Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker
David M. Bueker
Childless Cat Dad
35457
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
David M. Bueker wrote:Nothing wrong with the wine as a casual summer sipper, but it does not offer an education on Mosel wine. Forgetting the anonymous nature of the blend, if it's lacking the minerality then it's not doing its job on an educational basis.
Sam Platt
I am Sam, Sam I am
2330
Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:22 pm
Indiana, USA
if it's lacking the minerality then it's not doing its job on an educational basis. Mosel wines is all about tree fruit (ok there...) and rocks
David M. Bueker
Childless Cat Dad
35457
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Rahsaan wrote:if it's lacking the minerality then it's not doing its job on an educational basis. Mosel wines is all about tree fruit (ok there...) and rocks
Even in 2005? Should one expect obvious minerality in a wine like this?
If it's being put up as an archetype of German Riesling then yes.
2005 is not an over the top vintage like 2003. Yes the wines were ripe, but not to a fault.
Redwinger
Wine guru
4038
Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:36 pm
Way Down South In Indiana, USA
David M. Bueker
Childless Cat Dad
35457
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Rahsaan wrote:If it's being put up as an archetype of German Riesling then yes.
2005 is not an over the top vintage like 2003. Yes the wines were ripe, but not to a fault.
Ok, I'm sure it's not an archetype of German riesling, for many reasons, and I haven't tasted the wine so I can't argue on its behalf.
But, as a slight aside, it does seem interesting that descriptors like "classic" and "typical" are changing their meaning, with ripe but crisp vintages like 2004 in the minority for the recent run.
I actually think that 2004 is a very classic vintage.
David M. Bueker
Childless Cat Dad
35457
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Rahsaan wrote:I actually think that 2004 is a very classic vintage.
Yes, but my point is that in the past ten years you have 2004, 1998 and maybe 1996 for such "classic" MSR vintages. I don't dispute the use of the word "classic", but am just wondering how "typical" they can be called if they don't come around very often.
Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot, ByteSpider, ClaudeBot, DotBot, Google Adsense [Bot], Google AgentMatch and 1 guest