Recent tastes

originally posted by Steven Spielmann: there is one frustrating aspect to this: there are some cases where a subtle wine just doesn't show well among others, even though by itself it might be more enjoyable as a single bottle than any of them...
Click to expand...

Hence the value of the WOTN proclamation. It says nothing about overall quality or which one is better for aging, etc. It just says which wine showed best on a certain evening in certain conditions.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Steven Spielmann: there is one frustrating aspect to this: there are some cases where a subtle wine just doesn't show well among others, even though by itself it might be more enjoyable as a single bottle than any of them...
Click to expand...

Hence the value of the WOTN proclamation. It says nothing about overall quality or which one is better for aging, etc. It just says which wine showed best on a certain evening in certain conditions.
Click to expand...

No, not true at all. Unless oyu want to take the reductio to strong subjectivism, you must know this to be untrue. Or is it that expertise is imaginary?
 
originally posted by VLM:
No, not true at all. Unless oyu want to take the reductio to strong subjectivism, you must know this to be untrue. Or is it that expertise is imaginary?
Click to expand...

Well I think we all know you are more of a fan of 'objective' judgements of hierarchy than I am/many others are. But nothing I said was hostile to the notion of collective expertise.

I can't believe you are conflating WOTN with wine 'greatness' in general. WOTN is so explicitly about one particular night in one particular setting and we all know that bottles do not show the same way every time/under all conditions.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Monkey man you should drink in Oz with some of the locals then.I doubt what you think is the best wine would be what the locals claim to be the best of the night. The results would probably be more like day trading the Dow today.
Click to expand...
Fuck the Dow.
Fuck anybody who mentions it or thinks about it or imagines it.
And fuck anybody named Dow or Jones.
Not my Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Now that's Jim on a limb

kudos,

Joel
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by VLM:
No, not true at all. Unless oyu want to take the reductio to strong subjectivism, you must know this to be untrue. Or is it that expertise is imaginary?
Click to expand...

Well I think we all know you are more of a fan of 'objective' judgements of hierarchy than I am/many others are. But nothing I said was hostile to the notion of collective expertise.

I can't believe you are conflating WOTN with wine 'greatness' in general. WOTN is so explicitly about one particular night in one particular setting and we all know that bottles do not show the same way every time/under all conditions.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe that a wine is great except for one brief moment?

My contention is that great wines are consistently great within and between peer groups.

The night I have in mind, the wines were:

1999 Chevillon Les St. Georges
2002 Rougeard Saumur
2006 Overnoy Ploussard
2002 Huet Haut-Lieu Demi-Sec
2005 Do Ferreiro Cepas Vellas
1999 Heredia Gravonia

This would be your arch case where all the wines are clearly excellent. There were 5 of us with 90+ combined years of experience with wine.

While all the wines were excellent, and the Rougeard in particular was the best bottle I've had from 2002, and they are all, arguably, best in class in the appellations from very favorable vintages, the Les St. Georges was unanimously a slight cut above. The Do Ferreiro was the weak sister.

So what you are saying is that there can be no attribution of greatness to any of those wines?

I think you are painting yourself into a corner where wines have only a passing relationship with quality rather than inherent quality. I find that point of view ridiculous. To even cellar wine argues against it.
 
originally posted by VLM: My contention is that great wines are consistently great within and between peer groups.

The night I have in mind, the wines were:

1999 Chevillon Les St. Georges
2002 Rougeard Saumur
2006 Overnoy Ploussard
2002 Huet Haut-Lieu Demi-Sec
2005 Do Ferreiro Cepas Vellas
1999 Heredia Gravonia

This would be your arch case where all the wines are clearly excellent. There were 5 of us with 90+ combined years of experience with wine.

While all the wines were excellent, and the Rougeard in particular was the best bottle I've had from 2002, and they are all, arguably, best in class in the appellations from very favorable vintages, the Les St. Georges was unanimously a slight cut above. The Do Ferreiro was the weak sister.

So what you are saying is that there can be no attribution of greatness to any of those wines?
Click to expand...

No, I agree that we can find 'greatness' in the abstract and it sounds like you had a good lineup to make those assessments.

But I'm sure you've been at dinners where some wines didn't show well because they were shut down, didn't get enough air, were too warm/cold, did not go with the food, etc, but would probably rank higher on your abstract 'greatness' scale than other wines that did show well. That's what WOTN is about.

I think you are painting yourself into a corner where wines have only a passing relationship with quality rather than inherent quality. I find that point of view ridiculous. To even cellar wine argues against it.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing against quality but I think 'greatness' it is too vague of a concept and we should use more precise terms that are more useful.

To use an old tired example, Musigny or Lafite may be elegant wines but they are not the 'best' when sitting on a beachfront eating oysters.

Surely your razor-sharp mind can create more precise categories than just a simple vertical hierarchy!
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Steven Spielmann: there is one frustrating aspect to this: there are some cases where a subtle wine just doesn't show well among others, even though by itself it might be more enjoyable as a single bottle than any of them...
Click to expand...

Hence the value of the WOTN proclamation. It says nothing about overall quality or which one is better for aging, etc. It just says which wine showed best on a certain evening in certain conditions.
Click to expand...

