• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

A dark day for French wines

moki

el Presidente
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
9,415
Very interesting... many people assumed French wines were the best in the world, and when put to the test, this assumption did not hold up. Would the same thing happen if the bands were off in the cigar world? Certainly possible...

from: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012447.php

.....

A Story I Didn't Know...

...about a subject close to my heart. In today's New York Post, Ralph Peters reviews a book by George Taber called Judgment of Paris. It recounts the story of a wine-tasting in Paris in 1976, when Steven Spurrier, a British wine merchant, arranged for little-known California wines to be tested against the best French vintages in a blind taste-test by prominent French critics:

Spurrier wasn't setting a trap. He fully expected the French to win, choosing labels such as Chateau Haut-Brion, Chateau Mouton Rothschild, Meursault Charmes and Puligny-Montrachet for the face-off.

The American bottles came from upstart wineries built by wine-lovers risking everything for their dream. Mike Grgich had arrived virtually penniless from Croatia. He believed that American chardonnays could match the best of Burgundy. Warren Winiarski abandoned an academic career and mortgaged his family's future to pursue his vision of making a Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon to rival the greatest Bordeaux.

Spurrier invited nine influential French critics, sommeliers and restaurateurs. They tasted the wines without knowing their identities, snickering confidently as they scribbled down their scores.

The results were stunning. Winiarski's Stag's Leap Wine Cellars beat the great chateaux. The triumph of the American chardonnays was even greater, with Grgich's Chateau Montalena well ahead of the pack and other star-spangled whites in third and fourth place.

The experts were mortified. They'd trashed some of France's most famous wines, while praising unknown wines from California. And none of this would've been publicized if one journalist hadn't shown up during a slow news week: George Taber of Time, the author of this book.

As Peters notes, the 1976 wine-tasting upset helped open competition in the wine industry, with the result that wine drinkers now drink better and cheaper wines from all over the world--not only California varieties, but wines from Australia, New Zealand, Chile, South Africa and other countries. And that's definitely worth a toast.

--------------

The Economist has a very well-written take on this issue... as per their usual high standards.

The way I see it, there is not fundamental reason why the same thing can't with regards to tobacco.... it'd just require Cuba to not keep up with the times, and coast on their caché while tobacco farms outside of Cuba focus on technology and quality.

Either way, it's a very interesting article. This comment in particular I found amusing:

John Worontschak, an Australian wine maker who works in Bordeaux as well as with producers in places as diverse as Uruguay, Italy, Mexico and Sussex, is blunt about why experts from his part of the world are now in such demand: "It's because we're open to new ideas, and we're not full of pretentious bullshit."

Warming to his theme, he explains: "Too many people walk into somewhere like Chateau Mouton Rothschild, swoon at the art collection and get an inferiority complex." Flying wine makers like Mr Worontschak happily acknowldege that the top Bordeaux wines are "pinnacles of the industry." But they also insist that the key to making consistent, high-quality wine lies in the careful application of scientific methods and modern techniques.
 
Hey I love Californian wines. I also like Nicaraguan cigars. Tastes are subjective. My point is there are similarities from products such as wine and cigars from the same region, and I have a personal preference. That is all.

This debate is unfair though, you've had some previous experience dabating your point.
:cool:
http://www.cigarpass.com/forumsipb/index.php?showtopic=5138&hl=
 
Hey I love Californian wines. I also like Nicaraguan cigars. Tastes are subjective. My point is there are similarities from products such as wine and cigars from the same region, and I have a personal preference. That is all.

We're on the same page there... personal preference is where it's at. A good wine is a wine you enjoy. A good cigar is a cigar you enjoy. People will have wildly varying opinions on what constitutes "good" for both.
 
Hey I love Californian wines. I also like Nicaraguan cigars. Tastes are subjective. My point is there are similarities from products such as wine and cigars from the same region, and I have a personal preference. That is all.

This debate is unfair though, you've had some previous experience dabating your point.
:cool:
http://www.cigarpass.com/forumsipb/index.php?showtopic=5138&hl=

Ugh. I've never had good luck with Nicaraguan wines. Chateau Noriega '96 had the nastiest overtones of gunpowder and burning hair.

Wilkey
 
I would love to see the same thing done with Cuban and non-Cuban cigars. I believe it would shock many.

In my opinion Cuban's are very over-hyped and over rated IN MOST CASES...undoubtedly there are some Cubans that are among the best available but in general I feel they have fallen in overall quality of the tobacco and definitely in the over-all quclity control in manufacture.
 
