Is Wine Meant To Be Nice or Nasty?

[TiggerK]

and you'll have to quaff a fair measure of the distasteful before you get there.."

Hi again,

I think the overall standard of wine is this country is better than most. If you don't like wine, then it'll be distasteful, but unless you're being highly fussy, you'll likely find the vast majority of wines $10-$30 are quite drinkable (and thus not distasteful) to the vast majority of palates, so I don't really agree with that comment. And ripoff?? Is a Ferrari a ripoff?? Some say yes, some say no, value is perceived by the individual based on their circumstances.

I feel that if your wife has tried quite a few different styles of wine, from sweet sparklings and port to big rich reds, then across to pungent sauv blanc and through to oaky buttery chardonnays, and still not found anything of interest whatsoever, then your wife is one of the 10-15% of people who just do not care for alcohol (and thus wine in general). Sorry to hear that, just means more for you!! But if she likes other forms of alcohol, then I'd be keen to know what ones.

Cheers
Tim

[abrogard]

Yep, the standard may be higher than anywhere - not disputing it, Tim - but the nature of the beast, catering for all those many tastes and many of those cultivated, specialised tastes, means the newcomer is at a disadvantage for blindly reaching out and selecting a wine and finding - lo! it's one they like.

Unless they're natural winebibbers. Which some of us are. James of Oz and James seems to be, right?

And 'ripoff' ? I'm referring to the frequency with which one can find wine critics pronouncing they've found a wine much better or equal to a wine of vastly greater price. It is a commonplace. Those are wine critics. I point to them thinking they'll have standing in your minds.

But I and my friends have experienced the same thing ourselves often enough - though being the debauched tosspots that we are I don't seriously offer our insights for consideration in such an august arena.

[Mahmoud Ali]

Abrogard,

I think you are over analysing things in order to make a particular point and what exactly that is I'm not sure.

Logic, in the way you are using it, doesn't come into play in this discussion. For example, a person who enjoys chillies are not "logically" going to proceed down the path towards the extreme. Neither are marijuana smokers "logically" on a path to harder drugs. Logic might say that a person who likes chillies may, again may, find other foods bland. On the other hand it is not illogical that the person who like chillies in their curry or Thai food might enjoy a steak and not want chillies with it. In the case of wines we are talking not about logic, but about preferences.

Preferences are all about choice and there are plenty to choose from in the wine world. When a person first tries wine they may or may not like it. If they do it's likely they will continue to drink and enjoy wine and if they don't they likely wont go in search of more. Those who continue will soon discover that there are many other examples of the wines they like, most in the same price range and many more in other price brackets. The number of different wines in a bottle shop is as much, if not more, a reflection of price, region, brands and grape varieties than tastes.

Your discussion of people drinking table wine is somewhat off the mark. In Europe the table wines served in restaurants and cafes, as well as in homes, are usually bulk wine made in the region.The wine will vary from year to year depending on the vintage. It is the equivalent of Australia's cleanskins. Restaurants and cafes will usually scource their table wine from the same producer year after year. The better wines are bottled and will be decidedly richer, more full-bodied, and structured. The same is true in Australia. However, unlike what you suggest in your post, I don't think that people who grow up drinking table wines or cleanskins from their area will not appreciate or enjoy the better wines made by the same wineries. They may have preferences but I don't think "distaste" or "terror" enters the picture.

You end your post stating:

"So hereabouts in Australia I'd say to the noviciate:

"You'll have to hunt around a bit to find something you like." "Then you'll have to hunt around a bit more to find it at a reasonable price, probably, there's much ripoff in the business." "Then you'll probably find your taste has 'matured' and you'll be looking for something else... and you'll have to quaff a fair measure of the distasteful before you get there.."

Novices would not be hunting for wine if they didn't already like wine. If they did like a few wines it is no difficult task to find the same or similar styles of wine in almost any bottle shop. A person whose taste has matured is no longer a novice and this has likely come about due to having tasted a variety of wines.To people who drink and like it, wines are different and varied, not distatefu,l unless corked or cooked.

I'll say this once again, of course wine is meant to taste nice.

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

[abrogard]

Mahmoud, old mate, thanks for your input but I think you miss the whole point....

and it doesn't matter. It was just a little question.

'ave a drink...

[Polymer]

Now there's one caveat here that I can see. Vin Ordinaire. Your stock standard 'table wine'. In a wine growing area natural commercial, cultural, gustatory forces should lead to the inevitable production of a 'standard' wine largely consumed in the home and the cafe - cheap but 'good'. 'Good' in quotes because it refers, of course, not to a universal 'good' but to 'good' as seen by the locals, many of whom actually help in the production of this wine.

For such people in such an area in such a society the 'wine scene' queried in my messed up question would in fact hold no terrors at all. Because they would be schooled from birth. Because they would be forewarned with knowledge of their own taste. Because the stock in the shop would heavily reflect the prevailing wine culture.

This is case in many places in the world.

Wine growing areas will tend to have higher quality wine but it won't be cheap. I'd probably say the average price is considerably higher so while you're right, the quality is probably better and the buyers are obviously more savvy, the price is also different. It's not cheap and good. It's expensive and good. This is pretty exclusive to wine growing areas. Areas where you have more savvy wine drinkers will tend to have more specialty shops with higher end wine but a majority of the wine is still cheap wine.

However it is not the case in Australia. Not even in the wine growing areas. Cafes do not commonly sell wine with meals in Australia. I'm not a trendy myself, more an old curmudgeon, but I'm aware of the 'trendy' scene and have had to live within and around it for my sins when working in Canberra. In such self-consciously internationally savvy and sophisticated scenes there doubtless are numerous pavement cafes where one might be seen sipping a fine Hock with a croissant and the Economist close to hand on any sunny afternoon.

It IS that way in Australia but I guess it depends on what you consider the area. If you're talking in the middle of Canberra, you have many people that have no idea about wine so you end up with a lot of the really cheap stuff, which is what most people are willing to pay. You start going into the actual wine areas of Canberra, the restaurants there, etc, and you start finding what I said above is true. The average wine quality they stock is much better the price is higher as well.

So hereabouts in Australia I'd say to the noviciate:

"You'll have to hunt around a bit to find something you like." "Then you'll have to hunt around a bit more to find it at a reasonable price, probably, there's much ripoff in the business." "Then you'll probably find your taste has 'matured' and you'll be looking for something else... and you'll have to quaff a fair measure of the distasteful before you get there.."

This applies everywhere to the ordinary, uneducated wine drinker. They tend to buy the 10/sub10 dollar wine because it's alcohol and it's wine...They might find a decent one here or there at that price range but far and wide, most of it is not very good. For them, to splurge is to buy a 20 dollar bottle of wine where they've increased their chances of finding something good but without anything to go by, it's still a bit random...This is exactly how it is in other countries as well...or at least any country that has a market of mostly uneducated (about wine) wine drinkers.

[Mahmoud Ali]

Abrogard wrote;

"Mahmoud, old mate, thanks for your input but I think you miss the whole point....

and it doesn't matter. It was just a little question."


Yes, you're right, I have COMPLETELY missed the point.............and you're right, your point really doesn't matter. Nor mine for that matter. Have a drink, a bottle of wine if it isn't distasteful, or a bottle of beer. It's your life and your choice of beverage.

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

PS: Sorry to be repetitive, but, "Wine is meant to be nice." Were you expecting anything different at a wine forum?

[abrogard]

Mahmoud, old mate, I'm using a lot of words but I'm only really constantly going over the same ground, which is the replies I've got in this thread. Those replies indicate that the wine scene is not, for the tyro, an automatically pleasant experience, quite the contrary.

Here's a sample from that excellent post by polymer:

This applies everywhere to the ordinary, uneducated wine drinker. They tend to buy the 10/sub10 dollar wine because it's alcohol and it's wine...They might find a decent one here or there at that price range but far and wide, most of it is not very good.

- "...most of it is not very good..." See?

And of course "wine is meant to be nice" but the point is - does it turn out that way? And the answer is 'No'. And the reason is because of the multiplicity of tastes - one man's meat is another man's poison - and the phenomenon of 'cultivated taste' within the wine scene which leads to the manufacture of wines aimed at those tastes and which will need some time for an uneducated palate to enjoy.

I've said it over and over - my question was poorly phrased from the beginning. You seem to be constantly turning back to that poorly phrased question. I immediately qualified it and spelled out what I was specifically on about.

I know it is 'meant to be nice' but the question really is will the newcomer find it to be 'nice' and the answer is ( it's an average, it's general ) no.

Perhaps I stretch an analogy to fit, clumsily, a new ice hockey player ruefully getting up after yet another spill may say 'is this meant to be nice?' and that's the way I meant the question. I don't know the clever correct english grammar explanation for the sentence construction I was intending to employ.

The other players may say to that player - 'Yes, it is, but it takes some time for you to develop the skill and then you'll be tremendously exhilarated and entertained by zooming around the ice playing ice hockey.'

Not a real good analogy, I know.

It takes time. My question was so stupid (all the bits of it, taken all in) because the answer is so evident, self-evident, I should have saved us all a lot of trouble and thought it out and never asked it. (But then I wouldn't have had the pleasure of experiencing this excellent forum and meeting you good people. Anything that caters to a wide range of tastes can't be expected to automatically cater immediately to yours. You have to hunt around in a clothing shop to find what you like, don't you? So getting dressed is 'meant' to be a good experience, of course, but it takes some effort to make it so - and some people never manage to make it so and some people have nil interest and are satisfied with anything, would dress in rags and some people prefer to dress in nothing and live in board shorts on the beach.

That's the best analogy I've come up with yet.

[Polymer]

Mahmoud, old mate, I'm using a lot of words but I'm only really constantly going over the same ground, which is the replies I've got in this thread. Those replies indicate that the wine scene is not, for the tyro, an automatically pleasant experience, quite the contrary.

