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.
Here we go again!
- Thread starter Bob Parsons Alberta
- Start date
Bob Parsons Alberta
Bob Parsons
originally posted by Bob Parsons Alberta:
Here we go again!Wine tasting is junk science!
Loading…
www.guardian.co.uk
Mind you, some of the comments are quite interesting, just scroll down.
Sorry, not sure how to post direct link.
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
originally posted by Bob Parsons Alberta:
originally posted by Bob Parsons Alberta:
Here we go again!Wine tasting is junk science!
Loading…
www.guardian.co.uk
Mind you, some of the comments are quite interesting, just scroll down.
Sorry, not sure how to post direct link.
See the FAQ. I'd do it but I still don't know how to copy/paste easily on my iPad.
originally posted by MLipton:
Here you go, Bobclickable link
Amusing article, if not exactly breaking fresh ground.
Mark Lipton
Whenever a wine article in the UK general press is the subject of public comment, a large part of such comments are attacks on the perceived snobbery surrounding wine. This Guardian article has attracted quite a lot of this bigoted anti-snobbery bile. For some reason wine seems to generate this type of anger far more than such activities as classical music, art and horse riding, which themselves are far from free of snobbery. Perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that wine drinking is far more widespread than those other activities. Would the same happen in the USA?
My own modest contribution to the debate, which attracted no further comment, can be found under the pseudonym Eboracum (thin disguise for those who know Roman names for UK towns) on the last page in earliest placed last order.
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
"The flavour of wine its aroma or bouquet is detected not by the taste buds, but by millions of receptors in the olfactory bulb, a blob of nervous tissue where the brain meets the nasal passage."
Uh, wouldn't that be, "The smell (or scent) of wine -..."?
Un-proofread and unedited text from the Guardian. Is that junk-journalism? That sentence provides the context for the next 10 or so paragraphs. Couldn't you get that right?
What no one has done that I know of, and what actually will tell the tale, is to see if a judge can bubble sort flights of the same 4-10 wines in roughly the same order over a few different tries. The numbers are, as everyone here knows, totally arbitrary and capricious. A consistent order of preference is what reveals the greatest truth.
KDS
Uh, wouldn't that be, "The smell (or scent) of wine -..."?
Un-proofread and unedited text from the Guardian. Is that junk-journalism? That sentence provides the context for the next 10 or so paragraphs. Couldn't you get that right?
What no one has done that I know of, and what actually will tell the tale, is to see if a judge can bubble sort flights of the same 4-10 wines in roughly the same order over a few different tries. The numbers are, as everyone here knows, totally arbitrary and capricious. A consistent order of preference is what reveals the greatest truth.
KDS
Bob Parsons Alberta
Bob Parsons
Fiona Beckett, Guardian wine writer replies>
There's nothing the Great British Public likes better than a bit of research revealing that wine critics and sommeliers can make mistakes. No matter that chefs might fail to detect the spicing in a dish or cheese experts to identify the origin of an obscure goat's cheese, there's something about wine that brings out the inverse snob in everyone. The "Ha! Told you it wasn't worth paying more than £3.49 a bottle" moment seems to appeal to us all.
So why bother? And, in particular, why take anyone's view mine for instance on wine seriously? After all, I freely confess, I've made mistakes myself in blind tastings (though not to the extent of confusing red with white). At the risk of what sounds like special pleading, I would argue that these tastings are not the ideal basis on which to judge wine. It is far more useful, for example, to try them with food or against a lineup of wines of the same type, as I've just done with half a dozen rosés this morning, to see which tastes best. "Best", of course being subjective, just as it would be if I were assessing lipliners, like my colleague Sali Hughes. Most fit for purpose, maybe. If you like this kind of wine and want to pay x amount, this should do the job. I would hope people who read my column enjoy the wines I recommend. From the feedback I get, some at least do.
