How about a recommendation for a good magazine for the home wine-maker.

TIA

Wine Maker Magazine, but Jack's site is the best -
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/index.asp
Darlene

"DssSouth" > wrote in message
...
> How about a recommendation for a good magazine for the home wine-maker.
>
> TIA
>
>

I am not sold on Winemaker after subscribing for two years. I find their
advice is often conflicting from issue to issue or author to author, they
rely too heavily upon juice/must manipulation (this is, of course, personal
preference) and don't take a clear line on issues which, to me, are clear
(kits versus grapes). I think the "lattest" is due to advertisements, etc.
but I do not intend to slander the magazine.

Sorry about my two cents.
"Dar V" > wrote in message
...
> Wine Maker Magazine, but Jack's site is the best -
> http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/index.asp
> Darlene
>
> "DssSouth" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How about a recommendation for a good magazine for the home wine-maker.
> >
> > TIA
> >
> >
>
>

Patrick,
Not at all, giving your opinion is what this is all about. Is there another
magazine worth getting?
Darlene

"Patrick McDonald" > wrote in
message ...
> I am not sold on Winemaker after subscribing for two years. I find their
> advice is often conflicting from issue to issue or author to author, they
> rely too heavily upon juice/must manipulation (this is, of course,
personal
> preference) and don't take a clear line on issues which, to me, are clear
> (kits versus grapes). I think the "lattest" is due to advertisements, etc.
> but I do not intend to slander the magazine.
>
> Sorry about my two cents.
> "Dar V" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wine Maker Magazine, but Jack's site is the best -
> > http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/index.asp
> > Darlene
> >
> > "DssSouth" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > How about a recommendation for a good magazine for the home
wine-maker.
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Hi Patrick,

I'd have to agree with you, in general. Although, a lot of times I
read things in this group that are conflicting from message to message
-- thread to thread. The art of winemaking contains many paths that
lead to the same end. Often times I think the conflicting information
is a result of this. The author of each article has his or her own
take on the subject. It's the same here, where one resident expert
may have their way of doing something that differs from another
resident expert.

Also, it's only slander when spoken; otherwise it's libel. In this
thread, I don't think there's any harm done. Rather, it's libel to
make people read the magazine out of curiosity. :-)

Cheers!

-Paul

"Patrick McDonald" > wrote in message >...
> I am not sold on Winemaker after subscribing for two years. I find their
> advice is often conflicting from issue to issue or author to author, they
> rely too heavily upon juice/must manipulation (this is, of course, personal
> preference) and don't take a clear line on issues which, to me, are clear
> (kits versus grapes). I think the "lattest" is due to advertisements, etc.
> but I do not intend to slander the magazine.
>
> Sorry about my two cents.
> "Dar V" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wine Maker Magazine, but Jack's site is the best -
> > http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/index.asp
> > Darlene
> >
> > "DssSouth" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > How about a recommendation for a good magazine for the home wine-maker.
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

I enjoy Winemaker Mag. I do not know of another one. Anyone? Yes they do
cater to juice and kits which is where their advertising comes from and yes
there is a lot of conflicting advise given by different authors as there is
conflicting advise given by different authors on this site. You have to
take it with a grain of salt (not in the wine!) as tricks used successfully
by one winemaker may not work for another due to differences in other
techniques.

My complaint about the magazine, and it does not stop me from reading it, is
that they do not do any meaningful comparisons of juice and kits. I think
they are concerned about loosing advertising. But you can only loose
advertising if the advertising can move elsewhere. Where is it going to
move? There isn't another magazine out there. I would like to see an
annual rating of kits on a fixed scale where users rated the kits they made.

