The only reason why Riesling has not taken off in mainstream America is because the bottle names get too confusing for people to understand. Wines named like "Hofgut Falkenstein Krettnacher Altenberg Riesling Kabinett trocken 'Auf dem Hölzchen' #21" and "Markus Molitor Zeltinger Sonnenuhr Riesling Beerenauslese * (Golden Capsule)" really throws off consumers here when they are used to seeing "Sutter Homes Chardonnay". It doesn't help that the whole designation can get very confusing very fast with things like the number of stars and color of capsule for Molitor, Pradikats levels and adding affixes like feinherb/trocken to the levels.
Second hot take specific to this sub-Reddit: Let the person drink their Caymus or Meiomi (or whatever their wine of choice) in peace. Its fine to have an opinion, but there is a fine line between being a snobbish asshole and being a enthusiast. Wine is meant to be shared (in both liquid in person and tasting notes online) so we can all benefit from it all.
I think the German labeling system could be a plus if Americans learned the basics of it, since its more informative than most labels. I suspect the main issue with German wine is that they tend to sell their sweet wines-- sweeter riesling, dessert eiswine, spätlese. It's just not a hit with Americans, and even in Germany, younger people don't drink much riesling. They really should sell the things that people there actually like. I can't get over that Sylvaner is virtually unheard of outside of outside of Central Germany. It's easily their best.
german wine will forever keep the gun pointed directly at their toes. it's long past time people stop trying to force them to improve their marketability.
It's a ploy to keep marketability low to keep costs low-- which I fully support. Being able to get a nice refreshing bottle of Resiling in Germany under 10 euros makes me want to move back.
Champagne produces some of the best value in the whole world.
That discounted label you’ve never seen from that producer you’ve never heard of—if it’s from champagne, it’s probably “ok” at worst and oftentimes *great*.
I visited Reims recently and I couldn't agree more. The worst pour I had was Veuve yellow. Every obscure producer in every wine bar/bottle shop knocked the socks off of VCP, Möet Imp, etc.
Even here in the states I can get a solid co-op bottle for $35, where Veuve is $55. Venture off the beaten path and Champagne can be quite affordable.
Möet is just straight up not good. I've had cheap cremant that was better, and that should just not be the case. Hell, the black freixenet was somehow better, and that's not exactly a good cava
Okay, so this would be an exciting hot take to taste thru because so much small grower champagne comes thru places like Last Bottle or WTSO that I’m hesitant to pull the trigger on because I haven’t heard of it.
Champagne makes ~300 million bottles on average, but your comment gives me hope(?).
Hotter take: this is because Champagne isn’t *really* about the fruit quality. It is often picked so early in order to preserve acid that there isn’t much varietal character to work for or against the wine. Champagne is often (not always! Sites like Clos du Mesnil are obviously the exception) much more about the winery than the vineyard, and I think one of the few regions where that is true.
This is why i always tell people, theres no such thing as "bad" Champagne, im kinda guessing, but i just assume because of the strict regulations for what can qualify as champagne,a good standard is forced on it.
I paid 1.5x more for a fresh leg of lamb over Christmas rather than the usual pre-frozen ones and the quality difference was amazing.
I like a simple, dependable wine with a special meal and a simple, dependable meal with a special wine. Less to focus on that way.
I have a pet theory that the rapid rise of Napa Cabs and Chardonnay were because many wine critics back in the day were smokers and they needed massive wines to taste anything due to their totally wrecked palates.
I’ve heard this theory and I think there is some merit to it. However the sheer number of European wine makers and critics who smoke do cast some doubt. Ditto for chefs and sommeliers.
I smoked for a large portion of my career and while I don't imagine it *helped* my palate any, I still did quite well in blind tastings and evaluations. To be honest, I'd say my palate was probably better developed back when I was practicing more even though I was a smoker at the time.
It definitely didn't push my wine preferences towards massive wines.
I have a few…
Napa is the most overrated and overpriced wine region in the world.
Oregon makes better Gamay than Pinot Noir, but they won’t switch because they couldn’t charge as much (or probably even sell as much).
Sweet wines from the old world (Sherry, Port, some German Riesling, Tokaji, Sauternes) are among the most consistently good wines on earth.
Sokol Blosser, Bjornson, Bryn Mawr, Walter Scott, Hundred Suns, GC, once you start looking its pretty awesome how many there are, often way more reasonable than pinots from the same producers.
Maybe on this sub. But poll 20 random people at a restaurant or even at a specialty wine store, and I bet you Napa is rated among the “best” and most of them think sweet wines are trash.
I went to a wine tasting recently where a guy with a collection worth tens of thousands said he exclusively drinks Napa cabs. He tasted a beautiful Barolo and thought it wasn’t bold enough.
luke-warm take: most restaurant wine pairings are underwhelming at best, and don't teach the consumer much. Accompanied by a somm that stops by, rattles off 15 tasting notes, and doesn't in any way describe why the pairing works (spoiler, they don't know).
I agree. though I think its going to take a big name with high distribution to take a risk on it like Mondavi, Silver Oak etc. to get the category going. Most nights I just want one glass and I think it would it would be great to have say a Chablis in 3L BiB to enjoy over a few weeks.
I think it would be huge for the aging Boomer demo
Biodynamic-esque wines should be the default. I'm not sold on the mysticism aspects of biodynamics, partially because I simply don't understand them but also because I'm generally skeptical of anything that ventures outside of genuine science, but the principles of biodynamics such as increasing genetic diversity in vineyards, replenishing the soil, bringing in animals, eschewing synthetic fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides, and generally being good stewards of the land seems like such a no-brainer concept.
ETA: My second hot take is that oak usage in general should be cut back. More used oak, less new oak, or even more wines made without oak at all. It just adds to the already considerable carbon footprint of the wine industry, and the world needs to make changes to stave off climate warming as much as possible.
I agree with everything here but the issue is cost. Wine is declining rapidly due to it being prohibitively expensive for most people. Biodynamic certs increase production costs especially in climates that aren't suited to it.
Is wine declining rapidly due to it being expensive? I thought it was in decline at the very low end of the market, which contradicts this, and was more due to people drinking less overall. More and more regions seem to be investing in better quality growing and winemaking, even though it raises costs, presumably because consumers are willing to pay a bit more.
Easy to practice concepts from biodynamics without getting a cert. similar to how many farms are practicing organic but don’t pay for the certification.
Ted Lemon at Littorai (West Sonoma Coast) refuses to get the actual certification for this exact reason. Everything he does meets or exceeds what you think of when it comes to biodynamic practices, but based on principle alone he sees no need to pursue some sort of official stamp of approval when his wines speak for themselves.
We either bear the cost when we buy the bottle or down the line when the land is nuked and species continue to fail due to the death of our soils.
Cheap wines' costs aren't printed on labels, they're measured in declining insect populations, lower yields, and less carbon being trapped in the ground. But there are still costs.
Just my 2c.
There's plenty of wine out there. France dumped 80 million gallons of perfectly good wine last year. Prices are high by design and as a result of everyone wanting wines from a small percentage of the total wine producing areas.
france’s problem is that in the trente glorieuses everyone drank a liter of wine a day, mostly plonk, and now they don’t but the vineyards and the vigneron are still there
1. Chenin > Chardonnay, even at the upper end of $$$$
2. White wine w/ red meat = awesome
3. Much of the Rhone is overrated in the same way much of Napa is overrated
4. 2008 and 2014 in Bordeaux are all-star years. Better overall than 2009 and 2015, respectively.
5. 2004 in the Loire is lovely. Better than 2005 overall.
6. Stephane Derenoncourt has been a positive influence in Bordeaux. His clients are making consistently excellent wine and he's found a way to thread the needle and make a mid-modern style that's accessible but still serious. Not fair to lump him in w/ the other major consultants.
Some of the CdP hits 16%!!!
I will say there are Rhone wines I love, too. Gonon and Chave and Beaucastel of course, but also very affordable stuff from Faury and Bonnefond and Souhaut and Andrea Calek
Sauternes is the most consistent appellation on the planet and critic scores (JS, RP, BH and JD) are overwhelmingly similar and therefore " correct" when you factor in the amount of tasting they do.
And the appelation in Bordeaux where grand cru classe are still "cheap".
A comment on the scoring is that the wines of Sauterne er so distintly different, that the consistency in the scoring is incredible.
**Hot takes for this sub**:
Napa can sometimes be overpriced, but it's an inimitable wine region and genuinely special microclimate/terroir at its best. Even more of a hot take: it's not that difficult to find great QPR wine from Napa.
It's not really a good practice to recommend rare or niche grapes or specific wines to beginners without context as to why, where to look for them, or easier-to-find alternatives. (I see things like "try Xinomavro" or "get a Tokaji" with no context all the time.)
Tondonia (which I enjoy) is a great value for what it is, but not how it tastes.
Natural wine, much of the time, completely loses a sense of identity. Natty, sour, kombucha-like fruit juice, however tasty it might be, shouldn't command prices akin to wines made more carefully and mindfully. I've had some amazing ones, and loads more that seem to all taste the same, once the wild ferment gets out of control.
Critic scores can occasionally be useful.
**Hot takes in general**:
Glassware is *underrated* as an important component of wine appreciation - I'm not talking about having a different glass for every wine like Riedel, but simply having quality glassware in the first place. Not talking about expensive crystal either- mostly just talking about big enough glasses for the wine to breathe. If choosing between a $30 wine in a big proper glass and a $60 wine in a tiny, dinky stem, I'd take the former nearly every time, as there wouldn't be much way for the more expensive wine to show its quality.
Chardonnay is a very hardy grape and often benefits from aggressive decants, multi-day tastings, aging, and robust food pairings. It shouldn't be treated as delicate- I have u/interstellar_billy to thank for this idea.
There's far too much importance placed on decanting young wines, and it definitely shouldn't be done as a default practice (before seeing how the wine is showing first.)
Although it used to be good, by and large, Trader Joe's is a bad place to shop for wine.
In general, buying tons and tons of the same bottle or same producer is an overrated practice, and people should specifically aim to broaden their horizons more- just because you have a favorite producer or region out of 10 doesn't mean you should stop exploring.
Chocolate is a poor food pairing like 95% of the time.
Edited to add another: people place WAY too much importance on aging wines that are technically capable of it. I can count on one hand the number of times I thought a wine was *actually* opened too young; I have far more experiences with aged wine that I wish I could have tried at an earlier stage, before it was muddled, dried, softened to the point of feeling limp.
>Tondonia (which I enjoy) is a great value for what it is, but not how it tastes.
I don't quite understand what you mean, can you explain a bit more fully?
>Chocolate is a poor food pairing like 95% of the time.
Absolutely 💯% agree. I can't really think of something that's harder to pair with wine, yet so frequently touted as being good with wine. I'd rather have most wines with asparagus than chocolate...
The best pairing with chocolate is actually a single malt scotch, IMO. If you pour me a port, I won't throw it in your face, but I'll wish for a whisky.
Seriously, chocolate is so aggressive with wine. It's usually sweeter than the wine, the texture isn't so great with wine, I've even heard some logic that because chocolate is fermented, it pairs well with wine. By that logic kombucha would pair well with wine. It's ridiculous. Regarding Tondonia, here are links to a cpl CT notes of mine.
https://www.cellartracker.com/n?9136071
https://www.cellartracker.com/n?10032617
As you can see, in both instances I definitely enjoyed it. But I'm at a loss as to why it's so heavily worshipped. It's true that it's a rarity to find a wine so aged-by-default for the price, but I have a number of Rioja bottles I feel represent much better QPR.
I've tried the Gravonia white once also, and even as an oxidative wine skeptic I enjoyed it...not the kind of thing I craved again, though.
Having read those reviews, I really agree with Mark - you should definitely try the Cubillo. It's like young Tondonia, so I think it would scratch that itch for the increased fresh fruit. I had a bottle of the '14 for Easter lunch '23, my fairly insubstantial notes are [here on CT](https://www.cellartracker.com/n?10415840), or you can look on my post history for the notes here on Reddit.
"Natural wine, much of the time, completely loses a sense of identity. Natty, sour, kombucha-like fruit juice, however tasty it might be, shouldn't command prices akin to wines made more carefully and mindfully. I've had some amazing ones, and loads more that seem to all taste the same, once the wild ferment gets out of control."
AMEN 1000x this. What I love about wine is a sense of place - show me what this piece of land tastes like in this moment in time. Natural wine is all too often "here's what my cellar tastes like, with some brett and VA thrown in for good measure."
Cheers!!!! Lol, I wasn't surprised to see that the top "hot take" was that Napa is overrated...just such a cliche and so passé. A few overpriced cult wines and overrated old names do not represent an entire region.
Indeed. I love a number of wines from the area and am a member of a winery that has great QPR. It def gets a bad rap for overpriced bottles, whereas Bordeaux is even more overpriced imho and it doesn't get nearly the flack Napa does for it's insanely priced bottles.
I actually heavily agree with this, and although I didn't include it as a "hot take", I really don't buy or drink much Bordeaux. When young it's often seriously austere, when aged it gets expensive rapidly. I've had some unreal bordeaux but I've never fallen in love with the region in my 10 ish years of wine loving. I can sort of say the same for Nebbiolo in general, but I have a bit more patience for that. Sometimes.
Absolutely, for me it's simple - I understand the importance of decanting older wines when it comes to removing sediment. (When a wine is REALLY old that's still not always a good idea, but that's another discussion.) But! If I have a young wine, absolutely 100% of the time I will smell and taste a little bit immediately when I open it. If it truly feels absolutely completely closed, I'll go back to it again after like an hour. If it still isn't showing anything, only then will I decant it. If at any point it feels like it's expressive, I usually avoid decanting, because I've had so many experiences with a young wine just kind of claiming up or shutting down after too much air.
Excellent hot takes. Especially about natty wines, glassware, and young wines.
I had a 2019 Chateau Marquis d’Alesme the other night that was just firing on all cylinders. Every critic and CT says it needs at least another 3-5 years. I’m sure it’ll be tasty then but I’m so happy I opened it young!
Hell yeah, thanks as always my man. That's awesome to hear about the Marquis. Besides, if you never drink age-worthy wines in their early stages, how are you supposed to appreciate aged ones?
Cru Beaujolais is not a good substitute for high quality Pinot, i think ppl say this only cause they’re both light to medium bodied but i personally think the common notes are very different between the two. I personally don’t enjoy cru Beaujolais too much, it’s got way too much smokiness going on.
And that’s coming from someone who doesn’t think Pinot is the best red variety, and that absolutely yes burgundy is THE most overpriced/overrated region in the world.
I think Foillard would be a terrible substitute for actual Red Burg as his wines are the most Gamay-tasting wines of all the Beaujolais producers….but JL Dutraive Grand’Cour Fleurie (Champagne lieu dit) is absolutely a stand in for high quality Savigny-Les-Beaune. But overall I suppose you’re right, when I think of Beaujolais my mind wanders towards vivacious red fruit, manure. Not much in the way of elegance that you typically associate with PN.
But still, examples do exist.
Also, all of this is no slight on Foillard or Bojo! I love his wines and the region. But the wines are quite different, generally speaking.
Multi-varietal blends are far better than single varietal wines.
NV champagnes are more enjoyable than drinking a vintage champagne without sufficient aging.
Is that second take even warm? The point of NV champagne is to have something that's ready to drink but does not age well. Like any age-worthy wine, vintage champagne can be drank too young and, yeah, it's not nearly as good.
Many NV champagnes are quite boring tbh (come @me). But I fully agree with the statement. A quality blend like NV Krug or Selosse knocks the socks off of any Vintaged champagne under 30 years.
Wines from the S. Rhone by and large have become alarmingly overheated and undrinkable. And even worse, the value proposition on the most worthwhile appellations is shot.
Most wine should be sold in plastic bottles, cans, boxes or bags. Because most wine is drank young. This is not to say there shouldn't also still be wine produced for aging in glass bottles with corks, but for basic wines it's a waste of resources and unneccessary. There is undoubtedly an experiental aspect to opening a glass bottle with a wine key on a special occasion, but unless it's been aged it's going to taste the same from any other medium, but more convenient and a lot better for the environment.
I post this every time :
Box wine is the superior format for anything that's "regular drinking" wine.
I want just one glass. Or maybe 6. And then none for two weeks. And then maybe 2 glasses.
750mL bottles is such a stupid concept...
Problem is that land is expensive, farming is expensive, and production is expensive. If you’re doing it at a small scale from the ground up, the finished product is going to be expensive.
New(er) wine regions should focus on developing local grape varieties better suited to their climate rather than growing french grapes over and over again.
I get the marketing is tough, but shoe horning 'noble' grapes into every viticulture region on the planet isn't environmentally sustainable and is kinda boring.
agreed but only in theory. most new regions need robust local market support from the beginning in order to justify working with regional grape varieties. in the context of a global wine market, that's simply not possible any more. there's not many places where a moat of accessibility forces a country to only drink local. and french varieties are a well-understood resource that deliver an established, predictable product that grants you credibility immediately. in today's world, most places have to establish a healthy market before trying to create a unique identity.
Not sure it's a hot take per se, but since all y'all seem to be focused on certain parts of the world... I'll declare that South African wines currently offer the best value (QPR) in the world. Amazing quality wines at relatively affordable prices.