Here's a sample from that excellent post by polymer:

This applies everywhere to the ordinary, uneducated wine drinker. They tend to buy the 10/sub10 dollar wine because it's alcohol and it's wine...They might find a decent one here or there at that price range but far and wide, most of it is not very good.

- "...most of it is not very good..." See?

I would appreciate it if you actually read everything in context. "Not very good" refers to 10/sub10 dollar bottles. Should they be good? Probably not. Do a lot of people drink that? Sure...Is it meant to be bad? No. Does it turn out that way? If you drink cheap bottles it probably ends up not being that nice but your reasoning is flawed. See your quote below..

And of course "wine is meant to be nice" but the point is - does it turn out that way? And the answer is 'No'. And the reason is because of the multiplicity of tastes - one man's meat is another man's poison - and the phenomenon of 'cultivated taste' within the wine scene which leads to the manufacture of wines aimed at those tastes and which will need some time for an uneducated palate to enjoy.

Cheap wine = mostly bad and what you're referring to as multiplicity of tastes are NOT associated with each other. I actually have no idea how you come to this conclusion but the reasoning is completely illogical. Maybe that's not what you're saying but there isn't a cultivated taste that makes bad wine taste good. Again, IF your first experience with wine was with a quality product, your likely experience would be NICE. If your first experience with wine was 10/sub10 then it's likely to be NASTY. Of course it might not be but the fact that people buy a lot of cheap wine is not because they like it per se. They, like you, will basically drink anything and to them it's what they're willing to pay for wine. Differences in palates or preferences might influence whether your first experience is nice or nasty but starting off with a bad product means your chances of having a nasty experience is greater. Starting off with a quality product means your chances of having a nice experience is greater.

If you're saying that because most people start off drinking cheap wine that their first experience is likely to be nasty...then I can probably agree with that. But to suggest it's meant to be nasty means you don't really understand wine..actually you don't and you've admitted as such...which is why your posts are so odd. You're coming to, what is obviously, a preconceived notion of wine. You're reading people's posts and bending them to try to prove your point..which you're failing at. You have already admitted your palate is relatively poor...you'll drink pure plonk and enjoy it...So what makes you think you're in any position to actually evaluate wine? You've obviously had a nasty experience and probably continue to have a nasty experiences with wine and for that I feel bad for you.

I know it is 'meant to be nice' but the question really is will the newcomer find it to be 'nice' and the answer is ( it's an average, it's general ) no.

If you mean by average, that the newcomer will drink cheap bad wine to start off with and have a nasty experience then yes, I'd probably say you're right...But that's really more of an economic factor than anything else. If the best wines out there were 10 dollars a bottle, then the average newcomer would probably be drinking a quality product and have a nice experience.

To add another bad analogy...

If you grew up in a poor country and all you could afford was rotten meat, your first experience with meat might be pretty nasty....You might cover it with whatever spices (mix coffee with wine) to make it taste ok but the meat by itself might taste pretty nasty as your first experience. Does it take a cultivate palate to learn to like meat? Is it because we have different palates? No..overall, it's because your first taste into meat was rotten meat. If you were that same person but were given a quality piece of meat, your experience would likely be nice. Is this any different than wine? Not really.

[abrogard]

Well I'll be damned. What have I done to deserve this?

Your post is a nonsense. I'm sorry about that. I've just spent half an hour going back and forth and refuting, rebutting, correction, explaining.... etc.

Why? To do you a service I've no obligation to provide.

I asked a question. Many posters didn't even bother to read it but just jumped on the 'title' bandwagon. I found an answer. It was provided by such as yourself. The things they've and you've posted.

An end on it. I reiterated my question a number of times in order to try keep the discussion sane and sensible and help those who couldn't be bothered actually reading the thread from the beginning. I expounded on my conclusion and pointed it where it came from. Nothing helps.

What I get is stuff like this:

So what makes you think you're in any position to actually evaluate wine?

Which is a non sequitur, a gratuitous personal attack and that's what finally makes me ropeable.

Not only actually irrelevant to the question, not only a snide personal attack unworthy of these pages, but prima facie completely in error inasmuch as any individual in the world is completely entitled to their own palate, their own taste, their own judgement.

You seem to be unable to see that it is your own posts, your own comments, your own attitudes that lead to my conclusion.

And what the hell do I think I'm doing attempting to help......

Christ almighty....

Jesus wept..

[sjw_11]

Dude if you don't like wine, and you don't like the attitudes of wine people, what are you doing writing on a wine forum? If your attempting to enlighten us as to how difficult wine is to love, your probably picking the wrong audience to try so tirelessly to convince. Even if wine is "nasty" the people here are unlikely to think so and for that matter can't do anything about it if it is.

Perhaps you should address your concerns to the Treasury Wine Estates marketing people?

[abrogard]

another one hasn't read the question or the thread....

