This is a BS analogy. He attended a tasting and reported on it. That’s all. If you haven’t noticed, that’s what tends to happen around here.
And do you have any basis for doubting the honesty of David’s impressions? Or suggesting that he’s just an empty-headed follower of whatever trend happens to be hot now?
I want to drink wine with Richard (chirp,chirp) Malloy and other thick skinned, dildo wearing, midget Greeks.
I agree. I appreciate David’s TNs more than some people here who only post about wines they like.
I didn’t base that post on just this thread, but on the totality of what he’s written on this board (some of which I have enjoyed, learned from and appreciated). I certainly have no objection to someone posting about disliking one or more wines, or about indie music guy disliking one or more bands or songs. I was just trying, a bit lightheartedly, to put into a different context why people get fatigued and put off by David’s posts.
Maybe I did so well, or maybe I did so poorly, you can be your own judge. I respect that James and Zach may arrive at different views than I have, and as I said, I was just offering my personal perspective.
Well, you have a point in that I’m constitutionally contrarian. But the analogy falls apart because I don’t particularly like obscure stuff. My favorite producers are probably Prum and Lafarge, and the next tier down is Ravenswood and Chevillion. Hipster it aint.
What about the Luis Pato you brought the first time you came to my place?
[Ignoring three pages of comments]
I’ve had mountains of great 2009 Cabernet. This lineup was mostly cheap stuff, plus Caymus (which is garbage IMHO, even Silver Oak is a thousand times better). John, what were you thinking?
To a blind brown bag!? Entirely different!
I found that curious as well. Some geeks tasted some “non-geek” wines, didn’t like them and then went to creative extremes to trash them (and draw conclusions about a vintage). Too predictable.
(1) No one drew conclusions about a vintage. At least, I didn’t.
(2) The cheapest wine on the table was $30 and the average price was, I think, around $50.
(3) The geeks accuse me of having a ripeness-preferring palate. Guys like you say I have a geeky palate. So depending on who I ask, my palate either prefers too-ripe wines or wines that aren’t ripe enough.
As I said above, Greg dal Piaz assembled the wines. It’s a monthly tasting group for which I provide the venue.
I think some of these comments are a bit extreme. I agree that it’s not exactly a representative example of quality, and it’s a bit all over the place from Napa to Alexander Valley, but to many, Caymus Special Select is a legitimate wine, and frankly based on my experience it’s FAR superior to Silver Oak in nearly every vintage of Napa v. Special Select going back to the mid-90s. Moreover, the Chappellet signature has been getting great press for years as one of the better mid-price napa cabs. You don’t have to try the Pritchard Hill to get a representation of Napa.
David mentioned this in his post, but I didn’t see any takeaways about the vintage. Mostly it was just bologne commentary that the wines weren’t enjoyable. I don’t doubt that a fair number of those wines weren’t particularly enjoyable, but we see notes on this board all the time from people trying 15 pinot noir from $19.99-$35.00 and dissing 8 of the 15. It may be predictable, but it seems a bunch of the vitriol here is based on what some deemed “offensive” language and references. Clean notes that just commented on over-extraction, pruney fruit, lack of complexity, etc. wouldn’t have ever lead to 3 pages of comments.
And an interesting assemblage it was. I just don’t get the level of hyperbole to trash them.
FYI
FYI – Greg dal Piaz has now posted his notes and commentary on the tasting on Snooth.
David, who the hell says you like ripe wines? You’re not downright allergic to fruit, but you certainly are allergic to many fruit profiles, and even the ones you do like you only find acceptable if there’s sufficient structure, complexity etc. Half of what you drink is Burgundy, and you’re very critical of the hotter vintages there.
We had 09 Zeitgeist last night. 'twas not in a good place. All heat up front. blank spot in the middle and watery finish. I like these wines quite a bit, but it either needs less time or significantly more time.
M. Lewis and C. Miller do.
David is perfectly capable of defending his own palate, but since my name got brought up, I’ll explain why I think David likes ripe wines. In my experience what David dislikes is a) candied/stewed fruit, and b) high-char oak, which can be coextensive with, but are not equivalent to, ripeness. But he drinks 16% Turley Lodi Zinfandels and warm-climate, ripe, Portuguese reds and the like. And I’ve never heard David criticize 99 or 05 in burgundy, which are two of the four ripest vintages of the last 20 years, while he loves to rag on 2008 for lacking full phenolic ripeness. Nor do you see David drinking much Chinon, etc.
I don’t know if this is similar to David at all, but I’m increasingly finding that “high ripeness without heavy oak” is something I can really enjoy, at least with certain wines and for certain purposes and occasions.
I think traditionally, you see high ripeness/alcohol go hand in hand with a lot of new oak, plus then the higher alcohol extracts more from the oak, so the distinction is blurred between which of the characteristics of the wine are the result of the oak versus which are the result of the grape ripeness.
But recent Turleys are a great example of wines that feature very ripe grapes yet have dialed way down the use of new oak, and the result, to me, is delicious, pure, ripe fruit without heaviness and without those vanilla/chocolate/burnt wood/creamy texture dimensions. Denner is another producer where I find that similar marriage. Corey mentions Portugese table wines, and I think Quinta do Crasto is in that category.
I don’t actually know what the oak regimen is on those wines, as compared to other wines, but that is at least just my perception from what is in the glass.