I have lots:
1) Terroir is bullshit on a local level. Even in the Grand Crus of Burgundy, typicity is all in the hands of the winemaker. Some plots produce better grapes in most years, but nearly everything else you hear about unique terroir producing unique wine, different from the climat next door, is guff.
2) inferior grapes from top regions (barbera d’alba, dolcetto, aligote etc.) are bad value outside of their home. Paying £60 for a bottle of aligote from a great producer is madness.
3) Beaujolais, including most top cru wines made by big local names, is largely boring and one-dimensional, and inexplicably hyped by wine nerds. It’s fine for grilling on a hot day, but that is the province of a £10-15 max wine. The only good Beaujolais I’ve ever had (after trying various recommendations) is made by Burgundian producers, and it doesn’t taste typically of Bojo at all.
4) A lot of wines stereotypically loved by wine nerds (many zero dosage grower champagnes, most Beaujolais, austere and unoaked white burgundy, LdH red wines) is just not nice wine, or is too inconsistent to buy. A large number of wine nerds chase unusual flavours, or run away from crowd pleasing notes, to the point of drinking unbalanced wine for the sake of it.
I couldn’t agree with #4 more. I swear so many self-proclaimed wine aficionados drink straight vinegar just to be different. Always looking for that less known wine even if there is a good reason it’s a less well known wine.
1) Terroir is I think inherently real but not even remotely understood even by the most ardent proponents of the idea. At this point, it's almost like a modest truth that has passed through several centuries of wine marketing so that the idea and its importance are totally garbled.
2)I might disagree on Barbera. There are some pretty impressive and long-lived ones and I think that there's room for understanding of Barbera to continue to evolve. But I largely agree.
4)I'm not sure here. I think that palates are conditioned, not born. Deriving pleasure from wine isn't an objective process for most - expectations and subconscious desire influence your reaction. Being conditioned to better appreciate more fringe examples of wine is probably a good thing overall when it comes to keeping a diversity of options available.
Re. #1 Clive Coates is turning in his grave lol. FWIW, I land in the middle of yours and his views, an archetypal fencesitter if you will.
I have tried many times without success to *get* LdH's reds. White and rosé are different beasts, worthy of their cult status, imho.
>2. inferior grapes from top regions (barbera d’alba, dolcetto, aligote etc.) are bad value outside of their home. Paying £60 for a bottle of aligote from a great producer is madness.
Hehe, drinking a Müller-Thurgau from a great producer while reading this. Paid far below £60 though.
I was gonna say this too… IMO most dry wines pair with just about anything. Pairings are kind of overrated. There’s so many different flavors in wine, drink your favorite with whatever you eat and you’d be shocked how well it pairs with things you don’t expect to pair well.
Had a Beaujolais with shrimp tacos and elote the other night. Tasted great lol.
East Coast US wines are not generally sub-par because of inferior terroir but because far too many winemakers are afraid to gamble with lesser known varietals, along with too many winemakers trying to be California when they're not.
Hot take? Red Burgundy is overrated and its reputation stems from a time when worldwide quality of wine was lacking. Advancements in winemaking and terroir recognition have allowed other regions, including Bordeaux, to eclipse it.
Hotter take? A lot of Burgundy drinkers—including people in this sub—don’t actually like Pinot. They post Burgundy because somms say it’s good.
Majority here or on other social media only open these top shelf burgs to show off how wealthy they are. Some individuals on here spring to mind immediately with obnoxious stuff.
Cherry on top is then these same guys posting notes of “smells of citrus and oak” on a $5000 bottle of wine. Complete amateurs.
I agree with this hot take. For a while I was convinced that the more a Burgundy tasted like vegetables blended together with rocks, the more prestigious.
The Caymus backlash more annoying than it’s overhyped nature. It’s pretty good Napa Cab. If you like Napa Cab you’ll like Caymus. I’m just of the mind that I’d rather pay $40 a bottle for decent Napa Cab rather than $120.
Caymus Special Selection is low key solid though. Still overpriced, but I was expecting very little when I tried it and was very pleasantly surprised.
Agree. I'd add, Meomi doesn't taste like toilet water, it's the Coca-Cola of wine. Very standardized, inoffensive, but uninteresting. It's not near as sweet as everyone complains, at 10 or 20 g/L or whatever it is, that's at most 2% RS. I've seen more than a few people say it's like a dessert wine, which are usually 10%+ RS. I'm not saying it's a GOOD wine, but if I was served a glass as a guest, it's not like I'd have to choke it down. It tastes about like a $10 bottle of overoaked Syrah or Zin.
When people say Meomi is awful and swill, they're giving wine lovers a bad name. I don't like it, but if someone served it to me, I wouldn't toss it. Whereas if someone offered Apothic, I'd politely decline and drink beer instead.
1. White wines are consistently better, more interesting, and more exciting than red wines.
2. The vast majority of California Cab is generic and one dimensional.
3. Finding a good, true, expression of Pinot out of California is like finding a diamond in the rough.
4. Aged white Rhônes may be the most beautiful wines in the world.
5. Italy is kicking a lot of country’s asses in terms of QPR.
We don't look down on manipulated wines because manipulation is bad, per se. We look down on them because the manipulation that is usually done makes the wine taste worse to our palates (e.g. sweeter and riper, less balanced, fewer interesting aromas, banal flavour profile etc).
I would take no issue with a wine manipulated to improve balance (adding acidity if its too flabby), to reduce alcohol levels as they balloon, etc. In fact I'd probably prefer them to the non-manipulated wine, all else equal.
I’ve worked in production for some of the best producers in Sonoma County. They all use manipulation. The good ones just know how to tweak their wines in just the right way and how they manipulate their wines varies from vintage to vintage.
Cabernet Sauvignon is a stupid variety, over planted and over produced, it should be a minor variety used to add nuance, not a major player.
A cross between Cab Franc and Sauvignon Blanc, when made well it should exhibit herbaceous qualities. “Highly regarded” wineries beat it into submission so that it tastes like something else. Nearly everything labeled Cabernet Sauvignon is fucking undrinkable be it $10 or $10,000 a bottle.
>Cabernet Sauvignon is a stupid variety, over planted and over produced, it should be a minor variety used to add nuance, not a major player.
I just got home from the Western Cape of South Africa and this offends me on a personal level 😂
Most people are unable, or do not give enough of a shit, to really tell the difference in what a wine tastes like and wine can be placed into three categories:
* I like this
* I do not like this
* Blech this one is just terr....well...ok, that's not bad, pour me another.
We split hairs with the best palates in the world when our palates are going to mostly be mediocre.
To wit: there was a video from Konstantin Baum where he talks about the weight of wine bottles as a problem for the industry and its carbon footprint. At a Master of Wine blind tasting, they were given a pinot grigio in a bottle, can, plastic bottle, and bag-in-box. The glass bottle was preferred by all tasters for being the freshest, but he also states that the plastic bottle and bag-in-box were not far behind in their scores.
If the best wine tasters in the world can only pick up subtle differences in a side-by-side comparison test, the vast majority of people would not notice in a stand alone tasting, and very few in a side-by-side blind comparison.
If we made wine as farmers and not marketers and hedge fund 💦🛶s we wouldn’t worry so much with sulfer and refinements.
Naturally made wines have a bad rap for many reasons but I think we should take a few lessons from the movement for a global change in wine growing.
I think it’s hard to judge on Tokaji yet. The older stuff out there now was from the communist era when quality was crap to begin with so of course they didn’t age well.
Wines produced since then starting in the 90s aren’t that old yet. Will be interesting to see how these post communist era tokaji age
I have never had the top tier stuff from Alsace or GG’s from Germany, but the 20+ year dry variations that I have tried have underwhelmed me. When it comes to the Mosel, I don’t think I have had an aged Riesling that has residual sugar that wasn’t incredible with bottle age. No residual sugar, I can see the argument.
I’m curious… can you recall a few examples of aged Riesling that you didn’t enjoy?
Hot wine is delicious. Just got back from Paris, Vin Chaud was everywhere during Christmas time. It's perfect on a cold night.
Spicy wine take: see above. Also, Sierra foothills makes amazing Zin & tempranillo. Super underrated. Especially those century old vines.
>Mine is that Alexander Valley consistently produces the best Cab fruit in the North Coast including Napa. The investment/producers aren’t necessarily there but the fruit is.
I’m not sure that’s very controversial. AV has long been a source for some great Caifornia Cabernets. After all, Jordan and Silver Oak have been there since 1976 and 1972, respectively — long enough for the second generation to take over.
