Still More Cornas -- Clape Critics Invited

To poke the fire a little more, what is worth more money? A 1997 Clape Cornas, that might be (assume "is" for the sake of the argument) a disappointment in an otherwise acceptable vintage in Cornas - or a 2003 Allemand which may be (again, assume "is") a success in an otherwise dreadful vintage in Cornas?

If it's a subjective analysis, there should be an answer, no?
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh? If you can order something based on them, then they have value. They are on an ordinal scale of measurement.

Precisely because they do force the issue makes them informative.

When designing a survey, you will often want to forgo a mid-point because it tends to be used more often than theory would dictate. It is called forced-choice and it provides some interesting properties.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. People make subjective judgments all the time that move towards what scientists consider to be truth. Gating strategies in flow cytometry just to name the first to mind.

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.
Click to expand...

No, you just don't study the senses. This doesn't mean that there aren't very objective things about them. Olfaction, as you well know, is especially difficult to study experimentally.

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
Click to expand...

I think I'm going for a loser take on objective truth. Maybe scientific fact would be better. A piece of knowledge, justified true belief, if you will. I mean, when I studied philosophy, people argued about the reality of numbers. That's a higher standard than I want to go to. I'm comfortable with a more-or-less working scientific standard.

I really do think these things can be measured. I am of the belief that if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. Shirley, you don't think that there is no possible qualitative assessment at all?

If so, I'll trade you my Dugat-Py for your De Montille.
 
Is there really not a qualitative difference between Mugnier and Magnien that can be quantified?
Click to expand...

Again, thats not really my issue, though I tend to agree more with (among others) Jay on this point. I dont disbelieve in hierarchies. My question is more specific: in what ways is it useful to assign them? What are the uses especially beyond the personal of qualification and quantification?

Deciding which to buy for yourself? Useful. Deciding which to open with slow-cooked Charolais? Less so. Deciding which to pour for someone youve never met but who says they like wine? Much less so. Deciding which to bring to a dinner at Jay Millers house? Probably useful, since I suspect the two of you generally like the same things in red Burgundy. Deciding which to bring to some massive orgy of pointage hosted by the other Jay Miller? Much less so (or actually, maybe notyoud probably just want to bring the goopier one). And so forth.

Its actually not that important to me that wine be about its marriage with food. Whats more important to me is that it not be about how it performs in competitive settings. Faced with any given set of twenty wines and asked to make a judgment, sometimes you have the experience and the tools to know what youre going to like outside the context of that tasting, and sometimes you dont, depending on how much experience you have with the category. But it seems to me that many far too many wine enthusiasts begin and end with competitive performance as their sole criterion for enjoyment, no matter their experience or skill. For these people, there is no greater service in wine criticism than the assessment of points, because it seeds the brackets before theyve even put wine to nose, and in some unfortunate cases, stands in for the tournament itself. And so, the two entirely competitive modes of interaction with wine point-based criticism and competitive consumption feed off each other in symbiotic circles, creating their own sub-realityone thats increasingly divorced from other realities and modes of enjoyment. (I know we hate talking about other places, but really, you can click over and watch it in action yourself.)

But surely you think there are other ways of measuring and evaluating wine besides just the price?
Click to expand...

But surely you know that, for some, this is the most reliable (perhaps safe is a better word) way of doing so?
 
originally posted by Thor:
But surely you think there are other ways of measuring and evaluating wine besides just the price?
Click to expand...

But surely you know that, for some, this is the most reliable (perhaps safe is a better word) way of doing so?
Click to expand...
Indeed, we know someone who would argue that it is the only valid way to measure quality. (Wonder if he invested with Madoff?)
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Indeed, we know someone who would argue that it is the only valid way to measure quality. (Wonder if he invested with Madoff?)
Click to expand...
Now *that's* a funny syllogism.
 
originally posted by Thor:
Is there really not a qualitative difference between Mugnier and Magnien that can be quantified?
Click to expand...

Again, thats not really my issue, though I tend to agree more with (among others) Jay on this point. I dont disbelieve in hierarchies. My question is more specific: in what ways is it useful to assign them? What are the uses especially beyond the personal of qualification and quantification?
Click to expand...

I don't care to what use. To me it is intellectually interesting in it's own right.

Its actually not that important to me that wine be about its marriage with food.
Click to expand...

Well, in a sense I agree. It doesn't have to be about the perfect marriage, but since wine is not a cocktail, to evaluate it in the absence at the least the thought of food misses the point.

Whats more important to me is that it not be about how it performs in competitive settings. Faced with any given set of twenty wines and asked to make a judgment, sometimes you have the experience and the tools to know what youre going to like outside the context of that tasting, and sometimes you dont, depending on how much experience you have with the category. But it seems to me that many far too many wine enthusiasts begin and end with competitive performance as their sole criterion for enjoyment, no matter their experience or skill. For these people, there is no greater service in wine criticism than the assessment of points, because it seeds the brackets before theyve even put wine to nose, and in some unfortunate cases, stands in for the tournament itself. And so, the two entirely competitive modes of interaction with wine point-based criticism and competitive consumption feed off each other in symbiotic circles, creating their own sub-realityone thats increasingly divorced from other realities and modes of enjoyment. (I know we hate talking about other places, but really, you can click over and watch it in action yourself.)
Click to expand...