I would love to see the same thing done with Cuban and non-Cuban cigars. I believe it would shock many.

In my opinion Cuban's are very over-hyped and over rated IN MOST CASES...undoubtedly there are some Cubans that are among the best available but in general I feel they have fallen in overall quality of the tobacco and definitely in the over-all quclity control in manufacture.

Ah, what do YOU know you young noobler! :laugh:

I'm relatively new to Cuban cigars, I started smoking them on occasion about ten years ago and dove deeper into them about three years ago. IMO, it's not a matter of "better or worse" they're different from any other kind of cigar. For me just like wine, it depends on my mood. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a Cuban cigar and other times my mouth is watering for an Opus X or an Añejo. I love French Bordeaux but I'd probably get sick of it if I drank it all the time. I also love California Cabernet Sauvignon and recently, I'm become facinated with Cabernet Francs.

As far as Cuban quality control, I think it's become much better within the last few years.
 
Not a big wine drinker myself. I used to dislike any Red's and really enjoyed the Whites. Now its the opposite. Lately I have been drinking some wine with a friend of mine. But one I really enjoy is the Shiraz. :thumbs:
 
We're on the same page there... personal preference is where it's at. A good wine is a wine you enjoy. A good cigar is a cigar you enjoy. People will have wildly varying opinions on what constitutes "good" for both.

Ususally I would agree with this but I've attended two large tasting events this month where there were obviously flawed wines that the winemaker or owner was trying to spin it as "personal preference". I called bulls%$t!

I attended two Pinot Noir tasting this month , two weeks ago in Santa Barbara and yesterday at an event of Santa Cruz Mountain wineries. In SB I immediatly told the winemaker that they may want to check the bottle they are pouring, he opened another bottle and it was the same crap, flawed winemaking. I spoke with another winemaking friend at the event about this winery and he told me that during the pretasting event others found the wine to be flawed as well. The winemaker of the flawed wine later admitted to his peers to having problems with his wines this year. The same thinged occured at yesterdays events, we found a few wines that were just plane bad and each time I spoke with the winemaker he tried to spin it as "personal preference".

I understand the economics of why they do this but now the poor consumer leaves the table believing that there is nothing wrong with this obviously "flawed" wine and it must just be his palate.

True, drink what you like, like what you drink, but understand that there are flaws in in making both of these products. An educated consumer knows the difference.

:cool:
 
I would love to see the same thing done with Cuban and non-Cuban cigars. I believe it would shock many.

In my opinion Cuban's are very over-hyped and over rated IN MOST CASES...undoubtedly there are some Cubans that are among the best available but in general I feel they have fallen in overall quality of the tobacco and definitely in the over-all quclity control in manufacture.

Its do-able, but it tends to be very obvious as to what region a cigar comes from by its smell and taste when talking Cuban and non Cuban. So unless one where to take virgin mouths to Havana’s to do this test, it would be somewhat flawed. If one gets over the hype and down to the cigar its self, all in all it’s what you like and don’t like.
 
John Worontschak, an Australian wine maker who works in Bordeaux as well as with producers in places as diverse as Uruguay, Italy, Mexico and Sussex, is blunt about why experts from his part of the world are now in such demand: "It's because we're open to new ideas, and we're not full of pretentious bullshit."


AMEN BROTHER.
 
John Worontschak, an Australian wine maker who works in Bordeaux as well as with producers in places as diverse as Uruguay, Italy, Mexico and Sussex, is blunt about why experts from his part of the world are now in such demand: "It's because we're open to new ideas, and we're not full of pretentious bullshit."


AMEN BROTHER.
No bias here. :whistling: :p :p :D

One thing that I have found interesting is that the magazine, Cigar Aficianado, reviews cigars regardless of whether they are of Cuban origin or NC origin. Many of these reviews have NC cigars at the top of the ratings with only a spattering of Cuban cigars making the top 15 or 20.

I have to admit I have a little desire for the ISOM due to it's mystique. I am pretty new to trying them and have found some absolutely amazing and some I would rather pass on. It definitely comes down to taste, and I'm definitely in a phase of tasting ISOMs.