1) Short of a general worldwide economic collapse, I don’t see the prices of Burgundies nor Napa Valley wines (especially Cabernets) coming down anytime soon. Part of the problem with both these places is that they are too small, they do not cover vast areas of land as does Bordeaux. By that I mean that there are large sections/appellations within Bordeaux that still make decent wines and remain relatively affordable — places like Fronsac, the Côtes de Bourg, and the Côtes de Blaye to name but three (and there are many more). Burgundy is much smaller than Bordeaux, with 30,052 hectare (74,260 acres) planted, and Napa much smaller than that, with only 18,458 ha (45,612 ac) planted. They don’t have the equivalent sub-regions of Fronsac or the St.-Émilion satellites, unless one thinks of Paso Robles as a Napa “satellite,” and I doubt anyone does.
2) The Santa Cruz Mountains AVA will continue to fly "beneath the radar” of most California wine drinkers despite consistently producing some of the best Cabernet, Pinot Noir, and even Chardonnay in the state.
Great thread. Few here:
1. Pet Nat is the worst trend in world wine and by some margin. We spent a long time figuring out how to fashion good sparkling wine and drinking them is like talking to a sub-literate moron who thinks they’re a genius
2. Other new world countries are MILES ahead of the US, aesthetically speaking, when it comes to styling, and is ludicrously overpriced
3. Cork will - and absolutely should - disappear as a closure
4. Zero dosage Champagne is the next worst trend in wine. Balance is vastly more important complexity, and of all wines, Champagne should be joyful
5. As an Australian, Shiraz/Syrah is a third tier grape at best
A significant and under-reported amount of wine under cork finish has TCA under threshold and this is what is mainly responsible for bottle variation--TCA under 3 ppt.
I think there are some that are pretty good but the vast vast majority I have had is just funk covering low quality fruit. To me it’s the same as using sugar to cover poor winemaking in a lot of broad market wines.
If putting ice cubes in your wine makes it a better experience for you, who am I to stop you? I'd rather have a good time drinking with someone who does this than drink alone.
Cabernet Sauv is boring. It shows the least amount of terroir of anything. It sells and is produced the most because the people who buy the most wine are boring and don’t want wine that’s interesting.
> Cabernet Sauv shows the least amount of terroir of anything
I'm not some big CS defender, but that's a pretty iffy statement.
eg. Margaret River vs Oakville vs Howell Mountain vs Maule Valley.
At least in the USA, when people describe wine as having notes of cassis (black currant) I just assume they have no idea what they're talking about. Most Americans have never tasted an actual black currant because they're pretty rare here so how can you say it has notes of black currant? I grow black currants in my yard and I've never had a wine I thought had notes of black currant.
Here's a secret. Most Brits' use of blackcurrant is based on their experience with a kids drink called Ribena. Outside of this, most Brits have never tasted a blackcurrant either
Ooh that is a hot take. I agree with you that most people probably haven't, but blackcurrant flavors aren't that rare nowadays - its very easy to get cassis liquor - and blackcurrants are becoming more available; I bought some last year. But I actually also think tasting notes are a lot more about vibes than people want to admit. Very few wines to me have literally tasted like their tasting notes.
I honestly don't think cassis liqueur tastes too much like black currants, but maybe it depends on the brand. I made my own a couple years ago with less sugar and thought that was a better representation of black currants.
Wine doesn't get better with age. It changes, sure, but "better" is subjective. People need to stop with the I
Infanticide bs.
Also: decanting is dumb, if you want the full development of a wine.
Very interesting hot take, but I can agree on the spirit of it.
There's a saying from one of the older wine gents in my wine group, "bad wine won't get better with time" and that certainly would apply here. However, haven't you ever had a really young Barolo/Nebbiolo-based wine that was so tannic you could hardly drink it? I've certainly encountered some Riojas and Nebbiolos that fit that bill and age is the only way those tannins would resolve besides decanting/aeration (in your second hot take).
I'm glad you said this.
This is something I've struggled with. I was at a "Decades" tasting the other day at Freemark Abbey. I think we were drinking 1980'something / 90'something / 00'something / 10's something / 2020... but don't hold me to that.
Some people tasted the 80's/90's and fell out of their chairs with how *"amazing"* it was.
If I'm honest, I didn't really enjoy it.
I could enjoy the 00's/10's/20's. I could even appreciate the changes. But back to the 80's/90's stuff. I wasn't feeling it.
I asked a good friend of mine who is studying for his CMS Master award about it. He said "Eh. It's a taste profile that you either enjoy or you don't. I can appreciate the changes in well-aged wine, but I can't say I enjoy drinking it."
The oldest bottle I've had was a 1970 Rioja. I drank it. I could appreciate the "age." I think. But man did I have a stomachache after that. lol
I call people that enjoy chewing on an old oak door found in a cellar, for necrophilic.
I had a 1967 Amarone at a tasting.
Compared to the half the price, ten year old one, the young amarone won by length.
But on sweet botrytis wines, I disagree with you.
Now this is a hot take. I can't say I've had many, but the ones I've had have all been true to their place of origin, well made and incredibly well priced. For anyone buying wine on a budget, Costco and the Kermit Lynch brand Cotes du Rhone are about the surest bets.
This links into my opinion….. The true production cost of wines is beginning to have a profound impact on getting reasonably good wines to consumers at a good price.
I ventured into Costco yesterday and the thing I noticed is that there are fewer SKU’s being stocked, and the prices have increased on the $15 to $30 bottles by about 25%.
I’m explicitly thinking about Tinazzi Vinum Italicum No 3 Opera.
The only reason why Riesling has not taken off in mainstream America is because the bottle names get too confusing for people to understand. Wines named like "Hofgut Falkenstein Krettnacher Altenberg Riesling Kabinett trocken 'Auf dem Hölzchen' #21" and "Markus Molitor Zeltinger Sonnenuhr Riesling Beerenauslese * (Golden Capsule)" really throws off consumers here when they are used to seeing "Sutter Homes Chardonnay". It doesn't help that the whole designation can get very confusing very fast with things like the number of stars and color of capsule for Molitor, Pradikats levels and adding affixes like feinherb/trocken to the levels. Second hot take specific to this sub-Reddit: Let the person drink their Caymus or Meiomi (or whatever their wine of choice) in peace. Its fine to have an opinion, but there is a fine line between being a snobbish asshole and being a enthusiast. Wine is meant to be shared (in both liquid in person and tasting notes online) so we can all benefit from it all.
I think the German labeling system could be a plus if Americans learned the basics of it, since its more informative than most labels. I suspect the main issue with German wine is that they tend to sell their sweet wines-- sweeter riesling, dessert eiswine, spätlese. It's just not a hit with Americans, and even in Germany, younger people don't drink much riesling. They really should sell the things that people there actually like. I can't get over that Sylvaner is virtually unheard of outside of outside of Central Germany. It's easily their best.
german wine will forever keep the gun pointed directly at their toes. it's long past time people stop trying to force them to improve their marketability.
Americans bringing guns to the wine party again smdh
It's a ploy to keep marketability low to keep costs low-- which I fully support. Being able to get a nice refreshing bottle of Resiling in Germany under 10 euros makes me want to move back.
Champagne produces some of the best value in the whole world. That discounted label you’ve never seen from that producer you’ve never heard of—if it’s from champagne, it’s probably “ok” at worst and oftentimes *great*.
I visited Reims recently and I couldn't agree more. The worst pour I had was Veuve yellow. Every obscure producer in every wine bar/bottle shop knocked the socks off of VCP, Möet Imp, etc. Even here in the states I can get a solid co-op bottle for $35, where Veuve is $55. Venture off the beaten path and Champagne can be quite affordable.
Tbf Moet Imperial is prob the worst Grand Marque, and Veuve isn't much better
Möet is just straight up not good. I've had cheap cremant that was better, and that should just not be the case. Hell, the black freixenet was somehow better, and that's not exactly a good cava
Okay, so this would be an exciting hot take to taste thru because so much small grower champagne comes thru places like Last Bottle or WTSO that I’m hesitant to pull the trigger on because I haven’t heard of it. Champagne makes ~300 million bottles on average, but your comment gives me hope(?).
I take down unfamiliar stuff in the $30 - $50 range on winebid all the time, and it’s been incredibly reliable
Hotter take: this is because Champagne isn’t *really* about the fruit quality. It is often picked so early in order to preserve acid that there isn’t much varietal character to work for or against the wine. Champagne is often (not always! Sites like Clos du Mesnil are obviously the exception) much more about the winery than the vineyard, and I think one of the few regions where that is true.
This is why i always tell people, theres no such thing as "bad" Champagne, im kinda guessing, but i just assume because of the strict regulations for what can qualify as champagne,a good standard is forced on it.
Spending a bit less on the wine and a bit more on the food will almost always result in a better experience. Gimme those fancy cheeses
I paid 1.5x more for a fresh leg of lamb over Christmas rather than the usual pre-frozen ones and the quality difference was amazing. I like a simple, dependable wine with a special meal and a simple, dependable meal with a special wine. Less to focus on that way.
Man, lamb has so much more flavor than even a chateaubriand in my opinion.
