Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
99 points?
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.
Because everyone else was doing it
- Thread starter Keith Levenberg
- Start date
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
99 points?
When Keith really likes a wine, he really really likes it!
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
What have you been doing?
What have you been doing?
What have you been doing?
What have you been doing?
What have you been doing?
- Tallulah
What have you been doing?
What have you been doing?
What have you been doing?
What have you been doing?
- Tallulah
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
I don't have a problem with wine ratings. Numbers are a perfectly reasonable way of talking about preferences, so long as you can keep them in perspective. They are especially useful in CellarTracker where you can use them to do some interesting things with the aggregate data. I do normally omit them from wine board posts because they tend to direct the thread into a discussion of the rating rather than the wine.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
I value and respect your opinions, but have to disagree on this one.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
29 99s or 100s from me out of 4,165 TNs on CT (0.7%).originally posted by maureen:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
99 points?
When Keith really likes a wine, he really really likes it!
See, data is fun!
Tristan Welles
Tristan Welles
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I value and respect your opinions, but have to disagree on this one.
“Tout ce qui est simple est faux, mais tout ce qui ne l'est pas est inutilisable.”
Paul Valéry
I would never use a pointy method for judging wine. I don't really like trying to describe wine at all, but realize that opinions can be valuable to others. Especially when the subject is as varied and, in its complete sense, as unknowable as wine. If I were honest in my approach, each attempt to describe a bottle would be a minor essay. What I know and perceive would ineluctably involve memory, history, a sens de lieu and it is not possible to communicate as rapidly as to drink.
All the same, I seek out Keith's notes on CellarTracker as interesting and useful. Once in a while the numbers actually add to my understanding.
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I don't have a problem with wine ratings. Numbers are a perfectly reasonable way of talking about preferences, so long as you can keep them in perspective. They are especially useful in CellarTracker where you can use them to do some interesting things with the aggregate data. I do normally omit them from wine board posts because they tend to direct the thread into a discussion of the rating rather than the wine.
In aggregate and normalized, numbers can add information. I will sometimes add a score in CT, but never do in CWDs..
Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
originally posted by Keith Levenberg: I don't have a problem with wine ratings. Numbers are a perfectly reasonable way of talking about preferences, so long as you can keep them in perspective.
Keith, well said!
As one additional parameter (which can be ignored), they can (and often do) add clarity.
. . . . Pete
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Yay, I win!
originally posted by Tristan Welles:
I don't really like trying to describe wine at all, but realize that opinions can be valuable to others. Especially when the subject is as varied and, in its complete sense, as unknowable as wine.
You could say the same thing about pretty much every human experience.
Yet we continue to use language to communicate.
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Tristan Welles:
I don't really like trying to describe wine at all, but realize that opinions can be valuable to others. Especially when the subject is as varied and, in its complete sense, as unknowable as wine.
You could say the same thing about pretty much every human experience.
Yet we continue to use language to communicate.
And numbers to determine truth.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Thanks, monkey. Best laugh I've had all day.originally posted by VLM:
And numbers to determine truth.
Ben Hunting
Ben Hunting
originally posted by VLM:
Pretty please post your CT note for Texier C-R on WB.
The source for the C-R grapes changed between 2011 and 2012, incidentally.
Howard Cooper
Howard Cooper
I have had the 2004 Truchot Clos de la Roche a number of times and it is quite good - not at all like a 2004. But some of you guys are rating the 2004 96 or 97 points on CellarTracker???? What would you rate the 1999 or the 2005?
The 2004 is probably the weakest Clos de la Roche in the period 1999-2005 (although I have only tasted the 2005 as a barrel sample, it was quite promising). I know it is hard to rate wines, and I have stopped doing so.
But to me, leaving out the 2005, because I have not had the wine as a finished wine, I would rank the recent vintages of this at 1999 (just a great wine - blew away a Bachelet Charmes 1999 head-to-head), 2002 (which has gotten really good in the last year or so), 2001 (one of the few vintages where I prefer the Charmes), 2003 (still incredibly young and just starting to taste like a Truchot rather than a 2003, but quite promising), 2000 and 2004.
The 2004 is probably the weakest Clos de la Roche in the period 1999-2005 (although I have only tasted the 2005 as a barrel sample, it was quite promising). I know it is hard to rate wines, and I have stopped doing so.
But to me, leaving out the 2005, because I have not had the wine as a finished wine, I would rank the recent vintages of this at 1999 (just a great wine - blew away a Bachelet Charmes 1999 head-to-head), 2002 (which has gotten really good in the last year or so), 2001 (one of the few vintages where I prefer the Charmes), 2003 (still incredibly young and just starting to taste like a Truchot rather than a 2003, but quite promising), 2000 and 2004.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
For current enjoyment the 2004 Truchots are about as good as it gets. I would take one over a 2005 in a heartbeat.
David Erickson
David Erickson
They could have saved a lot of time (although not had as much fun) if someone had taken a moment to speak of the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by David Erickson:
They could have saved a lot of time (although not had as much fun) if someone had taken a moment to speak of the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers.
My objections, at least, apply to either.