Still More Cornas -- Clape Critics Invited

originally posted by Jay Miller:
I'd say there are some elements of wine that are susceptible to qualitative analysis but they are fewer than most people think..
Click to expand...

Once again:

Points are quantitative.

Everything we do here is qualitative.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
In the end, you like it or you don't.
And while I would like very much to entertain "a deeper understanding" of the wines I drink, it is all about preferences.
Relative preferences.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

But in the end you also form your idea of your "benchmark" Soave, Cornas, or Bourgogne. You decide whether to go buy a case of carefully selected wines or whether to just call the wine store and say "send me $200 of wine."

If all you are saying is that you don't believe it is more than your personal taste, which is inherently personal, then, sure, I understand that, but I don't think you are saying that you yourself avoid making relative judgements about qualities of wines, are you? Is what you are saying is just that the relative judgments you make are just personal and a matter of taste and not a discerning of some independently existing category of quality, in the vlm sense?
 
originally posted by Bwood:
Is what you are saying is just that the relative judgments you make are just personal and a matter of taste and not a discerning of some independently existing category of quality, in the vlm sense?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the questions.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by mlawton:

Hey, I can disagree again! Expensive, certainly. But still cheaper than Allemand at what I see for US retail.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I love Allemand and Verset and like Voge and find Clape boring so the price differential is well worth it to me.
Click to expand...

I guess that's sort of where I'm coming from. When you have Clape in a line-up with other top producers, it never seems to be as interesting.

That isn't to say it isn't good wine, it just isn't $80 good to me.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Who needs Cornas when it reached the $70+ price point? I certainly do not. Clape, at least the ones I've had from the late 80's and including the 1990 and 91 have seemed rustic beasts that said I am drinking Cornas, which ought to be a peasant wine. I've not had any examples after this, because price creep made me not want to hop on the bandwagon. But even at the time, I've liked Verset's wines better. They seemed to offer more of a distinct individuality, and I am missing my stash of 1991's that have been consumed. Dear me.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
I'd say there are some elements of wine that are susceptible to qualitative analysis but they are fewer than most people think..
Click to expand...

Once again:

Points are quantitative.
Click to expand...
No, they're simply an ordering system. They have no inherent value. 89 means that I like it more than 88. That's all, nothing more. And they are useful in the sense that they force the issue -- they demand a decision where words alone can (often deliberately) mislead or be ambiguous.
 
originally posted by VLM:
Come onAll of you folks railing against hierarchies are being intellectually dishonest.

We all have them. It is more difficult to argue for them than to take the post-modern bullshit way out towards relativism. I find relativism to be the worst kind of intellectual laziness.
Click to expand...

Straw man. What I hear people doing here is objecting to the use of hierarchical scales of quality, i.e. using subjective judgment to establish a supposedly objective qualitative hierarchy. I have no problem with someone saying "I like this wine better than that one," or "This wine goes better with my sole Meunier than the others do." Those are hierarchies, but do not masquerade as the ultimate intellectual bugbear objective truth. Please note that I am not buying into the PoMo BS of there being no objective truth (after all, I'm a scientist), but rather arguing that our perceptions of wine are ultimately rooted in our sensory apparatus, which is highly subjective.

Is there really not a qualitative difference between Mugnier and Magnien that can be quantified? It doesn't have to be interval in scale, but it can certainly be ordinal.

My guess is also that if we to compile these ordinal level data across Disorderlies then we would have something with actual meaning. And it would be hierarchical. Perhaps this should cross list in the Kant post.
Click to expand...

I can imagine an ordinal scale of perceived oakiness that, with proper statistical sampling to factor out different perceptions of oakiness, would result in the conclusion that the Magnien was oakier than the Mugnier. I can furthermore imagine a similar analysis showing that the Magnien was perceived as being darker and more deeply extracted. A poll of Disorderlies would, I also predict, show that a majority preferred the Mugnier. All of this is hierarchical, but none of it passes the test for objective truth. IMO, of course.

Subjectively yours,
Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
No, they're simply an ordering system. They have no inherent value. 89 means that I like it more than 88. That's all, nothing more..
Click to expand...

I think Points can be viewed several ways, although I didn't necessarily want to go into it to expand this thread even further.

But, they are quantitative in the sense that they are numerical expressions. That ordering system does have inherent (ordinal) value to the extent it says you like 89 more than 88.

Yet, I still draw the distinction between quantitative measurements of opinions (Points) and qualitative values of wine.

Other people might find the value of the wine to also be measured in a quantitative system and believe that the wine has the Points. But I don't think anyone here is saying that.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:

Yet, I still draw the distinction between quantitative measurements of opinions (Points) and qualitative values of wine.
Click to expand...
And what about the numbers that come after the dollar sign?
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
And what about the numbers that come after the dollar sign?
Click to expand...

Sure, that is a measure. An important one for certain decision (e.g. purchasing).

But surely you think there are other ways of measuring and evaluating wine besides just the price?
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
No, they're simply an ordering system. They have no inherent value. 89 means that I like it more than 88. That's all, nothing more. And they are useful in the sense that they force the issue -- they demand a decision where words alone can (often deliberately) mislead or be ambiguous.
Click to expand...

Were that everyone understood that.
For me the difficulty with points has always been that they imply percision where there isn't any - other then for each individual taster.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Bwood:
Is what you are saying is just that the relative judgments you make are just personal and a matter of taste and not a discerning of some independently existing category of quality, in the vlm sense?
Click to expand...
I don't understand the questions.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

You decide which wines - Soave, Cornas, Muscadet - are your personal "benchmark" wines, so you are comfortable making some sort of judgments of some kind in some context. So, I think I am probably just not understanding your underlying point the limitations about making assessments, but maybe it's been beat to death anyway.
 
originally posted by Bwood:
. . . but maybe it's been beat to death anyway.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we shouldn't let boredom stand in our way.

Really, I think VLM and I are at different ends of the continum; he likes some objective measure in wine evaluation, I don't.
Undoubtedly, the truth lies somewhere between.
And the next time he and I are drinking together, we'll likely both get over it.
Best, Jim
 
I thought this was a thread about Cornas.

Silly me.

Quantitative. Qualitative.
My taste. Your taste.
Sounds like the old tug-of-war Points discussion.
 
The best was one that was not about wine that came back to wine. I forget which one that was, but it warmed the cockles of my heart.

ETA: As did, Bwood, your use of "beat" as a past participle. How old-school!
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:

Perhaps, but we shouldn't let boredom stand in our way.

Really, I think VLM and I are at different ends of the continum; he likes some objective measure in wine evaluation, I don't.
Undoubtedly, the truth lies somewhere between.
And the next time he and I are drinking together, we'll likely both get over it.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know, I've let boredom stand in the way of quite a few things.

But, Jim, you do make qualitative and comparative assessments, based on your own personal taste, about your "benchmark" wines, right? I think I was just stuck back on the statements about the hollowness of assessment and the lack of value in comparing wines.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:

ETA: As did, Bwood, your use of "beat" as a past participle. How old-school!
Click to expand...

I really am beginning to think that Coad has gone to tremendous lengths (very nice work on the blog, Chris, that is well crafted) to create this "Sharon" persona.

On "beat to death," we here in the south have an expansive view of the past participle. We try to avoid putting on airs when possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top