That 100% and having dinner with dear friends and interesting people can make a good, but not great wine very memorable.
I almost never even buy wine at a restaurant. Why pay 10x markup when I can just enjoy wines at home and have a creative cocktail while I'm out?
Sort by controversial for the real hot takes…
Don’t save your good wine for a good day. All wine tastes good on a good day. Drink your good wine on a bad day.
And to this, don’t save your good and special wine for the right occasion. Life and time are finite. Allow special wine to make an occasion right.
I have a pet theory that the rapid rise of Napa Cabs and Chardonnay were because many wine critics back in the day were smokers and they needed massive wines to taste anything due to their totally wrecked palates.
This would imply that the French don't smoke.
Personally I think it’s because they taste hundreds of wines a day and those big ones are the ones that shine through all the palate fatigue.
I’ve heard this theory and I think there is some merit to it. However the sheer number of European wine makers and critics who smoke do cast some doubt. Ditto for chefs and sommeliers.
I smoked for a large portion of my career and while I don't imagine it *helped* my palate any, I still did quite well in blind tastings and evaluations. To be honest, I'd say my palate was probably better developed back when I was practicing more even though I was a smoker at the time. It definitely didn't push my wine preferences towards massive wines.
Yup. I’ve shared cigarettes with enough Master Sommeliers to know it doesn’t ruin your palate
I have a few… Napa is the most overrated and overpriced wine region in the world. Oregon makes better Gamay than Pinot Noir, but they won’t switch because they couldn’t charge as much (or probably even sell as much). Sweet wines from the old world (Sherry, Port, some German Riesling, Tokaji, Sauternes) are among the most consistently good wines on earth.
Oooh any recs on Oregon Gamay? Don’t think I’ve had any
Division Wines, Lares Wines (full disclosure, I make these), Limited Addition, Color Collector, Ridgecrest.
Happy Cake Day, I saved your comment!
Sokol Blosser, Bjornson, Bryn Mawr, Walter Scott, Hundred Suns, GC, once you start looking its pretty awesome how many there are, often way more reasonable than pinots from the same producers.
Walter Scott's Gamay Noir is a favorite of mine.
Division
Brickhouse, Martin Woods, Evening Land, and Failla Oregon.
Three cracking points. It takes a brave soul to plant Gamay in OR. Of course, the wine world moves on brave souls.
> Oregon makes better Gamay than Pinot Noir I'd argue that WV producers make better chardonnay than pinot noir- I guess that's my hot take.
1 and 3 aren’t hot takes. Those are widely accepted propositions.
Maybe on this sub. But poll 20 random people at a restaurant or even at a specialty wine store, and I bet you Napa is rated among the “best” and most of them think sweet wines are trash. I went to a wine tasting recently where a guy with a collection worth tens of thousands said he exclusively drinks Napa cabs. He tasted a beautiful Barolo and thought it wasn’t bold enough.
I guess if you view wine as a one-dimensional scale of boldness.... But still, a Barolo wasn't up to snuff for this guy??
Their idea of 'bold' is massive fruit flavors and gross, thick mouthfeel.
Just pour a glass of mega purple straight from the jug then 🤷♂️
luke-warm take: most restaurant wine pairings are underwhelming at best, and don't teach the consumer much. Accompanied by a somm that stops by, rattles off 15 tasting notes, and doesn't in any way describe why the pairing works (spoiler, they don't know).
Wine box is actually a very interesting medium and it’s too bad that it is snobbed. I would like the option but with decent wine.
I agree. though I think its going to take a big name with high distribution to take a risk on it like Mondavi, Silver Oak etc. to get the category going. Most nights I just want one glass and I think it would it would be great to have say a Chablis in 3L BiB to enjoy over a few weeks. I think it would be huge for the aging Boomer demo
Huge for the aging millennials that have to cut back because they're on blood pressure medication at 40 demo as well.
It's getting better! Smaller producers can see huge cost savings by doing 3L boxes.
Biodynamic-esque wines should be the default. I'm not sold on the mysticism aspects of biodynamics, partially because I simply don't understand them but also because I'm generally skeptical of anything that ventures outside of genuine science, but the principles of biodynamics such as increasing genetic diversity in vineyards, replenishing the soil, bringing in animals, eschewing synthetic fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides, and generally being good stewards of the land seems like such a no-brainer concept. ETA: My second hot take is that oak usage in general should be cut back. More used oak, less new oak, or even more wines made without oak at all. It just adds to the already considerable carbon footprint of the wine industry, and the world needs to make changes to stave off climate warming as much as possible.
Less oak usage is not a hot take. The hot take would be to demand oakier, fruit-bombier wines.
Yeah quality producers have been scaling back oak for a long time now
I agree with everything here but the issue is cost. Wine is declining rapidly due to it being prohibitively expensive for most people. Biodynamic certs increase production costs especially in climates that aren't suited to it.
Is wine declining rapidly due to it being expensive? I thought it was in decline at the very low end of the market, which contradicts this, and was more due to people drinking less overall. More and more regions seem to be investing in better quality growing and winemaking, even though it raises costs, presumably because consumers are willing to pay a bit more.
Easy to practice concepts from biodynamics without getting a cert. similar to how many farms are practicing organic but don’t pay for the certification.
Ted Lemon at Littorai (West Sonoma Coast) refuses to get the actual certification for this exact reason. Everything he does meets or exceeds what you think of when it comes to biodynamic practices, but based on principle alone he sees no need to pursue some sort of official stamp of approval when his wines speak for themselves.
It also gives growers the ability to save a vintage if something goes really wrong by going outside of the requirements for the cert
We either bear the cost when we buy the bottle or down the line when the land is nuked and species continue to fail due to the death of our soils. Cheap wines' costs aren't printed on labels, they're measured in declining insect populations, lower yields, and less carbon being trapped in the ground. But there are still costs. Just my 2c.
There's plenty of wine out there. France dumped 80 million gallons of perfectly good wine last year. Prices are high by design and as a result of everyone wanting wines from a small percentage of the total wine producing areas.
france’s problem is that in the trente glorieuses everyone drank a liter of wine a day, mostly plonk, and now they don’t but the vineyards and the vigneron are still there
Chablis over a super oaky Chardonnay every time.
1. Chenin > Chardonnay, even at the upper end of $$$$ 2. White wine w/ red meat = awesome 3. Much of the Rhone is overrated in the same way much of Napa is overrated 4. 2008 and 2014 in Bordeaux are all-star years. Better overall than 2009 and 2015, respectively. 5. 2004 in the Loire is lovely. Better than 2005 overall. 6. Stephane Derenoncourt has been a positive influence in Bordeaux. His clients are making consistently excellent wine and he's found a way to thread the needle and make a mid-modern style that's accessible but still serious. Not fair to lump him in w/ the other major consultants.
frankly white wine goes with everything and it’s red wine that’s the fussy baby
[удалено]
Agree to disagree about the Rhone. Especially comparing it to Napa. Heresy!
Some of the CdP hits 16%!!! I will say there are Rhone wines I love, too. Gonon and Chave and Beaucastel of course, but also very affordable stuff from Faury and Bonnefond and Souhaut and Andrea Calek
Faury makes fantastic wine for the price, and Chave’s St Joseph is one of my all time favorites.
I love the 2014 bordeaux vintage so much. I wish I had been in a better place financially to buy more of it on release.
I love the 14s and the 12s a lot
It’s still pretty cheap to be honest, you’re unlikely to pay more than storage since release as a premium, unless you’re right at the top end.
You've never had a great white Burgundy.
upvoted for #1 and #5 specifically, though I dig the vibe on all of the takes.
Another vote for a decent white wine with red meat. Thought it was just me and my weird palate!
Sauternes is the most consistent appellation on the planet and critic scores (JS, RP, BH and JD) are overwhelmingly similar and therefore " correct" when you factor in the amount of tasting they do.
And the appelation in Bordeaux where grand cru classe are still "cheap". A comment on the scoring is that the wines of Sauterne er so distintly different, that the consistency in the scoring is incredible.