Like other consumer goods it's not just about price. If you're celebrating your wedding anniversary or your dad's 60th, do you crack open a bottle of Asda cava? It might taste better than some cheap champagnes. Your dad might not be able to tell the difference but he might. And you want to show that you value him enough to pay more than £5 a bottle to drink to his health. Same with trainers. You can buy serviceable ones from Primark, but many would buy Nike.
Our reluctance to spend more than an absolute minimum on wine and our tendency to sneer at those who do is one of the reasons why supermarkets are able to keep screwing their suppliers and why many producers can no longer be bothered with a market that won't give them a fair return on their outlay. Don't blame the critics. The choice is yours.
There's nothing the Great British Public likes better than a bit of research revealing that wine critics and sommeliers can make mistakes. No matter that chefs might fail to detect the spicing in a dish or cheese experts to identify the origin of an obscure goat's cheese, there's something about wine that brings out the inverse snob in everyone. The "Ha! Told you it wasn't worth paying more than £3.49 a bottle" moment seems to appeal to us all.
So why bother? And, in particular, why take anyone's view mine for instance on wine seriously? After all, I freely confess, I've made mistakes myself in blind tastings (though not to the extent of confusing red with white). At the risk of what sounds like special pleading, I would argue that these tastings are not the ideal basis on which to judge wine. It is far more useful, for example, to try them with food or against a lineup of wines of the same type, as I've just done with half a dozen rosés this morning, to see which tastes best. "Best", of course being subjective, just as it would be if I were assessing lipliners, like my colleague Sali Hughes. Most fit for purpose, maybe. If you like this kind of wine and want to pay x amount, this should do the job. I would hope people who read my column enjoy the wines I recommend. From the feedback I get, some at least do.
Like other consumer goods it's not just about price. If you're celebrating your wedding anniversary or your dad's 60th, do you crack open a bottle of Asda cava? It might taste better than some cheap champagnes. Your dad might not be able to tell the difference but he might. And you want to show that you value him enough to pay more than £5 a bottle to drink to his health. Same with trainers. You can buy serviceable ones from Primark, but many would buy Nike.
Our reluctance to spend more than an absolute minimum on wine and our tendency to sneer at those who do is one of the reasons why supermarkets are able to keep screwing their suppliers and why many producers can no longer be bothered with a market that won't give them a fair return on their outlay. Don't blame the critics. The choice is yours.
originally posted by Ken Schramm:
What no one has done that I know of, and what actually will tell the tale, is to see if a judge can bubble sort flights of the same 4-10 wines in roughly the same order over a few different tries. The numbers are, as everyone here knows, totally arbitrary and capricious. A consistent order of preference is what reveals the greatest truth.
KDS
And then you average that order of preference with the results of 10 others, and revert to the mean....
I don't really know anyone that buys wine based on medals assigned at big fairs, do you?
(Except maybe Rimmerman)
Greg Hirson
Greg Hirson
originally posted by Ken Schramm:
"The flavour of wine its aroma or bouquet is detected not by the taste buds, but by millions of receptors in the olfactory bulb, a blob of nervous tissue where the brain meets the nasal passage."
Uh, wouldn't that be, "The smell (or scent) of wine -..."?
Un-proofread and unedited text from the Guardian. Is that junk-journalism? That sentence provides the context for the next 10 or so paragraphs. Couldn't you get that right?
....
KDS
To be fair, flavor is variously defined depending on the forum. In wine aroma chemistry, flavor and aroma are often synonymous, but can also mean the combination of aroma and taste.
originally posted by Bob Parsons Alberta:
Fiona Beckett, Guardian wine writer replies>
There's nothing the Great British Public likes better than a bit of research revealing that wine critics and sommeliers can make mistakes. No matter that chefs might fail to detect the spicing in a dish or cheese experts to identify the origin of an obscure goat's cheese, there's something about wine that brings out the inverse snob in everyone. The "Ha! Told you it wasn't worth paying more than £3.49 a bottle" moment seems to appeal to us all.