[Polymer]

Like I said...you only read/hear what you want. Out of that entire thing that basically shows you how your conclusions are flawed and illogical, you read the one part where I basically say you're really not in a position to judge wine, you are, as you have said, not a good judge of wine as you'll drink anything. You come to these conclusions which are wrong, based on your own misreadings of things...Am I wrong? If someone that will drink anything and enjoy anything..even if it means adding coffee to it....If everything to you tastes the same and is acceptable, you ARE, by definition, a bad judge of wine. You have no way of distinguishing between a good or bad wine and you don't care and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. You can like whatever you like, including if that means everything...but are you a good judge of wine? No...you're not...Yet somehow you are offended by this but you've spent several posts explaining how you'll drink anything. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...even if the logic is flawed...But if you think you're going to come on to a wine board and bend your uneducated (about wine) opinion...Nah..

Please, show me how my post is nonsense. I even concede, if that is the point you are trying to make, that people drinking cheap wine will probably have a not so great experience...but that experience is based on economics because if you are introduced to wine at a proper quality level, your experience will likely be different. It just so happens that a vast majority of people buy CHEAP wine because of the cost. That's just a fact. You have yet to even concede this or maybe you don't believe it...which I can only conclude comes from the fact that you'll drink anything as you have stated yourself...

You think you're trying to help? Trying to educate those on a wine board about wine when, like you yourself said, you'll drink anything? Thank you for your time....Go troll some other board please...

[xsorxpire]

The internet is a wonderful playground filled with people whose passions make for an easy game.

[abrogard]

right on, xsorxpire. tell me what you think. should i leave it alone or should i try more explanations...

i think this should be my last attempt: mate, it's not a question of me being a good judge or not. It is not a question about me. At all. I got sucked in to commenting on you impertinent remark about being qualified to judge wine and I attempted to point out that every human being in the world has a right to stand by their own declaration of 'I like this taste' or 'I don't like this taste' - regardless of your (or anyone else's) opinion on the quality of their palate.

A point that was\is pertinent to the thread. For what the thread asks ( I say again ) is what will the general experience be for any human being in the world first broaching the world of wine? Or: it could reasonably be seen as a question more particular to Australia. In which case the contention then becomes that any Australian has every right to claim their own opinion on any taste they test.

For that is subjective. And subjective is what nice or nasty is. And that subjective opinion change with time according to changes in palate and changes in experience...

And I'm doing it again... wasting too much time, repeating myself again.... Mate, if you can't see it then you can't see it and I'll never get you to see it. It can be seen by you looking at your own words and seeing them!

God bless your little cotton socks.

[Polymer]

You can like or dislike anything...as what I said...If you actually like and dislike different wine then you can evaluate it all you want. I took your comments to be "I'll drink anything" as you like everything (relatively) which puts you in a position where you can't evaluate good/bad because to you everything is good. If I'm wrong, my apologies...

As far as what you just said about it being subjective..that's what everyone has been saying and yet you still harp on the fact that people will likely experience wine to be nasty....Here's your quote.

"
I know it is 'meant to be nice' but the question really is will the newcomer find it to be 'nice' and the answer is ( it's an average, it's general ) no.
"

As I said, if you're making this claim on the fact that most people drink cheap plonk...then that's probably a fairly accurate statement..most people drink crap wine...most people would therefore tried crap wine and on average, probably not liked it much...Agreeing with you. But taking this one step further, if people experienced decent quality wine their experience would likely be good...of course this is all subject to their palate, taste prefs..etc...Is this distinction significant? Of course it is...

[odyssey]

So.
Did you find anything you and your missus liked?

Oh, hi guys. Sorry to go wandering off but I was a bit put off by the sorta personal animosity tone of a posting or two and thought best to leave well alone: 'Least said, soonest mended'

But I am grateful for the interest shown by by all those good people who didn't feel any need to act in that way, and for all their posts.

In the beginning I think I made a major mistake in not carefully thinking out the phrasing of my question.

But no, I'm not David Thorne and I don't make a habit of disturbing forum citizens. Which isn't to say I haven't done so a time or two, but some forums.... you can't help it...

And my ambiguous or uncertain phrasing was an accident, merely.

No, my wife hasn't found a wine to her taste.

And I - as I think I said - am currently enjoying a Shiraz and I can at any time enjoy various other wines. Never been a problem for me, as I think I said. But, true, I have 'enjoyed' in the past with all the discrimination of a pig, being intrinsically a 'drinker'. Determined to drink no matter what. And therefore swift to find some way to make anything palatable. The last vinegar-rough red I had was consumed entirely via cups of coffee, for instance.

My wife's 'problem' is not a problem at all. She feels no urge to find a wine to her taste and I feel no compulsion to find one for her.

If I can recall my original question:

What I mean is should the newcomer expect to have trouble finding a palatable wine or expect to find many, almost immediately?

To put it another way: is wine drinking a sort of 'acquired taste' ?