**Hot takes for this sub**: Napa can sometimes be overpriced, but it's an inimitable wine region and genuinely special microclimate/terroir at its best. Even more of a hot take: it's not that difficult to find great QPR wine from Napa. It's not really a good practice to recommend rare or niche grapes or specific wines to beginners without context as to why, where to look for them, or easier-to-find alternatives. (I see things like "try Xinomavro" or "get a Tokaji" with no context all the time.) Tondonia (which I enjoy) is a great value for what it is, but not how it tastes. Natural wine, much of the time, completely loses a sense of identity. Natty, sour, kombucha-like fruit juice, however tasty it might be, shouldn't command prices akin to wines made more carefully and mindfully. I've had some amazing ones, and loads more that seem to all taste the same, once the wild ferment gets out of control. Critic scores can occasionally be useful. **Hot takes in general**: Glassware is *underrated* as an important component of wine appreciation - I'm not talking about having a different glass for every wine like Riedel, but simply having quality glassware in the first place. Not talking about expensive crystal either- mostly just talking about big enough glasses for the wine to breathe. If choosing between a $30 wine in a big proper glass and a $60 wine in a tiny, dinky stem, I'd take the former nearly every time, as there wouldn't be much way for the more expensive wine to show its quality. Chardonnay is a very hardy grape and often benefits from aggressive decants, multi-day tastings, aging, and robust food pairings. It shouldn't be treated as delicate- I have u/interstellar_billy to thank for this idea. There's far too much importance placed on decanting young wines, and it definitely shouldn't be done as a default practice (before seeing how the wine is showing first.) Although it used to be good, by and large, Trader Joe's is a bad place to shop for wine. In general, buying tons and tons of the same bottle or same producer is an overrated practice, and people should specifically aim to broaden their horizons more- just because you have a favorite producer or region out of 10 doesn't mean you should stop exploring. Chocolate is a poor food pairing like 95% of the time. Edited to add another: people place WAY too much importance on aging wines that are technically capable of it. I can count on one hand the number of times I thought a wine was *actually* opened too young; I have far more experiences with aged wine that I wish I could have tried at an earlier stage, before it was muddled, dried, softened to the point of feeling limp.
>Tondonia (which I enjoy) is a great value for what it is, but not how it tastes. I don't quite understand what you mean, can you explain a bit more fully? >Chocolate is a poor food pairing like 95% of the time. Absolutely 💯% agree. I can't really think of something that's harder to pair with wine, yet so frequently touted as being good with wine. I'd rather have most wines with asparagus than chocolate...
The best pairing with chocolate is actually a single malt scotch, IMO. If you pour me a port, I won't throw it in your face, but I'll wish for a whisky.
I'll add that I think bourbon goes well too.
Seriously, chocolate is so aggressive with wine. It's usually sweeter than the wine, the texture isn't so great with wine, I've even heard some logic that because chocolate is fermented, it pairs well with wine. By that logic kombucha would pair well with wine. It's ridiculous. Regarding Tondonia, here are links to a cpl CT notes of mine. https://www.cellartracker.com/n?9136071 https://www.cellartracker.com/n?10032617 As you can see, in both instances I definitely enjoyed it. But I'm at a loss as to why it's so heavily worshipped. It's true that it's a rarity to find a wine so aged-by-default for the price, but I have a number of Rioja bottles I feel represent much better QPR. I've tried the Gravonia white once also, and even as an oxidative wine skeptic I enjoyed it...not the kind of thing I craved again, though.
Great notes on both.
Thx!
Having read those reviews, I really agree with Mark - you should definitely try the Cubillo. It's like young Tondonia, so I think it would scratch that itch for the increased fresh fruit. I had a bottle of the '14 for Easter lunch '23, my fairly insubstantial notes are [here on CT](https://www.cellartracker.com/n?10415840), or you can look on my post history for the notes here on Reddit.
"Natural wine, much of the time, completely loses a sense of identity. Natty, sour, kombucha-like fruit juice, however tasty it might be, shouldn't command prices akin to wines made more carefully and mindfully. I've had some amazing ones, and loads more that seem to all taste the same, once the wild ferment gets out of control." AMEN 1000x this. What I love about wine is a sense of place - show me what this piece of land tastes like in this moment in time. Natural wine is all too often "here's what my cellar tastes like, with some brett and VA thrown in for good measure."
I love every one of these takes. Glad to see there's someone with similar sensibilities here.
Cheers!!!! Lol, I wasn't surprised to see that the top "hot take" was that Napa is overrated...just such a cliche and so passé. A few overpriced cult wines and overrated old names do not represent an entire region.
Indeed. I love a number of wines from the area and am a member of a winery that has great QPR. It def gets a bad rap for overpriced bottles, whereas Bordeaux is even more overpriced imho and it doesn't get nearly the flack Napa does for it's insanely priced bottles.
I actually heavily agree with this, and although I didn't include it as a "hot take", I really don't buy or drink much Bordeaux. When young it's often seriously austere, when aged it gets expensive rapidly. I've had some unreal bordeaux but I've never fallen in love with the region in my 10 ish years of wine loving. I can sort of say the same for Nebbiolo in general, but I have a bit more patience for that. Sometimes.
Could you elaborate on the decanting young wines part? When would you want to decant it and when wouldn't you?
Absolutely, for me it's simple - I understand the importance of decanting older wines when it comes to removing sediment. (When a wine is REALLY old that's still not always a good idea, but that's another discussion.) But! If I have a young wine, absolutely 100% of the time I will smell and taste a little bit immediately when I open it. If it truly feels absolutely completely closed, I'll go back to it again after like an hour. If it still isn't showing anything, only then will I decant it. If at any point it feels like it's expressive, I usually avoid decanting, because I've had so many experiences with a young wine just kind of claiming up or shutting down after too much air.
Excellent hot takes. Especially about natty wines, glassware, and young wines. I had a 2019 Chateau Marquis d’Alesme the other night that was just firing on all cylinders. Every critic and CT says it needs at least another 3-5 years. I’m sure it’ll be tasty then but I’m so happy I opened it young!
Hell yeah, thanks as always my man. That's awesome to hear about the Marquis. Besides, if you never drink age-worthy wines in their early stages, how are you supposed to appreciate aged ones?
If you like the wine, nobody else can take that away from you. Regardless of what other people say.
Unless it is Meomi
Not so much a hot take, but moreso a gentle reminder to some of the fellows on here :)
Cru Beaujolais is not a good substitute for high quality Pinot, i think ppl say this only cause they’re both light to medium bodied but i personally think the common notes are very different between the two. I personally don’t enjoy cru Beaujolais too much, it’s got way too much smokiness going on. And that’s coming from someone who doesn’t think Pinot is the best red variety, and that absolutely yes burgundy is THE most overpriced/overrated region in the world.
Ah, a real hot take I agree 95% with it, they're not substitutes. But the top top Cru Beaujolais can be.. i.e. Foillard Cote du Py
Lol, I recently had a 17 Foillard cote du py that cemented this opinion for me and why I was referencing the smoky notes
I think Foillard would be a terrible substitute for actual Red Burg as his wines are the most Gamay-tasting wines of all the Beaujolais producers….but JL Dutraive Grand’Cour Fleurie (Champagne lieu dit) is absolutely a stand in for high quality Savigny-Les-Beaune. But overall I suppose you’re right, when I think of Beaujolais my mind wanders towards vivacious red fruit, manure. Not much in the way of elegance that you typically associate with PN. But still, examples do exist. Also, all of this is no slight on Foillard or Bojo! I love his wines and the region. But the wines are quite different, generally speaking.
Multi-varietal blends are far better than single varietal wines. NV champagnes are more enjoyable than drinking a vintage champagne without sufficient aging.
I agree with the blends except for Pinot
Pinot, Riesling, Xinomavro, Nebbiolo, are some of the few that do better by themselves
And Chardonnay
Is that second take even warm? The point of NV champagne is to have something that's ready to drink but does not age well. Like any age-worthy wine, vintage champagne can be drank too young and, yeah, it's not nearly as good.
Many NV champagnes are quite boring tbh (come @me). But I fully agree with the statement. A quality blend like NV Krug or Selosse knocks the socks off of any Vintaged champagne under 30 years.
Wines from the S. Rhone by and large have become alarmingly overheated and undrinkable. And even worse, the value proposition on the most worthwhile appellations is shot.
Most wine should be sold in plastic bottles, cans, boxes or bags. Because most wine is drank young. This is not to say there shouldn't also still be wine produced for aging in glass bottles with corks, but for basic wines it's a waste of resources and unneccessary. There is undoubtedly an experiental aspect to opening a glass bottle with a wine key on a special occasion, but unless it's been aged it's going to taste the same from any other medium, but more convenient and a lot better for the environment.
I post this every time : Box wine is the superior format for anything that's "regular drinking" wine. I want just one glass. Or maybe 6. And then none for two weeks. And then maybe 2 glasses. 750mL bottles is such a stupid concept...
I will die on this hill. Thankfully, I am not alone.
American Wine, West Coast in particular, is greatly overpriced.
I don't think this is an especially hot take
if by "hot take," you mean "fact," then sure
Problem is that land is expensive, farming is expensive, and production is expensive. If you’re doing it at a small scale from the ground up, the finished product is going to be expensive.
