I’ve been wrong (sometimes dramatically wrong) about more wines than I care to remember. One instance that springs to mind is Mas Doix 2001. Instead of blossoming, it pretty much dried up in under ten years. Lesson learned.
Well, Tvrtko, perhaps I am exposing my bias against very ‘natural’ wines. Most of the famous orange wine producers fall into this category, and are way too tolerant of plain old oxidation for my taste. The producer I was talking about, Sandi Skerk, somehow avoids oxidation despite the whites going through a month of skin contact, and very low SO2.
Disclaimer: I now import Skerk.
Jasper Morris writing about rot being a problem with the vintage is not the same as it being an ‘urban myth’.
Maybe some producers managed to snip out all the affected berries, but many of the wines I’ve drunk showed prematurely pale/brown color, bitter tannins and a pronounced lack of fruit; my understanding is that those are the characteristics of a rot-affected vintage. The tannins may well have rounded out by now, 30 years later.
There is a big difference between rot being in the vineyards, which he describes…and being in the wines, which he doesn’t. We all know it was in the vineyards, particularly the northern end of the Cote de Nuits.
Clearly the wines paled prematurely. And, clearly, the wines were very tannic and somewhat unpleasant in the first 15 years or so following the vintage…causing many people to write them off and attribute the “problem” to “rot”, anecdotally.
But, with age the wines have turned out, almost uniformly, to be beauties…judging from what I’ve read and experienced in the last decade. My understanding is that rot doesn’t miraculously disappear/ benefit from alchemy, so…I think that the taste of “rot” in those wines (rather than the vineyards or as suggested by the colors) is “urban myth”.
I still would like to hear from anyone who is sure they’ve TASTED rot in the 1983 reds.
Sauternes. I was convinced to try Sauternes and told I would appreciate it much more than icewine due to its complexity and earthiness. My first one was a particularly rough 2006 Chateau Guiraud that completely turned me off of Sauternes altogether. Had Mike Grammer not introduced me to a 2003 Chateau Coutet I would’ve given up on it altogether.
I hear you. Some of the skin-contact whites I like seem to be more “oxidative”, some less. All of the skin-contact whites I like are layered, elegant and complex wines that work extremely well with different types of food. Problem is, you have to wade through so much uninspiring, boring/all tasting the same, or even downright messy and unpleasant stuff to get to the real gems. But then, isn’t non-orange wine a bit like that, too? (Sounds like I’m just trying to rationalise my own bias 
)
Skerk is very good. Have you tasted Zidarich? Another producer in the Prepotto/Duino-Aurisina area who manages to get the balance right, at least in my book.
A whole bunch of white Burgundies and some Savennieres, esp. the 1996 Closel cuvée spéciale
Boy do I need to eat some crow here.
This afternoon, I went to a wine tasting to sample wines from a local winery. One of them was a blend that was primarily Norton, and it was…quite good, a lip-smacking 90-point wine that tasted like a well-made Rioja Reserva. This has caused me to rethink the possibilities of wine made with this grape.
If it is available where you live (probably not, as production is very small), try this one, from the Harkness Edwards Winery:
(Bottle art was designed by the daughter of the owner of the winery).
As to “my” palate preferences.
Had wrong:
Rose was a watered down, often bitter wine.
Pinot Noirs are slightly heavier, more flavorful Roses.
Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay are girly wines, best served with seven-up and ice cubes.
All French wines are flavorless.
Had right:
Barolo tastes like Chianti and you don’t even get a cute basket woven bottle.
Burgundy has barnyard flavors.
Cali Cabs will never be the same as they were in the late 60’s through the 70’s.
Took me 30 years to realize that Rose can indeed be interesting.
I keep being completely and totally unable to predict how well or mostly poorly CA Pinot Noir ages.
+1. Not to overly generalize, but I’ve been having a string of bad luck with these recently…
I only have a small positive anecdote to add. Last week I drank a most beautiful 1983 Champans from Voillot. I have only read about the rot, but the vintage certainly CAN make at least one beautiful wine.
I don’t think anyone ever contended that all 83s were spoiled.
I made the same mistake with the same “big and overblown” vintage, but in my case, a different region. I went deep on '07 Southern Rhone. I’ve since sold or traded most of them, and avoided making the same mistake in '09. I did however buy again for 2010 Chateauneuf du Pape, and have learned to be wary of the hype.
Try 2006 vintages of those wines. We sat on a lot of 06 cabs after the pros touted the 07 vintage. The 06 kinda represents the end of an era as far as cabs go. The 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s were reserved with spice and earth notes, the era of Napa Cabs. Then Cabs with a little less spice and more fruit started to emerge, starting an era of “new world” wines. The fruit continued to increase slowly through 06 and then the Pro’s told the rest of us that 07 was “the” vintage. The 07 vintage emerged as “big,” fruit forward wines. The subsequent vintages have added more power to big and intensified the fruit. While some of us enjoy these full bodied, viscous, fruit forward wines, they no longer have finesse and the concentrated fruit and/or higher alcohol can overpower the subtleties of terroir and hints of spice provided by mustard planted between rows of vines. Yet, two thirds of our customers are looking for these wines.