I find a lot to agree with in this paragraph.

I have no difficulty with points, provided one understands the level of measurement.

As for large tastings, when I am at one, I try nibble as much as possible but then it is usually for a different purpose. I am usually tasting wines from regions and/or producers with which I am familiar, so it goes into a context. I would never consider events like that to give a deep understanding of a wine, only a surface one. Deep understanding comes with sitting with a bottle over a meal, visiting the vines, and talking to the vigneron.
 
Eden - thanks for the note. I guess we'll broach the magnum sooner rather than later. Anyone feel like coming out to backwater Virginia to view the corpse? It's just a hop, skip, and jump from Paris and San Francisco (or Spain or Austria, for that matter). How about a Charlottesville Jeebus?

I think this thread establishes a record for the longest post by Jim without a tasting note.

I'm with the non-hierarchy folks where wine is concerned, FWIW. Each has its charms and vive la difference. You may as well ask which is the best flower. What makes wine especially fun, for me, is its counterpoise of base sensuality with scope for endless intellectual triviation; sort of like an imaginary combination of massage and baseball statistics.

Cheers.
 
Wine has many aspects -- the various colors/smells/tastes that my senses respond to, its price, its genesis -- and wine X may be greater or lesser than wine Y (for me) in one or more of these rubrics. The word "better" can capture my summary of this mixed-valence situation but a lone number rarely will.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I think this thread establishes a record for the longest post by Jim without a tasting note.
Click to expand...

You should see the ones I write about my daughter or grand-daughter. I'm as bad as somebody that has to show you their family snapshots.
Best, Jim
 
What makes wine especially fun, for me, is its counterpoise of base sensuality with scope for endless intellectual triviation; sort of like an imaginary combination of massage and baseball statistics.
Click to expand...

Well done.
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Florida Jim:
One of the reasons I find tasting comparisons and qualitative assessments somewhat hollow, regardless of context.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

All qualitative assessments are hollow?
Click to expand...

Jim has recently joined the Nihilists of Wine group on Facebook.
Click to expand...

I was recently a guest of Jim and saw no evidence of German techno-pop or marmots in his home, so I am going to bet against the Nihilist theory.
Click to expand...

It's all hollow, baby, no matter which way you slice it.

Touch my marmot! TOUCH IT!

And now, this is the time on Wein Disorder ven ve dance...
Click to expand...
 
originally posted by Thor:
Its actually not that important to me that wine be about its marriage with food. Whats more important to me is that it not be about how it performs in competitive settings. Faced with any given set of twenty wines and asked to make a judgment, sometimes you have the experience and the tools to know what youre going to like outside the context of that tasting, and sometimes you dont, depending on how much experience you have with the category. But it seems to me that many far too many wine enthusiasts begin and end with competitive performance as their sole criterion for enjoyment, no matter their experience or skill. For these people, there is no greater service in wine criticism than the assessment of points, because it seeds the brackets before theyve even put wine to nose, and in some unfortunate cases, stands in for the tournament itself. And so, the two entirely competitive modes of interaction with wine point-based criticism and competitive consumption feed off each other in symbiotic circles, creating their own sub-realityone thats increasingly divorced from other realities and modes of enjoyment.
Click to expand...
Why I am thinking of giving up offlines... I was at one Monday evening, but I think I enjoyed my modest hour at Terroir (the wine bar) earlier in the day more.

Nice post...
Click to expand...
 
originally posted by Brad L i l j e q u i s t:
This was by far the best part of this completely boring thread.
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Florida Jim:
One of the reasons I find tasting comparisons and qualitative assessments somewhat hollow, regardless of context.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

All qualitative assessments are hollow?
Click to expand...

Jim has recently joined the Nihilists of Wine group on Facebook.
Click to expand...

I was recently a guest of Jim and saw no evidence of German techno-pop or marmots in his home, so I am going to bet against the Nihilist theory.
Click to expand...

It's all hollow, baby, no matter which way you slice it.

Touch my marmot! TOUCH IT!

And now, this is the time on Wein Disorder ven ve dance...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Heh. I love those guys. That they're doing their funky Germanic wetsuit monkey-dance in what looks like the ratty cellar of a liquor store only makes it sweeter.
 
originally posted by Thor:
Terroir (the wine bar)
Click to expand...

Terroir (the wine bar) San Franciso, Terroir (the wine bar) New York, or Terroir (the wine bar) Lake Winnibigoshish?
Click to expand...
Terroir in SF, first time I have been there. Proceeded later to an offline at Nopa, which was hot and not really up for a wine dinner. But it was interesting perhaps to see the crowd still waiting to get tables at 9 PM when we left...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top