Bordeaux

Touchy touchy touchy. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed that after all this time where you should *know* I know what I'm talking about, you can't chalk something like this up to diff'rent strokes. Or at least different notions about what we're talking about when we talk about profundity. What barbera or freisa or ruche or anything else you care to mention would you bring to a dinner where Monfortino or Musigny is also on the menu?

I've had all 3 of those Barolos. I enjoyed the Burlotto a lot (I always do), did not enjoy the Mascarello AT ALL, and was able to enjoy the Rinaldi in a more-academic-than-fun sort of way.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Touchy touchy touchy. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed that after all this time where you should *know* I know what I'm talking about, you can't chalk something like this up to diff'rent strokes. Or at least different notions about what we're talking about when we talk about profundity. What barbera or freisa or ruche or anything else you care to mention would you bring to a dinner where Monfortino or Musigny is also on the menu?

I've had all 3 of those Barolos. I enjoyed the Burlotto a lot (I always do), did not enjoy the Mascarello AT ALL, and was able to enjoy the Rinaldi in a more-academic-than-fun sort of way.
Click to expand...

I agree that Nebbiolo is almost without peer when it comes to aromatic complexity (pinot noir - but nothing from Oregon - and riesling belong in this category). I've never used the word profundity, nor is it one I choose to describe wines. Nonetheless, we all know what you are talking about.

Now, though I've probably drunk more Dolcetto and Barbera at table than anyone here, Levi included, I'm not going to tell anyone what they like. What's being argued is not pleasure or preference, so perhaps what Levi and Keith are talking about is not the same thing?
 
What barbera or freisa or ruche or anything else you care to mention would you bring to a dinner where Monfortino or Musigny is also on the menu?
Click to expand...

Absolute statements are always risky with wine. I've had a couple of DRC wines that were nice but far from greatness IMHO. On the other hand, last year I attended a tasting of California and Italian Barberas from the 70s and 80s (Ridge, Montevina, Conterno) that were amazingly fine and complex.
 
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
What barbera or freisa or ruche or anything else you care to mention would you bring to a dinner where Monfortino or Musigny is also on the menu?
Click to expand...

Absolute statements are always risky with wine. I've had a couple of DRC wines that were nice but far from greatness IMHO. On the other hand, last year I attended a tasting of California and Italian Barberas from the 70s and 80s (Ridge, Montevina, Conterno) that were amazingly fine and complex.
Click to expand...
No absolute statements made - or at least the absolute parts of the statements are (or should be) uncontroversial. A top-notch barbera will always be preferred to a lousy DRC, but even the best barbera is not going to be at the level of the best DRC. (yesyesyes, the barbera is the one you might prefer to have with [insert your favorite Piemontese dish here], but that's a separate discussion.)

Agreed that Conterno barbera is (or was - my experiences with recent vintages are not the same) the most ambitious expression of the grape.
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

I'm curious -- why the knock in broad generality against Oregon Pinot Noirs?

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

No knock. Just a fact. The wines lack complexity compared to their old-world brethren.
 
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

I'm curious -- why the knock in broad generality against Oregon Pinot Noirs?

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

No knock. Just a fact. The wines lack complexity compared to their old-world brethren.
Click to expand...

This is not really a fact, it's a perception. Completely legitimate for your own palate and experience, but not mine.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Agreed that Conterno barbera is (or was - my experiences with recent vintages are not the same) the most ambitious expression of the grape.
Click to expand...

perhaps the most ambitious but by no means the most successful. Oh wait, was that because I tried to drink it with [insert your favorite Piemontese dish here] (tm)? Hmm...
 
Keith - given your interests I assume you've tried the Cogno ungrafted Barbera? I'm not a Barbera fan but it was one of the best and most interesting I've had and the only one I've ever bought after tasting.
 
It's hard to imagine that Oregon Pinots like Antica Terra, Le Cadeau, and many others might be considered to "lack complexity". Yes, to my atrophied palate, many (most?) of them are more nuanced and subtle than many (most?) California Pinots and tend to come across more Burgundian.

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

It's hard to imagine that Oregon Pinots like Antica Terra, Le Cadeau, and many others might be considered to "lack complexity". Yes, to my atrophied palate, many (most?) of them are more nuanced and subtle than many (most?) California Pinots and tend to come across more Burgundian.

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

People in Oregon love to use the term Burgundian to describe their wines. They are in no way similar except for the name of the grape variety (and Oregon plantings often have a limited number of clones; perhaps that is changing). Compared to California, most are definitely more nuanced and subtle; no argument there. But they don't belong in a discussion about the merits of Nebbiolo from Piedmont, nor red Burgundy.

I disagree with CMM. There are some established parameters to judge wine; it is not just perception: yours vs. mine. Sure wine is not art, so if you argue that the turd under glass is more profound that a Rembrandt, I would be somewhat at a loss to argue that, other than to say we have vastly different aesthetic sensibilities.
 
originally posted by mark e: There are some established parameters to judge wine; it is not just perception
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know how "complexity" can be measured so as to be considered fact rather than perception.

