Nicolas Mestre
Nicolas Mestre
Do you think this might have something to do with habituation to red wine and a less broad experience with orange wine?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Info wanted
- Thread starter Lou Kessler
- Start date
Do you think this might have something to do with habituation to red wine and a less broad experience with orange wine?
originally posted by Nicolas Mestre:
But I'm willing to venture that identifying grape and terroir blind would be easier for red wine than for orange wine. Perhaps Thor and I will be able to schedule a time in 2012 (for the Olympics!) to show each other the work on that one.
Do you think this might have something to do with habituation to red wine and a less broad experience with orange wine?
I know that is your argument and I think it has some merit, but I still broadly disagree from my position of ignorance. Will see in the future.
Hey, anything that involves Olympic taste-testing is fine with me. As long as there's random drug testing along the way, just to make sure no one is taking unfair advantage.
Back to the subject, though, I'm willing to venture your confidence in this assertion is not unrelated to how many more red wines than orange wines you've tasted. Had you tasted orange wines in the quantity you've tasted red wines, I bet you'd be as quick to highlight their differences across varieties and sites as you are now to highlight their similarities. This is what Levi was getting it: from a sample set of two red Burgundies vs. several hundred California pinots, one might conclude that the Burgundies tasted pretty much the same, but be able to talk at some length about the differences between Gary's and Pisoni, and more generally about the differences between California pinot and Burgundy. Those who know more about Burgundy -- because they've tasted a lot more -- would suggest, with varying levels of force, that they not only disagree with the other's opinions, but that they're based on pretty flimsy evidence, and thus the likelihood that they're misguided is fairly high.
I once had someone refuse an Australian riesling because he didn't like sweet wines. Obviously, one is free to avoid sweet wines if one wishes. But anyone who's tasted many Australian rieslings knows that sweetness is hardly their signature feature, and that "I don't like overly acidic wines" would be a better-justified basis for refusal. In other words, the refuser was...well, "wrong" is a too-strong word, but certainly he was speaking without having any idea what he was talking about.
Nathan thinks skin contact obscures or obliterates terroir and varietal character. Nathan also thinks this about sparkling vs. still wines, and though I can't recall if he's said this I'd wager he also thinks it about sweet, and especially botrytized, wines. In the first two cases, since those are the ones I'm sure about, the likelihood of a respondent arguing with him, and the strength of the disagreement, went up the more they knew about the category...Peter Liem for bubbly, for example, or Levi for orange wines. That doesn't mean that Nathan is wrong, and at least we have a (digital) paper trail to follow his notes (which is what I haven't seen from you, hence my differing response; if you've tasted hundreds of orange wines -- which is entirely possible -- you haven't posted notes on them, and a casual search revealed not that many notes from the category, actually), but the more knowledge = more caution about broad generalizations trend is, to me, at least suggestive, and should be strongly considered whenever one is taking a firm position at one of the poles of the argument, as you are. That's my discussion with you; I don't understand how you've arrived at the conclusion, and it seems to me you merely restate the opinion (often posed as a "don't you think..." formation, but it's still something you obviously believe) without retreating to a foundation for the opinion. I don't want everyone to "show their work" about every subject, because that gets tedious, but since we're having a discussion about why you think this, it might be helpful in this specific case.
My discussion with Nathan is different. If I'm right about how he feels about sweet/botrytized wines (and let's say for the sake of argument that I am), then we can say that he only feels that still, dry wines can fully express terroir and varietal character without techniques getting in the way. (You, I believe, are on record as believing that only varietal wines really express terroir -- certainly you've expressed this to me in person -- though maybe you've since changed your mind). Both fairly reductive views. With Nathan, I'm trying to figure out what the basis for this assertion is. If it's skin contact, then why does it obscure terroir/varietal characters in whites, but via magic and chicken soup does not do so in reds? I have a very hard time seeing how that can be. And one could go on down this road until the only wine that can actually express terroir and varietal character without undue obscuration is a single-terroir, single-variety white wine with a controlled yeast fermentation (not necessarily inoculated, but one must have consistency) and raised exclusively in INOX, then put into container without added sulfur. I don't think Nathan would agree with much of that. Thus, my suspicion is that Nathan comes to the orange wine table pre-prepared with opinions about how similar they're going to be, and -- perhaps unsurprisingly -- finds this to be confirmed, and that his position isn't really based on a careful weeding of techniques into categories of deformation. I'm trying to find out if that's the case.
Back to the subject, though, I'm willing to venture your confidence in this assertion is not unrelated to how many more red wines than orange wines you've tasted. Had you tasted orange wines in the quantity you've tasted red wines, I bet you'd be as quick to highlight their differences across varieties and sites as you are now to highlight their similarities. This is what Levi was getting it: from a sample set of two red Burgundies vs. several hundred California pinots, one might conclude that the Burgundies tasted pretty much the same, but be able to talk at some length about the differences between Gary's and Pisoni, and more generally about the differences between California pinot and Burgundy. Those who know more about Burgundy -- because they've tasted a lot more -- would suggest, with varying levels of force, that they not only disagree with the other's opinions, but that they're based on pretty flimsy evidence, and thus the likelihood that they're misguided is fairly high.
I once had someone refuse an Australian riesling because he didn't like sweet wines. Obviously, one is free to avoid sweet wines if one wishes. But anyone who's tasted many Australian rieslings knows that sweetness is hardly their signature feature, and that "I don't like overly acidic wines" would be a better-justified basis for refusal. In other words, the refuser was...well, "wrong" is a too-strong word, but certainly he was speaking without having any idea what he was talking about.