Ray

"Dar V" > wrote in message
...
> Wine Maker Magazine, but Jack's site is the best -
> http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/index.asp
> Darlene
>
> "DssSouth" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How about a recommendation for a good magazine for the home wine-maker.
> >
> > TIA
> >
> >
>
>

I would agree that the magazine should do comparisons both between different
kits and between kits and juice ( self pressed or bought). Readers could
help a little with opinions of Kits --but many, and I include myself, tend
to stick to one manufacturer and indeed to one particular range. This makes
it problematical to make proper comparisons. However the magazine is in a
perfect position to do this sort of "testing"/tasting by having an invited
panel to peruse wines made from kits etc provided free by the suppliers.
The home wine maker is already aware of the quality differences produced by
different price ranges and sensibly the magazine could compare truistically
between similar priced products.
But I suspect that it would not consider this sort of function.
There used to be a quarterly magazine in UK, which was free from you local
home brew shop, ( it stopped about 2 years ago -- due to lack of support
from the kit industry ) It suffered from similar pressure to extol every
different wine and beer kit that came on stream. But it did have a good
readers letters section and there were always sections on "country wine"
recipes.

Inevitably there are going to be differences between advice given. You only
have to read this NG to see that -- after all we are only human and
cantankerous with it! I would advise anyone to select the advice to follow
with care!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire, England
Remove "SPAMLESS" from my address line to reply.
All outgoing mail is scanned by Norton
Anti Virus for your protection too!

"Ray" > wrote in message
...
<snip> <snip>
.........
> My complaint about the magazine, and it does not stop me from reading it,
is
> that they do not do any meaningful comparisons of juice and kits. I think
> they are concerned about loosing advertising. But you can only loose
> advertising if the advertising can move elsewhere. Where is it going to
> move? There isn't another magazine out there. I would like to see an
> annual rating of kits on a fixed scale where users rated the kits they
made.
>
> Ray
>
<snip><snip>

Please see this message from a WineMaker editor.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Colby" >
To: "Patrick McDonald" >
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 2:54 PM
Subject: rec.crafts.winemaking


> Hi Patrick,
> Thanks for the heads up regarding the discussion of WineMaker magazine
> online. If you would like to post this to the group, please do.
>
> At WineMaker, get quite a few requests for a ranking of wine kits.
> However, it's just not possible for us to undertake this project of this
> scale. This is not, as was suggested, a concession to advertisers -- we
> simply don't have the time, equipment, manpower or space to make every kit
> available each year. This would be a HUGE undertaking. (This also presumes
> that kit manufacturers would send us their kits to review at no cost --
not
> a given.) And, by the time our results would be available, the kits we
> reviewed would no longer be available as the next year's kits would be on
> the market. Personally, I think it would be great if we could pull this
off;
> but we can't.
>
> With regards to different authors making different recommendations, I
> don't view this as a weakness. Different winemakers have different
> approaches to winemaking and these sometimes contradictory methods can
> produce good results. Forcing every author to present a standardized
method
> of winemaking would obscure the fact that winemakers employ a diverse set
of
> methods when making wine. In my opinion, this diversity -- stemming in
part
> from different winemaking traditions -- is something most winemakers can
> learn and benefit from.
>
> Finally, one person claimed that we "don't take a clear line on issues
> which, to me, are clear (kits versus grapes)." I'm not sure that I
> understand what he meant, but I suspect he wants us to say grapes are
better
> than kits. This disregards that fact that not every home winemaker is set
up
> to handle grapes, or even wants to devote this much effort to winemaking.
> Some folks simply like to take a kit and make it. Others like to go the
> distance and start from grapes. Everyone has their own constraints on how
> much time, money and energy they want to expend on their winemaking. I
don't
> feel it's up to WineMaker magazine to tell winemakers what their
priorities
> should be. I think everybody should be able to choose a type of winemaking
> that fits their life -- whether it's making wine from kits, juices or
fresh
> grapes (or other fruits) -- without other winemakers telling them they are
> doing it wrong.
>
>
> --
> Chris Colby
> Editor
> WineMaker magazine
>
> (512) 303-7905
>
>
> on 12/13/03 10:42 AM, Patrick McDonald at
> wrote:
>
> > I might suggest Winemaker mag check out these posts on the subject
newsgroup.
> >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ame=right&th=2
b6
> > 48dc86a48812a
> >
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...p;safe=off&amp
;f
> >
rame=right&amp;th=2b648dc86a48812a&amp;seekm=9wPAb .111904%24Eq1.88200%40twis
te
> > r.rdc-kc.rr.com#link1>
>
>
>
"DssSouth" > wrote in message
...
> How about a recommendation for a good magazine for the home wine-maker.
>
> TIA
>
>

