PD in da house

originally posted by Jay Miller:

The issue, as I see it, being that you didn't therefore conclude that you don't care for the style but rather that he is making bad wine and lacks integrity as a winemaker because he is spreading himself too thinly.

By doing so you manage to insult not only Eric (who many people here regard as a friend) but also all those people who enjoy his wines, saying that groupthink is the only reason we like them.

I, for one, think that he's one of the top wine makers in the Rhone and one of 3 that I'll buy with any regularity. And I'm pretty sure I'm basing that on my history of drinking his wines on and off since the 1999 vintage.
Click to expand...

I think that was the way many people interpreted your statement as to the large number of different bottlings as meaning that there was no way he could give sufficient attention to each each of them.
 
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
So query what this means. Either you parrot what the older guy says, in which case you're showing a precocious, sophisticated palate, or you challenge it, in which case you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
There's a third option, which is to await further data before forming an opinion. Since you're interested enough in the wines discussed on this board to visit here, even while complaining about the vibe, I would be quite surprised if further data didn't result in your being fond of the Texier wines someday soon.
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
I think that was the way many people interpreted your statement as to the large number of different bottlings as meaning that there was no way he could give sufficient attention to each each of them.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a legitimate point of disagreement? I think that producers who make lots of different bottlings generally aren't as good as ones who produce fewer. Certainly, it's rare that a producer can be good at lots of different TYPES of bottlings - i.e., normally folks specialize in something (I'm thinking, for example, of my favorite burg producers, most of whom make whites that I'm not nearly as fond of). In the Berserkers thread, someone put up Novy/Siduri and Copain as examples of producers in the States who make a similar diversity of wines, and I was thinking (but didn't post) "You know, I've never really liked the wines from those guys either."

I fail to see how the proposition "a producer that makes many different bottlings should be viewed with skepticism" is accusing someone of dishonesty. jack of all trades, master of none - this is a pretty fundamental idea that goes back a long way.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
There's a third option, which is to await further data before forming an opinion. Since you're interested enough in the wines discussed on this board to visit here, even while complaining about the vibe, I would be quite surprised if further data didn't result in your being fond of the Texier wines someday soon.
Click to expand...
Are you truly suggesting that someone on the internet should put the brain in gear before the mouth? Just shocking.
 
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
originally posted by VLM:
No, what people object to is that you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You know, I'll take hits on my trolling rhetorical style or my lack of experience with older bottles or minimal experience with seeing how wines age (given my age, the first vintage which I've tasted from the start is 1999, and back then I wasn't exactly buying the choicest producers). But I emphatically do know what I am talking about, insofar as someone my age who is not ITB can know what they're talking about (i.e., I dont have the tasting experience of a guy who's 50 with a deep cellar).

So query what this means. Either you parrot what the older guy says, in which case you're showing a precocious, sophisticated palate, or you challenge it, in which case you don't know what you're talking about.

But in a world where there are no wine tests or wine degrees (or rather, there are, but very few people actually take them or have them), saying "You don't know what you're talking about" is meaningless. It's just a way to say "I so thoroughly disagree with you that I will throw poop by saying you know nothing"
Click to expand...

You DON'T know what you're talking about. You're a fucking idiot. Everywhere you have posted this garbage people have pretty much told you so. So drop your pompous-ass attitude. You're not "exposing some untruth perpetuated by group think". You don't understand the wines. Group think is not "everybody else likes something that I don't like".
For chrissakes a little humility goes a long way for a young 30 something trying to learn about wine. Shut up and fucking listen for a change.

Brian C
 
originally posted by Brian C:
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
originally posted by VLM:
No, what people object to is that you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You know, I'll take hits on my trolling rhetorical style or my lack of experience with older bottles or minimal experience with seeing how wines age (given my age, the first vintage which I've tasted from the start is 1999, and back then I wasn't exactly buying the choicest producers). But I emphatically do know what I am talking about, insofar as someone my age who is not ITB can know what they're talking about (i.e., I dont have the tasting experience of a guy who's 50 with a deep cellar).

So query what this means. Either you parrot what the older guy says, in which case you're showing a precocious, sophisticated palate, or you challenge it, in which case you don't know what you're talking about.

But in a world where there are no wine tests or wine degrees (or rather, there are, but very few people actually take them or have them), saying "You don't know what you're talking about" is meaningless. It's just a way to say "I so thoroughly disagree with you that I will throw poop by saying you know nothing"
Click to expand...

You DON'T know what you're talking about. You're a fucking idiot. Everywhere you have posted this garbage people have pretty much told you so. So drop your pompous-ass attitude. You're not "exposing some untruth perpetuated by group think". You don't understand the wines. Group think is not "everybody else likes something that I don't like".
For chrissakes a little humility goes a long way for a young 30 something trying to learn about wine. Shut up and fucking listen for a change.

Brian C
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is just the kind of calm, reasoned post that's just bound to make someone pause and rethink his position.
 
So when am I experienced enough to pass judgment? Im 30, and have been drinking seriously (whatever that means) for about 10 years (yes, before turning 21) and was raised drinking a glass of whatever $15 bottle my mom picked up at the Rosenthal store from before that. Obviously, this makes me manifesty unqualified to judge wine (I'd imagine some of the folks posting here, who aren't as experienced as me and/or are the same age as me, would be disappointed to learn their views are illegitimate).

