The Auswine Forum

I concur great thread

Pet nat is
Wrong

Stemless is double wrong except for beer or water

michel wrote:I concur great thread

Pet nat is
Wrong

Stemless is double wrong except for beer or water

yeah nah they're fine for the lower end stuff. Good around kids and if you're cooking up a storm.
My little yangarra number has survived a few offlines and is still going strong. Great little backup to the shoddy glassware we often encounter at offlines.

Scotty vino wrote:

michel wrote:I concur great thread

Pet nat is
Wrong

Stemless is double wrong except for beer or water

yeah nah they're fine for the lower end stuff. Good around kids and if you're cooking up a storm.
My little yangarra number has survived a few offlines and is still going strong. Great little backup to the shoddy glassware we often encounter at offlines.

Can’t stand stemless for Grand Cru mid week mate
Lock the kids out

Crunchy in a TN is a red flag for wankery.

Crunchy is a descriptor for solid textures that make an audibly sharp sound when bitten. Crackers are crunchy. Ice is crunchy. Cornflakes are crunchy.

Wine is a liquid and unless it’s frozen to solid ice or you are having it on cornflakes IT IS NOT CRUNCHY.

odyssey wrote:Crunchy in a TN is a red flag for wankery.

Crunchy is a descriptor for solid textures that make an audibly sharp sound when bitten. Crackers are crunchy. Ice is crunchy. Cornflakes are crunchy.

Wine is a liquid and unless it’s frozen to solid ice or you are having it on cornflakes IT IS NOT CRUNCHY.

Can I add "linear" and "transparent" as descriptors that sh!t me to tears?

I guess you can say that for a lot of metaphors used in wine if you want to literalise them. For me crunchy alludes to good acid attack on the front palate with green/stalks/capsicum on the follow, akin to snapping a stick of celery, you have the impression on chomping on the wine.

Linear is a good descriptor which shows how the wines travels through you mouth, is it strong at first and then dies off on the back palate, or does it pick up speed through the palate leaving you with a ‘wow where did that come from’ or is it consistent throughout aka linear.

Wizz wrote:

odyssey wrote:Crunchy in a TN is a red flag for wankery.

Crunchy is a descriptor for solid textures that make an audibly sharp sound when bitten. Crackers are crunchy. Ice is crunchy. Cornflakes are crunchy.

Wine is a liquid and unless it’s frozen to solid ice or you are having it on cornflakes IT IS NOT CRUNCHY.

Can I add "linear" and "transparent" as descriptors that sh!t me to tears?

Your comments are transparent Mr Wizz

michel wrote:

Wizz wrote:

odyssey wrote:Crunchy in a TN is a red flag for wankery.

Crunchy is a descriptor for solid textures that make an audibly sharp sound when bitten. Crackers are crunchy. Ice is crunchy. Cornflakes are crunchy.

Wine is a liquid and unless it’s frozen to solid ice or you are having it on cornflakes IT IS NOT CRUNCHY.

Can I add "linear" and "transparent" as descriptors that sh!t me to tears?

Your comments are transparent Mr Wizz

I believe that's called a lacuna.

Wizz wrote: Can I add "linear" and "transparent" as descriptors that sh!t me to tears?

I'm happy to use linear as a descriptor, especially when it comes to the acid line running down the throat, especially on a good pinot noir. I'd be happy to consider a better descriptor, however.

Waiters Friend wrote:

Wizz wrote: Can I add "linear" and "transparent" as descriptors that sh!t me to tears?

I'm happy to use linear as a descriptor, especially when it comes to the acid line running down the throat, especially on a good pinot noir. I'd be happy to consider a better descriptor, however.

Yeah I talk about the acid line in rieslings

I've also heard it used when the components of a wine seem to be presented one at a time, ie in a line. Which to me is separate, or unintegrated.

Most commercial bars and restaurants serve their red wines much too hot, (and sometimes their whites too cold). Even in winter with heating the wine comes to the table around 22-24 degrees. And the same is true for the majority of homes with their passive cellars. The difference between a wine served at 17-18 degrees and 24 is immense and potentially ruining the brand in the drinkers perception. I was in Ireland in October and every red was served too hot. Mostly I asked for a wine bucket, much to the amusement of the waiters.

odyssey wrote:Oh also. Port and stilton is immensely overrated. Sorry Brits.

AGREE STRONGLY.

And while we are at it, Port and Chocolate is an abomination, despite what the producer's marketing departments say. (And despite the fact I like both a lot individually).

Hacker wrote:Most commercial bars and restaurants serve their red wines much too hot, (and sometimes their whites too cold). Even in winter with heating the wine comes to the table around 22-24 degrees. And the same is true for the majority of homes with their passive cellars. The difference between a wine served at 17-18 degrees and 24 is immense and potentially ruining the brand in the drinkers perception. I was in Ireland in October and every red was served too hot. Mostly I asked for a wine bucket, much to the amusement of the waiters.

