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.
TN: Two Rinaldi Baroli and Pisca Port with Oliver
- Thread starter David from Switzerland
- Start date
David from Switzerland
David Plattner
originally posted by Rahsaan:
Sure, that has to be part of it as well. Although I'm not one for wild mood swings. Usually, I'm pretty much in the same emotional state every time I open a wine: excited to drink it.
Same here! ;^)
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
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Don't get too excited, or we'll have Yixin on our backs again!
originally posted by 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?
SpeedfuckingTM: "Another notch on the post, on to someone new"
It's the state of mind, rather than the physical act. It's masturbation masquerading as sex - different partner, same intent, fundamentally the same motion(s), and ultimately the same result.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
You should have been in NYC Friday and Saturday nights. From the reports on WB, the town was awash in semen.originally posted by Yixin:
originally posted by 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?
SpeedfuckingTM: "Another notch on the post, on to someone new"
It's the state of mind, rather than the physical act. It's masturbation masquerading as sex - different partner, same intent, fundamentally the same motion(s), and ultimately the same result.
David from Switzerland
David Plattner
originally posted by Yixin:
SpeedfuckingTM: "Another notch on the post, on to someone new"
It's the state of mind, rather than the physical act. It's masturbation masquerading as sex - different partner, same intent, fundamentally the same motion(s), and ultimately the same result.
When I say it has something to do with putting an end to contemplation and freeing one's mind for something new, what makes you think that need springs from wanting to put "another notch on the post"?
(Who are you talking about anyway? I personally have no such "post" - I'm merely curious by nature and happen to love wine.)
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
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Hmm, don't think I'd touch that one with a ten-foot . . .originally posted by David from Switzerland:
I personally have no such "post"
. . . well, whatever.
David from Switzerland
David Plattner
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Hmm, don't think I'd touch that one with a ten-foot . . .originally posted by David from Switzerland:
I personally have no such "post"
. . . well, whatever.
?
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
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
I’ve been grappling with how to chime in non-boorishly against points. I think I know where David is coming from, and respect his tenacity in hanging on to his position and the depth of experience that underlies it. My sense is that the scoring mentality, in society in general, is a legacy of sports, where it is not only appropriate, but part of the, well, point. It may also be a legacy of statistical thinking, which only increases the merit of the scientists and statistician here who don’t mix tracks. In education, i.e., grading papers, it may well be a necessary evil, but the profs on this side of the Atlantic have also foresworn points. In the cultural fields, I think it is demeaning to the object of our affection to grade it numerically. We wouldn’t think to use point scores for a novel, a play, a symphony, a ballet, and I think it is equally reductive to do so with wine (if we can agree that wine is culture). I agree with David that, consciously or unconsciously, we are constantly assessing the value of our experiences, but evaluation is not the same as awarding points, which I find disrespectful of complexity.
David from Switzerland
David Plattner
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I’ve been grappling with how to chime in non-boorishly against points. I think I know where David is coming from, and respect his tenacity in hanging on to his position and the depth of experience that underlies it. My sense is that the scoring mentality, in society in general, is a legacy of sports, where it is not only appropriate, but part of the, well, point. It may also be a legacy of statistical thinking, which only increases the merit of the scientists and statistician here who don’t mix tracks. In education, i.e., grading papers, it may well be a necessary evil, but the profs on this side of the Atlantic have also foresworn points. In the cultural fields, I think it is demeaning to the object of our affection to grade it numerically. We wouldn’t think to use point scores for a novel, a play, a symphony, a ballet, and I think it is equally reductive to do so with wine (if we can agree that wine is culture). I agree with David that, consciously or unconsciously, we are constantly assessing the value of our experiences, but evaluation is not the same as awarding points, which I find disrespectful of complexity.
This, by the way, I agree with a 100% - but a lot is in the eye of the beholder (= the one who reads a tasting note). I do not remember the wines in this "disrespectful" manner (i.e. as a [...]-point wine), rather, it's the very act of doing it that helps me remember the wine itself. In other words, ever since I started attaching a numerical rating to my notes, I've always taken that moment at the end of the experience, much as my mom taught me as a kid to leave a hotel room making sure I haven't left anything behind.
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
Joel Stewart
Joel Stewart
Yes, to me, rating by points seems best suited to competitive things...not that wine as a marketed item is absolved from competition. If David's notes were consistently inconsistent, or seemingly slapped together, I might think less of his point usage, but since I pay little mind to points in general, and enjoy reading his precision, it matters little to me. My interpretation is that those scores are arrived at via a system that David values and finds useful to himself mostly as an evaluative tool, rather than a wine critic-esque pronouncement of pretended objectivity.
If forced to, I could evaluate Picasso against his many works numerically, even Picasso against Matisse or Braque.. Might make for a fun smackdown. Anyway, now that I've said all that, I think Eric's point may well be different. Still, on certain levels, apples and oranges can always be compared.