But it has value as a shit-assed kind of fun. Donit?
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by VLM: My contention is that great wines are consistently great within and between peer groups.

The night I have in mind, the wines were:

1999 Chevillon Les St. Georges
2002 Rougeard Saumur
2006 Overnoy Ploussard
2002 Huet Haut-Lieu Demi-Sec
2005 Do Ferreiro Cepas Vellas
1999 Heredia Gravonia

This would be your arch case where all the wines are clearly excellent. There were 5 of us with 90+ combined years of experience with wine.

While all the wines were excellent, and the Rougeard in particular was the best bottle I've had from 2002, and they are all, arguably, best in class in the appellations from very favorable vintages, the Les St. Georges was unanimously a slight cut above. The Do Ferreiro was the weak sister.

So what you are saying is that there can be no attribution of greatness to any of those wines?
Click to expand...

No, I agree that we can find 'greatness' in the abstract and it sounds like you had a good lineup to make those assessments.

But I'm sure you've been at dinners where some wines didn't show well because they were shut down, didn't get enough air, were too warm/cold, did not go with the food, etc, but would probably rank higher on your abstract 'greatness' scale than other wines that did show well. That's what WOTN is about.
Click to expand...

Sure, outliers.

I never said that greatness and WOTN are the same thing, what I did say is that all things being equal, they should be equivalent. So, let's call that weak equivalence rather than strong equivalence.

I think you are painting yourself into a corner where wines have only a passing relationship with quality rather than inherent quality. I find that point of view ridiculous. To even cellar wine argues against it.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing against quality but I think 'greatness' it is too vague of a concept and we should use more precise terms that are more useful.
Click to expand...

I'm not it is vague so much as difficult. It's one of those things that we all sense is inherent in some wine/analysis/art whatever, we just run away from trying to get at what we know to be there.

To use an old tired example, Musigny or Lafite may be elegant wines but they are not the 'best' when sitting on a beachfront eating oysters.
Click to expand...

You are conflating best with greatness.

As an aisde, I'd hazard to put 2002 Briords up against Lafite and it is certainly greater than de Voge.

Surely your razor-sharp mind can create more precise categories than just a simple vertical hierarchy!
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever said that this is a uni-dimensional problem. It most assuredly is not, but can be projected onto a dimension, much like an IQ or LSAT.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Only statisticians use the word 'conflate' in general discussion.
Click to expand...
The search function would disagree with you. Particularly if you include "conflating."
 
originally posted by VLM:

I don't think I've ever said that this is a uni-dimensional problem. It most assuredly is not, but can be projected onto a dimension, much like an IQ or LSAT.
Click to expand...

Again, the question is about the utility of the dimension.

IQ and LSAT scores give rough approximations of how successful someone will be at a given task.

And sure, you may be able to construct a dimension for wine that measures fineness of acid/tannin structure or complexity of flavors/aromas. But that dimension will probably be even less useful than LSATs or IQ scores in terms of telling you what to drink/buy/open. It may be able to sort out some parlor debates over particular grand crus vs. particular grand crus, but it still wouldn't necessarily help anyone drink better, given their personal preferences.

Although perhaps your goals are different. The pursuit of scientific truth and all!

(Nothing wrong with that)
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Only statisticians use the word 'conflate' in general discussion.
Click to expand...
The search function would disagree with you. Particularly if you include "conflating."
Click to expand...

Absotootely. I conflate twice daily without fail, once before breakfast and again after flossing at night. I credit regular conflation with my boyish good looks.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Only statisticians use the word 'conflate' in general discussion.
Click to expand...
The search function would disagree with you. Particularly if you include "conflating."
Click to expand...

You know as well as I do that the writers on this board have been warped by their interaction with Nathan. Thor doesn't count in any event.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
2006 Pazo de Arribi, Bierzo:
14% alcohol, $8 and 100% menca; closed and funky at first with a sort of dirty wood smell opens over time to cabernet type fruit aromas and accents of earthiness; the same in the mouth really requires time open becomes a simple but quaffable wine without artifice. At this price point, Id stick with the Domino de Tares and Descendientes de J. Palacios bottlings
Click to expand...
Are any Palacios or Tares wines available for $8 in your area, Jim? Seems surprising to me.
 
originally posted by VS:
originally posted by Florida Jim:
2006 Pazo de Arribi, Bierzo:
14% alcohol, $8 and 100% menca; closed and funky at first with a sort of dirty wood smell opens over time to cabernet type fruit aromas and accents of earthiness; the same in the mouth really requires time open becomes a simple but quaffable wine without artifice. At this price point, Id stick with the Domino de Tares and Descendientes de J. Palacios bottlings
Click to expand...
Are any Palacios or Tares wines available for $8 in your area, Jim? Seems surprising to me.
Click to expand...
Their front line stuff is usually in the $8-12 range here.
Best, Jim
 
I've never thought much of the Palacios Bierzo. Like his Priorat efforts the wines are overworked and lack freshness.
 
Certainly not the basic Ptalos del Bierzo. Nice uncomplicated wine - little oak, some minerality, good red-berry flavors.

I can't find any Fla. outlets for the 2008 on wine-searcher.com, Jim - and the only 2007 in the area, at Wineontheway.com in Orlando, goes for $21, which is more in tune with their Spanish prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top