But my favorite cigar is still the Davidoff Millenium Piramide, and my love for that cigar could very well could be from the surroundings and experience when first trying that cigar. I won a bunch of money in Vegas and thought I would buy a really nice cigar. The Millenium Piramide was recommended, and I was shocked at the price tag (Vegas strip, go figure). But it rocked, and I still love them. Since taste is subjective, how I taste them definitely is biased on what is going on in my life, and the atmosphere where I am smoking the cigar. Given the subjectivity, I definitely won't write of any cigar after just smoking one.

Anyhoo ... I hope you are at your shop tonight Dion. I should be heading there in about a half hour or so. :thumbs:

Cheers!
- C
 
We're on the same page there... personal preference is where it's at. A good wine is a wine you enjoy. A good cigar is a cigar you enjoy. People will have wildly varying opinions on what constitutes "good" for both.

Ususally I would agree with this but I've attended two large tasting events this month where there were obviously flawed wines that the winemaker or owner was trying to spin it as "personal preference". I called bulls%$t!

I attended two Pinot Noir tasting this month , two weeks ago in Santa Barbara and yesterday at an event of Santa Cruz Mountain wineries. In SB I immediatly told the winemaker that they may want to check the bottle they are pouring, he opened another bottle and it was the same crap, flawed winemaking. I spoke with another winemaking friend at the event about this winery and he told me that during the pretasting event others found the wine to be flawed as well. The winemaker of the flawed wine later admitted to his peers to having problems with his wines this year. The same thinged occured at yesterdays events, we found a few wines that were just plane bad and each time I spoke with the winemaker he tried to spin it as "personal preference".

I understand the economics of why they do this but now the poor consumer leaves the table believing that there is nothing wrong with this obviously "flawed" wine and it must just be his palate.

True, drink what you like, like what you drink, but understand that there are flaws in in making both of these products. An educated consumer knows the difference.

:cool:

What was the nature of these flaws? Would joe average, like me, detect them? And how would they come across?

Wilkey
 
The comparisons with Cuban cigars against non Cuban in CA is a joke. They are taking cigars that need to be aged properly and judging them when they mostly in their sick period. Those kinds of comparisons are absolutely useless. Let them take a 7 year old RyJ Churchill and match it up to a La For what ever and then let's see who scores what.

I all I know in the wine world is that real champagne is made in France, and all the sparkeling wines produced anywhere else is like kool aid to the real thing.
 
I all I know in the wine world is that real champagne is made in France, and all the sparkeling wines produced anywhere else is like kool aid to the real thing.

Not necessarily true, here's the lineup at a Champagne Tasting our tasting group recently held, and these were all outstanding ...

1996 Moët & Chandon Champagne Cuvée Dom Pérignon - France, Champagne
This champagne is just so good it's hard to stop drinking them. (95 pts.)

1989 Krug Champagne Brut - France, Champagne
A stellar magnum; This wine is drinking perfectly right now. The color, mousse and flavors were wonderful. Krug out of magnum is a great experience. That said the 1989 is not quite the champagne that the 1988 and the 1990 are. (94 pts.)

1996 Taittinger Champagne Brut Blanc de Blancs Comtes de Champagne - France, Champagne, Côte des Blancs, Champagne
Actually a 95+. This may be one of the best 1996s I've tasted (and I've tasted many 96s). Very complex in a classy style - this is not a blockbuster on the first taste but it sneaks up on you and stays in your mind. A superb finish. Outstanding. (95 pts.)

1996 Billecart-Salmon Champagne Nicolas-François Billecart - France, Champagne
This was undeniably quality champagne but seems very young. It was difficult to get a read on the personality of this champagne but I believe this is due to its relative youth. Only time will tell how much better it will get. (94 pts.)

1996 Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne La Grande Dame - France, Champagne
This was champagne in a bold style - the most yeasty and mushroomy of the 96s tasted in its flight. The best drink of this was after it sat in my glass for about 10 minutes and its complexity was revealed. Scrumptious but needs time like the good 96s do. (94 pts.)

Oh wait ....... they are French :laugh:


What was the nature of these flaws? Would joe average, like me, detect them? And how would they come across?

Wilkey

Many "average" wine drinkers can detect these flaws though some require a little more training. A "corked wine" is probably the most common flaw that consumers can learn to detect. Generally a corked wine will smell of wet cardboard, newspaper or mold, that same wet cardboard will show itself again in the taste. You can detect a corked wine with the first pour from a bottle, this is why its important to smell and taste the first pour at a restaurant. A few other ways a wine could be flawed would include brettanomyces, TCA, oxidation and maderization each with its own means of identification.

