Eeeek...I like a Parkerized wine!!!!

I enjoyed the last half of a bottle of Castano Solanera tonight. Hated the first half last night and almost threw away the remains, but tonight it was, well, enjoyable. I liked it. Not at all old world, but I actually liked it.
I know tastes change. And environment has a lot to do with it. And us old geezers may need wine with more oomph since our taste buds die. But it is embarrassing.
What if I like Clos de los Siete next time?
Do I have to resign from WLDG now?
Maybe it's just an abberation.
I hope so.
I like it here.

You've got to chill - it wasn't swill.
At varying times, all wines are fine ...

Well, something like that would be my motto anyway.

I really think that there are contexts for enjoying any kind of wine. For instance, although my fixed preferences are strongly skewed towards dry and unsubtle wines with lots of stuffing, I have been surprised by my ability to sincerely enjoy a glass of quite-sweet late harvest Riesling, or the occasional oaky/glycerolic Chardonnay. I don't as a rule enjoy reds with residual sugar or high alcohol either, but have been shocked in the past when consulting the winery's technical info that a Pinotage that I thought went fabulously with the steak I had made actually contained some 4 g/l residual sugar and was almost 15% alc. Those numbers would have made me freak out had I seen them on the back label (and maybe I wouldn't have bought the wine), but for some reason they didn't translate into my actual experience with the wine.

Hell - I've even been known to find a 2 g/l residual sugar Catawba to be drinkable ... as opposed to my preferred 0 g/l!

I've had a two or three 'internationalized' wines that turned me off the first night but emerged as authentic beauties the second, or with additional aging. I tend to be a Parker skeptic, but have to admit that he has a knack for discerning many wines' future evolution.

Cheers.

I've had that experience too, Ian, and also the opposite where the jammy oak bomb becomes even more disgusting the second day, or with aging. I'm not able to see a pattern there, and frankly haven't tried lately. My preferances steered me toward the more structured old world style. This was just one of those retailer recommendations I took about 4 or 5 years ago, and pretty much instantly regretted. Luckily, this one turned out to be enjoyable - at least on day two. I have a few more from that era that are aging only because I didn't like them as youngsters. I wonder......

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the wines that turn good taste slightly overprocessed, too smooth, pampered and very slightly sweet - this to me is the 'international' style. Jammy wines are different (again, in my humble experience) and do not tend to develop well.

A good example of the former was the 2001 (if memory serves) Nipozzano Chianti.

I guess it's a definitional problem. "Over processed, pampered (is that the same as manipulated), slightly sweet says, to me, jammy, at least if you add "and no noticeable acid." But I see your point.
And, by the way, welcome to the board, Ian.

Yes, you've put your finger on it ... acidity distinguishes the two groups, plus a bit more roundness in the mouth (maybe due to the acidity).

Cheers.

[James Roscoe]

Ian, a belated welcome to the forum. It's always good to have another DC area guy around.

Hi O W,

I don't see anything wrong with eclectic tastes in wine. As long as its balanced a Parkerized wine has merit to my taste buds. Unbalanced fruit bombs are not welcome on my palate! As a matter of fact, I have this Oz GSM (Kaesler) right now that is a such a fruit bomb, I don't know if I will drink the second bottle, its too over the top for me.

James:

Belated (very) thank you. I was an off-and-on board wldg participant for a couple of years until it moved to the netscape format, which I couldn't adapt to. Since then, I've been an off-and-on participant on the Squires board (where I recently enjoyed the distinction of being likened to the prime minister of Iran by the board sponsor). It's been a delight to rediscover this board in its present form, and I'm hoping to get back into the swing of things here.

There can never be enough DC-area wine geeks.

Cheers.

And us old geezers may need wine with more oomph since our taste buds die.

OW, I read recently that only taste buds deteriorate with age, not olfactory capabilities of any significance. So it could be a blessing that you might be able to discount residual sugar while still appreciating fully all the aromatics.

Covert

James:

...Since then, I've been an off-and-on participant on the Squires board (where I recently enjoyed the distinction of being likened to the prime minister of Iran by the board sponsor...

At least he hasn't thrown you off like moi.

There can never be enough DC-area wine geeks.

Better geeks than politicians, I say!

Since then, I've been an off-and-on participant on the Squires board (where I recently enjoyed the distinction of being likened to the prime minister of Iran by the board sponsor).

Interesting considering that board owner (sorry 'moderator' ) consistently refuses to allow discussion of global warming on the grounds it's 'political'. I think "isn't it warm today?" got deleted last time (isn't that right Mr Goode ).

Interesting considering that board owner (sorry 'moderator' ) consistently refuses to allow discussion of global warming on the grounds it's 'political'. I think "isn't it warm today?" got deleted last time (isn't that right Mr Goode ).

If that's true, it might be the most stupid idea I have ever seen attributed to anybody smart enough to enjoy a glass of wine. I've never set foot on that board, and it's nice to know that I never will have a reason to consider it.

Things like that make me even more appreciative of this board, where you can say virtually anything that is not a personal attack on somebody else on the board. I think it is okay to say things that might be offensive to somebody who wouldn't ordinarily be on this board, like whoever the guy is who thinks that global warming is a political issue first, and maybe not a scientific issue at all. Any obscurantist who thinks a scientific issue shouldn't be discussed belongs in another millennium.

Covert, one has to keep in mind that the board owner is first and foremost a non working lawyer.