Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

The 2006 Lagrange has been uncorked, and other odds and ends....

This seems to be more like it, quite impressive at the outset. Everything seems to be in place.

So guess what... it rained-- I mean poured torrentially today in Maine, for like the 45th day out of the last 47th.

And it's not just the freaking rain.... It's FREEZING up here!

Mid-July and we have the furnace on!

I know we have some good friends here who are Republicans.

I know lots of good Republicans.

I'm a Democrat, but consider myself a social liberal and fiscal conservative, I've supported a number of Republicans over the years.

I love Obama but I strongly oppose his big spending "stimulus" plans.

And I've certainly met many vile Democrats.

But this Sarah Palin lady is VILE!

She is foul.

If that crazy woman ever becomes president I'm joining Danny and Nick et al in the great nation of Canada.

I actually got to watch a good portion of the Michael Jackson memorial on my computer at the office.

Besides the daughter, I thought Smokey Robinson gave a nice talk.

What struck me about the event was the normal side of the family. Sure the brothers got up there with the one glove, etc., but the brothers and Janet and the kids seemed otherwise normal, seemed like normal grieving parents, children, and siblings you would expect to see at any funeral.

He was strange, but his impact is pretty hard to dispute. And if I were in Congress, if I had anything bad to say about him, I probably would just be quiet about it.

Mmmm it's still early but I like this '06 Lagrange a lot.
It seems to be classic and balanced, not the astringency and imbalance I've seen from some other (perhaps manipulated?) 2006s.

I wonder if Lagrange isn't constituted to perform better, at least relatively speaking, in reserved vintages like 1996, 2002, and 2006(?), as opposed to richer, sweeter vintages like 2000 and 2005?

Does anyone know when the 2010 Toyota Tacoma is coming out?

So blanquito, what do you think:

Joba: Starter or eighth inning guy?

Ah, the musings of a Benevolent Dictator.

Jim,
I think lagrange has been pretty consistent since the late 80s, and produces good wine in the average-good vintages - even the 94 is showing well now. Not heavy or sweet, just medium bodied, well balanced wine. Yet I think it shows the vintage conditions well. The 2000 is excellent, reflecting the warmer year and reminds me of the 1990 which I still have a few of. Not tried the 02 yet.

I don't agree with the argument that it makes better wines (relatively speaking) in the less hot vintages - this is simply a matter of chaging climates and we better get used to it. I hope 2003 does not become the norm (some great wines but too many are baked and flabby).

I also shake my head a bit by the constant reference on this board to"manipulated" wines or similar analogies.
There is no such thing as natural wine or manipulated wine - it is ALL made by man from grapes that are plantyed, tended and harvested by man.
Never actually seen the grapes turn themselves into wine!
And intervention like yield control vai pruning or green harvesting is seen as a good idea by everyone yet completely changes plant physiology.

It has become politically correct to abhorr "modern", "interventionist" or "manipulated" wine yet I would argue that such terms are largely meaningless in that every winemaker has a different philosophy on what they want. Though I do acept that a few critics (not to be named!) have had an effect on practices.

I would argue that the overall standard of Bordeaux (and all wines) is much higher than when I first started drinking it (in the early to mid 70s) and better viticulture is probably a greater influence than better winemaking. If the wines seem more standardised now it is because fewer absolute dogs are being made and the quality is uniformly better. I think this gets confused with style sometimes. The lesser wines used to be very much lesser - dry, thin, often green, with tannins and not enough fruit, obvious faults and short live spans.

On anohter point, the rest of the world is relieved that Obama won.
I wonder if many US residents are really aware at the long term effect on America's repulation that Bush created.
It is not just the two disastrous wars, the destruction of the US AND global economy, the collapse of the financial system, of many US industries (and concomitantly abroad) it is the loss of goodwill that will haunt the US for a long time, and at a time when China in particular is rapidly becoming THE global economic power, being predicted to be the largest economy by 2020.

I wonder if many US residents are really aware at the long term effect on America's repulation that Bush created.

Trust me. We know.

Concerning your points on manipulation.

You're probably right, but wouldn't it be nice to see some 1988-styled wines out there in the market today?

Are those wines gone forever?

I have a bunch of 2000 Lagrange half bottles in the cellar, as well as a case of 750s from 2005. They're both unquestionably great vintages for Lagrange but, at least in the case of '00, it is very sweet to me. I really wonder if I don't like wines like this '06, the '02 Rick had the other night, the '96 we've been raving about, etc., better than those big rich "vintage of the century" vintages.

