a new wine book. . . .

[Tom Glasgow]

originally posted by nigel groundwater:
Perhaps some of the problem here lies in the not so subtle difference in how some words are used in the UK and USA.

“That’s criminal” in the UK in this context means no more than it is to be deplored rather than suggesting anything that might be a crime [in any sense] and calling someone ‘a retard’ here [not a word that JL-L would use] would definitely be considered unpleasant while describing them as having been born 'slightly retarded' would not. I assume the fact was only included, since it has no other relevance, to indicate part of a possible rationale why Louis's excellence had apparently not been passed on to the next generation.

However in the light of Rayas's general reputation and despite the hiatus in general opinion that also followed Jacques's death I think if I had only read the earlier version I too would be wondering at it. However it doesn't ‘sound’ like JL-L to me and although he may have penned those words he clearly reversed his opinions later. IMO his views, on the wines of Northern Rhone in particular, provide a valuable perspective and I will be acquiring his latest book and continuing to read his blog.

Storm in a teacup? Pace?

Thanks for killing the thread, thanks, thanks a lot.

 

[Claude Kolm]

The 1983 version that Levi refers to is not a republication of the 1978 version, but the greatly expanded (from 235 to 383 pages) second edition. Despite the fact that Master's name remained on the second edition, its research and writing were all Livingstone-Learmonth, as Master informs us in the Preface to the Second Edition.

The first edition was a revolutionary book, as very little knowledge was available in print about either the Southern or Northern Rhône at that time. By the time of the second edition, there still was very little information available, other than what Parker was writing. The second edition, along with Kermit Lynch and (unrelated) Mike Lynch, Parker, plus maybe an occasional Gerald Asher column were my guides to the Rhône as I was learning about it in the first half of the 1980s. I remember well the comments about Rayas in the second edition of The Wines of the Rhône, and in fact they caused me to steer clear of the property for many years. Whatever else I've been able to find written about the property at the time (e.g., Hugh Johnson's Encyclopedia of Wine) does not confirm Livingstone-Learmonth's 1983 assessment (the 1978 edition was extremely laudatory, but of course that was written when Louis was still running the estate).

I've never managed to meet Livingstone-Learmonth (I was invited to a reception for him upon the publication of The Wines of the Northern Rhône, but ironically, I was in the Northern Rhône tasting at the time of the reception), and certainly if I did, the 1983 Rayas commentary is one of the things I would ask him about. For now, though, perhaps the closest we can get to an explanation is the following that Remington Norman wrote in his Rhône Renaissance in 1996: "Jacques Reynaud's reputation for eccentricity may not be entirely without foundation. However, beneath what appears to be to many as brusque detachment or sometimes vacant incomprehension, lies an impish sense of humour and deep feeling. His terseness hides a sharp analytical perceptiveness and a profound dislike of stupidity, which is less easily concealed -- hardly surprising in a man who studied Greek and philosophy and can talk knowledgeably on many esoteric subjects." One can imagine that Livingstone-Learmonth's initial visit after Jacques took over got off on the wrong foot and went downhill from there, perhaps exacerbated by an initial learning curve for Jacques, who after all was starting from nil, as the passage Levi quotes concedes.

 

[BJ]

I wonder if JLL has read this thread at this point, and if he has, what he would think about it. Probably a complex set of feelings.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

I only care about what DDA would think about it.

 

[Zachary Ross]

WWJLL?

 

[Yule Kim]

WWJLLD

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by mlawton:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by mlawton:
"I'll just cut to the chase, are you saying that 1989 Rayas rouge is not to your taste? That might reveal why you don't find other people's ratings to be of use to you."

While it's entirely possible that I've had that wine and forgotten it, it's much more likely that I haven't had it. I have had a few vintages of Rayas and Fonsalette, some of my friends are fans - but they haven't been terribly impressive to me and I did not document which ones they were because it wasn't something I intended to follow up on.

Oh, okay. You haven't had the '89, or fail to remember it. Because when you said "well, despite the fact that even the best examples of Rayas are not to my taste" I thought that you had tried the 1989. Or maybe the 1990. But apparently you haven't.

I'm a little lost as to how this is on point. Your initial point was that you did not feel comfortable with JLL's writing because:

A. You felt his opinion on the succession at Rayas was either incorrect or expressed inelegantly (not sure it's material which it is - or maaybe a combination)

B. Your opinion was that his expressed opinion on the subjective value of the wines was incorrect.

I responded that I felt his opinions were irrelevant to me (and later, to everyone other than you that I've discussed this with) and that I found strong value in the fact-based areas of his writing. Indeed, it seems that others do as well.

