JamieBahrain wrote:Polymer wrote:
Its only rubbish to people whose journey hasn't taken them there...and there's nothing wrong with that..
I think you're way out of context in your response here. I'm not interested in a long and continual debate, in an off the cuff post supporting Michael's contempt for wine snobbery and a dismissal of SA shiraz. Perhaps re-read the context?
Jamie,
I have said, its only rubbish for people whose journey hasn't taken them there. And that those people's (the people whose journey has taken them somewhere else or to the same place they were originally) journey is perfectly fine.
The comment of all roads lead to burgundy...is true for some..and rubbish for others....Maybe I should've said that instead.
Personally, I think Burgundy is just a direction on your way to other wines...but it is a lovely place to go back to on a regular basis if you can afford to...
JamieBahrain wrote:
I'm not sure of your level of exposure to Burgundy. I consider mine broad, seeing many dozens of wines each month. My access to Burgundy wines could easily be unfettered if I was so interested.
As is my access to Burgundy...Not sure what the relevance is here. I'm sure you're not suggesting you have more of a right to judge whether Burgundy is a true end journey for other people (for yourself you do obviously).
JamieBahrain wrote:
Yes, premox is an issue and response has been slow. Ever taken a Montrachet back for refund over premox? You won't get one in many cases. You wouldn't get away with this in Australia, with Aussie wines- in Burgundy it is facilitated by consumer snobbery. We don't know if premox has been addressed yet and I find your faith in long corks and diam premature.
I didn't disagree with you that it is a problem..I hate the fact that White Burg is a bit of a no no for cellaring..absolutely hate it. I'm not seeing them do NOTHING about it though...Have they solved it? I don't know if they have or not..but so far results have been somewhat positive. Fevre, for example, has been a good example of success with DIAM. You can get a refund on your burg in Australia...but you've paid Aussie prices as well..
Yes, it has taken a long time...and part of that is because I doubt their importers have held them accountable for fear of losing their allocation. When they're making several hundred percent markup, they're not interested in rocking the boat. And frankly, the number of Europeans that think Premoxed White Burgundy just needs a decant, is many...and this is among very experienced drinkers...Maybe by some people's definition it isn't premoxed because it isn't fully sherried...but it is most definitely far advanced in an improper aging curve and it tastes terrible...
JamieBahrain wrote:
Oak usage. Yep.. there's plenty of big SA bruisers who misuse oak but guess what? I see obtrusive oak in young, adolescent and mature Burgundy all the time. My reference to snobbery here is that both SA shiraz producers and Burgundy produce wines with clumsy oak usage- Burgundy gets away with it. And the oak is usage is as dreary as a bad SA shiraz from the many average Burgundy producers in my experience.
I don't see how you feel Burgundy gets away with it...Heavily oaked producers, I hate those too. Some people like those producers just as some people like heavily oaked SA Shiraz.
The reason SA Shiraz has more of a reputation is because a vast majority of producers use way too much oak whereas I can find many Burgundy producers where the oak is not nearly as intrusive to the wine or I know, based on experience, that it balances out within a few years. You might not feel that most SA Shiraz is oaky, but a lot of people do...I know a lot of people think it is snobbery but I'm talking about experiences when the wines are served blind..Everyone is going to have their own opinions about what is oaky and what is not...and I think you can take a look at what those people buy (Producers and regions) and you can have a fairly good idea of what they think of oak...
I know a lot of Burgundy producers, on paper, look like they use a lot of new oak..but a lot of them don't end up showing it as much..probably because they aren't as clumsy with their usage of oak. I personally don't care how much oak a producer has used..I care about how much has shown up in the wine. I think I'm actually fairly forgiving when it comes to oak but I guess it depends on what part of the oak is coming out. I can probably handle wood and spice a bit more than say, vanilla...
JamieBahrain wrote:
Burgundy is the most arrogant wine region in the world. Pricing is unaccountable because you can have a premoxed $1000 USD wine and its typical for the wine not to be refunded. You can have a corked $1000 USD wine and try getting a refund from Rousseau and others. I see this consumer snobbery every week! Old World drinkers accept taint and premox in Burgundy as a matter of course. Producers have been slow to address faults within their region in no small part due many Burgundy drinkers being snobs.
This isn't exclusive to Burgundy...If you spent 1k on a Burg, you bought from a reseller who probably bought from a wholesaler..that's where you get your money back...from where you purchased it...
Australia is probably THE BEST at getting you a replacement wine...in the world. The rest of the world lags behind and this is not exclusive to Burgundy. The fact that you paid 1k for a wine they sold to someone for 50 EUR doesn't mean much to the producer that sold it for 50 EUR. I'd have a much bigger issue if in fact they were selling the wine for 1k and refusing to do anything about it.