TN: Two Rinaldi Baroli and Pisca Port with Oliver

[Florida Jim]

originally posted by VLM:
If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. ;-)

Diane will come hunting.

David's scores say more about David than they do about the wines they are intended to describe.

And while I agree that, with very large samples you may be able to find consensus (or whatever the appropriate term is), what value has that when it comes to enjoying wine? To communicating about or describing that wine?
Aren't we fast approaching Wine Spectator assessments with this line of thought?

Best, Jim

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

I don't know if wines can be navigable. But the sentence, "this wine was spiteful," in the right context would be meaningful.

I don't think that if everybody on this board put numeral looking like hieroglyphics next to wine notes and VLM treated those numeral looking like hieroglyphics as if they were actual numerals, the information he would get by doing various calculalions with them would correspond to anything the people who used those hieroglyphics actually intended. But that doesn't mean they didn't intend anything and that one couldn't interpret that intention correctly more or less of the time.

And of course, intentions can't be measured, which does not prove they don't exist.

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by VLM:

I meant the convergence of real information based on large sample sizes.

If I had scores on the same wines from everyone on this bored on the same wines, I could model that data and come up with some real information about this universe of wine drinkers and how "objectively" David's scores represent that.

If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. ;-)

Hmm, and I'm not being snarky here, but your assertion raises the question: how would you know what your data tell you about the tasters and what they tell you about the wine?

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Claude Kolm:

originally posted by VLM:

I meant the convergence of real information based on large sample sizes.

If I had scores on the same wines from everyone on this bored on the same wines, I could model that data and come up with some real information about this universe of wine drinkers and how "objectively" David's scores represent that.

If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. ;-)

Hmm, and I'm not being snarky here, but your assertion raises the question: how would you know what your data tell you about the tasters and what they tell you about the wine?

Variance decomposition.

 

[Yixin]

What it really means to me is something like "got the gist, on to something new".

People should stop speedfuckingTM wines.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

Yeah, I'd say that's true in general, not just for wines.

 

[Jay Miller]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Florida Jim:

originally posted by Jay Miller:

originally posted by Florida Jim:

The numbers are meaningless to me - I simply assume they have meaning to him.

Best, Jim

True, though after the explanations they have some meaning for me.

My point, exactly.
By themselves, they communicate nothing.
Only through explanation is there any communication achieved.
Best, Jim

That's not true. By themselves they communicate some sort of ranking. Gather enough of these and you converge on real information.

My entire life is based on this principle.

But you have to know what he's aiming for. For example my rankings are based on my personal enjoyment of the wine at that point in time. Pretty straightforward.

David, as I understand it from his description, is aiming for something different. Which is why that description adds some degree of value to his scores which otherwise would be pretty meaningless for me.

 

[David from Switzerland]

originally posted by Rahsaan:
Really?

originally posted by David from Switzerland:

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by David from Switzerland:
What it really means to me is something like "got the gist, on to something new".

Have you ever had a bottle so changeable, so elusive, so complicated that you felt you needed a second bottle to understand it?

Great question. It's tempting to think such a wine might exist. But no, I haven't.

Someone as careful as you doesn't find new dimensions of understanding by drinking multiple bottles of the same wine? (Not necessarily in the same evening).

It seems to me that three bottles minimum are useful for beginning to get a handle on a wine. The first two inevitably show different aspects and the third may give a sense of which direction is more reliable. But don't we all know how elusive this wine knowledge thing is?

That said, often I am fine only buying one bottle of a particular wine. Either because it doesn't inspire me or I just don't have enough time. But there's always more knowledge out there.

It happens that a wine evolves differently than anticipated, be that for better or for worse (= i.e. I misunderstood or misinterpreted the wine, but then, there's usually a significant lapse of time), but I've always found fascinating that my ratings are the most consistent aspect of my tasting notes, in particular, when I re-taste wines I forget about, then see in my databank I've had it before and rated it precisely the same as last time. This has happened to me quite a few times in recent years (three digits). Admittedly it bugs me I'm forgetting things (must be getting old), but this proves something I've really suspected all along: unless the wine (or bottle) is different, my perception of it's quality is invariably the same. And it's not as if I were special - if a bottle is indeed different, then usually everyone present (who knows the wine) notices. Regarding my "carefulness", it really seems to keep me from finding anything "new".

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti

 

[David from Switzerland]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
This is getting to have the appearance of one of those Parker threads on points. Points with regard to wine, regardless of what the critics who bestow them might thing, aren't numerals and don't signify numbers. They are rather more like a painting of a numeral. They look exactly like numerals but nevertheless they are different. They are a rough and ready evaluative language. If Parker and/or David think that when they give a wine a 94, they are comparing it against some scale that would compare it relative to some other wine, even from the same region, as opposed to vastly different ones, that's because they are deluded about what they are doing. 94 means something akin to "this wine tastes pretty darned good," and should be taken that way. If he says that about both a traditional wine and a laboratory concoction all he's saying is "this wine tastes pretty darned good" about two different wines, after all.

As far as Deus ex Machina, I would say David's note was pretty clear about what was going on in the wine. I have a hard time imagining thinking the 07 would be better than the 04 or 05 if one found those wines too much of a muchness, but I've only had small tastes of the 05 and have never tasted the 07, so I can't say more about that. I doubt I would ever be able to identify these wines as CdP in a line-up (which may be my inability)and so they don't interest me much. But it's easy to imagine a set of preferences by which one might identify them as "pretty darned good."