So why bother? And, in particular, why take anyone's view mine for instance on wine seriously? After all, I freely confess, I've made mistakes myself in blind tastings (though not to the extent of confusing red with white). At the risk of what sounds like special pleading, I would argue that these tastings are not the ideal basis on which to judge wine. It is far more useful, for example, to try them with food or against a lineup of wines of the same type, as I've just done with half a dozen rosés this morning, to see which tastes best. "Best", of course being subjective, just as it would be if I were assessing lipliners, like my colleague Sali Hughes. Most fit for purpose, maybe. If you like this kind of wine and want to pay x amount, this should do the job. I would hope people who read my column enjoy the wines I recommend. From the feedback I get, some at least do.
Like other consumer goods it's not just about price. If you're celebrating your wedding anniversary or your dad's 60th, do you crack open a bottle of Asda cava? It might taste better than some cheap champagnes. Your dad might not be able to tell the difference but he might. And you want to show that you value him enough to pay more than £5 a bottle to drink to his health. Same with trainers. You can buy serviceable ones from Primark, but many would buy Nike.
Our reluctance to spend more than an absolute minimum on wine and our tendency to sneer at those who do is one of the reasons why supermarkets are able to keep screwing their suppliers and why many producers can no longer be bothered with a market that won't give them a fair return on their outlay. Don't blame the critics. The choice is yours.
Good reply but a touch too defensive in tone against those inverted snobs.
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
And then you average that order of preference with the results of 10 others, and revert to the mean....
I don't really know anyone that buys wine based on medals assigned at big fairs, do you?
(Except maybe Rimmerman)
It kind of depends on how you define a big fair.
I'm not well off enough to buy a ton of high-priced burgundy just to see which ones I like. I do buy based on "reviews," whether that is information I read here (so, in a way, this is another fair), the advice of a trusted merchant, or things read elsewhere. Unless one is deeply ITB, it is tough to taste enough not to rely on the reviews of others.
I don't want to average anything, Joe. I want to find a few smart and amusing people who can spot a great wine when they taste it (from what I have read here, I would put you in that category), and listen to what they have to say.
The idea that wine, and our reactions to it, are not temporal and situational, though, is bizarre.
Sure, I think I quite agree.originally posted by Ken Schramm:
And then you average that order of preference with the results of 10 others, and revert to the mean....
I don't really know anyone that buys wine based on medals assigned at big fairs, do you?
(Except maybe Rimmerman)
It kind of depends on how you define a big fair.
I'm not well off enough to buy a ton of high-priced burgundy just to see which ones I like. I do buy based on "reviews," whether that is information I read here (so, in a way, this is another fair), the advice of a trusted merchant, or things read elsewhere. Unless one is deeply ITB, it is tough to taste enough not to rely on the reviews of others.
I don't want to average anything, Joe. I want to find a few smart and amusing people who can spot a great wine when they taste it (from what I have read here, I would put you in that category), and listen to what they have to say.
The idea that wine, and our reactions to it, are not temporal and situational, though, is bizarre.
The thing about the big fairs is that they invite a bunch of judges, some of whom are competent (in a narrow way), and some of whom have interesting opinions, and then they pretend that everyone is sharing a universal experience and average out all the interesting variation into one smudged vector.
Personally, I blame the VLM for the corrupt theory.
And from the winery's POV, if you throw the dice in enough contests, you win some.
Though I reiterate my original question, who buys wine based on these crazy contests? I mean, Noodle, I've been to big wine fairs in France, for instance, and then I've learned about the wines that won the prizes, and Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, they wouldn't have gotten a prize from me. But it's good enough for a Rimmerman email and I'm sure the wine sells out.
But to me, it's like buying the wine from the guy who just flipped heads 5 times in a row. You can pick him out of the line of 32 guys, but the next one who throws 5 in a row will be someone else.