"Patrick McDonald" > wrote in message >...
> Please see this message from a WineMaker editor.
>
---snip

Never seen someone dance so lightly between kit wines in my life...

I think many would simply like winemakers using both grape and kits
"telling their story" in a candid straightforward way in The
WineMakers. Ok, so we have to make sure that the "brands" get mixed
and all advertising is "saved". Most of us would like just to know
others winemakers "finesse" to their wines and their set ups.

So the August/September issue was great in showing winemakers like
Daniel Pambianchi's* set up and others. This feature section was of
course all fresh grapes, but there is nothing to say that the format
could not be placed on simple kit winemakers as well.

SG Brix

* http://www.vehiculepress.com/winemaking/

Boy, I wish there was someone out there that could make every kit into wine
and rate them on a given scale. It would be great wouldn't it.

But reality sets in. No way would I expect WineMaker Mag. or anyone else to
do that. But it would not take much to do a Customer satisfaction thing.
Set up a site on the web where customers could rate the kits that they use
and then report the rating in a Mag issue once or twice a year. Lots of
retail sites give customer ratings for TV's, Washing Machines, etc. It
would be nice if such was available for kits. They should be rated for whey
the kit is "suppose" to be ready to drink, after 6 mo.s of aging, 12 mo.s of
aging, 2 years, etc. No, every wine kit would not be rated every period,
and No it would not be perfectly scientific, and No it would not be as good
as having all the kits made and blind taste tested. But it would be
instructive. I BET it would have a big effect on the kit makers. They
would have to listen to ratings or go out of business. Good kits would be
rewarded and bad kits would be eliminated.

And while we are at it, why not rate sources for juice and even fresh
grapes.

I could even see how this could be turned into a major marketing thing for
both kits and the magazine to increase sales of both. But that should only
be discussed off line.

Ray

"Patrick McDonald" > wrote in
message ...
> Please see this message from a WineMaker editor.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Colby" >
> To: "Patrick McDonald" >
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 2:54 PM
> Subject: rec.crafts.winemaking
>
>
> > Hi Patrick,
> > Thanks for the heads up regarding the discussion of WineMaker
magazine
> > online. If you would like to post this to the group, please do.
> >
> > At WineMaker, get quite a few requests for a ranking of wine kits.
> > However, it's just not possible for us to undertake this project of this
> > scale. This is not, as was suggested, a concession to advertisers -- we
> > simply don't have the time, equipment, manpower or space to make every
kit
> > available each year. This would be a HUGE undertaking. (This also
presumes
> > that kit manufacturers would send us their kits to review at no cost --
> not
> > a given.) And, by the time our results would be available, the kits we
> > reviewed would no longer be available as the next year's kits would be
on
> > the market. Personally, I think it would be great if we could pull this
> off;
> > but we can't.
> >
> > With regards to different authors making different recommendations,
I
> > don't view this as a weakness. Different winemakers have different
> > approaches to winemaking and these sometimes contradictory methods can
> > produce good results. Forcing every author to present a standardized
> method
> > of winemaking would obscure the fact that winemakers employ a diverse
set
> of
> > methods when making wine. In my opinion, this diversity -- stemming in
> part
> > from different winemaking traditions -- is something most winemakers can
> > learn and benefit from.
> >
> > Finally, one person claimed that we "don't take a clear line on
issues
> > which, to me, are clear (kits versus grapes)." I'm not sure that I
> > understand what he meant, but I suspect he wants us to say grapes are
> better
> > than kits. This disregards that fact that not every home winemaker is
set
> up
> > to handle grapes, or even wants to devote this much effort to
winemaking.
> > Some folks simply like to take a kit and make it. Others like to go the
> > distance and start from grapes. Everyone has their own constraints on
how
> > much time, money and energy they want to expend on their winemaking. I
> don't
> > feel it's up to WineMaker magazine to tell winemakers what their
> priorities
> > should be. I think everybody should be able to choose a type of
winemaking
> > that fits their life -- whether it's making wine from kits, juices or
> fresh
> > grapes (or other fruits) -- without other winemakers telling them they
are
> > doing it wrong.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chris Colby
> > Editor
> > WineMaker magazine
> >
> > (512) 303-7905
> >
> >
> > on 12/13/03 10:42 AM, Patrick McDonald at
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I might suggest Winemaker mag check out these posts on the subject
> newsgroup.
> > >
> > >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ame=right&th=2
> b6
> > > 48dc86a48812a
> > >
>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...p;safe=off&amp
> ;f
> > >
>
rame=right&amp;th=2b648dc86a48812a&amp;seekm=9wPAb .111904%24Eq1.88200%40twis
> te
> > > r.rdc-kc.rr.com#link1>
> >
> >
> >
> "DssSouth" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How about a recommendation for a good magazine for the home wine-maker.
> >
> > TIA
> >
> >
>
>

