I don't think I like Cab Sauv.

[randallr]

Originally Posted by edmorel

You're gay, but not becuase of that. I can't drink Pinot, would rather drink 2 buck Chuck. Reds, I like Merlot and some bordeaux, don't like cab in any way, shape or form. I like syrah in blends, not on it's own. I prefer a good reisling/gewurtzwhateverthefuck/ champagne to any of the above.

 

[SField]

Originally Posted by randallr

And yes, you are gay. Not because you like whites over reds, though.

okok good, I want to be gay for the right reasons.

 

[Piobaire]

I think the issue is multifaceted and I think some things are getting conflated. I mean, you can't say you don't like the Cab Sauv. grape and then say you like Bordeaux. It's like the dood in Sideways going off about Merlot and then saying his most treasured bottle is a Cheval Blanc.

So to Left Coast Cabs...if tannin is the problem, try one with some age or one that was built to drink young. Problem with most Syrahs, from the Left Coast, is that they need about 10 years of bottle age to come into their own.

Pinots get more subtle as you move north.

 

[BC2012]

Originally Posted by SField

I don't understand how people think. I tasted a couple great Margaux and a Lafite, along with a Montrose which as you know needs like 30 years before it won't blow your face off. Of course, Parker gives the Montrose 100, and I thought it was still nearly a decade shy of not tasting green but everyone absolutely orgasmed at the "HUGE FLAVOR" and "INCREDIBLE FRUIT"... when they had 3 other bottles of great years of some of the most sophisticated, lovingly subtle wines from 2 first growths...

But Parker loves overextraction and he's primarily the reason for its surge in the late 90s/early 2000s. Fruit forward and bold flavors are his weakness and he overrates wines that are like this.

More traditional Bordeaux tend to be far more nuanced and earthy (which you have seen in Chat Margaux), although I've had some Margaux that has been fairly large in fruit.

 

[BC2012]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

I think the issue is multifaceted and I think some things are getting conflated. I mean, you can't say you don't like the Cab Sauv. grape and then say you like Bordeaux. It's like the dood in Sideways going off about Merlot and then saying his most treasured bottle is a Cheval Blanc.

So to Left Coast Cabs...if tannin is the problem, try one with some age or one that was built to drink young. Problem with most Syrahs, from the Left Coast, is that they need about 10 years of bottle age to come into their own.

Pinots get more subtle as you move north.

Definitely spot on about Pinot getting more nuanced (and earthy/Burgundian) as you move north into Oregon. Classic example:

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by gomestar

what about all of the Bordeaux that has Cab Sauv?

My favorite bordeaux is 50% Cab, 40% Merlot so I guess if Cab was 50% less "Cab-by", I'd like it better.

 

[coolpapa]

I wouldn't equate most CA cab with what cabernet sauvignon can be, or being generally representative of the varietal. Most of what is coming out of Napa in particular, as "high end" cabernet has been bastardized in order to appeal to Robert Parker's palate. Personally I think his palate is shot as it seems the only wines that now appeal to him are over the top high alcohol, over extracted, low acid, goopy wine approximations. They are wines meant to drink today, on their own, and the vast majority of them are gross.

 

[foodguy]

really, all this talk about "hating pinot" or "hating syrah" is just a matter of not having had the right ones. there's hardly a grape on the planet that hasn't been made delicious by a good winemaker (ok, well, marechal foch may be an exception), but at the same time there's hardly a grape that hasn't been ruined. when i started in wine, many, many moons ago, i was all about bordeaux and cab, because that was what was considered great and i could taste the difference immediately. then i got into italians, particularly chianti because it was so great with food, and i proclaimed loud and long about how awful cab was. then a brief flirtation with barolo until the good ones got priced out of my comfort zone; then burgundies and pinots because of their great finesse (much the same issue with pricing, though you can still find good cali and village-level at decent prices). Now i'm starting to go back and pull the last of those early cabs and bordeaux out of my cellar (mostly 79, 81, 82, 83) and they're terrific. go figure.