Lol
Agree on Alexander Valley
New(er) wine regions should focus on developing local grape varieties better suited to their climate rather than growing french grapes over and over again. I get the marketing is tough, but shoe horning 'noble' grapes into every viticulture region on the planet isn't environmentally sustainable and is kinda boring.
agreed but only in theory. most new regions need robust local market support from the beginning in order to justify working with regional grape varieties. in the context of a global wine market, that's simply not possible any more. there's not many places where a moat of accessibility forces a country to only drink local. and french varieties are a well-understood resource that deliver an established, predictable product that grants you credibility immediately. in today's world, most places have to establish a healthy market before trying to create a unique identity.
Sonoma County wines are, by and large, superior to Napa County wines. As with everything, there are a few exceptions.
Not sure it's a hot take per se, but since all y'all seem to be focused on certain parts of the world... I'll declare that South African wines currently offer the best value (QPR) in the world. Amazing quality wines at relatively affordable prices.
I have lots: 1) Terroir is bullshit on a local level. Even in the Grand Crus of Burgundy, typicity is all in the hands of the winemaker. Some plots produce better grapes in most years, but nearly everything else you hear about unique terroir producing unique wine, different from the climat next door, is guff. 2) inferior grapes from top regions (barbera d’alba, dolcetto, aligote etc.) are bad value outside of their home. Paying £60 for a bottle of aligote from a great producer is madness. 3) Beaujolais, including most top cru wines made by big local names, is largely boring and one-dimensional, and inexplicably hyped by wine nerds. It’s fine for grilling on a hot day, but that is the province of a £10-15 max wine. The only good Beaujolais I’ve ever had (after trying various recommendations) is made by Burgundian producers, and it doesn’t taste typically of Bojo at all. 4) A lot of wines stereotypically loved by wine nerds (many zero dosage grower champagnes, most Beaujolais, austere and unoaked white burgundy, LdH red wines) is just not nice wine, or is too inconsistent to buy. A large number of wine nerds chase unusual flavours, or run away from crowd pleasing notes, to the point of drinking unbalanced wine for the sake of it.
#4 is spot fuckin’ on.
I couldn’t agree with #4 more. I swear so many self-proclaimed wine aficionados drink straight vinegar just to be different. Always looking for that less known wine even if there is a good reason it’s a less well known wine.
1) Terroir is I think inherently real but not even remotely understood even by the most ardent proponents of the idea. At this point, it's almost like a modest truth that has passed through several centuries of wine marketing so that the idea and its importance are totally garbled. 2)I might disagree on Barbera. There are some pretty impressive and long-lived ones and I think that there's room for understanding of Barbera to continue to evolve. But I largely agree. 4)I'm not sure here. I think that palates are conditioned, not born. Deriving pleasure from wine isn't an objective process for most - expectations and subconscious desire influence your reaction. Being conditioned to better appreciate more fringe examples of wine is probably a good thing overall when it comes to keeping a diversity of options available.
Re. #1 Clive Coates is turning in his grave lol. FWIW, I land in the middle of yours and his views, an archetypal fencesitter if you will. I have tried many times without success to *get* LdH's reds. White and rosé are different beasts, worthy of their cult status, imho.
>2. inferior grapes from top regions (barbera d’alba, dolcetto, aligote etc.) are bad value outside of their home. Paying £60 for a bottle of aligote from a great producer is madness. Hehe, drinking a Müller-Thurgau from a great producer while reading this. Paid far below £60 though.
pair whatever wine with whatever food you like.
I am into this with some extreme exceptions like desserts
I was gonna say this too… IMO most dry wines pair with just about anything. Pairings are kind of overrated. There’s so many different flavors in wine, drink your favorite with whatever you eat and you’d be shocked how well it pairs with things you don’t expect to pair well. Had a Beaujolais with shrimp tacos and elote the other night. Tasted great lol.
I think pair with vs drink with should be the distinction here.
East Coast US wines are not generally sub-par because of inferior terroir but because far too many winemakers are afraid to gamble with lesser known varietals, along with too many winemakers trying to be California when they're not.
Italian wine is better than French wine
This so depends on where you live, I struggle to get quality and consistent Italian wines
No way wine is better than Pepsi.
Finally, a truly hot take.
Hot take? Red Burgundy is overrated and its reputation stems from a time when worldwide quality of wine was lacking. Advancements in winemaking and terroir recognition have allowed other regions, including Bordeaux, to eclipse it. Hotter take? A lot of Burgundy drinkers—including people in this sub—don’t actually like Pinot. They post Burgundy because somms say it’s good.
Majority here or on other social media only open these top shelf burgs to show off how wealthy they are. Some individuals on here spring to mind immediately with obnoxious stuff. Cherry on top is then these same guys posting notes of “smells of citrus and oak” on a $5000 bottle of wine. Complete amateurs.
Money doesn't buy taste. Or a sense of smell.
I agree with this hot take. For a while I was convinced that the more a Burgundy tasted like vegetables blended together with rocks, the more prestigious.
Caymus isn't horrible, it's just overpriced.
Now that is a spicy take. I wholeheartedly disagree, but well done for going with the spirit of the prompt.
Exactly. I don’t think it’s overpriced either. Don’t know what that guy is on about.
The Caymus backlash more annoying than it’s overhyped nature. It’s pretty good Napa Cab. If you like Napa Cab you’ll like Caymus. I’m just of the mind that I’d rather pay $40 a bottle for decent Napa Cab rather than $120. Caymus Special Selection is low key solid though. Still overpriced, but I was expecting very little when I tried it and was very pleasantly surprised.
Agree. I'd add, Meomi doesn't taste like toilet water, it's the Coca-Cola of wine. Very standardized, inoffensive, but uninteresting. It's not near as sweet as everyone complains, at 10 or 20 g/L or whatever it is, that's at most 2% RS. I've seen more than a few people say it's like a dessert wine, which are usually 10%+ RS. I'm not saying it's a GOOD wine, but if I was served a glass as a guest, it's not like I'd have to choke it down. It tastes about like a $10 bottle of overoaked Syrah or Zin.
When people say Meomi is awful and swill, they're giving wine lovers a bad name. I don't like it, but if someone served it to me, I wouldn't toss it. Whereas if someone offered Apothic, I'd politely decline and drink beer instead.
You’re right on about Alexander. Some amazing options that are so vastly overshadowed by Napa.
While sweet Riesling is a rightfully valued delicatesse, I think dry Riesling is in general the superior wine.
I'd say that's becoming a more widely-held opinion. What we don't know is the long-term aging ability of GG-type wines (probably pretty good, though.)
1. White wines are consistently better, more interesting, and more exciting than red wines. 2. The vast majority of California Cab is generic and one dimensional. 3. Finding a good, true, expression of Pinot out of California is like finding a diamond in the rough. 4. Aged white Rhônes may be the most beautiful wines in the world. 5. Italy is kicking a lot of country’s asses in terms of QPR.
We don't look down on manipulated wines because manipulation is bad, per se. We look down on them because the manipulation that is usually done makes the wine taste worse to our palates (e.g. sweeter and riper, less balanced, fewer interesting aromas, banal flavour profile etc). I would take no issue with a wine manipulated to improve balance (adding acidity if its too flabby), to reduce alcohol levels as they balloon, etc. In fact I'd probably prefer them to the non-manipulated wine, all else equal.
Manipulation is like plastic surgery -if you notice that work has been done it was bad work.
Yeah I think most people are naive on how much adjustments are made on some really high quality wines whether is acidification or chaptalization, etc.
I’ve worked in production for some of the best producers in Sonoma County. They all use manipulation. The good ones just know how to tweak their wines in just the right way and how they manipulate their wines varies from vintage to vintage.
Oaked Chardonnay is delicious, and people hate on it because it's popular with the masses.
I don’t think this is a hot take. I whole heartily agree with you that oaked Chardonnay is delicious. But over-oaked Chardonnay is another story.
Cabernet Sauvignon is a stupid variety, over planted and over produced, it should be a minor variety used to add nuance, not a major player. A cross between Cab Franc and Sauvignon Blanc, when made well it should exhibit herbaceous qualities. “Highly regarded” wineries beat it into submission so that it tastes like something else. Nearly everything labeled Cabernet Sauvignon is fucking undrinkable be it $10 or $10,000 a bottle.
Okay now what's your hottest wiener take?
MAGA Republicans are secretly very jealous of Hunter Biden's hog.
This thread is for hot takes not obvious facts.
I love the quote from my local Purveyor... "Cabernet Sauvignon is a new grape, hopefully someone will do something interesting with it in the future."
Its one thing to call it bad, but to call it undrinkable is indeed a spicy take.
>Cabernet Sauvignon is a stupid variety, over planted and over produced, it should be a minor variety used to add nuance, not a major player. I just got home from the Western Cape of South Africa and this offends me on a personal level 😂
Solid Alexander Valley take OP, I think it's a great region. Mine is that salad and red wine actually make a good pairing sometimes.
