I love wine so much that I tend to make travel plans mostly to places where wine is grown. Have been to various regions in France (Bordeaux and Bourgogne were the standouts); northern Spain; Mendoza, Argentina, and northern California (Sonoma County).
There's an excellent interactive wine museum in Bordeaux, France, should anyone be interested in wine and find themselves in southwestern France.
The more I learn the more I want to try new wines. I can't think of a varietal of wine I don't like, as long as it's well made. But unless I'm splurging, I prefer French and Spanish wines to California wine because they seem truer to the soil they're grown in and less futzed with. Google (or Duck Duck Go) "mega purple" to see one of the more insidious technological tricks that's common in California wine. As I understand it, the use of mega purple and its ilk is less common in European wine. Whatever the case, my experience is that a $10-15 bottle of California red wine usually tastes more "manufactured" and "hyped" than a $10-15 bottle of European wine.
Not that there isn't lots of great California wine. But it tends to be pricey. Biale Zinfandel, for instance, is fantastic but $50 a bottle. Hendry makes an excellent Zin as well. Also $50 a bottle. I like the wines Dave Phinney makes.
I've learned to drink wine I like and not worry what others think. Ultimately, it's a subjective experience: if it tastes good to you, that's all that matters.
The problem is that after a few years you start picking up on nuances you didn't notice before and before you know it, $50 doesn't seem like such an outlandish amount of money to pay for a bottle of wine.
If only I were rich and could drink amazing wine every night!
__________________
___________
Larry
|