If forced to, I could evaluate Picasso against his many works numerically, even Picasso against Matisse or Braque.. Might make for a fun smackdown. Anyway, now that I've said all that, I think Eric's point may well be different. Still, on certain levels, apples and oranges can always be compared.
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I’ve been grappling with how to chime in non-boorishly against points. I think I know where David is coming from, and respect his tenacity in hanging on to his position and the depth of experience that underlies it. My sense is that the scoring mentality, in society in general, is a legacy of sports, where it is not only appropriate, but part of the, well, point. It may also be a legacy of statistical thinking, which only increases the merit of the scientists and statistician here who don’t mix tracks. In education, i.e., grading papers, it may well be a necessary evil, but the profs on this side of the Atlantic have also foresworn points. In the cultural fields, I think it is demeaning to the object of our affection to grade it numerically. We wouldn’t think to use point scores for a novel, a play, a symphony, a ballet, and I think it is equally reductive to do so with wine (if we can agree that wine is culture). I agree with David that, consciously or unconsciously, we are constantly assessing the value of our experiences, but evaluation is not the same as awarding points, which I find disrespectful of complexity.
I think that's bullshit.
As you say, you most certainly are making judgments about quality, you just don't want to have it in a way where you can't argue around having made that judgment.
We all know that a scalar drastically oversimplifies a very complex interaction; however, to say it contains no information is as wrongheaded as saying it is axiomatic.
Dismount.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
100 points is crazy talk, however. Especially when judging "from afar."
I can think of compelling restaurant or film or theater or art critics who give stars (often from 1 to 4), but to split hairs at the level of wine critics? Point to point to 100 points? It's a little absurd if you admit that all you're looking for is an idea of how the taster found the wine.
Is Prévost 95 for me and Egly Vrigny 94? I mean, come the fuck on.
I can think of compelling restaurant or film or theater or art critics who give stars (often from 1 to 4), but to split hairs at the level of wine critics? Point to point to 100 points? It's a little absurd if you admit that all you're looking for is an idea of how the taster found the wine.
Is Prévost 95 for me and Egly Vrigny 94? I mean, come the fuck on.
Joel Stewart
Joel Stewart
Wow....beaten back by statisticians.
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
100 points is crazy talk, however. Especially when judging "from afar."
I can think of compelling restaurant or film or theater or art critics who give stars (often from 1 to 4), but to split hairs at the level of wine critics? Point to point to 100 points? It's a little absurd if you admit that all you're looking for is an idea of how the taster found the wine.
Is Prévost 95 for me and Egly Vrigny 94? I mean, come the fuck on.
True, true, unless you just mean that you have a tiny preference for Prévost.
It's when you give Prévost a 95 and '70 Latour a 96 and expect to mean something by it that I get off the bus.
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
100 points is crazy talk, however. Especially when judging "from afar."
I can think of compelling restaurant or film or theater or art critics who give stars (often from 1 to 4), but to split hairs at the level of wine critics? Point to point to 100 points? It's a little absurd if you admit that all you're looking for is an idea of how the taster found the wine.
Is Prévost 95 for me and Egly Vrigny 94? I mean, come the fuck on.
True, true, unless you just mean that you have a tiny preference for Prévost.
It's when you give Prévost a 95 and '70 Latour a 96 and expect to mean something by it that I get off the bus.
Exactly. Points as an expression of personal preference at a particular point in time make perfect sense to me. They are useful to the giver as future reference and to a reader who knows the palate of the giver. While I find David's (and Parker's) version of points much less useful I don't begrudge them their foibles :).
Ah, points discussions. I feel young again.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
At worst, from the perspective of group utility, a numerical rating is a purely subjective expression of an individual's response to their interaction with a wine; their use of numbers to express this reaction is idiomatic and trivial. So if you, on hearing the rating, don't know the ranker, or don't respect their judgment, or can't correlate your tastes with theirs, you disregard the rating and no harm is done.
If you do know the rater, respect them, and can correlate your preferences with theirs then, even in this worst case of purely subjective, even sentimental expression, their expression can tell you something, just as if they've said "Ooh, I really like this," instead of, say, "I rate this wine 93 points."
If the rater is someone who has acquired skill at relating their reactions to some objectifiable variables, you are ahead of the worst case and may take away even more information from their statement.
The use of numbers to express personal views isn't a moral issue.
If you do know the rater, respect them, and can correlate your preferences with theirs then, even in this worst case of purely subjective, even sentimental expression, their expression can tell you something, just as if they've said "Ooh, I really like this," instead of, say, "I rate this wine 93 points."
If the rater is someone who has acquired skill at relating their reactions to some objectifiable variables, you are ahead of the worst case and may take away even more information from their statement.
The use of numbers to express personal views isn't a moral issue.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
Just for the record, my two fictitious examples (completely pulled out of my... hat) were given as some kind of parallel: pinot meunier champagnes. But I agree with your analyses.