 

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by foodguy

really, all this talk about "hating pinot" or "hating syrah" is just a matter of not having had the right ones. there's hardly a grape on the planet that hasn't been made delicious by a good winemaker (ok, well, marechal foch may be an exception), but at the same time there's hardly a grape that hasn't been ruined. when i started in wine, many, many moons ago, i was all about bordeaux and cab, because that was what was considered great and i could taste the difference immediately. then i got into italians, particularly chianti because it was so great with food, and i proclaimed loud and long about how awful cab was. then a brief flirtation with barolo until the good ones got priced out of my comfort zone; then burgundies and pinots because of their great finesse (much the same issue with pricing, though you can still find good cali and village-level at decent prices). Now i'm starting to go back and pull the last of those early cabs and bordeaux out of my cellar (mostly 79, 81, 82, 83) and they're terrific. go figure.

how do you think the recent crop of heavily extracted "fruit bomb" wines will hold up over 30 years?

 

[foodguy]

Originally Posted by BC2012

But Parker loves overextraction and he's primarily the reason for its surge in the late 90s/early 2000s. Fruit forward and bold flavors are his weakness and he overrates wines that are like this.

Originally Posted by coolpapaboze

Most of what is coming out of Napa in particular, as "high end" cabernet has been bastardized in order to appeal to Robert Parker's palate.

parker is easy to paint as the great satan, but i think objectively he has a terrific palate. his notes are accurate and his preferences are consistent. It's his taste that is the problem. and the reality is that his taste represents most beginning wine drinkers' taste. that's why his newsletter is so successful. really, if you've been drinking wine for 10 to 15 years, do you need a newsletter to tell you what to drink?

his is the taste of the new american wine consumer that emerged in the early 1980s and they are the ones who made him what he is. And for all the hand-wringing in the wine industry, they rode that horse all the way. I can't tell you how many conversations i've had with wine store owners and winemakers who bemoan the "Parker Influence", then put up store tags quoting his scores, or brag in their POS material about their reviews.

 

[coolpapa]

Originally Posted by gomestar

how do you think the recent crop of heavily extracted "fruit bomb" wines will hold up over 30 years?

You didn't ask me, but I dont' think they will simply because they are out of balance from day one and that is only going to become more apparent over time.

 

[foodguy]

Originally Posted by gomestar

how do you think the recent crop of heavily extracted "fruit bomb" wines will hold up over 30 years?

my guess is they'll age pretty well, at least the ones that are soundly made. which is not to say they'll become delicious or more food-friendly. Port lasts forever.

 

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by foodguy

I can't tell you how many conversations i've had with wine store owners and winemakers who bemoan the "Parker Influence", then put up store tags quoting his scores, or brag in their POS material about their reviews.

ah, the great divide between disliking Parker and his influence yet wanting to sell wine in a way that draws in consumers.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by foodguy

parker is easy to paint as the great satan, but i think objectively he has a terrific palate. his notes are accurate and his preferences are consistent. It's his taste that is the problem. and the reality is that his taste represents most beginning wine drinkers' taste. that's why his newsletter is so successful. really, if you've been drinking wine for 10 to 15 years, do you need a newsletter to tell you what to drink?

his is the taste of the new american wine consumer that emerged in the early 1980s and they are the ones who made him what he is. And for all the hand-wringing in the wine industry, they rode that horse all the way. I can't tell you how many conversations i've had with wine store owners and winemakers who bemoan the "Parker Influence", then put up store tags quoting his scores, or brag in their POS material about their reviews.

I think any wine writer that exhibits a consistent palate can be useful. Us normal folks just can't taste a thousand wines in a year, so if you know the palate of any particular taster, his/her notes can help you in your choices. Find a writer who's palate is similar to yours and you're golden.

 

[coolpapa]

Originally Posted by foodguy

parker is easy to paint as the great satan, but i think objectively he has a terrific palate. his notes are accurate and his preferences are consistent. It's his taste that is the problem. and the reality is that his taste represents most beginning wine drinkers' taste. that's why his newsletter is so successful. really, if you've been drinking wine for 10 to 15 years, do you need a newsletter to tell you what to drink?

his is the taste of the new american wine consumer that emerged in the early 1980s and they are the ones who made him what he is. And for all the hand-wringing in the wine industry, they rode that horse all the way. I can't tell you how many conversations i've had with wine store owners and winemakers who bemoan the "Parker Influence", then put up store tags quoting his scores, or brag in their POS material about their reviews.


Oh I don't think he's a satan at all. I don't really pay much attention to his reviews, and on the rare occasion I do, I read the descriptions and ignore the score. He is useful to me as a contra indicator mostly. But I don't think there is any questions that wineries, particularly those in Napa started in the last ten years, making Cabernet based wines, are consciously making wines to appeal to his palate. Hell, Enologix practically advertises their ability to do precisely this.