It mentions nothing about my wife or myself. It is very general. And it makes no attacks, casts no aspersions, makes no derogatory references, imputes no motives or actions, to anyone.

It does take the trouble to rectify the original poorly phrased question by explaining, attempting to explain, what was meant.

Come up with two versions of 'what was meant'.

1. 'Should the newcomer expect..."
2. ".... is wine drinking... "

and the answers are clearly

1. "Yes, expect to have trouble.."
and
2. "Yes, it is.."

Which anyone at all would have known to be the answers instinctively upon seeing the questions and I feel stupid for even asking it.

Experience teaches these are the answers.

Logic dictates that food tastes when indulged frequently call for more and more of what is desired until the norm for the usual consumer far exceeds the comfortable for the noviciate. Take chili dishes, take curries, take Turkish sweets, etc...
The same mechanism operates within the wine drinking field, of course. Hence Logic dictates these answers, too.

This thread teaches these are the answers - the posters polite and impolite, having indicated numerous wines as being the way in or the wine to drink for an introduction to the wine scene, and have pointed out that people's tastes vary enormously and people's tastes vary over the course of their lives and thats taste varies according to exposure, or 'matures', or 'develo0ps' - hence a wine shop will be stocked with a variety of wines covering - attempting to cover - this wide variety of tastes - hence, ipso facto, a very large percentage of the wine will not be to the taste of a particular individual - witnessed again by the posters to the this thread who've variously heaped scorn on various (quite popular) wines - intimating, of course, that they're definitely not to their taste!

So there's three ways of arriving at the same conclusion. And it should never have been any surprise.

Now there's one caveat here that I can see. Vin Ordinaire. Your stock standard 'table wine'. In a wine growing area natural commercial, cultural, gustatory forces should lead to the inevitable production of a 'standard' wine largely consumed in the home and the cafe - cheap but 'good'. 'Good' in quotes because it refers, of course, not to a universal 'good' but to 'good' as seen by the locals, many of whom actually help in the production of this wine.

For such people in such an area in such a society the 'wine scene' queried in my messed up question would in fact hold no terrors at all. Because they would be schooled from birth. Because they would be forewarned with knowledge of their own taste. Because the stock in the shop would heavily reflect the prevailing wine culture.

This is case in many places in the world.

However it is not the case in Australia. Not even in the wine growing areas. Cafes do not commonly sell wine with meals in Australia. I'm not a trendy myself, more an old curmudgeon, but I'm aware of the 'trendy' scene and have had to live within and around it for my sins when working in Canberra. In such self-consciously internationally savvy and sophisticated scenes there doubtless are numerous pavement cafes where one might be seen sipping a fine Hock with a croissant and the Economist close to hand on any sunny afternoon.

But in the Central Cafe in Woop-Woop where you might find some dinkum folks, I doubt you'd find such.

So hereabouts in Australia I'd say to the noviciate:

"You'll have to hunt around a bit to find something you like." "Then you'll have to hunt around a bit more to find it at a reasonable price, probably, there's much ripoff in the business." "Then you'll probably find your taste has 'matured' and you'll be looking for something else... and you'll have to quaff a fair measure of the distasteful before you get there.."

Because it's like life, I guess: not meant to be easy.... get out of it what you put in...

Unless you're nothing more than a cheerful old alky, of course...

Longest reply to the shortest, most innocuous bait question.... EVAR. Got to admire your work xsorxpire.

The internet is a wonderful playground filled with people whose passions make for an easy game.

Lol... so evil. So very evil.

[abrogard]

whatever turns you on. bit of a mutual admiration society there?

[xsorxpire]

From all the well worded posts i am surprised that you have now dropped your capitals.

Run out of energy, feeling a little defeated?..

[Gavin Trott]

Brief moderator interlude.

Interesting discussion, now descending a little into personal and personalites.

Please remember forum policy, we chat about wine, share opinions, but do not get personal, after all, agree to disagree is the way forward.

.

[Matt]

Gavin refer to your PM...keen as mustard.
Cheers

[Mahmoud Ali]

Abrogard,

I don't think that your question was poorly phrased. Perhaps you feel that way because you think that you have been misundersood and have tried to clarify your position. If I understand your position (and I will use your words if I may) it is that:

"I know it is 'meant to be nice' but the question really is will the newcomer find it to be 'nice' and the answer is ( it's an average, it's general ) no."


That's pretty clear and I don't think that there is any doubt that you believe it to be true. There may be some on this forum that agree with you and many more in the wider world as well. However we are all entitled to our opinions and I humbly beg to differ.

First off there are plenty of inexpensive and budget wines that are good to excellent. In my visit to Australia I bought and enjoyed many wines in the $10 range, and for a few dollars more the range and variety increases further. A few years ago I recall reading a newspaper review about a then sub-$5 Sacred Hill Cab/Merlot that was a fine QPR and a trophy winner. I tried the wine and found it to be fruity and forward, soft and round, but not my style as there wasn't sufficient structure and backbone, tannins and acidity. Make no mistake, it was a very drinkable wine, very good quality for the price and probably something that would please any newbie. It wasn't my style but it wasn't a "bad" wine, and there are plenty of other examples.