JimHow wrote:

I wonder if many US residents are really aware at the long term effect on America's repulation that Bush created.

Trust me. We know.

I would modify that to say "some of us know." I think others are (a) oblivious, (b) believe his behavior is consistent with some right we have to impose ourselves (our beliefs) on others, or (c) both

Jon

What he did to the Attorney General's Office is worse. Hey, let's not dwell on the past. I'm interested in the 06 Lagrange.

Bill

Indeed, Jon. To me, one of the great tragedies of the Bush years was the ravage he perpetrated on the Republican Party. I think it is a great thing for the country when Orrin Hatch-- one of the most conservative members of the Senate-- can be best friends with Ted Kennedy, one of the most liberal. Or when Antonin Scalia-- perhaps the most consevative member of the Supreme Court-- can be a regular opera date of Ruth Ginsberg, perhaps the most liberal member of the court. To me, that's what it's all about.

But with Bush, you had a confluence of people and events-- Cheney, 9/11, Rumsfeld, torture, Rove, a weak American press, and on and on-- that, as Claudius said above, left the United States very weakened and compromised after eight years. By all accounts, Texas Governor Bush was very popular with state house Democrats for his reach-across-the-aisle style on education and other issues. And every so often you see the guy in a personal moment and you say, hey, he seems like not such a bad guy, someone you'd like to have a beer with. To be honest, as much as I have despised the guy from the beginning (I worked for Gore), I was so angry after 9/11 that I stood up and cheered when the crazy cowboy said we wanted Obama "dead or alive." And he has had the common sense (unlike Cheney) to pretty much stay quiet since he left, and Laura comes out and makes positive comments on Sotomayor, etc., and Obama has called him several times....

But in the end, it was a very, very dark era in world history. Congress can certainly share in the blame, but the harm perpetrated upon the country and the world by the Bush administration will be experienced for years to come.

Claudius wrote:I also shake my head a bit by the constant reference on this board to"manipulated" wines or similar analogies.
There is no such thing as natural wine or manipulated wine - it is ALL made by man from grapes that are plantyed, tended and harvested by man.
Never actually seen the grapes turn themselves into wine!
And intervention like yield control vai pruning or green harvesting is seen as a good idea by everyone yet completely changes plant physiology.

It has become politically correct to abhorr "modern", "interventionist" or "manipulated" wine yet I would argue that such terms are largely meaningless in that every winemaker has a different philosophy on what they want. Though I do acept that a few critics (not to be named!) have had an effect on practices.

I would argue that the overall standard of Bordeaux (and all wines) is much higher than when I first started drinking it (in the early to mid 70s) and better viticulture is probably a greater influence than better winemaking. If the wines seem more standardised now it is because fewer absolute dogs are being made and the quality is uniformly better. I think this gets confused with style sometimes. The lesser wines used to be very much lesser - dry, thin, often green, with tannins and not enough fruit, obvious faults and short live spans.

Amen!

Jim: there are probably plenty of '88-style wines out there, but they're just not the ones we're used to. Otto's got a bead on these wines. Try some Loire Cab Francs, they may appeal to your taste for some less-ripe, astringent, herbal notes, though they wont have the typical Cab profile of Bordeaux.

This '06 Lagrange is a beauty, Bill, I think it is a "William P Kind of Wine." I highly recommend you get your hands on a bottle.

Working on some more detailed notes....

JimHow wrote: I stood up and cheered when the crazy cowboy said we wanted Obama "dead or alive."

Been listening to right-wing talk radio too much lately, Jim?

1. The nation needs a strong two party system. Let one party have too much power and it's not a good thing period

2. I'm glad I was in the car all day Tuesday so I could totally avoid the MJ service. This guy went seriously astray period

3. Don't waste your money on high end Italians period

.mr vino

Jim, Buy a Chevy.

I'm done with American cars, Steve, after my experiences with that piece of garbage Lincoln.

I've been driving a Corolla the past two years. Unlike the Lincoln, a complete lack of drama.

I thought you got rear ended in the Lincoln? That massive boat probably saved your life.
You're a Mainer and an American patriot, even if you're a democrat. Buy a Chevy.
I traded my 13 year old Tahoe that ran like a top. I bought a new one. I tried to save GM by myself. It didn't work, but I love my new Tahoe.

