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.
Big news
- Thread starter Yixin
- Start date
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
I'm not saying do away with descriptions of the wines, but there are certain reasons why descriptions are not sufficient in certain contexts:originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
originally posted by Claude Kolm: they generally are able to say which ones they prefer, which would support further "granularity."
Claude, Bravo!
I'm glad to hear people take a stand in favor of the rating system(s). People can ignore the rating system(s) if they wish.
On the other hand, for many folks, the rating system(s) add an additional dimension that tends to clarify whatever verbiage the reviewer may have seen fit to assign to the entity, in this case wine.
Many people use verbiage that, in context, can be taken as positive, neutral, or even negative. The rating system(s) put the comments into perspective IF the reader wishes to avail himself of that additional (valuable?) factoid.
. . . . . . . Pete
Those of us who write tend to think that using verbiage is something different. Perhaps one wouldn't need to score if one wrote more and used verbiage (or, even worse, wordsmithed) less.
1. The number of words that can describe a wine accurately and their various permutations and combinations do not match up to the variety of wines.
2. When one tastes from cask or very early from bottle, one is tasting a wine that may not be showing all that well, but an experienced taster will know how to form a knowledgeable judgment of the potential for that wine.
3. One can take descriptions of wines from a given writer that sound identical and yet the writer likes one of the wines far more than the other. Being forced to assign a number that indicates an ordering of preference forces the reviewer to be more honest than he or she otherwise would be.
You may long for a Walter Pater of Christopher Fry of wine, but just as both of them proved to be insufficient, so it would be for wine reviews where the purpose of the review is to convey to the reader whether a given wine is likely to be of any interest to purchase (especially if the wine is likely to be available only on futures, i.e., without the reader being able to taste before purchasing). Certainly for other wine writing purposes, the use of scores would be bizarre and inappropriate.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
A question: I read here that scores have value as a way of ordering the wines. How useful is it to order 1000 wines using only 15 numbers? (Really, fewer than that since the ones spelled 1-0-0 and 9-9 are used rather rarely.)
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
A question: I read here that scores have value as a way of ordering the wines. How useful is it to order 1000 wines using only 15 numbers? (Really, fewer than that since the ones spelled 1-0-0 and 9-9 are used rather rarely.)
Well, if they are used rarely (which is usually the case for everyone who doesn't share my name) then wouldn't they be all the more meaningful when they are used?
I've often said that ratings (in whatever format) have use as a subjective measure of enjoyment of a wine. This is valuable both for oneself as a reminder of what you liked and for others if their palate usually matches up.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
You have fastened on a minor point. The major point is this: if every category includes 80 equivalent wines, how does that help me order them?originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
A question: I read here that scores have value as a way of ordering the wines. How useful is it to order 1000 wines using only 15 numbers? (Really, fewer than that since the ones spelled 1-0-0 and 9-9 are used rather rarely.)
Well, if they are used rarely (which is usually the case for everyone who doesn't share my name) then wouldn't they be all the more meaningful when they are used?
I've often said that ratings (in whatever format) have use as a subjective measure of enjoyment of a wine. This is valuable both for oneself as a reminder of what you liked and for others if their palate usually matches up.
originally posted by Yixin:
originally posted by VLM:
So, you know these shadowy guys in Singapore?
BTW, it is very doable to create a single score from a multi dimensional problem. One that is very predictive as well. Done all the time.
Just because these asshats don't do it doesn't make it a terrible idea.
No.
I used PCA for yield curve modelling, once upon a time. Very predictive, of course, except when it wasn't. I don't have the same fluency in statistics (and the underlying mathematics) that you do, but I submit the most interesting bits about wine (or more precisely, drinking wine) and yield curves are when observed relationships break down. There are the usual GIGO objections, of course.
Just because it's doable doesn't make it a good idea.
Improving measurement precision is ALWAYS a good idea.
You can think of the other methodologies as similar to PCA but more flexible and able to relax assumptions. PCA only works well in some pretty specific circumstances, so your results aren't surprising. It's why people kept after it after 1938 (Hotelling).
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
A question: I read here that scores have value as a way of ordering the wines. How useful is it to order 1000 wines using only 15 numbers? (Really, fewer than that since the ones spelled 1-0-0 and 9-9 are used rather rarely.)
Actually, getting 10,000 people to force choice rank order wines would give a pretty decent metric of preferences and hopefully, if you samples the right people, quality.
Why do you order them?
A guy I know sent me an email recently with this in it:
Part of my response:
Well, to accept your play analogy, I might not say that I was recommending it in terms of absolute quality, but rather why you might want to go. I might say, “It’s a little heavy, probably not a good play for a first date.” Or, I might say, “You are a lugubrious fellow, this is exactly your sort of thing.” Or, I might say, “You live in Brooklyn Heights, it wouldn’t put you out to drop in.” Or, perhaps, “The performance by Katsman redeems what is otherwise an ordinary experience, and you are someone who likes great actors more than great playwrights.”
I think you are in the business of attributing absolute scalar quality to wine, but I am in the business of drinking different wines with different foods on different occasions, and that is inherently multivariate. I might not open 2005 Clos des Briords with Atlantic oysters today, though the wine is of very high absolute quality. But 2010, now you’re talking. It wouldn’t be a question of which is “better,” and really I wouldn’t find that very interesting to discuss. “Better for what?” The 2005 is rich and beginning to develop, while the 2010 has the zip of youth. I prefer the zip for briny oysters, but I’d rather have the 2005 with cheese or some richer fish dish. But I sincerely do not have an absolute preference between them, and don’t really think it’s relevant.
But I repeat myself.
A guy I know sent me an email recently with this in it:
I beg to differ. What you're positing is that reductivism of a multifaceted experience is flawed. Why? Let's say that you go to a play about man's inhumanity to man and when asked what you thought, you say "I liked it enough to recommend that you see it." You've taken an intensely multifacted experience that addresses some profound issues about the human condition and concisely encapsulated how you felt about it. You might later add that you agreed or disagreed with certain aspects but those are details that ultimately do not change your opinion about whether your friend should, or should not, see the play. You might even go so far as to say that it's one of the best plays that you've ever seen.
Please explain what the difference is when I opened a bottle of Lafarge's '02 villages and when asked what I thought, I say that it's worth buying and that I would assign a rating of 89 points. Further, just as our hypothetical protagonist in my example above has done, I explain why I feel this way. I could just as easily say that this wine is among the best that I have ever enjoyed from Lafarge.
In both circumstances, recommendations have been rendered. The notion that one is more valid, or is less prone to distortion, than another escapes me. They're both encapsulations of a multivariate quantity to use Stewart's term.
Part of my response:
Well, to accept your play analogy, I might not say that I was recommending it in terms of absolute quality, but rather why you might want to go. I might say, “It’s a little heavy, probably not a good play for a first date.” Or, I might say, “You are a lugubrious fellow, this is exactly your sort of thing.” Or, I might say, “You live in Brooklyn Heights, it wouldn’t put you out to drop in.” Or, perhaps, “The performance by Katsman redeems what is otherwise an ordinary experience, and you are someone who likes great actors more than great playwrights.”
I think you are in the business of attributing absolute scalar quality to wine, but I am in the business of drinking different wines with different foods on different occasions, and that is inherently multivariate. I might not open 2005 Clos des Briords with Atlantic oysters today, though the wine is of very high absolute quality. But 2010, now you’re talking. It wouldn’t be a question of which is “better,” and really I wouldn’t find that very interesting to discuss. “Better for what?” The 2005 is rich and beginning to develop, while the 2010 has the zip of youth. I prefer the zip for briny oysters, but I’d rather have the 2005 with cheese or some richer fish dish. But I sincerely do not have an absolute preference between them, and don’t really think it’s relevant.
But I repeat myself.
U
Unknown
Guest
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
I don't know what literature you are looking at, but I'll guess the subjects were random sampling of the population, not people who daily did various evaluations (taste, sight, hearing, touch) according to a specific methodology. If that is so, then the studies are irrelevant.
I might add that the methodology gives me consistency in ordering preference of wines, but no special insight as a blind taster as to identity -- I'm not particularly perspicacious for that exercise.
sensory adaptation yields to no man but you claude. bravo is all i can say.
i'm puzzled as to how you tell two wines apart though.
fb.
robert ames
robert ames
originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by SFJoe:
"Mediums rares."originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by SFJoe:
The official release is out.
"Mediums."
The mystic chefs and gurus?
cooking with polyunsaturated ghee--oil from the corns of holy men.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Scalp 'em, Tantric!originally posted by robert ames:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by SFJoe:
"Mediums rares."originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by SFJoe:
The official release is out.
"Mediums."
The mystic chefs and gurus?
cooking with polyunsaturated ghee--oil from the corns of holy men.
Mike Hinds
Mike Hinds
originally posted by SFJoe:
I might not open 2005 Clos des Briords with Atlantic oysters today, though the wine is of very high absolute quality. But 2010, now you’re talking. It wouldn’t be a question of which is “better,” and really I wouldn’t find that very interesting to discuss. “Better for what?”... I sincerely do not have an absolute preference between them, and don’t really think it’s relevant.
Yes. Yes, exactly. This is what I've been trying to articulate for years. I've articulated it well, I think, but not as well as this.
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
originally posted by Brad Kane:
Word is that Chris Coad has been hired as their new correspondent in Asia as they plan to dramatically increase their coverage of cheap crap.
I can neither confirm nor deny.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by Mike Hinds:
originally posted by SFJoe:
I might not open 2005 Clos des Briords with Atlantic oysters today, though the wine is of very high absolute quality. But 2010, now you’re talking. It wouldn’t be a question of which is “better,” and really I wouldn’t find that very interesting to discuss. “Better for what?”... I sincerely do not have an absolute preference between them, and don’t really think it’s relevant.
Yes. Yes, exactly. This is what I've been trying to articulate for years. I've articulated it well, I think, but not as well as this.
Joe's comment is in similar vein to Kermit's on the same subject in Wine Road, which has provided good guidance over the years.
originally posted by SFJoe:
Why do you order them?
A guy I know sent me an email recently with this in it:I beg to differ. What you're positing is that reductivism of a multifaceted experience is flawed. Why? Let's say that you go to a play about man's inhumanity to man and when asked what you thought, you say "I liked it enough to recommend that you see it." You've taken an intensely multifacted experience that addresses some profound issues about the human condition and concisely encapsulated how you felt about it. You might later add that you agreed or disagreed with certain aspects but those are details that ultimately do not change your opinion about whether your friend should, or should not, see the play. You might even go so far as to say that it's one of the best plays that you've ever seen.
Please explain what the difference is when I opened a bottle of Lafarge's '02 villages and when asked what I thought, I say that it's worth buying and that I would assign a rating of 89 points. Further, just as our hypothetical protagonist in my example above has done, I explain why I feel this way. I could just as easily say that this wine is among the best that I have ever enjoyed from Lafarge.
In both circumstances, recommendations have been rendered. The notion that one is more valid, or is less prone to distortion, than another escapes me. They're both encapsulations of a multivariate quantity to use Stewart's term.
Part of my response:
Well, to accept your play analogy, I might not say that I was recommending it in terms of absolute quality, but rather why you might want to go. I might say, “It’s a little heavy, probably not a good play for a first date.” Or, I might say, “You are a lugubrious fellow, this is exactly your sort of thing.” Or, I might say, “You live in Brooklyn Heights, it wouldn’t put you out to drop in.” Or, perhaps, “The performance by Katsman redeems what is otherwise an ordinary experience, and you are someone who likes great actors more than great playwrights.”
I think you are in the business of attributing absolute scalar quality to wine, but I am in the business of drinking different wines with different foods on different occasions, and that is inherently multivariate. I might not open 2005 Clos des Briords with Atlantic oysters today, though the wine is of very high absolute quality. But 2010, now you’re talking. It wouldn’t be a question of which is “better,” and really I wouldn’t find that very interesting to discuss. “Better for what?” The 2005 is rich and beginning to develop, while the 2010 has the zip of youth. I prefer the zip for briny oysters, but I’d rather have the 2005 with cheese or some richer fish dish. But I sincerely do not have an absolute preference between them, and don’t really think it’s relevant.
But I repeat myself.
But I might be interested in a discussion of absolute quality. After I'd drunk your Muscadet and eaten your oysters, of course.
And relevant to what? You can easily get caught in the "it's what's in the glass" whirlpool.
Relevant to what I do with wine, which is mostly to drink it with meals.originally posted by VLM:
And relevant to what? You can easily get caught in the "it's what's in the glass" whirlpool.
I still like stuff better than other stuff, but which stuff I like best depends on what stuff I'm eating.
What I don't do much with wine is line a bunch of them up on the counter and worry about their order.
Isn't that whirlpool where all your vectors get projected?originally posted by VLM:
And relevant to what? You can easily get caught in the "it's what's in the glass" whirlpool.
Speculation, but this just in.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
I'm not saying do away with descriptions of the wines, but there are certain reasons why descriptions are not sufficient in certain contexts:originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
originally posted by Claude Kolm: they generally are able to say which ones they prefer, which would support further "granularity."
Claude, Bravo!
I'm glad to hear people take a stand in favor of the rating system(s). People can ignore the rating system(s) if they wish.
On the other hand, for many folks, the rating system(s) add an additional dimension that tends to clarify whatever verbiage the reviewer may have seen fit to assign to the entity, in this case wine.
Many people use verbiage that, in context, can be taken as positive, neutral, or even negative. The rating system(s) put the comments into perspective IF the reader wishes to avail himself of that additional (valuable?) factoid.
. . . . . . . Pete
Those of us who write tend to think that using verbiage is something different. Perhaps one wouldn't need to score if one wrote more and used verbiage (or, even worse, wordsmithed) less.
1. The number of words that can describe a wine accurately and their various permutations and combinations do not match up to the variety of wines.
2. When one tastes from cask or very early from bottle, one is tasting a wine that may not be showing all that well, but an experienced taster will know how to form a knowledgeable judgment of the potential for that wine.
3. One can take descriptions of wines from a given writer that sound identical and yet the writer likes one of the wines far more than the other. Being forced to assign a number that indicates an ordering of preference forces the reviewer to be more honest than he or she otherwise would be.
You may long for a Walter Pater of Christopher Fry of wine, but just as both of them proved to be insufficient, so it would be for wine reviews where the purpose of the review is to convey to the reader whether a given wine is likely to be of any interest to purchase (especially if the wine is likely to be available only on futures, i.e., without the reader being able to taste before purchasing). Certainly for other wine writing purposes, the use of scores would be bizarre and inappropriate.
I'm not sure why you think this is responsive to my being persnickety with Peter about writing and verbiage.
I didn't know that Walter Pater reviewed wine or that he had been found to be insufficient, either at that or at something else. One learns so many things on this board.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Brad Kane:
Speculation, but this just in.
Thread drift has properly left the original point of this thread. Let's keep it that way.
If you need to get all het up, there's a train wreck in progress on Wine Berserker. I'll admit to enjoying it in the way I enjoy junky car crash movies.
To VLM's point, I don't know how one would get from that particular recommendation to a more absolute one. I couldn't tell you if I enjoy it more or less than I've enjoyed other train wreck threads. It's the same way with plays. I can tell you whether I liked this one or that one and even why. I can't tell you whether I think Ibsen is better than Shaw or Wilde better or worse than either.