... and what wine are you taking along? ;) ... I have not checked all those roses, since I am bassically an ignorant in roses (I barely started last summer having by first ones) ... so I think I trip to Vila Viniteca will be in order (I’ll visit Barcelona-Terrassa-Barcelona on the first two weeks in June, and I hope to squeeze some free time, but it is shapping ever so bad ... heavy working even on saturdays ... oh, well ...
Ah, but I was on Sancerre now! Pink Sancerre, at that...
Fourchaume, the name that appears on the label of Premier Cru Chablis by a number of producers, is the name of a vineyard. A ";pago,"; if you will. In Burgundy, very few vineyards are owned-harvested by only one concern. The labels of wines from such extremely exclusive vineyards usually bear the title ";Monopole."; Fourchaume, as you have probably guessed by now, is not one of those. It is a mere premier cru vineyard. But as such, it does deliver some mighty fine Chablis for early drinking. Try the 2002 examples from Domaine de Chantemerle or Domaine de Tremblay so you know what I’m talking about, Key here is the bright, clean aroma of green apples and some very pretty minerality.
Sorry I didn’t catch your first message, Joan. I am a man as busy as I am verbose, so sometimes things just slip by or, worse, I plan on answering at my usual length and something work-related gets in the middle.
Perhaps fortunately, I was travelling during the release of the Parker ratings of recent Spanish wine releases and missed out on all but the earliest rumours. However, permit me belated to point out, Manuel, that you and Mr. Parker undoubtedly agree on many many wines. (Or would you also be pouring down the toilet those ’61 First Growths or ’68 Unico to which Parker gives astronomical scores?) Disagreement with Parker is one thing - I for one have little use for his enthusiasm for many Australian and American wines, for example - but it is simply absurd to suggest that a wine is excrement because Parker likes it.
I’ve said this before, but I have never subscribed to the Wine Advocate (scores and reviews are ubiquitous anyway) and I almost never buy wine based on Parker scores. First of all, I probably taste more Spanish wines than Parker reviews. In addition, I taste all year long and I simply will not wait for Parker scores, which appear to come out less than once a year. Indeed, if I suspect that Parker will give a high rating to a wine that I like, his rating becomes a real inconvenience, because I can be sure that availability soon will disappear. On rare occasions, Parker will publish a review of a Spanish wine that has escaped my attention or that has not yet been released. If the review peaks my curiosity, I will keep an eye out for the wine, but no more so than if I learned about the wine from any number of other sources.
I’ve never really been sure why Parker is so powerful, particularly since he and the other popular wine critics like Jancis Robinson and Stephen Tanzer, acting independently, seem to agree with him more than 90% of the time anyway. And Parker’s power alone is reason enough to applaud folks like you who do their best to foil his hegemony. But I for one can’t help but be pleased to see certain deserving Spanish winemakers receive the marketplace benefits of Parker’s attention for the first time. I’m hard pressed to imagine a winemaker (or importer) not being pleased at receiving his or her first favorable consideration from the most influential wine critic in the world. And good for them!
I am down in the DR doing my periodical penance at Head Office. Sorry I didn’t read this sooner.
I can name quite a few very real winemakers and importers who would react in the following ways to a ";blessing"; bestowed by Mr. Parker to one of their wines:
(a) A raised eyebrow.
(b) Shock and mocking laughter.
(d) Tearing of garments and thoughts of suicide.
Ever been on Wine Therapy? You’d meet a couple there yourself...
Sorry I cannot agree with you on the congrats to those Spanish winemakers who have just been ";blessed."; They may find themselves stuck in a Faustian deal sooner than they think. And may the OPrishas bless those who can maintain their independence of thought and action in spite of the points.
As far as |61 claret goes, that’s an easy call. We may agree, but I doubt it would be on the same wines and for the same reasons. Ask your man about ’67 Trotanoy (ah, beloved pet example) and let’s see if we can really agree on some hairy stuff. And ’68 Vega Sicilia shouldn’t even come into consideration, since it’s the only potable wine I have ready access to from the vitiviniculturally disastrous year of my birth. I could always be psychoanalyzed about the sentimental reasons behind my judgment.
One day you’ll have to tell us what this head office stuff is all about; I’m suspicious that this ";penance"; is beach time in the DR.
You may have a point about ’68 Vega Sicilia being the sole potable wine of that year - or at the very least the only one left.
’67 Trotanoy? Would not RP merely say that it is a B or, perhaps grading on a vintage curve, a B+ wine? This bottle seems an unlikely battle ground for some cataclysmic clash of wine philosophy.
In any event, enjoy the beach.
Haven’t been to the beach in years. Head office is the top floor of the building you see on the main page of www.ilumel.com, located in the middle of Santo Domingo City. Air conditioned. No views of the sea.
’67 Trot would be one of the wines ignorantly dismissed by most of the tasteless cretins(yep, you read that right, that’sgeneralist invective) so many refer to, blindly oor out of misguided generosity, as ";authorities"; or, worse, ";valuable critics,"; on account of some sort of summarizing judgment of its vintage. Great stuff, indeed, with plenty of everything. If Mr. P. should happen to like it, hey, let him keep it a secret, so I can still afford the juice.
’68 Unico is but one. Others include Bosconia, Tondonia, CVNE Viña Real and--a tough one to believe coming from me--Heitz Martha’s, almost all the Phelps wines (but then again, those were the pre-Insignia days of real wine at that house), Stag’s Leap, at least one Diamond Creek and Mayacamas.
Oh, in my quest for something drinkable from my birth year, I even scored a Port once. Porto Messias 1968. Bad, bad, bad, bad stuff.