Paradigm shift

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
To perceive is to forget a difference.

You're just trying to bait fb.

I don't have as much at stake, so I'll just mention that it doesn't square with my notion--people of vast experience perceive fine differences between wines that are completely unapparent to noobs.

I'm more or less quoting Funes the Memorious. You've got to carry things to Borgesian extremes, like the fable of the map, to see the point. But it is a real point. Of course some people are able to perceive differences others don't. But if you think that the dog seen at dusk in profile is not the same dog as the dog seen from behind at daybreak when it is the same dog, then your ability to see infinite difference leads you to miss something. The statement that every bottle of Burgundy is not like any other bottle and that Bordeaux is different that way is only true if there are generalizations you can make about Bordeaux that you can't, as a matter of generalization make about Burgundies. And one needn't carry this to absurd conclusions. Fb does expect one bottle of Burgundy made by the same guy in the same year from the same place via the same methods of vinification and thus called by the same name as all other like bottles to have some important commonalities if tasted at roughly the same time. Start there and the question is merely whether one should generalize like a monkey or a fat boy, not whether one should generalize at all or not.

Of course, it's also true that Borges couldn't see.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by fatboy:

originally posted by VLM:

I would submit that a human being is a perceptual motion machine.

this is bonkers.

The answer is that you bring to that glass an idea of:

1. The vineyard.
2. The vintage.
3. Vineyard+vintage.
4. General motherfucking experience with Burgundy.
5. The producer.
6. Producer+vintage.
7. Producer+vineyard+similar vintage.
8. Producer+vineyard+vintage.

These are rank ordered by information content. All models are wrong, some are more informative than others.

to me, this is wrong but informative, in that it suggests that you would always buy an industrially made grand cru from a 'great vintage' over everything else.

shit leads to jadot, no?

for me the order is 5 > 2 > 1, which is why i emphasize #5.

i guess that it is our peers that will judge the success of our approaches...

fb.

Rank ordered from least to most information.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by fatboy:

originally posted by VLM:

I would submit that a human being is a perceptual motion machine.

this is bonkers.

You're the one who wrote "perceptual motion", I just followed it up.

The answer is that you bring to that glass an idea of:

1. The vineyard.
2. The vintage.
3. Vineyard+vintage.
4. General motherfucking experience with Burgundy.
5. The producer.
6. Producer+vintage.
7. Producer+vineyard+similar vintage.
8. Producer+vineyard+vintage.

These are rank ordered by information content. All models are wrong, some are more informative than others.

to me, this is wrong but informative, in that it suggests that you would always buy an industrially made grand cru from a 'great vintage' over everything else.

shit leads to jadot, no?

for me the order is 5 > 2 > 1, which is why i emphasize #5.

i guess that it is our peers that will judge the success of our approaches...

fb.

Everyone here emphasizes 5, that's not really the question. What we were talking about were generalizations and expectations about 14 year old Burgundy. I drank 3 year old white Burgundy last night (2010 Bachelet-Monnot Puligny). It was young and delicious. So was 2010 Baudry Croix Boissée.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Kay Bixler:
For once I agree with fatboy.

About what?

 

[VLM]

originally posted by maureen:
Jim, i think part of the problem is you are drinking shut down wines (i say this based on my general knowledge of how 1999 CdN premier crus and 96 jadots are showing, not the wines you drank). If you have a good 2002 premier cru around, try that. I think most burgs open up about ten years after vintage but might go back to sleep.

Jay, i couldn't quite figure out what you were saying above.

Any of 1999-2002 Cailles or Les St. Georges from Chevillon. Maybe some others too, but those are the ones I have experience with.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by fatboy:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I note, just to stir things up, that fb (what happened to Richard Slicker? So many monickers, so little time)never really answered VLM's question: if one can't generalize about wines, can one generalize about bottles? How about tastes from a glass? The war against generalizing about vintages (started by doghead, or at least he predates others around here) has a point. To many differences get elided. Even so, if you can't see vintage commonalities in a vineyard's, not to say an appelation's wine at all, I want to put you up for a Funes the Memorious prize. And if you really don't see something approaching, though not coinciding with identity among wines coming from the same vats and going into different bottles, I want to award you that prize. And yes, of course, like everybody else here, I have experienced the same wine from my own cellar tasting differently even within a relatively short period of time. Still, it is meaningful to say about the dog seen at sunset of a given day in profile that it is the same dog as that dog seen from behind at daybreak on another day.

in burgundy, this kind of generalization doesn't work. as a predictor of how roty's 96 ouzeloy will drink tonight, one's memory of one's last taste of a jadot marsannay from 95 will be pretty much worthless. as my chubby fingers linger over the bottle neck -- do i open it? do i leave it? -- the memories that help are of roty's wines, and roty's 96s, and actually, the most useful memories are the other ouzeloys -- especially 96 ouzeloys -- i have sucked down.