In Canada we get quite a few Chilean and Argentinian wines that are in the C$10 range. They are eminently drinkable and perfect for those who are new to wine or are on a budget. In the US there is a wine called Two Buck Chuck that literally costs $2 in California (around $3 elsewhere); it is produced in the millions of bottles and people buy them by the carload. The average punter likes it and continues to buy it while those with more experience and a better palate shun the stuff. Is Two Buck Chuck a bad wine? Only to those wgho don't like it.

Now, lets talk preferences. A preference for a wine doesn't make it a better wine in the abstract sense. Similarly, not liking a wine doesn't make it a bad wine. Here on the forum we are, for the most part, wine fanatics. We have tasted a fair amount of wines and have deleloped a critical and analytical view of wine. We look for the better examples and try to evaluate them using certain criteria. While we may not find wines to our liking in the $10 range it doesn't mean that our dislike makes those wines "bad" in the abstact sense, only in the heirarchical sense in that those wines are not the ones we like to drink.

Mcdonalds makes millions of hamburgers and people are pretty happy eating the stuff and feeding it to their children. For my own part I haven't had more than a handfull and not since the 80's. To me a Mcdonald burger is pretty poor while an individually made burger from a restaurant or cafe is far superior. Preferences are personal, and when wine buffs talk about bad wine we are more often than not talking about wine we don't like and in our own kind of shorthand if you wil, we say it's 'bad'. Truely speaking bad wines are those that are corked, oxidised or cooked, the rest are just different levels of quality and style.

Abrogard, I believe that the modern wine world, and this includes many producers in the European old world, have been making friendly, fruit forward, early drinking wines for quite sometime, particularly in the budget range. It has been popular for a long time and their sales figures are proof positive. Almost anybody coming to the wine scene are going to come across these friendly wines. In fact, the novice is more likely to be repelled by the more expensive, structured, tannic wines that we wine buffs like to buy and cellar. More often then not these wines need to be decanted for hours and require food as an accompaniment, not exactly a friendly scenario for the initiate.

So please, don't misunderstand us, we just disagree with your premise, nothing more. I found some of your analogies fun to think about and in one instance almost used the same anology for my side of the debate (it was the clothing one). That's ironic.

Anyway, lets just raise a glass and toast the world's finest beverage, at all quality levels. After all we need wines for pizzas, burgers, picnics on the beach, and for all night parties. We wouldn't want to waste good money and fine wine for those occasions.

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

[abrogard]

Mahmoud,

I must thank you for your post. A very welcome post. Thank you.

I am heartened by what you say. I gathered something about this being the situation in the USA (and presumably Canada) by watching Oz and James in California, I think it was, where James claimed to be in search of a drinkable $2 wine, and he found one.

I do not think it is the situation here. In my own experience and that reported to me by various friends and acquaintances.

You'll note a number of posters to this thread have intimated that cheap wines in Australia are bad - and a novice looking to start there is doomed to trouble.

Those are the facts that led me to the conclusion I arrived at.

'My Premise' ? I don't know what that is. I thought I had none. I thought I was merely asking a question. Perhaps you mean this thing about wines being 'bad' ? If you search my posts I think you'll find I never pronounced any wine as 'bad' per se. I may have confused 'bad in the opinion of the drinker' with 'not to the drinker's taste' somewhere or other. If so I'm sorry for that. My whole attitude has been that it is a question of taste, essentially, not a question of quality.

That in fact, as you say yourself, wines of 'quality' may often be perceived by the novice as distasteful. Which, of course, adds further weight to my conclusion as it suggests that an exploring tyro seeking to improve his chances by upping the price he pays may simply walk into more distasteful experiences.

As I did during my Champagne exploratory period.

Yes, I like that clothing analogy, it is a happy one I think. As with clothing it is largely a matter of taste - sometimes there are definite quality problems but generally all clothing is 'good'. Yes. I don't argue this point regarding wines, not at all. Rather other posters have frequently opined 'good' and 'bad' as objective measures.

But unlike clothing wine has a more intimate effect upon the body of the wearer, doesn't it?.

And on the pocket of the wearer. Try on six suits in a store and walk out, even if you don't find one you like, unharmed. Try six wines and the distasteful experience hurts much more than simply turning away from a fitting room mirror - and the cost, money down the drain, contrasts with the zero cost of the store fittings.

I am happy to agree with your post, Mahmoud. I just raise that small point. Seek to clarify. if it's a bone of contention then forget it rather than spoil the harmony. Yes, raise the glass, admire that beautiful colour in the sunlight, thank God for our riches and spare a thought for those poor bastards suffering all over the world, and let it down our throats, the fruit of the vine, the essence of the earth.

