Inspired by this thread, I was wondering if there is anything inherent in Zinfandel grapes that preclude making a “good” white wine from them.
Some white wines, like Riesling or Pinot Gris, get a bad name because of the amount of crap that is prudced under those names, but the good stuff is indeed very good. Same with Rosé. Could this at some point be true of White Zin? Just curious.
Within the limitations of the wine, sure. It just isn’t the best grape for the job of making a white or rose. But there really isn’t anything in the grape to preclude adequateness as a white. White zin only came into existance as a marketing measure to get rid of excess grapes and to take advantage of the yuppie mindset. It never existed before that, for good reason. Adequate doesn’t cut it if you are a wine maker of any worth. (Gallo doesn’t count. They make excellent jug wine.)
I assume that you don’t know that Gallo does own some excellent wineries, and makes some damn good wines.
For example try a Rancho Zabaco dancing bull zinfandel. The 1999 version was rated 4 stars +
or maybe Luis Martini.
Or how about Bridlewood? Their Syrahs seems to be not too bad
2003 Reserve Central Coast Syrah
Gold - 2006 Indy International Wine Competition
Silver - 2006 Orange County Fair Wine Competition
Silver - 2006 International Eastern Wine Competition
Silver - 2006 Riverside International Wine Competition
2003 Central Coast Syrah
Gold - 2006 Tasters Guild International Wine Judging
Gold - 2006 Grand Harvest Awards
Silver - 2006 Riverbank Cheese & Wine Exposition
Silver - 2006 Indy International Wine Competition
Silver - 2006 Long Beach Grand Cru
Silver - 2006 Riverside International Wine Competition
Gallo wines today are not the Gallo wines of 30 years ago. Gallo owns and runs some very fine wineries. It’s not all just jug wine any more.
I was referencing the classic Gallo, not Gina’s efforts in Napa. Those are getting to be world-class by any measure.
No, that’s not correct. From the wikipedia article on White Zin:
I suspect that the less than ideal growing conditions in the Central Valley (where it seems most of the grapes are grown) contributes to the poor quality of the wine produced.
Rosé wines can be quite good. They are not popular right now because Lancers and other cheap rosés of the 60’s and 70’s gave them a very bad name. When people started drinking them again in the 80’s, you’ll notice they got labled “blush” wines for this reason; now even that appellation has its own downside (read: who wants a yuppie wine??).
Rosés go quite far back, as do most wines. It’s only modern hubris that makes us think we’ve done anything new with wine. 
Wine lovers learn to take advantage of these trends. There’s nothing that drives down the price of good wine like a whole bunch of bad wine with the same name!
Rosé wines are extremely popular right now. And funny enough, what’s old is new again, you’ll find more and more labeled as Rosé instead of blush these days. Granted, spring/summer is really the ‘season’ for them, but they are making a comeback year round with a vengeance.
I’ve got an entire row on my wine rack devoted to Rosé wines, partly because I love them, but also because there has been a real explosion of them on the market in the last year or two; they’re easy to find and come in all styles and price ranges, from many growing regions, and from a wide variety of grape varietals.
Not fair, you live in wine country. Try going into a store here in Ohio and finding shelf space devoted to anything that isn’t Australian with a kangaroo on its label. :smack:
I dunno. I saw one the other day with a dingo on it.