But what's most ridiculous about your post is the circularity - if I had knowledge I would "understand" Texier, and I dont "understand" Texier, ergo, I must lack knowledge. The evidence that my opinion has value is if it agrees with yours. What a nice way to set things up - it means you're always right.

originally posted by Brian C:
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
originally posted by VLM:
No, what people object to is that you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You know, I'll take hits on my trolling rhetorical style or my lack of experience with older bottles or minimal experience with seeing how wines age (given my age, the first vintage which I've tasted from the start is 1999, and back then I wasn't exactly buying the choicest producers). But I emphatically do know what I am talking about, insofar as someone my age who is not ITB can know what they're talking about (i.e., I dont have the tasting experience of a guy who's 50 with a deep cellar).

So query what this means. Either you parrot what the older guy says, in which case you're showing a precocious, sophisticated palate, or you challenge it, in which case you don't know what you're talking about.

But in a world where there are no wine tests or wine degrees (or rather, there are, but very few people actually take them or have them), saying "You don't know what you're talking about" is meaningless. It's just a way to say "I so thoroughly disagree with you that I will throw poop by saying you know nothing"
Click to expand...

You DON'T know what you're talking about. You're a fucking idiot. Everywhere you have posted this garbage people have pretty much told you so. So drop your pompous-ass attitude. You're not "exposing some untruth perpetuated by group think". You don't understand the wines. Group think is not "everybody else likes something that I don't like".
For chrissakes a little humility goes a long way for a young 30 something trying to learn about wine. Shut up and fucking listen for a change.

Brian C
Click to expand...
 
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
(I'd imagine some of the folks posting here, who aren't as experienced as me and/or are the same age as me, would be disappointed to learn their views are illegitimate).
Click to expand...

We like Michael Lewis anyway.
 
originally posted by D. Zylberberg: my lack of experience with older bottles or minimal experience with seeing how wines age...But I emphatically do know what I am talking about...
Click to expand...

Look back at your previous post where the first sentence admits the truth.

So in that case, what exactly do you know?
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by D. Zylberberg: my lack of experience with older bottles or minimal experience with seeing how wines age...But I emphatically do know what I am talking about...
Click to expand...

Look back at your previous post where the first sentence admits the truth.

So in that case, what exactly do you know?
Click to expand...

Because clearly, seeing how wines age is 100% of all knowledge associated with wine. This knowledge cannot be acquired until you have drunk long enough to see the evolution of bottles - so, assuming you don't start collecting the good stuff for 3-5 years after you start drinking, say you have to be drinking for a minimum of 20 years or so. Ergo, no one under the age of 40 has knowledge about wine. Q.E.D.
 
It's not that we don't have knowledge of wine, it's that we should be more cautious about the claims we make.

I'm also under 40 and the more I drink the less I know. That may never change.
 
You don't like Texier, and that's fine. What the problem is that you're arguing Texier is some kind of marginal winemaker that has managed to trick people into cheerleading for him thus making anybody who disagrees with your thesis suspect. I'm sure the good professor can name the logical fallacy being employed here, but most folks just call it bullshit.
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
You don't like Texier, and that's fine. What the problem is that you're arguing Texier is some kind of marginal winemaker that has managed to trick people into cheerleading for him thus making anybody who disagrees with your thesis suspect. I'm sure the good professor can name the logical fallacy being employed here, but most folks just call it bullshit.
Click to expand...

Its a critique that extends beyond Texier. As I said above, what I'm saying re: Texier applies to other winemakers who have built social relationships with the people drinking their wine. By turning the wine into an extension of themselves, they make a criticism of the wine into an insult of the man. And the rules for criticizing wine are very different than the rules for criticizing the man.

I just can't understand how folks here are blind to this. Nearly everyone posting in this thread has posted "pointed", insult-filled notes about bottles they didn't like. People agree or disagree about those, but no one has ever claimed that saying that, dunno, "Rombauer is filthy swill", is beyond-the-pale-oh-my-god-insult. I'm sure that whoever makes Rombauer is a decent enough fellow and probably doesn't like that his wines are insulted (though I guess he ruminates on the insults as he goes to the bank to deposit another giant check, so, maybe he's a bad example).

Texier shouldn't be differnet. Rhys shouldn't be different. My point is that the producers who are schmoozing and making friendships are just marketing the wine, albeit in a very creative way, and they shouldn't get special treatment because there they've put a face to the name on the bottle in your mind.
 
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by D. Zylberberg: my lack of experience with older bottles or minimal experience with seeing how wines age...But I emphatically do know what I am talking about...
Click to expand...

Look back at your previous post where the first sentence admits the truth.

So in that case, what exactly do you know?
Click to expand...

Because clearly, seeing how wines age is 100% of all knowledge associated with wine. This knowledge cannot be acquired until you have drunk long enough to see the evolution of bottles - so, assuming you don't start collecting the good stuff for 3-5 years after you start drinking, say you have to be drinking for a minimum of 20 years or so. Ergo, no one under the age of 40 has knowledge about wine. Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

I tremble to note such a thing, but there's a manifest lack of logic here. One hardly has to be 40 to taste a 20 year old wine. There are such things as buying old bottles, going to vertical tastings, etc. If you had never drunk a vintage port any older than one year old, you would have no idea how to evaluate it anymore than you can evaluate a painting without actually looking at the painting. But there are ways for people under 40 to drink older ports, older wines, maybe even older Texiers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top