[Polymer]

A majority of cheap wine IS pretty bad. There are, of course, some pretty decent wines that are cheap as Mahmoud pointed out but are those the majority? I'd say no. For others the answer might be yes. Either way, the quality tends to go up as the price increases. It doesn't mean that 20 or 30 dollar bottle will always be better than the 10 dollar one but if you went by % and pure chance, you're more likely to find a decent bottle of wine as you increase in price. Forget about preferences...At least from my standpoint, you can evaluate if a wine is well made even if you prefer a different style which means I partially disagree with Mahmoud. You can dislike the style or even like the style but there are definitely bad wines. Someone might like it so to them it's not which is why I only partially disagree. At the same time I'd say a majority of wine drinkers would rate is lowly. This is why I would say many wine drinkers, when they first try wine, will have likely tried a cheap bottle of wine. It's not likely to have been that QPR champ..By pure chance it's probably not a great bottle..not even a decent bottle...This person may or may not like it but with all of it's flaws, it's probably not as likely to be a good experience. You put a better bottle of wine in it's place and it's more likely to have been a good experience. Again, everyone can like/dislike something that's just one random factor. Also, to clarify what I mean by bad, by bad I mean it has winemaking flaws(or maybe the fruit was bad to start w/) and would be rated lowly by most knowledgeable wine drinkers or wine drinkers that had a point of reference to compare it to (Eg. Someone that only drinks bad wine doesn't know it's bad). Bad is what I'm referring to when the OP wants to know if the experience of someone would be nice or nasty and I'm referring to a group of wines that will increase the likelihood of that experience being nasty. I'm not calling a wine bad as in universally, no one would like it...I'm sure every wine out there has it's fans...

Let me also clarify what a 10/sub10 bottle is in Australia vs. that in the US. In the US you can find more decent bottles at or around the 10 dollar range. Heck, I bought a bunch of decent 2005 Bordeaux for around 10 dollars in the US..these same bottles sell for 45-50 in Australia. You can find plenty of cheap wine in the US from 2-6 dollars...When referring to prices since this is an OZ based forum, I'm talking Australian prices (which is another issue altogether).

[orpheus]

Abrogard, Perhaps it is possible to find a drinkable wine in the US for $2.

While it perhaps boils down to what is meant by drinkable (ie, will not kill you??), but you would be pushing it to find a $2 wine in Australia, let alone a drinkable one, in any serious sense of the word.

Currently, on the other hand, the Wynns shiraz can be had for under $9 (insane). Give it a few years, and you have a seriously drinkable wine.

My general experience is that with a really exceptional wine, noviciate and afficionado alike will enjoy it.

On the other hand, some wine is an acquired taste. For instance, I've tasted many a Barolo that has left me cold, usually, I suspect, because it needs at least another decade. Also, the day I acquire a taste for Beaujolais, I will hang up my palate.

[Mahmoud Ali]

Polymer,

I agree with you that most cheap wines (box wines and sub-$10) are "bad", but that's you and me, not for novice drinkers who are the subject of Abrogard's question. These sweeter, low tannin wines are what many wine drinkers want. The sales speak for themselves. The bulk of Australia's exports to the UK are these low end, undemanding, "friendly" wines. They are referred to as "Critter" wines because they have kangaroos, birds, penguins, etc. on the label, Wine connoiseurs don't buy these, and yes, consider them bad.

I also agree with you that there are better low priced wines in the US but that is not because Two Buck Chuck is any good (it isn't, sales nothwithstanding) but rather because imported wines are so much cheaper. Good California wine is way over-priced and the cheap stuff isn't much better than cheap Ozzie. Even the higher end Zinfandels are 15+% monsters that are fun to sample for their powerfully exuberant nose and intensity but rapidly tiring with little evolution ahead.

The best deals in the US, and the UK for that matter, are European wines and your point about Bordeaux is well taken. Bordeaux in Edmonton is way over-priced compared to the US and the UK. In Australia I was able to find quite a few good wine in the budget range if one keeps an eye out for sales and buying by the six-pack or dozen. One retailer directly imports European wines and that made some of them very affordable. I was able to drink Spanish, French, Portuguese and Chilean wine for under $10.

So I think we do agree Polymer in what we think may be good or bad. It's just that many people think that what we don't like are good and affordable wines.

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

[Mahmoud Ali]

Orpheus,

It was me that talked about Two Buck Chuck, an American wine sold by a company called Trader Joe's using an old brand by the name of Charles Shaw. You're right, there is a difference between good and drinkable. Lots of cheap wines are drinkable but better palates, if I can use the term, will consider them bad wines. The thing is many people like and buy the wines despite there being plenty of other choices. It may be budget considerations but they are still making the trade-off between quality and price. We do the same but at a higher price point.

Wynn's Shiraz for less than $10 is an absolute steal! I tasted through some of Wynn's release last wwinter in Sydney. Of all the reds the regular Shiraz was the most accessable but you're right, another 5-10 years and it should be a fine drink.

Barolo needs time. Nebbiolo is a grape that can withstand decades of cellaring. A few months ago I had a 1989 Barolo and an '83 Spanna, another Italian wine made from Nebbiolo, and both were lovely.