Jim,
I've got two French cars.
A Citroen C5 (which is a sedan about the size of a 5 series BMW) and a Peugeot 307 my wife drives most of the time.
Last car was a Toyota which never missed a beat for nearly 6 years.

The Aust car industry makes similar cars to yours - same companies too.
Cars that are unreliable, poorly made, out of date and badly designed.
Sorry, but the US car makers have no reason to exist.

I love my Ford Fusion; much more than the Honda Accord and Lexus GS we also own. Probably the best handling car I had and I used to own Volvos, Toyotas, Saabs and Audis. The new Ford Taurus is supposed to be great.

Ford is an American company that does have a right to exist!

I had great luck with an old Escort I had twenty years ago.
The Lincoln LS that I drove for seven years was a total piece of garbage, I had problems with it literally 90% of the time I owned it.
I don't think they even make this "Motor Trend Car of the Year" anymore.
I bought my 2008 Corolla a couple years ago. I start it, and it goes.
I need a truck as well here in Maine and, despite my patriotism, I'm afraid I'm going Japanese.

Thanks for the notes on the 2006 Lagrange, and for your oblique musings on random topics

I wheeled out the 1996 last night against some fearsome oppo; unfortuantely this one was slightly corked and let the side down

I notice that RMP is comparing some of the 06s, to the 96s and 86s...e.g., Ducru? If he is right it might be worth getting involved.

I was researching some wines in old editions of his WBG, and could not help noticing how low scores were in the old days...88 back then is 92 today...has anyone else noticed that? Or maybe the wines are just getting better? More spoofulated probably.

Jacques, interesting to hear that the Fusion handles well - never would have guessed it. I wonder if Ford is doing best of the 3 US companies because of better product or better marketing - or both? Some of the ads for GM cars - don't recall the names of them they were that forgettable - seem laughably unappealing. Maybe I'm not their target audience.

I don't think any car company has a "right to exist." I believe that they have a right to a fair and level playing field. One can argue that the US companies are saddled with huge legacy costs and there may be debate about how much of that is the responsibility of recent mgt vs unions etc. But mgt sure hasn't done anything laudable with respect to product, marketing, or future planning for the last, oh, 20 or 30 years. I don't want to see them fail, but I'm also not a big fan of being forced via my tax dollars to become, along with my fellow taxpayers, a majority owner.

DavidG wrote:I don't think any car company has a "right to exist." I believe that they have a right to a fair and level playing field. One can argue that the US companies are saddled with huge legacy costs and there may be debate about how much of that is the responsibility of recent mgt vs unions etc. But mgt sure hasn't done anything laudable with respect to product, marketing, or future planning for the last, oh, 20 or 30 years. I don't want to see them fail, but I'm also not a big fan of being forced via my tax dollars to become, along with my fellow taxpayers, a majority owner.

Ok, David, I agree. But Ford never took any money from the government, is dealing on its own with its labor issues and, unfortunately, will probably be the weaker of the three automakers once the dust has settled. On the other hand, it remains autonomous and its product are vastly superior to any GM or Chrysler. It's easy to find out for yourself, rent a Fusion next time you're on a business trip somewhere.

Jim, I can't stand Toyotas now. I feel like I'm climbing into a soulless car manufactured according to marketing and legal specs. Jill's Lexus beeps at me every time it's unhappy with my behavior. It feels like I'm signing a disclaimer whenever I want to turn the radio on. Can't wait to get rid of that piece of junk (though Jill likes the beast)

Yes, Ford is likely to come out on the short end of the stick vs. GM and Chrysler because they were in good enough shape to avoid bankruptcy. I was interested in your impression that the cars are actually better - not just marketing. I will give them a look. Had an early version Ford Taurus back about 1990 - decent car, but later versions weren't as good IMO.

Jal etc.
Companies don't have "rights".
Maybe I should have said "need" or "purpose".
The market decides, and I shake my head seeing governments and the like bang on about them.
Companies like Toyota and Honda etc have given the customer a better product for their money.
I like French cars as I like their design philosophies (more like art than engineering sometimes) but I also like Japanes cars for their paracticality even if I find them a bit characterless at times.
Yet having worked for Ford many years ago, I found them the internal hubris to be brain deadening.
Everything was short term focused, with no internest in improvment, just pushing the cars out the door, with an average of 48 faults at the time.
They had so many electrical problems most of them couldn't be started once they came off the line.
I have twice had Fords and had nothing but trouble with them, from the paint peeling off to gearboxes failing.
I have had Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans and mazda that never missed a beat.
I've also had some expensive cars that I could not be bothered with any more.