I'm not certain how this morphed into whether I'd had a particular vintage of Rayas, or whether I liked it or not? Per my initial point, you may wish to consider carefully whether to project my opinion on whether I like a particular vintage of Rayas into any sort of evaluation on whether I can report any pertinent facts on the goings-on in the Rhone for use by my readers, whoever they are. I may like Shiraz from Australia better than Syrah from the Northern Rhone, but that should not stand in the way of me letting you know valuable news from the region.

It came up because you said, and I'll remind you, "well, despite the fact that even the best examples of Rayas are not to my taste" when in fact it turns out that you haven't had the best examples of Rayas, so how is it that you know this?

I further think it is difficult to judge the context of the 1983 condemnation of Rayas by JLL if you don't understand just how wonderful the wines of Rayas could be under Jacques. In fact, it is rather silly to go on about it when you haven't had the key wines. The same is true of the Prof. It is like arguing E. Manet's contributions to the later foundation of Impressionism while only bothering to look at three of his paintings.

I think it is much more difficult than you suppose to draw the line through what represents fact and what opinion. JLL clearly didn't draw that line in the quotation from 1983. What for instance would be "valuable news"? Might it be valuable news that Louis Reynaud had died and that his son was making (in the opinion of JLL) "basic errors"? Is it so easy to seperate the opinion from the reporting in this instance (or several others)?

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I said, since I couldn't make myself understood the first time, I didn't expect the second time to be any better. I see I was right in that expectation.

This technique must go over so well in class. Probably easier to do this than defend your argument, though. I'll give you that.

And engaging in an act the law deems criminal in certain intentional states does make the person who engages in it not a criminal. Hence the insanity defense. Hence various justifications of homicide entailing lack of intent or having different forms of intent. Of course, in each of these cases, one can argue that the absence of the intent also makes the act not a crime. But it won't stop someone saying about such acts "it's a crime," without meaning that "x" is a criminal.

How does the insanity defense work against manslaughter?

And, of course, one really can't slander a wine, only a human being.

Repeat mantra. Repeat mantra.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Brian C:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by BJ:
Man, Levi, you're sounding like me talking about vinyl.

It's not that surprising of a phenomenon. This is the same argument that comes up here any time somebody blatantly slanders/dismisses/disparages wines. The assembled thinks that it is no big whoop, and I disagree. We've been down this road before.

I think we take wine criticism way to seriously. Anyone who takes the initial controversial passage as saying more about Rayas than about about JLL deserves to end up wherever the herd takes them. And judging by the prices and following the wines command I think at least one party came out relatively unscathed.

Oh, so everything is alright then. I see. Well, say whatever you like about whatever, then.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by nigel groundwater:

Storm in a teacup?

Wine glass, Sir.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Claude Kolm:
The 1983 version that Levi refers to is not a republication of the 1978 version, but the greatly expanded (from 235 to 383 pages) second edition. Despite the fact that Master's name remained on the second edition, its research and writing were all Livingstone-Learmonth, as Master informs us in the Preface to the Second Edition.

The first edition was a revolutionary book, as very little knowledge was available in print about either the Southern or Northern Rhône at that time. By the time of the second edition, there still was very little information available, other than what Parker was writing. The second edition, along with Kermit Lynch and (unrelated) Mike Lynch, Parker, plus maybe an occasional Gerald Asher column were my guides to the Rhône as I was learning about it in the first half of the 1980s. I remember well the comments about Rayas in the second edition of The Wines of the Rhône, and in fact they caused me to steer clear of the property for many years. Whatever else I've been able to find written about the property at the time (e.g., Hugh Johnson's Encyclopedia of Wine) does not confirm Livingstone-Learmonth's 1983 assessment (the 1978 edition was extremely laudatory, but of course that was written when Louis was still running the estate).