No one is disputing this.

the problem -- and it clearly is a problem, because this issue crops up recurrently, like a bad dose of herpes -- is that the points guys and the wine trade treat burgundy like a commodity, and, this in turn means that, like the deaf blinded by the lame, teh consumers tend to do likewise. in some regions, the strategy of buying different wines from different growers in different vintages based on one's perception of "who did well this year" sort of works. maybe. in burgundy, it simply leads to a situation where people own large, incoherent collections of random bottles of wine that are barely informative about one another. this in turn results in absurd quantities of wine getting opened up at inopportune times, and the grizzled sages shaking their heads and muttering, "burgundy, it's a crap-shoot."

Who exactly is putting this forward?

in re the broader topic, in days gone by i often faithfully bought and tried the various cali pinots raved about on this bored. to say that they were not my thing would be an understatement. even the fatsink recoiled in horror. but to the extent that folks out west may be more likely to buy their local wines consistently and develop some kind of relationship with them over time, i endorse the underlying message.

fb.

I agree, mostly. However, a couple of years ago I visited Rhys and tasted something I had not had from CA before. Then I started trying other things, first from Santa Cruz, then a bit broader (but Santa Cruz is still the epicenter for my palate). There are people making very serious, interesting, and enjoyable wines.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Rahsaan:
FWIW, my point about 96 and 99 being 'old' was also a comment on the shut-down middle-age aspect of the wines.

As to whether or not it is reasonable to expect a 14 year old Burgundy to show well, that seems to be more a reflection of the drinker than the wine. If you think that way, you'll buy certain wines (and perhaps more CA pinot noir than Burgundy). Those who think differently will buy other kinds of Burgundy.

To each his/her own.

That said, it's clearly a marketplace and producers need consumers. So the trends seem to be pointing towards more of the early-drinking wine consumers. Which should be good for Jim and VLM!

You people act like all wines need to be aged 20 years and this is how it has always been. That's total BS. This whole aging thing is mostly to take off the rough edges, it's not about having a completely tertiary wine. If that's what you are looking for, there is no reason to buy high up the food chain of Crus, in any appellation. Just buy village wine and age it for 30 years, you'll be happier and richer.

Speaking of markets, Jamie has to be cackling in his office with this ghuge market for dried out tertiary old wines. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
To perceive is to forget a difference.

You're just trying to bait fb.

I don't have as much at stake, so I'll just mention that it doesn't square with my notion--people of vast experience perceive fine differences between wines that are completely unapparent to noobs.

I'm more or less quoting Funes the Memorious. You've got to carry things to Borgesian extremes, like the fable of the map, to see the point. But it is a real point. Of course some people are able to perceive differences others don't. But if you think that the dog seen at dusk in profile is not the same dog as the dog seen from behind at daybreak when it is the same dog, then your ability to see infinite difference leads you to miss something. The statement that every bottle of Burgundy is not like any other bottle and that Bordeaux is different that way is only true if there are generalizations you can make about Bordeaux that you can't, as a matter of generalization make about Burgundies. And one needn't carry this to absurd conclusions. Fb does expect one bottle of Burgundy made by the same guy in the same year from the same place via the same methods of vinification and thus called by the same name as all other like bottles to have some important commonalities if tasted at roughly the same time. Start there and the question is merely whether one should generalize like a monkey or a fat boy, not whether one should generalize at all or not.

Of course, it's also true that Borges couldn't see.

I prefer 8, but will use whatever information is at my disposal when making decisions under uncertainty.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by VLM:

You people act like all wines need to be aged 20 years and this is how it has always been.

Only muscadet.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by fatboy:
.
the problem -- and it clearly is a problem, because this issue crops up recurrently, like a bad dose of herpes -- is that the points guys and the wine trade treat burgundy like a commodity, and, this in turn means that, like the deaf blinded by the lame, teh consumers tend to do likewise. in some regions, the strategy of buying different wines from different growers in different vintages based on one's perception of "who did well this year" sort of works. maybe. in burgundy, it simply leads to a situation where people own large, incoherent collections of random bottles of wine that are barely informative about one another. this in turn results in absurd quantities of wine getting opened up at inopportune times, and the grizzled sages shaking their heads and muttering, "burgundy, it's a crap-shoot."

Who exactly is putting this forward?

i did. i see it everywhere, even on this bored. and, as i said, i blame the merchants, and, in particular, i blame the points guys. why else do you think people buy and cellar negoce vosne suchots, or expect it to be other than what it is when they drink it?

fb.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by fatboy:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by fatboy:
.
the problem -- and it clearly is a problem, because this issue crops up recurrently, like a bad dose of herpes -- is that the points guys and the wine trade treat burgundy like a commodity, and, this in turn means that, like the deaf blinded by the lame, teh consumers tend to do likewise. in some regions, the strategy of buying different wines from different growers in different vintages based on one's perception of "who did well this year" sort of works. maybe. in burgundy, it simply leads to a situation where people own large, incoherent collections of random bottles of wine that are barely informative about one another. this in turn results in absurd quantities of wine getting opened up at inopportune times, and the grizzled sages shaking their heads and muttering, "burgundy, it's a crap-shoot."

