Calling al Oregon Win-os! Need your recommendations!
Oct 18th, 2004 | 03:58 PM
#41
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Kim, depends what year you are talking about. Did you buy the 2002 PN, Oregon (it's about $15). If so then I would agree that this is your basic red table wine, nothing wrong with it...just not very exciting.
Now their vineyard specific 2000's are really interesting IMO (Prince Hill, Juliard and Leland..my fav!)
The 1999 reserve is a great wine I think (and on special this month) but for a little more money the 30th anniversary reserve is a nice classic pinot that is soooo easy to drink and pair with food. yum!!
Now their vineyard specific 2000's are really interesting IMO (Prince Hill, Juliard and Leland..my fav!)
The 1999 reserve is a great wine I think (and on special this month) but for a little more money the 30th anniversary reserve is a nice classic pinot that is soooo easy to drink and pair with food. yum!!
Oct 19th, 2004 | 10:07 AM
#42
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,639
Likes: 0
It was probably one even more basic than that. I can't remember exactly which one it was. We just spent the day in the Paso Robles wine country. Wow, what fun that was. We visited eight wineries in six hours. Very nice Merlots & Zins everywhere we tasted. Cheers! ***kim*** 
Oct 19th, 2004 | 12:36 PM
#43
Original Poster
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
beachbum: I'm afraid there is no answer to your question.
In order to preserve our friendship and not get into an all out fight over whose wine is better, my friend and I assiduously made no comparisons.
She did say that the French wine industry is suffering from all the competition and prices have been dropping in France, so that may be a roundabout way of understanding that, generally, local wines are beginning to compete with French wines.
Although there are general standards for wines, I do believe that wine preferences are very, very personal. There was a recent show on the FoodTV channel where John Cleese invited some people to blind-test some six wines, ranging from $5 to $200. At least two people thought the $200 wine was the $5 wine!
Generally speaking, I personally found that the Oregon wines were "gentler" than the Californian wines, while the Okanagan wines tended to be stronger. One interesting factor was that the bouquet, the "nose", the smell of the Oregon and the Okanagan wines tended to be - in general- very, very delightful and surprisingly wonderful. Sometimes, the bouquet promised more than the wine would deliver! I suppose this will change for the better with time.
BTW, the Napa wines that we were served at her friend's house in San Francisco were relatively ritzy wines. They were "exclusives", i.e., they are sold only privately to a select few by each winery and not available to the general public. They were at least $200 a bottle. Frankly, they tasted no better than some of the better Californian wines that we can get at about $20 a bottle. Of course, they were better than two-buck chuck.
I'm just an amateur wine-lover, more into sampling wines for fun than to become an expert. You are welcome to call me taste-challenged, if you like. I wouldn't mind in the least!
Cheers!
In order to preserve our friendship and not get into an all out fight over whose wine is better, my friend and I assiduously made no comparisons.
She did say that the French wine industry is suffering from all the competition and prices have been dropping in France, so that may be a roundabout way of understanding that, generally, local wines are beginning to compete with French wines.
Although there are general standards for wines, I do believe that wine preferences are very, very personal. There was a recent show on the FoodTV channel where John Cleese invited some people to blind-test some six wines, ranging from $5 to $200. At least two people thought the $200 wine was the $5 wine!
Generally speaking, I personally found that the Oregon wines were "gentler" than the Californian wines, while the Okanagan wines tended to be stronger. One interesting factor was that the bouquet, the "nose", the smell of the Oregon and the Okanagan wines tended to be - in general- very, very delightful and surprisingly wonderful. Sometimes, the bouquet promised more than the wine would deliver! I suppose this will change for the better with time.
BTW, the Napa wines that we were served at her friend's house in San Francisco were relatively ritzy wines. They were "exclusives", i.e., they are sold only privately to a select few by each winery and not available to the general public. They were at least $200 a bottle. Frankly, they tasted no better than some of the better Californian wines that we can get at about $20 a bottle. Of course, they were better than two-buck chuck.
I'm just an amateur wine-lover, more into sampling wines for fun than to become an expert. You are welcome to call me taste-challenged, if you like. I wouldn't mind in the least!
Cheers!
Oct 19th, 2004 | 01:29 PM
#44
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
"...the Napa wines that we were served...were at least $200 a bottle." Sounds like you REALLY had fun, easytraveler.
I was just curious about a comparison, having recently returned from Paris with a new-found appreciation for French wines. Lacking any help from your friend, I guess I'll need to continue in my own research. So much wine.... so little time.
I was just curious about a comparison, having recently returned from Paris with a new-found appreciation for French wines. Lacking any help from your friend, I guess I'll need to continue in my own research. So much wine.... so little time.
