Very Special Dinner tonight- TN 1999 Guigal d'Ampuis

Glenn_L_e_v_i_n_e · June 5, 2012, 12:40am

I feel the La-La’s are a different world than d’Ampuis, which would be a $30-40 wine if not the lineage. Glad dinner was great!

Andrew_L · June 5, 2012, 2:01am

Most definitely.

I did a blind syrah night for my tasting group, and it got beat by at least 2 points by wines that all cost less (in some cases significantly). The Ampuis was bested by the Delas Hermitage, Bedrock Griffin’s Lair, Rhys Horseshoe and even the … Yalumba Signature

Mike_Evans · June 6, 2012, 1:48pm

Brad Kane:

Mike Evans:

Bob, based on the Ampuis bottlings I’ve had, your TN captures the wine well. My one quibble is with Brad’s phrase “a bit spoofy” which was carried over in your note. I find the Ampuis bottlings to be a bit spoofy like Lady Gaga’s outfits are a bit eccentric, or a hurricane is a bit of a blow. Accurate, but only when the expression is viewed with its traditional gloss of British understatement. It seems to be the worst of all of Guigal’s worlds, lacking the expressiveness of the single vineyards and honest value of the Brune et Blonde.

Mike-

I think your example is a poor one as, in my mind, there is nothing particularly spoofy about Lady Gaga. She is her own, unique personality and her clothing reflects her personality. Spoofy to me, would be Pamela Anderson, enhanced, “fake,” trying to be be something she isn’t.

As you know, with wine, it generally means non-traditional, which, depending on the region, usually means a wine that’s seen more oak, has riper fruit, lower acidity and in general feels pumped up in comparison to what the region has traditionally produced. I think that definition fits the d’Ampuis bottling perfectly.

Brad, my quibble was not with the description of the Ampuis as spoofy, but just with the modifier “a bit”, since I find it very spoofy, often to the point of being undrinkable to me. I was suggesting in my post that calling it only “a bit spoofy” was an understatement, which is what my analogies were intended to convey.

I was not suggesting that Lady Gaga was spoofy, as I don’t think she is. If I was to compare a typical Ampuis to a person, it would be to one of the vapid and synthetic Real Housewives, rather than to Pamela Anderson (the Ampuis shares their distorted pretention; Pamela Anderson is more like an over the top Zin, synthetic and overbearing, but not taking itself too seriously). If you reread my post, I think you will see that the Gaga analogy was limited to the “a bit” part, not as an example of spoofiness, as her outfits, while unique and presumably expressive, are more than a little eccentric. I don’t see “eccentric” as a pejorative term, but that may have contributed to the misunderstanding.

No big deal, and it is not surprising that our palates still seem to be fairly in sync. I have found myself becoming increasingly intolerant of extremely ripe, heavily oaked wines over the past several years, probably from lack of regular exposure to them, so my threshold for spoofiness has significantly declined, perhaps to the point where a wine that is very spoofy to me is only moderately spoofy to you.

Brad_Kane · June 6, 2012, 2:00pm

Mike Evans:

Brad Kane:

Mike Evans:

Bob, based on the Ampuis bottlings I’ve had, your TN captures the wine well. My one quibble is with Brad’s phrase “a bit spoofy” which was carried over in your note. I find the Ampuis bottlings to be a bit spoofy like Lady Gaga’s outfits are a bit eccentric, or a hurricane is a bit of a blow. Accurate, but only when the expression is viewed with its traditional gloss of British understatement. It seems to be the worst of all of Guigal’s worlds, lacking the expressiveness of the single vineyards and honest value of the Brune et Blonde.

Mike-

I think your example is a poor one as, in my mind, there is nothing particularly spoofy about Lady Gaga. She is her own, unique personality and her clothing reflects her personality. Spoofy to me, would be Pamela Anderson, enhanced, “fake,” trying to be be something she isn’t.

As you know, with wine, it generally means non-traditional, which, depending on the region, usually means a wine that’s seen more oak, has riper fruit, lower acidity and in general feels pumped up in comparison to what the region has traditionally produced. I think that definition fits the d’Ampuis bottling perfectly.

Brad, my quibble was not with the description of the Ampuis as spoofy, but just with the modifier “a bit”, since I find it very spoofy, often to the point of being undrinkable to me. I was suggesting in my post that calling it only “a bit spoofy” was an understatement, which is what my analogies were intended to convey.

I was not suggesting that Lady Gaga was spoofy, as I don’t think she is. If I was to compare a typical Ampuis to a person, it would be to one of the vapid and synthetic Real Housewives, rather than to Pamela Anderson (the Ampuis shares their distorted pretention; Pamela Anderson is more like an over the top Zin, synthetic and overbearing, but not taking itself too seriously). If you reread my post, I think you will see that the Gaga analogy was limited to the “a bit” part, not as an example of spoofiness, as her outfits, while unique and presumably expressive, are more than a little eccentric. I don’t see “eccentric” as a pejorative term, but that may have contributed to the misunderstanding.

No big deal, and it is not surprising that our palates still seem to be fairly in sync. I have found myself becoming increasingly intolerant of extremely ripe, heavily oaked wines over the past several years, probably from lack of regular exposure to them, so my threshold for spoofiness has significantly declined, perhaps to the point where a wine that is very spoofy to me is only moderately spoofy to you.

Hey Mike-

I hear ya, but I never used the qualifier. I called it spoofy. Bob said he agreed with me that it was a bit spoofy, but I never said the “a bit” part.

Mike_Evans · June 6, 2012, 2:14pm

Looking back, you are absolutely right, mea culpa.