Rose's current popularity is one of the great marketing schemes in the history of wine. DeLille, for instance, who makes excellent white wine predictably makes okay Rose, but not as good as any of their whites. I'm not saying there isn't a little minority of okay Rose out there. I've never written down so many 70s and low 80s on a score sheet, never have seen our dump buckets so full. Last night the Seattle CT group tasted 10 odd Roses, including lauded examples at high price points. That's why there are literally 100's of delicious, layered, seamless, character-laden white wines I'd far ratherĭrink than any Rose at that Rose's given price. Wine gets the bulk of its character though from skins and stems. Rose gets very little time with skins and stems (or else it would be red wine). Tons of wineries suddenly have a Rose when they get enough market traction to sell what was previously garbage. That juice can be A) poured down the drain, or B) made into Rose. Nearly all Rose is juice bled off of a red early to make the red denser. It only matches food because it's so acid and simple in the mouth. It's almost never seamless but jangling and disjointed. It's nose and mouth are nearly always incongruous.
Then 3 or so years ago I got over it when I closely considered what was in my glass and realized that Rose sucks. I didn't really drink it until maybe ten years ago, when a certain kind of subtle marketing got in my ear: "somms love recommending it," "in-the-know oenophiles savor it steely-cold on the patio," "chubby American versions sure, but the bone dry Frenchies are where the tradition lies."Īnd for years I drank Rose and talked about Rose. All Forums > General DiscussionĪn undiplomatic title meant to be a little provocative, but take it in the spirit of "it's just wine."
0 kommentar(er)
