I think Riesling is the most underrated wine grape, kabi specifically. I’m not sure anything comes close to kabi for price/quality ratio from top producers.
Okay, fair enough. I realize you didn’t use the word objective, but to me, saying a wine is “better” rather than saying “I prefer it” or something similar, implies a judgment of its quality, not just whether it’s to your taste. But I guess that isn’t really what you were saying.
I personally do think there’s a difference between assessment of quality and personal taste, which I strive to keep separate to the extent possible. Never going to be totally separable.
I actually agree with you, but I have seen the mess that happens when someone says “this is really well done, for those who like the style” and the same defensive row starts again.
I’m not sure it’s necessary to disparage one great producer in the cause of defending another 
But I warmly agree with you about the quality of the Keller wines, and in terms of structure and style I think they tend to resonate especially with people who love great white Burgundy: for my part, I certainly treasure them just as much as the great white Burgundies in my cellar. While how much one likes them, as with all wines, is a matter of taste, it would be hard to argue with how impeccably they’re made or how gracefully they evolve in the cellar (unlike several of the alternatives cited in this thread). And contrary to what the OP insinuates, I think pricing is driven by demand—built on very strong domestic demand from Europe’s strongest economy, and now increasingly international demand for what is indeed a small production.
Disparage? People love the coche “matchstick”.
Well, this is a whole other topic, but Coche’s winemaking signature is not coming from adding a “huge dose of sulfur”: sulfites and volatile sulfur compounds are not the same thing.
I’m sure that’s true and you know far more about this than me, but I didn’t say anything about coche’s winemaking. I said the wines taste like sulfur. I meant a “struck match”, which I associate with sulfur.
A
Actually the Coche wines are not different from the Keller situation at all.
I enjoy Coche, but do not find them to separate themselves from other producers that much in quality. Same with Roulot. Top producers, absolutely. But just like the comment on Keller doing well in blind tastings but not dominating them, blind tasting white burgundy with Coche and Roulot has turned out similarly for me.
So I leave those top producers for the people that think they are the best producers in the world and buy other wines.
It’s annoying though when someone comes along and proclaims that a winery is without peer, as if it were fact instead of their opinion. And just like Richard Sherman proclaiming that he was the best cornerback in football, if you say it strongly enough other people will believe it’s true-even if it’s not.
Which is how Kirk Cousins was suddenly somehow a value at $20 million per year with no championships and no winning record in the playoffs. And it should be noted that part of the reason Cousins continues to be held up as a great value at $20 million is because Rodgers, Brady, and Wilson were already taken.
I would lean towards Alex being correct on this. While there is a vast array of volatile sulfur compounds, lit match in my opinion is usually a combination of volatile sulfur compounds and a relatively high level of molecular sulfur.
For a house like Coche, to see lit match vintage in and vintage out suggests that there is a relatively high dose of sulfur somewhere in the process(whether molecular in the vineyard maintaining organic status or sulphute additions in the cellar). I would find it hard to believe that a no or low sulfur house would regularly produce the Coche lit match signature.
I don’t imagine that any wine would ever totally dominate in repeated blind tastings, would it? That’s hardly what we demand of a wine to prove its greatness! So saying a wine does well but doesn’t dominate is not evidence of a lack of top quality in my mind. After all, there’s a lot of great wine being made, and on any given day, any given wine can perform well or not. And any given person can prefer one thing over another.
For the record and to the OP: anyone who knows me in the context of wine probably knows I count myself among those who adore the Keller wines, have bought them for years, buy them every vintage, and think that their current pricing is merited in the context of other great wines of the world. Heck, until Robert Dentice came along, it’s entirely possible we had more Keller in the cellar than anyone else in the US! But I’ve also got a lot of Emrich-Schonleber and Julian Haart, and Laible and I’m glad they cost less. 
If I read this correctly, I think you are saying that it’s annoying to you when other people express preferences about wines that you don’t agree with because they are wrong and you are right. I suppose that’s one way to see the world. Personally, I just assume that people have different preferences and different levels of income, and express those things differently. I also think watching football is boring way to spend a Sunday.