Nathan thinks skin contact obscures or obliterates terroir and varietal character. Nathan also thinks this about sparkling vs. still wines, and though I can't recall if he's said this I'd wager he also thinks it about sweet, and especially botrytized, wines. In the first two cases, since those are the ones I'm sure about, the likelihood of a respondent arguing with him, and the strength of the disagreement, went up the more they knew about the category...Peter Liem for bubbly, for example, or Levi for orange wines. That doesn't mean that Nathan is wrong, and at least we have a (digital) paper trail to follow his notes (which is what I haven't seen from you, hence my differing response; if you've tasted hundreds of orange wines -- which is entirely possible -- you haven't posted notes on them, and a casual search revealed not that many notes from the category, actually), but the more knowledge = more caution about broad generalizations trend is, to me, at least suggestive, and should be strongly considered whenever one is taking a firm position at one of the poles of the argument, as you are. That's my discussion with you; I don't understand how you've arrived at the conclusion, and it seems to me you merely restate the opinion (often posed as a "don't you think..." formation, but it's still something you obviously believe) without retreating to a foundation for the opinion. I don't want everyone to "show their work" about every subject, because that gets tedious, but since we're having a discussion about why you think this, it might be helpful in this specific case.
My discussion with Nathan is different. If I'm right about how he feels about sweet/botrytized wines (and let's say for the sake of argument that I am), then we can say that he only feels that still, dry wines can fully express terroir and varietal character without techniques getting in the way. (You, I believe, are on record as believing that only varietal wines really express terroir -- certainly you've expressed this to me in person -- though maybe you've since changed your mind). Both fairly reductive views. With Nathan, I'm trying to figure out what the basis for this assertion is. If it's skin contact, then why does it obscure terroir/varietal characters in whites, but via magic and chicken soup does not do so in reds? I have a very hard time seeing how that can be. And one could go on down this road until the only wine that can actually express terroir and varietal character without undue obscuration is a single-terroir, single-variety white wine with a controlled yeast fermentation (not necessarily inoculated, but one must have consistency) and raised exclusively in INOX, then put into container without added sulfur. I don't think Nathan would agree with much of that. Thus, my suspicion is that Nathan comes to the orange wine table pre-prepared with opinions about how similar they're going to be, and -- perhaps unsurprisingly -- finds this to be confirmed, and that his position isn't really based on a careful weeding of techniques into categories of deformation. I'm trying to find out if that's the case.
Nicolas Mestre
Nicolas Mestre
When I was a teenager I drank different red wines and never really noticed or registered differences. More that they tasted like "red" wine.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by Thor:
Hey, anything...
Someone's vying rather shamelessly for the TLDR award.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
Now that is an idea whose time has come.
Back to the subject, though, I'm willing to venture your confidence in this assertion is not unrelated to how many more red wines than orange wines you've tasted. Had you tasted orange wines in the quantity you've tasted red wines, I bet you'd be as quick to highlight their differences across varieties and sites as you are now to highlight their similarities.
Fair point, although unfortunately I don't think my orange wine count will ever reach my red wine count. All the worse for me I suppose.
(You, I believe, are on record as believing that only varietal wines really express terroir -- certainly you've expressed this to me in person -- though maybe you've since changed your mind)..
I'm not that stupid, give me some credit. My professional life is full of adding qualifications to statements and I would never say something so simple. Unless in a jovial wine-drinking setting or for the purposes of good-natured debate. But obviously that statement is not true in the absolute.
And for what it's worth, this is not a court room, this is a leisure wine site. One reason I participate is to see what others with more experience have to say about my ideas. That's how one learns. I don't think I come across as someone spouting 'absolute truths' about anything on here. I'm happy to hear what others have to say.
originally posted by Nicolas Mestre:
When I was a teenager I drank different red wines and never really noticed or registered differences. More that they tasted like "red" wine.
You probably also didn't know how to taste wine or what to look for to make the distinctions? (That was certainly the case for me as a teenager)
Damn. I've been in the wrong place all this time!And for what it's worth, this is not a court room, this is a leisure wine site.
You did say the thing about varietal wines vs. blends, though. When we first met, in CA.
Joel Stewart
Joel Stewart
Put them all in opaque black cups: red, white, pink, orange, yellow, etc. Then resume conversation, I say.
originally posted by Thor:You did say the thing about varietal wines vs. blends, though. When we first met, in CA.
Oh, I'm sure I did. I have always preferred varietal wines. But I don't think I've ever actually believed that blends are bad/can't express terroir. I've always enjoyed blended wines. It's all part of the jocular nature of discussion. Ask VLM.
Like when we say "Chardonnay Sucks." It's obviously not true. Even if it is.
Too much nuance?
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Is that your expert opinion?
Nicolas Mestre
Nicolas Mestre
Chardonnay categorically blows, except...
Nicolas Mestre
Nicolas Mestre
That tasted not too similar to each other and, more importantly, were delicious:
2008 Panevino Alvas from Sardegna (anyone know what the hell is in this?)
2007 Massa Vecchia Ariento from Tuscany (Vermentino)
2008 Laureano Serres L'Abeurador (Macabeu) from Priorat is my guess since the label is in Catalan. On the label it says, "15 ppm so2 total." I think it was a tank/barrel sample. Jos Pastor sent it over. The first orange wine from Spain I've tried. Better the second day.
2008 Panevino Alvas from Sardegna (anyone know what the hell is in this?)
2007 Massa Vecchia Ariento from Tuscany (Vermentino)
2008 Laureano Serres L'Abeurador (Macabeu) from Priorat is my guess since the label is in Catalan. On the label it says, "15 ppm so2 total." I think it was a tank/barrel sample. Jos Pastor sent it over. The first orange wine from Spain I've tried. Better the second day.