Comments on: Hugh Johnson does not find California wines “undrinkable” http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2009/07/07/hugh-johnson-does-not-find-california-wines-undrinkable/ A blog about the world of wine Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:04:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: randy http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2009/07/07/hugh-johnson-does-not-find-california-wines-undrinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-20596 randy Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:31:04 +0000 http://www.steveheimoff.com/?p=3284#comment-20596 Damn, I musta been doing something else to have missed this one. This guy Johnson pinned the tail on the donkey! CA wines are out of balance due to a large part from RP and the 100-point scale. I'm having a hard time drinking my fellow CA producers' vino for the very same reasons. too much stuffing. I can't wait till folks realize those fancy-pants high scored wines begin to fall on their perverbial faces. There's simply no way wines that have ph's in the 3.7-3.9 range will last 5 years. Drink those flabby cult RRV Pinots and Napa Cab's up kids. Damn, I musta been doing something else to have missed this one. This guy Johnson pinned the tail on the donkey! CA wines are out of balance due to a large part from RP and the 100-point scale. I’m having a hard time drinking my fellow CA producers’ vino for the very same reasons. too much stuffing.

I can’t wait till folks realize those fancy-pants high scored wines begin to fall on their perverbial faces. There’s simply no way wines that have ph’s in the 3.7-3.9 range will last 5 years. Drink those flabby cult RRV Pinots and Napa Cab’s up kids.

]]> By: Dylan http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2009/07/07/hugh-johnson-does-not-find-california-wines-undrinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-11033 Dylan Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:55:11 +0000 http://www.steveheimoff.com/?p=3284#comment-11033 Is it really permissible to write such sensationalist title when the content doesn't point to it that way even when taken out of context? Is it really permissible to write such sensationalist title when the content doesn’t point to it that way even when taken out of context?

]]> By: Greg http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2009/07/07/hugh-johnson-does-not-find-california-wines-undrinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-10602 Greg Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:07:24 +0000 http://www.steveheimoff.com/?p=3284#comment-10602 On some level I question the view that all good wine must age. I understand that it takes bottle age to develop secondary and tertiary aromas as well as to tame the structure of certain wines. But unless there are near ideal circumstances--sufficient fruit, sufficient (but not excessive) structure, appropriate chemistry, proper storage conditions, an untainted cork that forms an impermeable seal--the ultimate result is a tired if not dead or flawed wine. If everything goes right, there's still fruit, the structure has resolved, volatility and oxidation are in check, and more flavors have developed. But how often does this actually occur and is this the only way? I suspect a lot of aging windows end up exaggerated because they're based on best case scenarios and also because wines used to be stored in colder, damper cellars that slowed their development (especially in terms of spoilage organisms). The way Johnson phrases it at one point, "wines to be laid down, sold and resold," seems a particularly un-romantic view, as if the point of making a massively structured wine is to generate a commodity for the market that survives because it's unpalatable for a decade or more. I'm no fan of unstructured wines that lack subtlety, but at the same time there are winemakers who seem capable of achieving youthful complexity and structural harmony. I've read that the complex aromas generated by native yeasts fade rather rapidly, as does the fruit in most wine. So in many cases, if the structure is not an obstacle, a hand-made wine will often be at a peak once it's overcome bottle shock. Unless it ages gracefully and develops in, say, 5 years, it's all downhill from there. Is it possible a young wine could be equal, but different to an aged wine? I know that if I buy an expensive wine, I'll want something that will hold and develop for some time. But maybe the criticism of wines that are best young is not that they are inferior, but simply that they are over-priced since they won't have any value on the secondary market. But wine is meant to be consumed, anyway, so I'd consider the niche wines that are meant to be traded for decades a sort of oddity, anyway. Being young as I am, the famous names are not accessible as they were in the 60s and 70s to "ordinary" collectors; the long-term survivability issue is not all that relevant to me. My concern is that I get accurate information on the structural and organoleptic qualities and when the wine will peak, be it 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades. If a wine can hang on for 5 (or 50) years, fine, but if it's ideal at 2 (or 20), I'd like to know. On some level I question the view that all good wine must age. I understand that it takes bottle age to develop secondary and tertiary aromas as well as to tame the structure of certain wines. But unless there are near ideal circumstances–sufficient fruit, sufficient (but not excessive) structure, appropriate chemistry, proper storage conditions, an untainted cork that forms an impermeable seal–the ultimate result is a tired if not dead or flawed wine. If everything goes right, there’s still fruit, the structure has resolved, volatility and oxidation are in check, and more flavors have developed. But how often does this actually occur and is this the only way? I suspect a lot of aging windows end up exaggerated because they’re based on best case scenarios and also because wines used to be stored in colder, damper cellars that slowed their development (especially in terms of spoilage organisms).

The way Johnson phrases it at one point, “wines to be laid down, sold and resold,” seems a particularly un-romantic view, as if the point of making a massively structured wine is to generate a commodity for the market that survives because it’s unpalatable for a decade or more.

I’m no fan of unstructured wines that lack subtlety, but at the same time there are winemakers who seem capable of achieving youthful complexity and structural harmony. I’ve read that the complex aromas generated by native yeasts fade rather rapidly, as does the fruit in most wine. So in many cases, if the structure is not an obstacle, a hand-made wine will often be at a peak once it’s overcome bottle shock. Unless it ages gracefully and develops in, say, 5 years, it’s all downhill from there. Is it possible a young wine could be equal, but different to an aged wine?

I know that if I buy an expensive wine, I’ll want something that will hold and develop for some time. But maybe the criticism of wines that are best young is not that they are inferior, but simply that they are over-priced since they won’t have any value on the secondary market. But wine is meant to be consumed, anyway, so I’d consider the niche wines that are meant to be traded for decades a sort of oddity, anyway. Being young as I am, the famous names are not accessible as they were in the 60s and 70s to “ordinary” collectors; the long-term survivability issue is not all that relevant to me. My concern is that I get accurate information on the structural and organoleptic qualities and when the wine will peak, be it 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades. If a wine can hang on for 5 (or 50) years, fine, but if it’s ideal at 2 (or 20), I’d like to know.

]]> By: Ray http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2009/07/07/hugh-johnson-does-not-find-california-wines-undrinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-10598 Ray Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:33:28 +0000 http://www.steveheimoff.com/?p=3284#comment-10598 I perceive that Sir Hugh Johnson did not confer with Sir Harry Waugh on the subject and that Steve H. is not the only one who cannot personally taste 39 wines a day. I perceive that Sir Hugh Johnson did not confer with Sir Harry Waugh on the subject and that Steve H. is not the only one who cannot personally taste 39 wines a day.

]]> By: 1WineDude http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2009/07/07/hugh-johnson-does-not-find-california-wines-undrinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-10423 1WineDude Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:56:09 +0000 http://www.steveheimoff.com/?p=3284#comment-10423 I more-or-less worship Johnson's writing. But, if he thinks that Bord'x is the only spot making wine worth aging (hello... Mosel Riesling...), then he's smokin' some crack. I more-or-less worship Johnson’s writing.

But, if he thinks that Bord’x is the only spot making wine worth aging (hello… Mosel Riesling…), then he’s smokin’ some crack.

]]>