AGREE. This is a pet peeve of mine too, and I have also been known to request an ice bucket to the bemusement of staff.

sjw_11 wrote:

Hacker wrote:Most commercial bars and restaurants serve their red wines much too hot, (and sometimes their whites too cold). Even in winter with heating the wine comes to the table around 22-24 degrees. And the same is true for the majority of homes with their passive cellars. The difference between a wine served at 17-18 degrees and 24 is immense and potentially ruining the brand in the drinkers perception. I was in Ireland in October and every red was served too hot. Mostly I asked for a wine bucket, much to the amusement of the waiters.

AGREE. This is a pet peeve of mine too, and I have also been known to request an ice bucket to the bemusement of staff.

And the corollary - we regularly take the chardonnay out of the ice bucket, Chardonnay especially is regularly served way too cold.

odyssey wrote:Oh also. Port and stilton is immensely overrated. Sorry Brits.

Stilton is quite well suited to young vintage ports, and the bigger LBVs made in what used to be called the "traditional" style - bottled unfiltered after four years. These have the power and structure to stand up to the stilton. However I wouldn't serve stilton with old or mature vintage ports, nor would I serve it with tawnies of any style or age.

Also, with regard to the criticism leveled at the 2005 vintage of Bordeaux and Burgundy, I find it difficult to understand that the wines can be faulted solely for being long-lived. Are Bordeaux and Burgundy producers supposed to deny what the vintage has given them and produce soft, fruity, juicy wines for the impatient? Wasn't that one of the ways that Australian wines went astray and was clobbered by the international market?

When long-lived vintages come along perhaps the sensible thing to do is not buy them and leave it for those with patience and a cellar.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:Also, with regard to the criticism leveled at the 2005 vintage of Bordeaux and Burgundy, I find it difficult to understand that the wines can be faulted solely for being long-lived. Are Bordeaux and Burgundy producers supposed to deny what the vintage has given them and produce soft, fruity, juicy wines for the impatient? Wasn't that one of the ways that Australian wines went astray and was clobbered by the international market?

When long-lived vintages come along perhaps the sensible thing to do is not buy them and leave it for those with patience and a cellar.

I think what both Felix and I were trying to say is...especially with 2005 Bordeaux, they're nowhere close to being ready...not even on the low end. These aren't 20 or even 30 year wines that require patience, they're so far from being ready they're more like 40 maybe even 50+ year wines.

So for most people that could afford to buy 2005 Bordeaux of good quality at release, that means they'll be very old if not unable to drink wine by the time those wines get to a good drinkable point...

For younger people that want to buy a back vintage, that might (might) work for them..and certainly a generation from now, 2005 will probably be a fantastic vintage...But buying wine for the next generation, I'm not sure I'd call that patience.

Its very possible the wines will turn in the next 10 years...in which case I think a lot of people will happily be wrong about the vintages..but if you've had lower end wines from that vintage, they're still hard as nails...

dave vino wrote:I guess you can say that for a lot of metaphors used in wine if you want to literalise them. For me crunchy alludes to good acid attack on the front palate with green/stalks/capsicum on the follow, akin to snapping a stick of celery, you have the impression on chomping on the wine.

Linear is a good descriptor which shows how the wines travels through you mouth, is it strong at first and then dies off on the back palate, or does it pick up speed through the palate leaving you with a ‘wow where did that come from’ or is it consistent throughout aka linear.

Very fair points.

I regret my choice of wording for my post.... my tone was uncalled for. sorry folks

Polymer wrote:

Mahmoud Ali wrote:Also, with regard to the criticism leveled at the 2005 vintage of Bordeaux and Burgundy, I find it difficult to understand that the wines can be faulted solely for being long-lived. Are Bordeaux and Burgundy producers supposed to deny what the vintage has given them and produce soft, fruity, juicy wines for the impatient? Wasn't that one of the ways that Australian wines went astray and was clobbered by the international market?

When long-lived vintages come along perhaps the sensible thing to do is not buy them and leave it for those with patience and a cellar.

I think what both Felix and I were trying to say is...especially with 2005 Bordeaux, they're nowhere close to being ready...not even on the low end. These aren't 20 or even 30 year wines that require patience, they're so far from being ready they're more like 40 maybe even 50+ year wines.

So for most people that could afford to buy 2005 Bordeaux of good quality at release, that means they'll be very old if not unable to drink wine by the time those wines get to a good drinkable point...

For younger people that want to buy a back vintage, that might (might) work for them..and certainly a generation from now, 2005 will probably be a fantastic vintage...But buying wine for the next generation, I'm not sure I'd call that patience.