If you like full-bodied wine thaen Beaujolais is probably not going to do anything for you. However, a Beaujolais from a good vintage, and a good producer, is another thing. If you really want to give Beaujolais a fair go try one of the Village wines, Morgon, Fleurie, Moulin-a-Vent, Regnie, etc. Drink it young or drink it at ten years of age, with time it is supposed to resemble a Bugundy. I've cellared a Morgon from a decent producer and sure enough it turned very Pinot Noir-like.

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

PS: If you start to like Little Penguin, then hang up your palate. Although I hear they a making a reserve line.

[Polymer]

Mahmoud,

I don't necessarily think sales is an indicator although it could be those are the better ones of the bad...

I also hate to say sweeter and low tannins since plenty of 200+ Cali Cabs and some expensive Australian Shiraz would probably fall into that category as well...

The high volume sales/low price wine stuff sells because it's cheap. Charles Shaw sells because it's cheap. Every so often they have one that is actually ok..They try to make it as drinkable as possible.

In any case, Box wine sells for a reason...and there's a reason why cheap wine sells..and it's not because that type of wine appeals to that consumer. People buy cheap wine because they want some sort of wine, aren't too worried about what it tastes like but it's cheap, it's wine (alcohol) and they can swallow it. It's not a style preference at all although I agree with you that most average consumers want sweeter/lower tannins. I'm not even saying that cheap wines don't try to go that route..they usually do...You sometimes even have some pretty decent cheap wines. Yellow Tail grew in popularity in the US because first thing is, it was cheap. Then they came out with some pretty decent wine, still cheap...got decent reviews...but it was cheap..and usually it probably tastes ok to consumers..but it's cheap. Actually Charles Shaw was the same way although less often decent.but it's only 2 bucks...

[Mahmoud Ali]

Polymer,

I agree, sales are not an indicator of a wine being good, just that it makes it popular, either for taste or budget. I've been with people who can afford to drink better wines but think that the cheap stuff is pretty good.

As for the expensive gear, yes, they too can be over the top, sweet and low in tannin and structure. That's why I don't really like them either. A freind of mine has served me $50-100 Aussie Shiraz and while they are full of flavour and intensity I don't think they will go far. The worst examples were the 2005 Amon Ra and the Molly Dooker 'Carnival of Love' (not sure of the vintage). She bought them because a certain Mr Parker gave it rave reviews. Today she says she would happily sell them. I wouldn't buy them at half the price.

I'm not sure I've even tasted Yellow Tail. Haven't they come out with a reseve wine, only the best parcels out of the million liters, eh/

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

[Red Bigot]

Don't know whether to laugh or cry, but couldn't bring myself to read it all in detail to find out.

[orpheus]

Orpheus,

It was me that talked about Two Buck Chuck, an American wine sold by a company called Trader Joe's using an old brand by the name of Charles Shaw. You're right, there is a difference between good and drinkable. Lots of cheap wines are drinkable but better palates, if I can use the term, will consider them bad wines. The thing is many people like and buy the wines despite there being plenty of other choices. It may be budget considerations but they are still making the trade-off between quality and price. We do the same but at a higher price point.

Wynn's Shiraz for less than $10 is an absolute steal! I tasted through some of Wynn's release last wwinter in Sydney. Of all the reds the regular Shiraz was the most accessable but you're right, another 5-10 years and it should be a fine drink.

Barolo needs time. Nebbiolo is a grape that can withstand decades of cellaring. A few months ago I had a 1989 Barolo and an '83 Spanna, another Italian wine made from Nebbiolo, and both were lovely.

If you like full-bodied wine thaen Beaujolais is probably not going to do anything for you. However, a Beaujolais from a good vintage, and a good producer, is another thing. If you really want to give Beaujolais a fair go try one of the Village wines, Morgon, Fleurie, Moulin-a-Vent, Regnie, etc. Drink it young or drink it at ten years of age, with time it is supposed to resemble a Bugundy. I've cellared a Morgon from a decent producer and sure enough it turned very Pinot Noir-like.

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

PS: If you start to like Little Penguin, then hang up your palate. Although I hear they a making a reserve line.

Thanks, Mahmoud, I'll try a good, aged Beaujolais. They tend to be served up young in restaurants. Gamay young is an unattractive grape.

I am not obssessed with hairy-chested Aussie reds. In fact, I tend to prefer cool-climate shiraz. The wines I really love are contradictions; at once powerful and elegant, like a top Rhone Red, or the Craggy Range Le Sol syrah, or Bannockburn shiraz.

Also, I've had some great burgundy which has been very powerful, as well as wonderfully perfumed and layered.

They all seem like strong expressions of the grape and earth from which they come; important but not everything, I suppose, because if there is one thing about Beaujolais, it is unmistakably gamay, and unmistakably from Beaujolais!

As for Barolo, I recognise that the problem is that they need time, as you say.