or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › The Official Wine Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Wine Thread - Page 985

post #14761 of 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsstillmatt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehkay View Post

One could get dinner at L'Ambroisie for $65 in 1987.

Including five dollars worth of wine?

But of course. Maybe even $2 worth of service.
Quote:
A la carte, a meal costs $60 to $70 a person, including wine and service.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/11/travel/a-new-setting-for-l-ambroisie.html
post #14762 of 17485
Piob, you forget that said '10 Vover Temperanillo was 30$ 20 years ago. And I remember reading about a '10 Volver Tempranillo that would have set you back 45$ back in the days.
post #14763 of 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by b1os View Post

Piob, you forget that said '10 Vover Temperanillo was 30$ 20 years ago. And I remember reading about a '10 Volver Tempranillo that would have set you back 45$ back in the days.

Fair point. laugh.gif
post #14764 of 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Historical price is relevant because its a component of how I judge value. You may see a $15 bottle as value, but to me it seems expensive as shit. Maybe you can get the historical marker out of your head but I can't. Its gotten pricey considering what that $15 could have gotten me back then. And I need to put a lot more effort in to finding good stuff in that price point. Unless your time doesn't enter into the equation either?
Then you should just stop buying wine, based on the "logic" I have read here, you have no alternative.

Look, the "holy grail" of most wine drinkers (as opposed to collectors) has long been the "good $10 bottle." There is something magical about that figure. That's what people were talking about 20 years ago when I started and it's still a figure that gets bandied about.

Because of inflation and other factors. many bottles that cost $10 in 1991 cost more today. (That's not to say that there are, overall, fewer $10 bottles; more on that below.) Moreover, if you run that figure through an inflation calculator, you find that what $10 bought in 1991 it takes more than $16 to buy today.

Nonetheless, it is still possible--20 years later--to find drinkable bottles for $10. And even under that. As it happens, those bottle are mostly from France. But leave that aside. The point is, for the same nominal, non-adjusted money, you can still get wine of the same or better quality at the low end. Not from California any more (except a few whites) but from France and to a lesser extent Italy.

So, in reality, those of us who like the low end wines are BETTER OFF today than we were 20 years ago. And not just on price--overall quality has risen too. Whether you want to credit that to improved winemaking or global warming (less vintage variation) is up to you. The upshot is that today there is less risk of bad bottles. Also, a much wider selection as low end Bord that never used to leave France gets imported in greater volume. And, no, I don't have to spend a ton of time searching for passable $10 Bord, I find it everywhere.

We're all screwed on the high end, which has gotten way more expensive and outstripped inflation by a mile but that's not what this conversation is about.

So if you are simply upset because what used to to cost you X now costs you Y, and all other factors you consider irrelevant, you should just leave the field. Buying wine for you in 2012 is just a recipe for heartbreak and frustration.
Edited by Manton - 12/11/12 at 6:35am
post #14765 of 17485
in other news, tonight with Manton and coolpapa. Foof provided the Bachelet, but was too ill to attend. Not pictured but enjoyed was a Roulot Meursault.


Edited by gomestar - 12/10/12 at 9:17pm
post #14766 of 17485
Leoville was inlove.gif

RP 91 or something, well, hell.
post #14767 of 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomestar View Post

in other news, tonight with Manton and coolpapa. Foof provided the Bachelet, but was too ill to attend. Not pictured but enjoyed was a Roulot Meursault.

I think he was just torn up about his socks.
post #14768 of 17485
I have had so little truly aged Bord but what I've had has been exquisite. While I think I will never be a fan of young Bord I certainly get what's special about the good stuff with 30 or more years on it.
post #14769 of 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

Leoville was inlove.gif
RP 91 or something, well, hell.

the Leoville was really excellent, and the wine of the night for me as it just edged out the Bachelet. Slightly more depth and integration, and I mean slight.

The Bachelet still has years left on it, and the nose right now is absolutely perfect. Interesting mix of remaining youth + age. In all, really addicting, it's why I love Burgundy. At $80, I'd take that over most anything else on the market (I say "most anything" because there might be something else out there. I have no idea what it may be.)

The Champ was a Delamotte blanc de blanc 2002, and I thought it showed really well. Still very youthful and bright, which is a style that I really love. Perfect with the hamachi crudo.
post #14770 of 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomestar View Post

At $80, I'd take that over most anything else on the market (I say "most anything" because there might be something else out there. I have no idea what it may be.)

Her name is Cassandra and I hear that at $80 she's an excellent value in Soho. Partake now, though, she won't age well.
post #14771 of 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I have had so little truly aged Bord but what I've had has been exquisite. While I think I will never be a fan of young Bord I certainly get what's special about the good stuff with 30 or more years on it.

Yep!
post #14772 of 17485
Tonight:

C95D4576-FF34-4773-9EFD-D7093C48330A-3918-0000013B70C29D51.jpg
post #14773 of 17485
too young
post #14774 of 17485
It is funny, before I hit enter I thought of writing, "Cue Manton telling me it's too young."
post #14775 of 17485
With all the bord talk, I got a bottle - a Bordeaux Superieur, Château Lescalle Cuvée Emmanuel Tessandier 2009. Anybody had this?

I ended up delaying drinking that Guillemot Savigny till last night - poured a glass on Sunday and then stuck the cork back in and left it. It was interesting - not too much of the typical Savigny earth, but I don't know much about this particular vineyard(Les Serpentieres.) It was really bright and crunchy red fruit along the lines of pomegranate or cranberry, with a real delicacy and a surprising amount of backbone for such a light wine. It was very good but it'll be really nice when it puts on a bit of weight with time in bottle, as I suspect it will. Wines are funny like that, sometimes they shed weight with bottle age (young high-quality chards) and sometimes they gain it. It actually tasted a lot like a really good Anderson Valley Pinot - think Knez Cerise, Rhys Bearwallow, or Anthill Farms Abbey Harris - I haven't had Copain's Kaiser.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › The Official Wine Thread