|By Chevalier on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 07:21 pm: Edit|
Here in Santiago, the Universidad de Chile's Escuela de Agricultura produces and sells its own Armagnac for about $13.00 a liter. (The dollar is strong in Chile.) The Escuela also makes a pleasant walnut brandy.
|By Petermarc on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 01:52 pm: Edit|
actually he is a 'pied-noir'(white french colonists that were outed from algeria after the war)...god, i feel weird when i buy 'vichy' mints here(waiting for someone to go into a patriotic row), i'm amazed that the mark can exist...but with the 'front national' it is obvious that most modern french have forgotten alot...
|By Timk on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 09:49 am: Edit|
From what i understand, cognac will not age much once bottled, whereas Armagnac will, so if you want a '43 cognac, then go for one bottled in the ninties - thats how I understand it anyway
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 07:41 pm: Edit|
Anyway Cognac is invariably blended, that is why they do not use vintages. Cognacs are a blend of several older and several younger brandies melded by the cellarmaster into a consistent, harmonious and unified whole. Almost all Cognacs are the communal efforts of dozens or hundreds of distillers, while the company that blends and bottles, is not involved in the distillation at all, or only rather desultorily.
Armagnac is a totally different story. It is almost as if the French prefer to keep Armagnac to themselves. Armagnac exports are only about 15% of Cognac, and while some efforts are being made to redress this, these are often along the lines of making Armagnac products that taste more like Cognacs -- 'give the cystomer what they want' is the idea. A shitty idea. Better to show the customer what they ought to want.
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 07:31 pm: Edit|
Maybe he was from a Vichy family?
|By Petermarc on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 05:30 pm: Edit|
it was the birth-year bottle of the father of a friend of my wife's...when i made a comment that it wasn't a good year for france, it didn't go over well, considering he was born that year...i still got a glass, and have used that to judge armagnac's ever since...'68 (my wife's birth-year which charmed her enough to not ask how much i paid for the bottle) and now a couple of '85's that are raw and hot compared to the others...interstingly, cognac does not use vintages (or very rarely) which i believe was due to abuses and lying about the age...
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 05:00 pm: Edit|
Of course Armagnac-Bas is better, and a '43 ought to be a pricey bottle, or half-bottle. There WAS a war going on, maybe fucked with the production don't you suspect?
|By Petermarc on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 04:25 pm: Edit|
ah, that is why i prefer armagnac, and the 'bas' is the best( vintage '43,for me, of all things!)...
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 02:39 pm: Edit|
$42 is about right for regular Chartreuse in USA. The extra-aged and commerative stuff is more like $90. If there is a $400 Chartreuse I dunno about it and probably wouldn't want to.
It's same with the premium Cognacs. They are really nothing special, usually, just fancy bottles for the Asian markets, and overpriced. One is better advised to buy a good Armagnac for a lot less money and forego the fancy bottle. The French say that Cognac is like a refined you woman you could bring home to Mother, Armagnac is like a lusty woman of a certain age who you wouldn't want for your mother.
|By Absinthespoon on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 02:28 pm: Edit|
I also love chartreuse. I only had one bottle of yellow, and it made an excellent digestif. I wanted to try verte also, but last time I checked Cristina said they temporarily couldn't get the green stuff. It's about $42 a bottle here, like $10 from SC. They had some special bottle at Beltramo's (local yuppie fancy wine place) which (if I recall) was like $400.
|By Don_Walsh on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 01:17 pm: Edit|
I like Chartreuse (verte is better, but yellow is okay). I drink it neat in a snifter. I have not had the high grades yet, nor the Elixir, but I like all I have had from Chartreuse Diffusion, I am not going to say I like it better than a really good absinthe or even Benedictine, which I am also very fond of, but I certainly like Chartreuse better than pastis, raki, ouzo, etc.
|By Artemis on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit|
Chartreuse is a tool of the Devil, concocted by Christian monks at the height of their onanistic and dirty back door debauchery.
People say ABSINTHE is evil???
They haven't begun to see the possibilities of alcoholistic herbal madness over the edge until they mess with Chartreuse.
|By Wetpants on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 12:06 pm: Edit|
Ok I´m saving the Trenet for medicinal purposes. It´s nice if it´s good for something
|By Timk on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 11:27 am: Edit|
An alternative use for Trenet is mouth ulcer ointmant, seriously, its the best thing i have ever found, one application clears away any ulcers!
|By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 07:45 am: Edit|
Chartreuse, now there's a chunk blowing, toilet tennant.
|By Wetpants on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 06:32 am: Edit|
Sorry about the double posts. I guess it doesn´t hurt to rub it in
|By Wetpants on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 06:29 am: Edit|
Strong anise-esque flavour with a lot of synthetic ill-tasting notes and a miniscule hint of A.A.
After one glass I wanted to cry, after two glasses the toilet was beckoning me to use it
Trenet "absinthe" tastes like an extremly cheap "wannabe" Ouzo with some extra bullshit to boot. Good Ouzo tastes 10 times better and is half the price.
Even now after 30 minutes I have that strange cheap taste in my mouth (better head for that toilet). Don´t buy this shit
Cheers, here´s to green Chartreuse (which seems smooth as a baby´s bottom in comparison)
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation