PD in da house

originally posted by Yixin:
Look, one can go fuck eight (underage) prostitutes within the space of a few hours (with some fellow hobbyists), and call one the best ("handjob after, just to make sure"), and call out another as crap ("what's this shit with condoms?"). Of course that's legit.
Click to expand...

WTF?
 
originally posted by mlawton:
You are absolutely correct, those wines are from the same country and all from within 45 miles of each other - they should all taste the same!
Click to expand...

You've finally chapped my ass enough that I'll dignify you with a non-flippant response.

Let's start with your first little talking point-that we pick a "best" wine. We don't. We rank wines based on personal subjective impression, 1 through 8, and add up the scores from the table. Lowest wine technically "wins", I guess, but the point of the exercise is to stimulate discussion after everyone has voted. As NOTED IN THAT THREAD (which you didn't read, of course), there's a ton of noise in the results so the fun of the evening lies in the debates. John Morris rated my favorite wine 8th. We both enjoy wine and would self-identify as having similar palates. The fun of that group is when differences crop up and understanding why.

Second, let's talk about terroir and regional differences. I get that we're all wine geeks and can make cogent arguments as to why Cornas is totally fucking different from St. Joseph and ohmygodyoucantevendrinkthemtogether. I'm with you, man, I'm a wine geek too. But take a step back for a second. These are, in fact, all Northern Rhone, all Syrah, all 2010. Yes, wine geography is fractal, and you can do a full 8 wine tasting out of some plots that are only several ACRES large. But it's preposterous to argue that these wines can't be tasted side by side. This is not drinking Amarone next to Trousseau.

But more to the point, the reason I enjoy these tastings is because they are rigorously blind (no discussion allowed until after notes are written and votes made) you get a sense of what is signal and what is noise, so to speak. And I will tell you this; terroir differences, except at the extreme margins, rarely can be picked up in this setting. At our last burg tasting (of mature wines, no less) the sweet, silky, elegant wine that was a consensus #1 was a Nuits; the feminine, floral wine that was consensus #2 was a Gevrey, and so on and so forth. Sometimes terroir gets "picked up" , but it's rare and in case of big differences. Meursault jumped out at our white burg tasting last year. I'm sure if we'd swapped the Graillot Crozes with his Syrocco, we'd have figured out something was up.

In this case, however, as in most of these tastings, presumed differences in terroir were completely absent once the blinders were on. The wine that everyone on the table agreed was the most floral and tropical and fragrant was a St. Joseph. One of the two most structured wines at the table was a Crozes and the most accessible and easy wine at the table - a Crozes. In contrast, differences in producer style DO stick out blind, always have and did again on this night. Everyone pegged the St Cosme, you could see it a mile away. At the white burg tasting, someone took a sip of a bottle and said, "This is Roulot.". It was Roulot.

But most interesting about these tastings is that the outcomes are not quite random, but very close. Young or old, we see very little consistency in terms of which producers win or whether subjective rank correlates to price. In Tuesday's Rhone tasting, the ultimate group consensus ranking was virtually inverse to price. At 2006 Nebbiolo, the produttori was hugely popular - the lowest score I ever saw from this group, and it was the cheapest wine at the table. Star producers rarely rise to the top of the rankings, albeit in a carefully curated group of wines (my take home message from these tastings is not that producer doesn't matter, but that the difference between the competent and the "star" is mostly marketing).

I don't do all my tasting blind - but once a month, this is an incredibly valuable, humbling, and enjoyable experience. It certainly makes you question the fanboyism you see on this and other boards, where curiously every bottle made by certain producers is either brilliant or corked. I know this now, from these silly blind tastings that give you such mirth: the people who post those notes are either full of shit or rooting for the laundry, and it is curious indeed to bring sports fan psychology to wine.
 
Fuck eight prostitutes blind, discuss at length (after, no talking during the act!) with fellow hobbyists, and call it "an incredibly valuable, humbling, and enjoyable experience".

Only on the internet, ladies and gentlemen!
 
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:

the reason I enjoy these tastings is because they are rigorously blind...you get a sense of what is signal and what is noise, so to speak...But most interesting about these tastings is that the outcomes are not quite random, but very close.
Click to expand...

You're not really helping your case here!

Beyond that, I wouldn't worry too much about defending your tasting. It's not like folks here don't get together and drink all kinds of diverse wines together. However you want to do it, drinking wine is usually fun!

I think the problem is leaping to conclusions about whether Texier 'sucks' or not from these tastings.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Yixin:
Look, one can go fuck eight (underage) prostitutes within the space of a few hours (with some fellow hobbyists), and call one the best ("handjob after, just to make sure"), and call out another as crap ("what's this shit with condoms?"). Of course that's legit.
Click to expand...

WTF?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you see how ridiculous it seems.
 
Actually this is fun.

From ordinal to cardinal via simple summation. Well, it happens often enough, I guess.

Fractal: Do you really mean self-similar? Really?

Amarone and Trousseau: Yes, of course not. Blend versus a varietal, oh no. Oh, hang on, sometimes C-R has Viognier in it.

Rigorously blind: Who brings the wines?

"terroir differences, except at the extreme margins, rarely can be picked up in this setting": We have a winner!
 
I am irked when I see a single view ascribed to all the Comrades.

I certainly don't agree with that clown Slicker. Jurassic riesling, for crying out loud.
 
But, I think we can all agree (even David) that the main issue here is that the man or woman that took a sip of a bottle of Roulot most certainly should have poured some into a glass first. Drinking straight from the bottle is just poor etiquette!
 
Funny thing, John Gilman has said the same exact thing in the thread of note "over there" as Yixin has said here.
 
originally posted by mlawton:
Funny thing, John Gilman has said the same exact thing in the thread of note "over there" as Yixin has said here.
Click to expand...
He didn't use any sexual metaphors there. What a dull place.
 
David, two quick rejoinders:

originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
Second, let's talk about terroir and regional differences.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that isn't everything. Maybe those wines are meant for different uses and for different times. A throne is a great chair but I am very grateful for my little portable fold-up at a picnic.

But more to the point, the reason I enjoy these tastings is because they are rigorously blind....
Click to expand...
Blind can be fun, not so sure about it's rigors. Long ago I did a bunch of blind tasting. After one such event Bob Cunningham said to me, "The sweetest wines tend to win."

In any case, please feel free to not compete in the marketplace with me for LDM wines and please feel free to let the fruits of great winemakers pass your table because their only superior quality is superior hype. Enjoy!
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by mlawton:
Funny thing, John Gilman has said the same exact thing in the thread of note "over there" as Yixin has said here.
Click to expand...
He didn't use any sexual metaphors there. What a dull place.
Click to expand...

I was going to say, he lacks Yixin's turn of phrase.
 
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
oh, my fellow groupthinkians, you can discuss this on the big board
Click to expand...

i share yixin's love for the fact that utter fucking retards have a place to voice their opinions. this shit is what made mollydooker what it was, after all.

moreover, nor would i say that yours is a bad place to be: these blind probings may still legitimize ladyboys amongst the uptight and prejudiced, which can only be a good thing.

but like yixin, i find i want to hear about your current experiences about as much as i want to hear about your potty training; again, which is not to say that i don't applaud each poop as it comes.

fb.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:

I certainly don't agree with that clown Slicker. Jurassic riesling, for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

jursass is mine.

r. slicker
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

Blind can be fun, not so sure about it's rigors. Long ago I did a bunch of blind tasting. After one such event Bob Cunningham said to me, "The sweetest wines tend to win."
Click to expand...

Hence we have the 100 Point rating system
 
Merde! Making one bottle of 2010 CR that ended 8th in a blind tasting makes me a person that sucks.
On est peu de chose. Ouais bien peu de chose...
 
originally posted by Brézème:


Merde! Making one bottle of 2010 CR that ended 8th in a blind tasting makes me a person that sucks.
Click to expand...

Yes, all your wines are bad and no one should drink them.

Here's the proof:

"David -- No, the Texier had 50 points versus 48 for the Graillot and Gonon, and 47 for the St. Cosme and Paris"

You were crushed. Give it up.
 
originally posted by Brézème:


Merde! Making one bottle of 2010 CR that ended 8th in a blind tasting makes me a person that sucks.
On est peu de chose. Ouais bien peu de chose...
Click to expand...

On pique le vigneron et le poète en ressortit...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top