A
1 Like
Wasn’t the OP complaining about Keller pricing because he likes the Keller wines?
Also-seems like Caymus is a “market preference”. If I don’t like Caymus do I have bad taste?
Or did you mean “market preferences” that align with your taste are good taste, and those who veer from that have bad taste?
Yeah…I struggled with that one.
I certainly didn’t say that Coche was a “no or low sulfur house”. Their sulfur use is very classic. But there are a lot of producers who use similar levels of sulfites but whose wines don’t taste like Coche’s. If the secret to Coche’s winemaking were as simple as adding more sulfites, more people would be making wines that taste that way. Nor, for that matter, do I think that “matchstick” is a particularly good characterization of the Coche signature (for me, it’s more about the combination of very bright fruit tones—citrus, green orchard fruit—with a complex overlay of hazelnut/sesame). Indeed, I’d argue that the popular caricature of Coche’s style as simply “reductive” is one reason why so few producers have had any success emulating it. As I said, however, this is hugely tangential to the topic at hand, and I only took the bait because, when Alex said that the Coche wines taste of “a huge dose of sulfur”, I wrongly assumed that he meant that they tasted of a huge dose (i.e. added by Coche) of sulfites; and on that point he has corrected my misunderstanding.
1 Like
By the same token, if you really want to get into it, Tissot’s Chardonnays, for example, are very low sulfur and reliably display volatile sulfur compounds-derived aromas… And the same could be said of quite a few more-or-less “natural” Jura producers such as Labet and some of Ganevat’s wines.
If you’re lucky! Unfortunately I’m a fan of both Coche and Keller. Not a buyer these days but definitely a fan.
Hi Sarah,
I always appreciate your comments.
Hopefully the pointed mention of Roulot and Coche as top producers and the nature of my post makes it clear that I agree with your sentiments exactly.
I just choose to support other wineries that I also consider top producers rather than the ones whose pricing is being driven into the stratosphere by an overabundance of demand(which is Keller’s situation-as Alex noted).
And I definitely bought Rousseau well above the pricing that I would have for most other red Burgundy, and only stopped because the wines pricing passed beyond my budget.
If you adore and can afford to buy Keller at current pricing, then there’s no reason to stop.
But it’s hard for me to see that they are a value when they’ve blown far past any normal mark up based upon cost of goods(whether at cellar, importer, or retailer) and it’s admitted that on any given day plenty of other producers have wines that will show just as well, and cost far less.
It’s also not really an accurate judgement to call Sacred Cow #1 a value because it’s no more expensive than Sacred Cow #2, and still less than Sacred Cows #3, #4, #5. (Which you did not do, but is a regular reference point to suggest that the pricing is still a value rather than just to say that these producers wines have developed a market awareness and loyalty that is price resistant).
Sorry, I don’t think you read that correctly at all.
The statement is that it’s annoying when a person expresses a statement about a winery that they don’t allow room for disagreement on.
Which is how your original post in this thread came across and several of your other posts as well. Not least the implication that if a persons palate differs from the market-they must have bad taste.
And if football isn’t a good analogy for you, I’ll make a note of it and refrain from using them on your personal threads.
I don’t see where I don’t leave room for disagreement. My posts are all about personal preference as an explanation to the original question Randy Floss asked, which as far as I could tell was “why are people willing to pay more for Keller than I personally think it’s worth.” My response is personal preference. All my posts are about what I would do and my own idiosyncratic preferences. If someone’s are different than mine, I don’t call them “fan boys” and I don’t suggest that they are buying wines in order to signal status on Instagram. I just assume they want them. I may not enjoy the wines that they like, but I don’t take offense at their drinking them, and certainly not at someone spending her money as she sees fit. I’m not sure how my post came off as anything other than personal preference. It’s all first person - all expressed as my view. I’m ok if you think it’s wrong, but I’m not positing it as right or wrong. Just mine.
Grow up, Andrew.