Edit: spelling

:cool:
 
We're on the same page there... personal preference is where it's at. A good wine is a wine you enjoy. A good cigar is a cigar you enjoy. People will have wildly varying opinions on what constitutes "good" for both.

Ususally I would agree with this but I've attended two large tasting events this month where there were obviously flawed wines that the winemaker or owner was trying to spin it as "personal preference". I called bulls%$t!

I attended two Pinot Noir tasting this month , two weeks ago in Santa Barbara and yesterday at an event of Santa Cruz Mountain wineries. In SB I immediatly told the winemaker that they may want to check the bottle they are pouring, he opened another bottle and it was the same crap, flawed winemaking. I spoke with another winemaking friend at the event about this winery and he told me that during the pretasting event others found the wine to be flawed as well. The winemaker of the flawed wine later admitted to his peers to having problems with his wines this year. The same thinged occured at yesterdays events, we found a few wines that were just plane bad and each time I spoke with the winemaker he tried to spin it as "personal preference".

I understand the economics of why they do this but now the poor consumer leaves the table believing that there is nothing wrong with this obviously "flawed" wine and it must just be his palate.

True, drink what you like, like what you drink, but understand that there are flaws in in making both of these products. An educated consumer knows the difference.

:cool:
What's the name of the winery trying to pass off the flawed wines?
 
What's the name of the winery trying to pass off the flawed wines?

Good grief man, that was like 8 months ago .... I'm an old guy now and can barely remember what I had for dinner last night :laugh:

I did open a 2002 Christopher Creek Syrah the other night that had something terribly wrong with it, storage conditions were in a near perfect environment so it wasn't that and it didn't smell corked either. I gave it some "counter time" hopeing it would improve, but it didn't.

Xavier Planty of Chateau Guiraud, where the tasting was held, had one theory as to why California won yet again: 'When tasting wines from your own area, the critical part of your brain is switched on, when tasting from another area, the pleasure part is switched on.'

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:cool:
 
The comparisons with Cuban cigars against non Cuban in CA is a joke. They are taking cigars that need to be aged properly and judging them when they mostly in their sick period. Those kinds of comparisons are absolutely useless. Let them take a 7 year old RyJ Churchill and match it up to a La For what ever and then let's see who scores what.

I all I know in the wine world is that real champagne is made in France, and all the sparkeling wines produced anywhere else is like kool aid to the real thing.

I have to agree with The Master... I've tried my hardest to like NCs more, especially because of the price and the easy access but Cuban tobacco is just so much better and cleaner to my palette. Most of the time when I smoke a NC cigar I feel unsatisfied when I'm finished. I guess it's hard to argue the fact when guys like Jose Padron are telling you that nothing can compare to Cuban tobacco... and that's after all the progress he has made.


As for wines, I'm Italian so we drink most of our cheap regional wines in a small orange juice glass with big plates for pasta... they are all under $10 a bottle and very satisfying :)
 
The comparisons with Cuban cigars against non Cuban in CA is a joke. They are taking cigars that need to be aged properly and judging them when they mostly in their sick period. Those kinds of comparisons are absolutely useless. Let them take a 7 year old RyJ Churchill and match it up to a La For what ever and then let's see who scores what.

I all I know in the wine world is that real champagne is made in France, and all the sparkeling wines produced anywhere else is like kool aid to the real thing.

Welcome back, Harris! I would add that a blind taste test involving ISOMs and NC's would be like a blind taste test between Drambui (SIC) and Kahlua. I like them both, but they're different. Those here who I would put up to the cigar test would detect the ISOM (blindfolded) without even lighting it.
 
I have to agree with The Master... I've tried my hardest to like NCs more, especially because of the price and the easy access but Cuban tobacco is just so much better and cleaner to my palette. Most of the time when I smoke a NC cigar I feel unsatisfied when I'm finished. I guess it's hard to argue the fact when guys like Jose Padron are telling you that nothing can compare to Cuban tobacco... and that's after all the progress he has made.

I obviously disagree... regarding Padróns, there are many Cuban brands that I'd pass by for a 1964 or 1926. My main point is that "Cubans" are not a monolithic entity, each brand has a distinct taste, so lumping them together is silly IMHO.

Common wisdom was identical regarding French wines... and that fell apart until blind tastings. Will the same happen with Cuban cigars? I agree that non-Cuban aren't quite as far along (in totality), but they are getting damn close. Make sure you age all of your cigars before ya smoke 'em, not just Cubans! :)
 
Top