Who exactly is putting this forward?

i did. i see it everywhere, even on this bored. and, as i said, i blame the merchants, and, in particular, i blame the points guys. why else do you think people buy and cellar negoce vosne suchots, or expect it to be other than what it is when they drink it?

fb.

Price. Then you age it for 30 years so it tastes like every other 30 year old Vosne except ones that cost a ton.

I think your point is that Jim shouldn't be drawing conclusions form these two wines. What I "heard" from Jim was that this was like a straw on the camel's back. It was just one more in a string of disappointments. My Burgundy cellar is mostly Mugneret, Barthod, and Chevillon so I don't have many disappointments. Some of that is luck, some of that is totally anal retentive compulsive planning.

You really should try Ghostwriter or Rhys the next time you are in the states. I'll try to help with that if I can. I think you'd enjoy both, though neither are particularly Roty-esque. Speaking of which, any experience with the 1996 Charmes recently? I haven't had one in maybe 10 years and it was in need of sleep. Some 1996s are opening up, so I thought maybe this might be.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

You people act like all wines need to be aged 20 years and this is how it has always been.

Only muscadet.

Only if you have a particular palate affinity. Pervert.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by VLM:

Price. Then you age it for 30 years so it tastes like every other 30 year old Vosne except ones that cost a ton.

did someone mention commodities?

My Burgundy cellar is mostly Mugneret, Barthod, and Chevillon so I don't have many disappointments. Some of that is luck, some of that is totally anal retentive compulsive planning.

or to put it another way, you have discovered that it pays to have a relationship with a few wines, rather than drink "burgundy." n'est ce pas?

You really should try Ghostwriter or Rhys the next time you are in the states. I'll try to help with that if I can. I think you'd enjoy both, though neither are particularly Roty-esque.

i'll seek clearance from teh fatsink.

Speaking of which, any experience with the 1996 Charmes recently? I haven't had one in maybe 10 years and it was in need of sleep. Some 1996s are opening up, so I thought maybe this might be.

dunno. i can't recall having had the 96 -- or any other -- charmes for a long long while. sorry.

fb.

 

[Rahsaan]

originally posted by VLM:
You people act like all wines need to be aged 20 years and this is how it has always been. That's total BS. This whole aging thing is mostly to take off the rough edges, it's not about having a completely tertiary wine.

FWIW, I don't think anyone said all wines need to be aged 20 years or that it has always been that way. Just that some wines need more age than others.

And, FWIW, I think my palate tends more towards yours than the tertiary folks as I enjoy it when the wines are mellowed but you can still recognize the grape/region.

 

[Bill Bounds]

As much as I hate to contradict my old friend, James. The argument that burgundies just don't have quality at reasonable price points is very tired and says more about what wines one is buying than the wines that are available. If you want to play with the big boys and drink high dollar wines, be prepared for an uncertain drinking window and bottle variation.
Step down to the prole wines, and the quality and drinking window are much more friendly, not to mention having great price points. Here are some examples. In 2003 and 2004, it was the 2002 Chevillon Bourgogne priced in the high teens. Around the same time maybe a little later, the 2002 Marechal Bourgogne Cuvee Gravel at the same price point. SueSue and I went through at least 4 cases of each. Each one could shame the $30 to $60 Pinots coming out of the West Coast. More recently the 2008 Hudelot Bourgogne (one case @ $15.99; 2 cases @ $12.99), I just drank my last one Thursday night - what a great wine. And just last year, the 2009 Mikulski Passetoutgrains @ $19.99. I have many other examples, but don't have the motivation to go through my CellarTracker history. These wines deliver great pleasure without waiting years to drink them.
Clearly at the highest price points and the proper aging, West Coast Pinots cannot keep up. The argument is just over drinking window. At the low end where I live, there is not even a figment of competition.
As for the monkey, I would just say that I drank a 1982 Vogue Bonnes Mares in 2003; the wine was the color of rusty water and from a terrible vintage. It defined for me a Muhammad Ali wine - "it floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee" - definitely in my all time top 10. Or a 1985 Pernot Batard Montrachet drank in 2007 - it was an illumination. But playing in those rarified circles brings a lot of risk and costs a lot of money. Not really for someone who goes through 450 bottles per year with our income.
French wine (and I limit it to Burgundy, Beaujolais, Loire, and Jura) still has the best QPR of any wine region.

 

[Peter Creasey]

originally posted by Bill Bounds: French wine (and I limit it to Burgundy, Beaujolais, Loire, and Jura) still has the best QPR of any wine region.

Bill, I'm with you...perhaps especially with respect to the Southern France selections.

Except for Zins, I buy elsewhere only VERY carefully.

. . . . . Pete

 

[Rahsaan]

This QPR issue seems to come up frequently around the wine boards, and people always argue for their favorite regions as offering the best QPR. Which makes a lot of sense.

 

[Yixin]

Good Lord.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Yixin:
Good Lord.

i'm told the bible is a nice work-through of the whole "deserted" metaphor.

turns out it never gets old.

fb.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Yixin:
Good Lord.

Hold on, don't you pray to your ancestors or something?

Blasphemer.