> > At WineMaker, get quite a few requests for a ranking of wine kits.
> > However, it's just not possible for us to undertake this project of this
> > scale. This is not, as was suggested, a concession to advertisers -- we
> > simply don't have the time, equipment, manpower or space to make every kit
> > available each year. This would be a HUGE undertaking. (This also presumes
> > that kit manufacturers would send us their kits to review at no cost --
> > not a given.) And, by the time our results would be available, the kits we
> > reviewed would no longer be available as the next year's kits would be on
> > the market. Personally, I think it would be great if we could pull this
> > off; but we can't.
> >
> >

Who's saying they have to test all kits? They could just test
all Cab kits one year or even just the major ones. How about
all kits in a price range or cab kits from one manufacturer
in all of their price ranges to see if they warrant the price
increases. I'd be interested in reading any or all of the above.

Maybe I'm missing something but it sounds like they've pre-arranged
their excuse. I do know one thing though, if they started fairly
rating kits year after year, it would result in better kits across
the board.

Don

Don

"Ray" > wrote in message
m...
> But reality sets in. No way would I expect WineMaker Mag. or anyone else
to
> do that. But it would not take much to do a Customer satisfaction thing.
> Set up a site on the web where customers could rate the kits that they use
> and then report the rating in a Mag issue once or twice a year. Lots of
> retail sites give customer ratings for TV's, Washing Machines, etc. It
> would be nice if such was available for kits.

Not the same thing for 2 big reasons.

First of all, expectations. Never mind things like special features,
everybody wants the same thing from a TV: good picture and sound. Everybody
wants the same thing from a washing machine: clean clothes. So apart from
telling you how good any particular appliance or whatever does those things,
consumer reviews are really about features.

What features do you want in a wine? If you want to think of particular
flavours and aromas and textures, etc as features, sure they could be
documented. Does everybody want the same things in those areas? No, so how
could you justify whether a kit was good or bad. Let's face it, there are
some horrible wines being made out there from kits, but someone is drinking
them and enjoying them. There is no accounting for personal taste.


Second big problem: TV's and washing machines don't require the end user to
assemble them. Wine kits do, in a manner of speaking. How good the wine
turns out is not only based on the kit, but the skills of the person making
it.

So if Person A (the reviewer) creates a wine with certain characteristics
that are nicely written up in a magazine, and Person B reads that and
thinks, hmmm, that sounds like the perfect wine for me...

What happens when the reader can't reproduce those characteristics because
they have different winemaking processes or conditions? The whole review
concept just falls apart.

That's my take on this whole thing, anyway.