Its very possible the wines will turn in the next 10 years...in which case I think a lot of people will happily be wrong about the vintages..but if you've had lower end wines from that vintage, they're still hard as nails...

I fully understood what you both said and repeating the same thing isn't going to change my mind. A good vintage that has long term cellaring potential is not something to criticise, it is merely a factor in making a decision to whether to purchase or when to drink. You say that the 2005 vintage of Bordeaux are nowhere near ready as if that is a flaw. Is isn't. Of course the 2005s aren't ready, they're cellaring wines from a very good vintage. People who buy and drink Bordeaux ought to know that. The Bordelais say that weak vintages are there so that they have something to drink while waiting for the better vintages to mature. A lot of people starting out think that they should be chasing the top vintages. This is a mistake. One should always consider buying wines from good producers and do so comfortably even in weaker vintages.

A classic cellaring vintage should not be on the radar of an older person unless they want to leave an inheritance. Instead they should by "weaker" vintages that will drink earlier. I have been making similar decisions for a number of years now. For example, I've stopped considering buying any vintage ports more recent than the 2003 vintage. I will however buy back vintages.

As for the "lower end" wines, I presume you mean cru bourgeoise and minor chateau. These are likely to be pretty good purchases for those who want nice aged claret without having to pay too much and wait too long. Of course too long is a relative term - I have some 2000s but have thus far found them in need of more time. There is a Bordeaux Superiore I am thinking of opening soon, one of what I call my daily drinker cellaring wines, put away for the express purpose of having an aged wine for midweek meals.

Anyway, that's my opinion for what it's worth.

Cheers ...................... Mahmoud.

Wizz wrote:
Lets see if we can do this without all the shitposting. And if you agree or disagree with someone, just type "agree" or "disagree" and leave it at that.

Gentlemen, lets not have any hand-bags at dawn ... We are going to have to keep Mahmoud and Polymer apart


As to 2005 Bordeaux... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxK_nA2iVXw

sjw_11 wrote:

Wizz wrote: Lets see if we can do this without all the shitposting. And if you agree or disagree with someone, just type "agree" or "disagree" and leave it at that.

Gentlemen, lets not have any hand-bags at dawn ... We are going to have to keep Mahmoud and Polymer apart

As to 2005 Bordeaux... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxK_nA2iVXw

Nice, very amusing.

Okay, point taken, I shall pull up my socks.

Regarding Felix and Polymer's opinion regarding the 2005 Bordeaux: "Disagree".

My unpopular wine opinion is that NZ Sauvignon Blanc actually tastes OK - i.e. on a hot/humid day at the beach/in the tropics etc.

Dragzworthy wrote:My unpopular wine opinion is that NZ Sauvignon Blanc actually tastes OK - i.e. on a hot/humid day at the beach/in the tropics etc.

I agree, though for a slightly different reason. When faced with a by the glass list where little care or ambition applies, NZ and also Chilean SB at least offer the prospect of getting a wine with some distinctiveness, where you can recognise the wine above the residual sugar.

Talking about long lasting Bordeaux vintages:
Cheers ...................... Mahmoud.

Wizz wrote:

michel wrote:

Wizz wrote:


Can I add "linear" and "transparent" as descriptors that sh!t me to tears?

Your comments are transparent Mr Wizz

I believe that's called a lacuna.

Gary Walsh likes "chewy", is this in the same league?

Mahmoud Ali wrote:Talking about long lasting Bordeaux vintages:

Cheers ...................... Mahmoud.

Thanks Mahmoud for reminding me of this classic:

[url=https://ibb.co/HBkjmRN][img]https://i.ibb.co/HBkjmRN/5-CB6-E7-F2-BD6-A-4 ... -E91-C.jpg[/img][/url]

Sorry about the quality
From the New Yorker

That I should happily accept 500% mark ups at small bars in Adelaide for a glass of average white or red, when 1 1/2 to 2 glasses gets you the bottle. Wonder why I entertain at home or seek out good BYOs

Don't get me started with beer prices at sporting venues, when 3-4 drinks gets you a carton. Spoke to a beverage manager who said staff are paid about $23-25 an hour. A family member who worked in pubs 20-25 years ago received a similar rate, yet beers were about $1 back then.

Please don't tell me costs have escalated 1200-1500%. Beverage manager at AO yesterday freely admitted that they make lot of profit on a keg of beer.

Cheers Craig

Ozzie W wrote:Most Shiraz/Syrah is a bit boring.

I'm just reading through this very entertaining thread, but thought I'd add my own take on this one.

Most wine [measured by volume] is a bit boring. On this forum, we're interested in only a very small niche within the world of wine.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:

Wizz wrote:What opinions do you have that are unpopular in the wine world?

That many more wines age better than often thought.

AGREE!!!