
>will become sappy and unpalatable, and the Artadi will gain in complexity.
>
>Jonathan

[SNIP]

I'll bet you mean Rosemont Shiraz. Ravenswood is a Sonoma (though they do have
property, and sources, that lie beyond Sonoma) Zin producer.

That said, it is difficult to assess a tannic wine early in its career,
especially for me. I do a bunch of barrel-tastings, but it's still a crap-
shoot. Sometimes, I'm right, sometimes, I feel that I will not live long
enough to see some of these monsters smooth out - and I feel that their fruit
will live an even shorter life.

I had the pleasure (?) of tasting the first R Mondavi Pinot Noir. It was,
IIRC, 1978 (?), and was made by the recipe from UC Davis' thoughts on PN in
those days. When tasted in 2000, this wine ripped the enamel from my teeth -
still! To get concentration, back in those days, the skins were left in
contact with the must for a week, with heavy agitation. Maybe someday, in the
next century, this wine will be drinkable. As a result of this failed
experiment, RM quit doing PNs for many years, and the winemaker became a
marketing director.

I collect a bunch of tannic monsters, and only hope that I live long enough to
enjoy them. AND that THEY live long enough for me to enjoy.

Hunt

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
says...
>
>Mike, you are right. It is very hard to tell how a tannic wine will
>age. Tonight I had an Artadi Vinas de Gain, 2001 that was pretty dry
>and tannic but with excellent depth. I gave my neighbor a glass to try
>and he recpiroated by giving me a bottle of Ravenswood Shiraz. It was
>literally night and day! The Aussie shiraz was all fruit and softness,
>and to my palate, devoid of any complexity. The Artadi Rioja seemed to
>offer something new with every sip. As it opened up it became wonderful
>and a joy to experience. I can only assume that with age, the Ravenswood
>will become sappy and unpalatable, and the Artadi will gain in complexity.
>
>Jonathan

[SNIP]

I'll bet you mean Rosemont Shiraz. Ravenswood is a Sonoma (though they do have
property, and sources, that lie beyond Sonoma) Zin producer.

That said, it is difficult to assess a tannic wine early in its career,
especially for me. I do a bunch of barrel-tastings, but it's still a crap-
shoot. Sometimes, I'm right, sometimes, I feel that I will not live long
enough to see some of these monsters smooth out - and I feel that their fruit
will live an even shorter life.

I had the pleasure (?) of tasting the first R Mondavi Pinot Noir. It was,
IIRC, 1978 (?), and was made by the recipe from UC Davis' thoughts on PN in
those days. When tasted in 2000, this wine ripped the enamel from my teeth -
still! To get concentration, back in those days, the skins were left in
contact with the must for a week, with heavy agitation. Maybe someday, in the
next century, this wine will be drinkable. As a result of this failed
experiment, RM quit doing PNs for many years, and the winemaker became a
marketing director.

I collect a bunch of tannic monsters, and only hope that I live long enough to
enjoy them. AND that THEY live long enough for me to enjoy.

Hunt

  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mark Lipton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hunt wrote:

> I'll bet you mean Rosemont Shiraz. Ravenswood is a Sonoma (though they do have
> property, and sources, that lie beyond Sonoma) Zin producer.


Nope, I bet he meant Ravenswood, Hunt. They now market a SW Aussie
Shiraz, which I've seen placed next to [other] Aussie Shirazes in the
supermarket in Indiana. Keep in mind that they're now owned by BRL
Hardy, so maybe it's not so surprising.

> I had the pleasure (?) of tasting the first R Mondavi Pinot Noir. It was,
> IIRC, 1978 (?), and was made by the recipe from UC Davis' thoughts on PN in
> those days. When tasted in 2000, this wine ripped the enamel from my teeth -
> still! To get concentration, back in those days, the skins were left in
> contact with the must for a week, with heavy agitation. Maybe someday, in the
> next century, this wine will be drinkable. As a result of this failed
> experiment, RM quit doing PNs for many years, and the winemaker became a
> marketing director.


LOL!! I do believe that I tasted that wine at release also, leading me
to the generalization that "Mondavi doesn't do Pinot Noir (well)."
Can't say that I was motivated to buy any, though. Still, compared to
the Pinots of Santa Cruz Mountain Vineyards in that era, Mondavi's was a
light, ready-to-drink wine ;-)

Mark Lipton
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, says...
>
>Hunt wrote:
>
>> I'll bet you mean Rosemont Shiraz. Ravenswood is a Sonoma (though they do

have
>
>> property, and sources, that lie beyond Sonoma) Zin producer.