Anyway, since when has the free enterprise system been about government bailouts?
I'm not having a go at any one company - just that the companies only have a "right" to exist if the market wants them at a price suitable to both parties.
I've taught business at various Universities for 22 years and worked as a consultant for 25, and I can't recall capitalism as being about government protection, subsidies and bailouts.

Thw world is a very competitive place these days and it is going to get a lot hotter with the ascent of China and India.

The Ford I own is very well made. Quality control is just as good as in my Honda Accord. The handling is secure, the suspension is well tuned, the interior is comfortable and the controls are logically laid out, this car is fine in every way. I have owned it for two years and my complaints are very minor. It could and should compete with every V6 sedan out of Japan.

At the risk of sounding like a car salesman (jeez), I will say that I didn't buy the car out of patriotism, though I admit to having more pride of ownership in a Ford than a Toyota. I bought it because for me, it is the best car for the money.

Surveys I have read show that the reliability of Fords have increased markedly in the last 15 years, while Toyota has been overtaken by Honda as the company that produces the most reliable cars. I think that every Honda Accord, as well as most Hondas, that are sold in the U.S.A. are actually manufactured here.

Let's face it: U.S. car companies have suffered from terrible management. Ford took action to turn that around; GM did not. The idiots who ran GM into the ground should be thrown out, their wealth taken from them and distributed to [put in your favorite recipient group].

stefan, in a revolutionary mood

Stefan,
I agree.
My personal expereinces with the local and international makers (as an employee many years ago and a consultant in recent times) concur with your experiences.
I just can't handle arrogance and hubris in management.
Arrogant people rarely if ever do a good job. They become too self-focused and lack leadership abilities.

By the way, my last car (Toyota Avalon) was made here, just like Fords and GM cars (Called GMHolden here).
If you think GM makes good car, drive a Holden Commodore. What a joke.

But my main issue is free enterprise.
If management can't operate successfully, the company will fail.
If you don't manage the costs, your competitors will.

By the way, it is true that union factories cost twice as much in labour rates as non-union shops?
If that is the case, it is suicidal.

I grew up in Detroit and hate to see my hometown so beaten down. I want to like US cars. But for many many years they just couldn't compete, and back in my younger days they couldn't even come close to the feel of driving a Porsche. Those days are over, but when they started building Hondas in the US it made it even harder for me to justify the purchase an inferior product.

I went for a few test drives yesterday and found a lot more appeal among some of the US cars. Jacques' Fusion was a nice wine red (no bricking at the rim), surprisingly well put together with nicely balanced handling and ride characteristics and a good finish (and fit). Even Cadillac (CTS) is making cars that are made for drivers.

Pension, health care, and union labor costs are like cement shoes for the US car companies, but mgt had to be blind to not see this coming sooner or later. The economic crisis made it explode in their faces, but for decades they had been living for short term profits and stock options, building crap that wasn't very appealing compared to the competition. There are some glimmers of hope, and I hope they'll come out of this reboot leaner meaner and more tuned in to their market, and that they'll retain the lessons learned when their necks aren't on the chopping block.

David,
what I don't get is why has the US industry let itself fall into some very deep holes like this?
The problems emerged many years ago.

I'm far from a financial or auto industry expert, but I think it was mostly management taking the path of least resistance to attain short-term profit goals while ignoring the deeper systemic issues. The US auto industry ceded dominance of the car market to foreign makers years ago, but found a new market in light trucks (SUVs, minivans). Rather than address quality issues, they built a lot of light trucks, remaining vulnerable to competition from higher-quality producers. Ford actually did make an effort to address the quality issues, more than GM or Chrysler, and that's why they were in better shape. I don't think any of them were able to address the pension, healthcare and union labor costs short of a crisis/bankruptcy.

DavidG wrote: I think it was mostly management taking the path of least resistance to attain short-term profit goals while ignoring the deeper systemic issues. .... I don't think any of them were able to address the pension, healthcare and union labor costs short of a crisis/bankruptcy.

I agree.

Anyone interested in the roots of the decline of the US auto industry should read David Halberstam's The Reckoning published in 1986. Excellent historical overview of the auto industry in the United States and Japan, with a focus on Ford and Nissan that tells the story of the gradual decline of US and the rise of Japanese industry.

Chris Bublitz