Brian

"Brian Lundeen" > wrote in message >...
>
> Not the same thing for 2 big reasons.
>
> First of all, expectations. Never mind things like special features,
> everybody wants the same thing from a TV: good picture and sound. Everybody
> wants the same thing from a washing machine: clean clothes. So apart from
> telling you how good any particular appliance or whatever does those things,
> consumer reviews are really about features.
>
> What features do you want in a wine? If you want to think of particular
> flavours and aromas and textures, etc as features, sure they could be
> documented. Does everybody want the same things in those areas? No, so how
> could you justify whether a kit was good or bad. Let's face it, there are
> some horrible wines being made out there from kits, but someone is drinking
> them and enjoying them. There is no accounting for personal taste.

Yes, but we do find subjective user ratings of other products useful.
Movies, art, restaurants are all rated and these all depend on the
likes and dis-likes of the rater. Hopefully, if the number of people
rating is large enough it all comes out in the wash.

>
>
> Second big problem: TV's and washing machines don't require the end user to
> assemble them. Wine kits do, in a manner of speaking. How good the wine
> turns out is not only based on the kit, but the skills of the person making
> it.
>
> So if Person A (the reviewer) creates a wine with certain characteristics
> that are nicely written up in a magazine, and Person B reads that and
> thinks, hmmm, that sounds like the perfect wine for me...
>
> What happens when the reader can't reproduce those characteristics because
> they have different winemaking processes or conditions? The whole review
> concept just falls apart.

But if person A makes three different Cabernet kits and finds kit #1
to have better fruit and is better balanced than Kits #2 and #3, that
may be useful. Even more usefuly if person B, C, D, E and F also think
so.

>
> That's my take on this whole thing, anyway.
>
> Brian

Andy

It would not be perfect but it could be made to work. When people buy a
Merlot, they expect a certain type of red wine. They may like one Merlot
better than another and not everyone will judge the same Merlot to be best.
But you will not, typically find one person who says one is terrible where
others say it is great. If they do, they will average out. Answer 0 to 5:
Is it full bodied? Is it dark enough? Is the taste what you expected?
Were the instructions clear? Overall rating? etc.

Some will expect a $125/bottle wine and they will give every kit a bad
rating. Others will be happy with ponk and will give anything a good
rating. It will all average out.

Ray
"Brian Lundeen" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ray" > wrote in message
> m...
> > But reality sets in. No way would I expect WineMaker Mag. or anyone
else
> to
> > do that. But it would not take much to do a Customer satisfaction
thing.
> > Set up a site on the web where customers could rate the kits that they
use
> > and then report the rating in a Mag issue once or twice a year. Lots of
> > retail sites give customer ratings for TV's, Washing Machines, etc. It
> > would be nice if such was available for kits.
>
> Not the same thing for 2 big reasons.
>
> First of all, expectations. Never mind things like special features,
> everybody wants the same thing from a TV: good picture and sound.
Everybody
> wants the same thing from a washing machine: clean clothes. So apart from
> telling you how good any particular appliance or whatever does those
things,
> consumer reviews are really about features.
>
> What features do you want in a wine? If you want to think of particular
> flavours and aromas and textures, etc as features, sure they could be
> documented. Does everybody want the same things in those areas? No, so how
> could you justify whether a kit was good or bad. Let's face it, there are
> some horrible wines being made out there from kits, but someone is
drinking
> them and enjoying them. There is no accounting for personal taste.
>
>
> Second big problem: TV's and washing machines don't require the end user
to
> assemble them. Wine kits do, in a manner of speaking. How good the wine
> turns out is not only based on the kit, but the skills of the person
making
> it.
>
> So if Person A (the reviewer) creates a wine with certain characteristics
> that are nicely written up in a magazine, and Person B reads that and
> thinks, hmmm, that sounds like the perfect wine for me...
>
> What happens when the reader can't reproduce those characteristics because
> they have different winemaking processes or conditions? The whole review
> concept just falls apart.
>
> That's my take on this whole thing, anyway.
>
> Brian
>
>