>
>Nope, I bet he meant Ravenswood, Hunt. They now market a SW Aussie
>Shiraz, which I've seen placed next to [other] Aussie Shirazes in the
>supermarket in Indiana. Keep in mind that they're now owned by BRL
>Hardy, so maybe it's not so surprising.
>
>> I had the pleasure (?) of tasting the first R Mondavi Pinot Noir. It was,
>> IIRC, 1978 (?), and was made by the recipe from UC Davis' thoughts on PN in
>> those days. When tasted in 2000, this wine ripped the enamel from my teeth

-
>> still! To get concentration, back in those days, the skins were left in
>> contact with the must for a week, with heavy agitation. Maybe someday, in

the
>> next century, this wine will be drinkable. As a result of this failed
>> experiment, RM quit doing PNs for many years, and the winemaker became a
>> marketing director.

>
>LOL!! I do believe that I tasted that wine at release also, leading me
>to the generalization that "Mondavi doesn't do Pinot Noir (well)."
>Can't say that I was motivated to buy any, though. Still, compared to
>the Pinots of Santa Cruz Mountain Vineyards in that era, Mondavi's was a
>light, ready-to-drink wine ;-)
>
>Mark Lipton


As I recall, Mondavi pulled the plug on PNs after three vintages (if one could
call them that), however, he/they came back to the grape in the late 90's and
did some respectable ones from both Napa and Carneros (yes, I know that
Carneros overlaps both Napa & Sonoma, but they had those two different
appellations on the bottlings, but I do not know the exact properties). These
were not great PNs, and pale in comparison to some other efforts, especially
from areas between Santa Barbara and Monterey, plus a ton from WA/OR. But, if
you were to compare them to the Mondavi early efforts, or to much of the other
PN production from big houses in CA from that era, they were not bad. I
recently did in the last of the RM Carneros PN, and it had done OK in the
aging department - not great, but OK with about 9 years on it. Glad I had not
bought TWO cases, but one went down well. I do not think I would feel quite so
fortunate with the competition from today's CA PNs, as the bar has certainly
been raised.

Hunt

PS liked your TNs on Williams-Selyem. I've always liked their various PNs,
though have not followed them too closely in the last three, or so, years. I
received some individual producer wines from two of their common properties,
but have not tasted them yet. More, when I do.



  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm pretty sure it was Ravenswood Shiraz. As far as its aging potential,
it was already too soft and monodimensional for my taste now so I can
assume that it is not going to get any better. I could be wrong...

Speaking of old Carneros Pinot Noirs, I bought two bottles of 1976 BV
Pinot Noir (The first year that they labelled them as Pinots and not as
a "Burgundy") from the of their legendary wine maker. I bought them
mostly out of curiousity for $40.00/bottle from KL Wines. I immediately
worried that the wine would be undrinkable so I opened one and was more
than pleasantly suprised. Very nice fruit, acceptable acidity, soft and
appealing tannins. The wine seemed to have lost any hint of hard edges,
but had a vibrancy to it. A wonderful wine -- I only hope the remaining
bottle is that good. Talk about a crap shoot...

Jonathan

Hunt wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>>Hunt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'll bet you mean Rosemont Shiraz. Ravenswood is a Sonoma (though they do

>
> have
>
>>>property, and sources, that lie beyond Sonoma) Zin producer.

>>
>>Nope, I bet he meant Ravenswood, Hunt. They now market a SW Aussie
>>Shiraz, which I've seen placed next to [other] Aussie Shirazes in the
>>supermarket in Indiana. Keep in mind that they're now owned by BRL
>>Hardy, so maybe it's not so surprising.
>>
>>
>>>I had the pleasure (?) of tasting the first R Mondavi Pinot Noir. It was,
>>>IIRC, 1978 (?), and was made by the recipe from UC Davis' thoughts on PN in
>>>those days. When tasted in 2000, this wine ripped the enamel from my teeth

>
> -
>
>>>still! To get concentration, back in those days, the skins were left in
>>>contact with the must for a week, with heavy agitation. Maybe someday, in

>
> the
>
>>>next century, this wine will be drinkable. As a result of this failed
>>>experiment, RM quit doing PNs for many years, and the winemaker became a
>>>marketing director.

>>
>>LOL!! I do believe that I tasted that wine at release also, leading me
>>to the generalization that "Mondavi doesn't do Pinot Noir (well)."
>>Can't say that I was motivated to buy any, though. Still, compared to
>>the Pinots of Santa Cruz Mountain Vineyards in that era, Mondavi's was a
>>light, ready-to-drink wine ;-)
>>
>>Mark Lipton

>
>
> As I recall, Mondavi pulled the plug on PNs after three vintages (if one could
> call them that), however, he/they came back to the grape in the late 90's and
> did some respectable ones from both Napa and Carneros (yes, I know that
> Carneros overlaps both Napa & Sonoma, but they had those two different
> appellations on the bottlings, but I do not know the exact properties). These
> were not great PNs, and pale in comparison to some other efforts, especially
> from areas between Santa Barbara and Monterey, plus a ton from WA/OR. But, if
> you were to compare them to the Mondavi early efforts, or to much of the other
> PN production from big houses in CA from that era, they were not bad. I
> recently did in the last of the RM Carneros PN, and it had done OK in the
> aging department - not great, but OK with about 9 years on it. Glad I had not
> bought TWO cases, but one went down well. I do not think I would feel quite so
> fortunate with the competition from today's CA PNs, as the bar has certainly
> been raised.
>
> Hunt
>
> PS liked your TNs on Williams-Selyem. I've always liked their various PNs,
> though have not followed them too closely in the last three, or so, years. I
> received some individual producer wines from two of their common properties,
> but have not tasted them yet. More, when I do.
>