The problem in all discussions of numerical ratings is that there is no difference between words such as "pretty darn good" and a number. It's as with school marks - for some reason, school kids or students in this country get adjectival marks, i.e. "good" for a 4 (in a system from 1 to 6), "very good" for a 5, thus logically a "good to very good" for a 4.5 in their overall grades at the end of e.g. a semester. It's a tradition, but a silly one, because all e.g. high school kids do is ask "Excuse me, does this mean I've got a [insert numerical score to replace adjectival one on grade sheet]?" To me, there is no difference: the use of numerical scores is more consistent and transparent, short and sweet (try putting a grade of 4.25 into words... Repeating myself: silly exercise!).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti

 

[David from Switzerland]

I actually mind number much less than many folks here. In fact, I'm more interested in them than "descriptors" which I don't really care about. A number would is fine with me. It expresses, pretty well, their qualitative judgment about the wine in question. This is a valuable data point.

Descriptors in general, or ones that purport to be descriptors, but disguise qualitative judgement?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti

 

[David from Switzerland]

originally posted by SFJoe:
That's probably the best that can be done with them, as in, "I like this one a little more than that one..."

The hitch is that David and some other assigners of points explicitly disavow this approach. In the thread I link to above, David gives a bunch of points to a wine he found undrinkable, so I think your proposal cannot be an account of David's behavior and intended usage.

It's not as if I were alone in keeping preference and qualitative judgement apart: I keep hearing people say things like "I know wine A is the better [insert category/paradigm] than wine B, but I like wine B better." All I do is to attribute a number to the part that lends itself to numerical rating, and discuss the rest in prose.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti

 

[David from Switzerland]

originally posted by Florida Jim:
David's scores say more about David than they do about the wines they are intended to describe.

The rating doesn't "describe" anything, the tasting note (the prose) does/should. That's got nothing to do with numbers, by the way: to say a wine is good or bad, or anywhere in-between is not descriptive - but of course qualitative assessment forms the basis of a numerical (or other form of) rating.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti

 

[Rahsaan]

originally posted by David from Switzerland: I've always found fascinating that my ratings are the most consistent aspect of my tasting notes...Regarding my "carefulness", it really seems to keep me from finding anything "new".

That is impressive. Maybe it is your carefulness the first time. Although I still find it hard to believe. Especially since it's not like you're drinking industrial Yellow Tail. On the other hand, from what I can tell you're not drinking much of the variable hipster stuff either, which can be more difficult to pin down.

Either way, I find very basic things like the structural components of a wine (acid, tannin) do not always show consistently even within a relatively short period of time. I don't try to control all relevant factors, but within the basics of temperature and opening time, I still get that variation. Perhaps I need to look more closely.

 

[David from Switzerland]

originally posted by Yixin:

What it really means to me is something like "got the gist, on to something new".

People should stop speedfuckingTM wines.

When I say it has something to do with putting an end to contemplation, what makes you think that need springs from tasting quickly and superficially?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by David from Switzerland:
It's not as if I were alone in keeping preference and qualitative judgement apart: I keep hearing people say things like "I know wine A is the better [insert category/paradigm] than wine B, but I like wine B better." All I do is to attribute a number to the part that lends itself to numerical rating, and discuss the rest in prose.

Oh, I agree, that's what you're up to, I was just trying to give a fair account of everyone's views.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by David from Switzerland:
It's not as if I were alone in keeping preference and qualitative judgement apart: I keep hearing people say things like "I know wine A is the better [insert category/paradigm] than wine B, but I like wine B better." All I do is to attribute a number to the part that lends itself to numerical rating, and discuss the rest in prose.

Oh, I agree, that's what you're up to, I was just trying to give a fair account of everyone's views.

 

[SFJoe]

Lou, is that you?

 

[David from Switzerland]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by David from Switzerland: I've always found fascinating that my ratings are the most consistent aspect of my tasting notes...Regarding my "carefulness", it really seems to keep me from finding anything "new".

That is impressive. Maybe it is your carefulness the first time. Although I still find it hard to believe. Especially since it's not like you're drinking industrial Yellow Tail. On the other hand, from what I can tell you're not drinking much of the variable hipster stuff either, which can be more difficult to pin down.

Either way, I find very basic things like the structural components of a wine (acid, tannin) do not always show consistently even within a relatively short period of time. I don't try to control all relevant factors, but within the basics of temperature and opening time, I still get that variation. Perhaps I need to look more closely.

Fine wine is a bit like a somewhat more perfectly level pool/billiards table to me: it's easier to draw boundaries (easier to tell what I can exercise influence over, which my part is in all this, easier to subtract the latter from the whole). Truly fine wine has its way of speaking for itself.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

J'ai gaché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ Roger Conti

 

[Levi Dalton]

Ah. Perhaps this is why I am so bad at billiards.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by David from Switzerland: I've always found fascinating that my ratings are the most consistent aspect of my tasting notes...Regarding my "carefulness", it really seems to keep me from finding anything "new".

That is impressive. Maybe it is your carefulness the first time. Although I still find it hard to believe. Especially since it's not like you're drinking industrial Yellow Tail. On the other hand, from what I can tell you're not drinking much of the variable hipster stuff either, which can be more difficult to pin down.

Either way, I find very basic things like the structural components of a wine (acid, tannin) do not always show consistently even within a relatively short period of time. I don't try to control all relevant factors, but within the basics of temperature and opening time, I still get that variation. Perhaps I need to look more closely.

The reason I like at least two bottles of a wine in order to feel confident I've got a feel for it, fwiw, has less to do with the changeability of the wine than of me. My appreciation of a wine is sensitive to emotional and environmental variables, and I find I have to get a multiplicity of tasting samples in order to home in on the 'mean value' of the quality of interaction between a given wine and me.