I've never managed to meet Livingstone-Learmonth (I was invited to a reception for him upon the publication of The Wines of the Northern Rhône, but ironically, I was in the Northern Rhône tasting at the time of the reception), and certainly if I did, the 1983 Rayas commentary is one of the things I would ask him about. For now, though, perhaps the closest we can get to an explanation is the following that Remington Norman wrote in his Rhône Renaissance in 1996: "Jacques Reynaud's reputation for eccentricity may not be entirely without foundation. However, beneath what appears to be to many as brusque detachment or sometimes vacant incomprehension, lies an impish sense of humour and deep feeling. His terseness hides a sharp analytical perceptiveness and a profound dislike of stupidity, which is less easily concealed -- hardly surprising in a man who studied Greek and philosophy and can talk knowledgeably on many esoteric subjects." One can imagine that Livingstone-Learmonth's initial visit after Jacques took over got off on the wrong foot and went downhill from there, perhaps exacerbated by an initial learning curve for Jacques, who after all was starting from nil, as the passage Levi quotes concedes.

Thank you for the perspective, Claude.

Guess I should stop skipping over prefaces.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by nigel groundwater:

Storm in a teacup?

Wine glass, Sir.

I said I hadn't tasted a lot of Rayas, not that I hadn't tasted any. In fact, I've tasted the 89 and the 90, as well as a couple of others. I've also had some Pignans and many more Fonsalettes. I wouldn't like to present myself as a connoisseur of his wines, but I am an admirer.

I also had the occasion to visit with Jacques Reynaud, who allowed us to taste numbers of reds and whites there. And, as I said above, I found him, charming, and learned, if still as eccentric as everybody says. My failure to read JLL's passage as you do does not derive from my failure to admire his wines or him for that matter. I have no doubt you will find a way to argue with this.

If you think wines can be slandered, please consult the OED. This belief does indicate the problem you have identifying arguments ad hominem, however.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

This belief does indicate the problem you have identifying arguments ad hominem, however.

My problem is in identifying your argument.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

This belief does indicate the problem you have identifying arguments ad hominem, however.

My problem is in identifying your argument.

QED

 

[mlawton]

"Might it be valuable news that Louis Reynaud had died and that his son was making (in the opinion of JLL) "basic errors"? Is it so easy to seperate the opinion from the reporting in this instance (or several others)?"

Yes, it is that simple. See, you did it yourself. One is fact (Louis is deceased), one is opinion ("....basic errors").

Do you often watch TV news and get confused between the reporting and the editorials?

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by mlawton:

Do you often watch TV news and get confused between the reporting and the editorials?

Yes, actually everyone does. That is a general problem.

But perhaps this doesn't apply to your acute sensibilities. Just as perhaps you don't have to taste a wine to know about it.

 

[Brian C]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by Brian C:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by BJ:
Man, Levi, you're sounding like me talking about vinyl.

It's not that surprising of a phenomenon. This is the same argument that comes up here any time somebody blatantly slanders/dismisses/disparages wines. The assembled thinks that it is no big whoop, and I disagree. We've been down this road before.

I think we take wine criticism way to seriously. Anyone who takes the initial controversial passage as saying more about Rayas than about about JLL deserves to end up wherever the herd takes them. And judging by the prices and following the wines command I think at least one party came out relatively unscathed.

Oh, so everything is alright then. I see. Well, say whatever you like about whatever, then.

Dude. This was like 30 years ago. He changed his tune soon after. Probably water under the bridge for the two parties at this point no? But, um, carry on "defender of the wronged".

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Brian C:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by Brian C:

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by BJ:
Man, Levi, you're sounding like me talking about vinyl.

It's not that surprising of a phenomenon. This is the same argument that comes up here any time somebody blatantly slanders/dismisses/disparages wines. The assembled thinks that it is no big whoop, and I disagree. We've been down this road before.

I think we take wine criticism way to seriously. Anyone who takes the initial controversial passage as saying more about Rayas than about about JLL deserves to end up wherever the herd takes them. And judging by the prices and following the wines command I think at least one party came out relatively unscathed.

Oh, so everything is alright then. I see. Well, say whatever you like about whatever, then.

Dude. This was like 30 years ago. He changed his tune soon after. Probably water under the bridge for the two parties at this point no? But, um, carry on "defender of the wronged".

Dude, 1992 is not "soon after" 1983.

It isn't about righting past wrongs. This isn't Quantum Leap. It is about developing healthy skepticism.

 

[Brian C]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
It is about developing healthy skepticism.

I think there's no shortage of that around here.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

I said I hadn't tasted a lot of Rayas, not that I hadn't tasted any. In fact, I've tasted the 89 and the 90, as well as a couple of others.

So strange that up thread you said "I have insufficient experience of Rayas (I have only tasted two or three vintages of it, all by Jacques Reynaud)" but now you say this. Which is it?