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
says...
>
>I'm pretty sure it was Ravenswood Shiraz. As far as its aging potential,
>it was already too soft and monodimensional for my taste now so I can
>assume that it is not going to get any better. I could be wrong...
>
>Speaking of old Carneros Pinot Noirs, I bought two bottles of 1976 BV
>Pinot Noir (The first year that they labelled them as Pinots and not as
>a "Burgundy") from the of their legendary wine maker. I bought them
>mostly out of curiousity for $40.00/bottle from KL Wines. I immediately
>worried that the wine would be undrinkable so I opened one and was more
>than pleasantly suprised. Very nice fruit, acceptable acidity, soft and
>appealing tannins. The wine seemed to have lost any hint of hard edges,
>but had a vibrancy to it. A wonderful wine -- I only hope the remaining
>bottle is that good. Talk about a crap shoot...
>
>Jonathan
>
>Hunt wrote:
>> In article >,
says...
>>
>>>Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'll bet you mean Rosemont Shiraz. Ravenswood is a Sonoma (though they do

>>
>> have
>>
>>>>property, and sources, that lie beyond Sonoma) Zin producer.
>>>
>>>Nope, I bet he meant Ravenswood, Hunt. They now market a SW Aussie
>>>Shiraz, which I've seen placed next to [other] Aussie Shirazes in the
>>>supermarket in Indiana. Keep in mind that they're now owned by BRL
>>>Hardy, so maybe it's not so surprising.


Wow, new to me. I know that they were recently purchased, but I assumed that
Joel Peterson was only working with Zins. With all of the acquisitions and
mergers, soon we will have only two, or three corporations and the wines will
come from their properties all over the old, and new world, and branding will
be a thing of the past. It is happening too quickly for an old-timer, like
myself.

Only CA producer to use the "Shiraz" name has been Voss of Napa, but then his
wife is from OZ, so it is a tip-o-the-hat to her.

Thanks for the info,


Hunt

PS I would only expect a good, to great wine, from Andre Tchelistcheff, even
an early PN.

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
says...
>
>I'm pretty sure it was Ravenswood Shiraz. As far as its aging potential,
>it was already too soft and monodimensional for my taste now so I can
>assume that it is not going to get any better. I could be wrong...
>
>Speaking of old Carneros Pinot Noirs, I bought two bottles of 1976 BV
>Pinot Noir (The first year that they labelled them as Pinots and not as
>a "Burgundy") from the of their legendary wine maker. I bought them
>mostly out of curiousity for $40.00/bottle from KL Wines. I immediately
>worried that the wine would be undrinkable so I opened one and was more
>than pleasantly suprised. Very nice fruit, acceptable acidity, soft and
>appealing tannins. The wine seemed to have lost any hint of hard edges,
>but had a vibrancy to it. A wonderful wine -- I only hope the remaining
>bottle is that good. Talk about a crap shoot...
>
>Jonathan
>
>Hunt wrote:
>> In article >,
says...
>>
>>>Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'll bet you mean Rosemont Shiraz. Ravenswood is a Sonoma (though they do

>>
>> have
>>
>>>>property, and sources, that lie beyond Sonoma) Zin producer.
>>>
>>>Nope, I bet he meant Ravenswood, Hunt. They now market a SW Aussie
>>>Shiraz, which I've seen placed next to [other] Aussie Shirazes in the
>>>supermarket in Indiana. Keep in mind that they're now owned by BRL
>>>Hardy, so maybe it's not so surprising.


Wow, new to me. I know that they were recently purchased, but I assumed that
Joel Peterson was only working with Zins. With all of the acquisitions and
mergers, soon we will have only two, or three corporations and the wines will
come from their properties all over the old, and new world, and branding will
be a thing of the past. It is happening too quickly for an old-timer, like
myself.

Only CA producer to use the "Shiraz" name has been Voss of Napa, but then his
wife is from OZ, so it is a tip-o-the-hat to her.

Thanks for the info,


Hunt

PS I would only expect a good, to great wine, from Andre Tchelistcheff, even
an early PN.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question on bulk aging arrassa Winemaking 1 05-05-2007 03:08 AM
Bulk aging question Joe Winemaking 10 22-10-2005 02:37 AM
Question on aging Puerh stePH Tea 13 09-09-2005 10:28 AM
Welch's concord aging question? Jim Winemaking 8 12-12-2004 08:42 PM
Aging Chocolate Question HankSchulman Chocolate 1 31-12-2003 03:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"