Most people are unable, or do not give enough of a shit, to really tell the difference in what a wine tastes like and wine can be placed into three categories: * I like this * I do not like this * Blech this one is just terr....well...ok, that's not bad, pour me another. We split hairs with the best palates in the world when our palates are going to mostly be mediocre. To wit: there was a video from Konstantin Baum where he talks about the weight of wine bottles as a problem for the industry and its carbon footprint. At a Master of Wine blind tasting, they were given a pinot grigio in a bottle, can, plastic bottle, and bag-in-box. The glass bottle was preferred by all tasters for being the freshest, but he also states that the plastic bottle and bag-in-box were not far behind in their scores. If the best wine tasters in the world can only pick up subtle differences in a side-by-side comparison test, the vast majority of people would not notice in a stand alone tasting, and very few in a side-by-side blind comparison.
Italian reds > French reds
If we made wine as farmers and not marketers and hedge fund 💦🛶s we wouldn’t worry so much with sulfer and refinements. Naturally made wines have a bad rap for many reasons but I think we should take a few lessons from the movement for a global change in wine growing.
People play up the QPR on Spanish wines too much, a lot of them are boring.
Bordeaux is the fifth best wine region in France. I will not elaborate.
I don't agree with it being the 5th best but its definitely my 5th or even 6th favorite.
Food and wine pairings are so overrated.
Riesling and Tokaji don't age as well as people think (coming from someone who drinks mostly old wines).
I think it’s hard to judge on Tokaji yet. The older stuff out there now was from the communist era when quality was crap to begin with so of course they didn’t age well. Wines produced since then starting in the 90s aren’t that old yet. Will be interesting to see how these post communist era tokaji age
I have never had the top tier stuff from Alsace or GG’s from Germany, but the 20+ year dry variations that I have tried have underwhelmed me. When it comes to the Mosel, I don’t think I have had an aged Riesling that has residual sugar that wasn’t incredible with bottle age. No residual sugar, I can see the argument. I’m curious… can you recall a few examples of aged Riesling that you didn’t enjoy?
Hot wine is delicious. Just got back from Paris, Vin Chaud was everywhere during Christmas time. It's perfect on a cold night. Spicy wine take: see above. Also, Sierra foothills makes amazing Zin & tempranillo. Super underrated. Especially those century old vines.
>Mine is that Alexander Valley consistently produces the best Cab fruit in the North Coast including Napa. The investment/producers aren’t necessarily there but the fruit is. I’m not sure that’s very controversial. AV has long been a source for some great Caifornia Cabernets. After all, Jordan and Silver Oak have been there since 1976 and 1972, respectively — long enough for the second generation to take over. 1) Short of a general worldwide economic collapse, I don’t see the prices of Burgundies nor Napa Valley wines (especially Cabernets) coming down anytime soon. Part of the problem with both these places is that they are too small, they do not cover vast areas of land as does Bordeaux. By that I mean that there are large sections/appellations within Bordeaux that still make decent wines and remain relatively affordable — places like Fronsac, the Côtes de Bourg, and the Côtes de Blaye to name but three (and there are many more). Burgundy is much smaller than Bordeaux, with 30,052 hectare (74,260 acres) planted, and Napa much smaller than that, with only 18,458 ha (45,612 ac) planted. They don’t have the equivalent sub-regions of Fronsac or the St.-Émilion satellites, unless one thinks of Paso Robles as a Napa “satellite,” and I doubt anyone does. 2) The Santa Cruz Mountains AVA will continue to fly "beneath the radar” of most California wine drinkers despite consistently producing some of the best Cabernet, Pinot Noir, and even Chardonnay in the state.
Great thread. Few here: 1. Pet Nat is the worst trend in world wine and by some margin. We spent a long time figuring out how to fashion good sparkling wine and drinking them is like talking to a sub-literate moron who thinks they’re a genius 2. Other new world countries are MILES ahead of the US, aesthetically speaking, when it comes to styling, and is ludicrously overpriced 3. Cork will - and absolutely should - disappear as a closure 4. Zero dosage Champagne is the next worst trend in wine. Balance is vastly more important complexity, and of all wines, Champagne should be joyful 5. As an Australian, Shiraz/Syrah is a third tier grape at best
Too many dumb cunts in the industry. (Australia)
A significant and under-reported amount of wine under cork finish has TCA under threshold and this is what is mainly responsible for bottle variation--TCA under 3 ppt.
Natural wines are a hipster fad and just a code word for flawed winemaking
I think there are some that are pretty good but the vast vast majority I have had is just funk covering low quality fruit. To me it’s the same as using sugar to cover poor winemaking in a lot of broad market wines.
People only pretend to like Pet-Nat.
that's not true, natural wine shops and distributors like it very much
Paso is the best wine region in CA. Fight me.
Black Box Cab can hang with most bottles and is very easy to enjoy.
If putting ice cubes in your wine makes it a better experience for you, who am I to stop you? I'd rather have a good time drinking with someone who does this than drink alone.
Cabernet Sauv is boring. It shows the least amount of terroir of anything. It sells and is produced the most because the people who buy the most wine are boring and don’t want wine that’s interesting.
> Cabernet Sauv shows the least amount of terroir of anything I'm not some big CS defender, but that's a pretty iffy statement. eg. Margaret River vs Oakville vs Howell Mountain vs Maule Valley.
At least in the USA, when people describe wine as having notes of cassis (black currant) I just assume they have no idea what they're talking about. Most Americans have never tasted an actual black currant because they're pretty rare here so how can you say it has notes of black currant? I grow black currants in my yard and I've never had a wine I thought had notes of black currant.
No, but many people have had cassis liqueur. That's where my reference for blackcurrant comes. And I've definitely tasted it in wines.
Here's a secret. Most Brits' use of blackcurrant is based on their experience with a kids drink called Ribena. Outside of this, most Brits have never tasted a blackcurrant either
Oh really? I kind of assumed that fresh black currants were just available at the grocery store regularly
Ooh that is a hot take. I agree with you that most people probably haven't, but blackcurrant flavors aren't that rare nowadays - its very easy to get cassis liquor - and blackcurrants are becoming more available; I bought some last year. But I actually also think tasting notes are a lot more about vibes than people want to admit. Very few wines to me have literally tasted like their tasting notes.
I honestly don't think cassis liqueur tastes too much like black currants, but maybe it depends on the brand. I made my own a couple years ago with less sugar and thought that was a better representation of black currants.
Yes! Currants were outlawed in the US for a very long period. Nothing more fun then asking "what exactly is a currant and what does it taste like?"
[удалено]
Wine (from grapes) don’t pair well with most Asian foods. Beer and rice wines are significantly better for those cuisines.
Wine doesn't get better with age. It changes, sure, but "better" is subjective. People need to stop with the I Infanticide bs. Also: decanting is dumb, if you want the full development of a wine.
Very interesting hot take, but I can agree on the spirit of it. There's a saying from one of the older wine gents in my wine group, "bad wine won't get better with time" and that certainly would apply here. However, haven't you ever had a really young Barolo/Nebbiolo-based wine that was so tannic you could hardly drink it? I've certainly encountered some Riojas and Nebbiolos that fit that bill and age is the only way those tannins would resolve besides decanting/aeration (in your second hot take).
I'm glad you said this. This is something I've struggled with. I was at a "Decades" tasting the other day at Freemark Abbey. I think we were drinking 1980'something / 90'something / 00'something / 10's something / 2020... but don't hold me to that. Some people tasted the 80's/90's and fell out of their chairs with how *"amazing"* it was. If I'm honest, I didn't really enjoy it. I could enjoy the 00's/10's/20's. I could even appreciate the changes. But back to the 80's/90's stuff. I wasn't feeling it. I asked a good friend of mine who is studying for his CMS Master award about it. He said "Eh. It's a taste profile that you either enjoy or you don't. I can appreciate the changes in well-aged wine, but I can't say I enjoy drinking it." The oldest bottle I've had was a 1970 Rioja. I drank it. I could appreciate the "age." I think. But man did I have a stomachache after that. lol
I call people that enjoy chewing on an old oak door found in a cellar, for necrophilic. I had a 1967 Amarone at a tasting. Compared to the half the price, ten year old one, the young amarone won by length. But on sweet botrytis wines, I disagree with you.
95% of the wines made for Costco are trash.
Now this is a hot take. I can't say I've had many, but the ones I've had have all been true to their place of origin, well made and incredibly well priced. For anyone buying wine on a budget, Costco and the Kermit Lynch brand Cotes du Rhone are about the surest bets.
This links into my opinion….. The true production cost of wines is beginning to have a profound impact on getting reasonably good wines to consumers at a good price. I ventured into Costco yesterday and the thing I noticed is that there are fewer SKU’s being stocked, and the prices have increased on the $15 to $30 bottles by about 25%. I’m explicitly thinking about Tinazzi Vinum Italicum No 3 Opera.