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

originally posted by mark e: There are some established parameters to judge wine; it is not just perception
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know how "complexity" can be measured so as to be considered fact rather than perception.

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

some things can't be measured--which has nothing to do with whether they are real or not.
 
originally posted by robert ames:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

originally posted by mark e: There are some established parameters to judge wine; it is not just perception
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know how "complexity" can be measured so as to be considered fact rather than perception.

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

some things can't be measured--which has nothing to do with whether they are real or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Pete has a point. If the only evidence for complexity is one's ability to perceive it, and such abilities are subjectively variable, how can one claim its existence as a fact? If complexity left a measurable mark, as, say, TCA does, the case would be different, of course. I think terms like "fact" and "objective reality," are thrown around too cavalierly on this wine board and others, while terms like "taste" and "preference" are used all too sparingly.
 
while we can all experience complexity, appreciate it, love it, debate it, etc., (even as we are now) i find the exercise of assigning a measurement to complexity (e.g., i'm 98 points on that!!) to be just too, well, complex. or a fool's errand.

much like terry theise's treatise on the notion of assigning points to wines in general.

and yes, i may have misused "e.g.".
 
One aspect of flavor and aroma in general is that the experience of their attributes is so personal, that it is difficult to develop a communally-accepted baseline and scale of calibration for them, except for gross qualitative distinctions.

Thus you may say a certain wine tastes of cherries but, to the extent your neighbors (figuratively speaking) agree with you at all, it could be very difficult to agree on whether the flavor is very cherry, medium cherry, or just a bit cherry. This would be true in most dimensions of a wine's description except, to some extent, those correlating to measurable physical attributes, such as, say, pH, abv, and RS, where the personal tasting/smelling experience can be validated by reference to jointly-accessible visual information.

Complexity is a meta-attribute, a kind of index of other, directly-experienced attributes, and so probably even less amenable to community-scale calibration and consensus than more primary attributes.

On the other hand, I have an idea of complexity in wine that I believe in; I know it when I taste it. I also bet that a group of reasonably-experienced tasters would tend to agree on the presence and absence of complexity among a collection of wines tasted together; and further, that they'd mostly agree on relative grading of complexity among the wines they agree are complex.

As to Oregon vs. Burgundy Pinot-based wines, with respect to complexity, and speaking personally, not all Burgundies are complex (and the simple ones can nevertheless be extremely lovely), but many are, while only one or two of the west coast US wines I've tasted (Californian or Oregonian) are even in the ballpark.

Okay, next we tackle elegance ...
 
I could agree with every single point Robert and Ian make and not think that complexity is objective in the sense of universally shareable. With regard to all tasters agreeing, it is worth remembering that Augustine was wrong when he said securis judicat orbis terrarum. The whole world judged that the sun moved around the earth and that the species were fixed, and they were wrong nevertheless. There are other examples. Scientists did learn from that humbling experience. More of us could follow suit.
 
Are there universally sharable experiences? These are objective?

I don't put forth tasters agreeing as the standard of eternal truth; but the plausibility does militate in favor of the idea of complexity in wine as a genearlly-discernible attribute, not merely capricious fancy of the random taster.

As to Augustine, at his time, was prevalent thinking that the sun revolved around the earth, or that the earth was flat? Either way, humankind had to pass through a phase of comprehending the earth and sun in a simple spatial relationship, before getting comfortable at scale with the refinement of this concept expressed by Copernicus. The idea of lightwaves flowing, wave-like, through ether preceded that of electromagnetic propagation through empty space and special relativity. In community mind, as in biological evolution, the adjacent available is predicated on preceding development. In this state of affairs, humility is apt, as you say, but not paralysis because of uncertainty.
 
Things that are universally shareable may not be objectively ascertainable, but since no one doesn't share the experience, it doesn't much matter. Things that are objectively real don't need our assent: whether or not you believe in gravity, it believes in you.

There is nothing about the earth being flat that precludes the sun revolving around it and for along time people believed both things. The only thing necessary thing for wondering about that conclusion was to care about how planets seemed to bounce about, and there were very early doubters of the Ptolemaic system (planet, I am told, means wanderer in some ancient language or another or the word in that language meant that, or something like that, maybe) No doubt they were dismissed as Kant dismissed believers in evolution and burgundy lovers are dismissing Oregon pinots as capable of complexity. Of course, a lot of kooks get dismissed too. But my point was that a lot of people agreeing with you doesn't mean anything more than that you will win a vote.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
... you may say a certain wine tastes of cherries but, to the extent your neighbors (figuratively speaking) agree with you at all, it could be very difficult to agree on whether the flavor is very cherry, medium cherry, or just a bit cherry. This would be true in most dimensions of a wine's description except, to some extent, those correlating to measurable physical attributes, such as, say, pH, abv, and RS, where the personal tasting/smelling experience can be validated by reference to jointly-accessible visual information.
Click to expand...

Just to add to the complexity (there's that word again!), grapes share some of the same molecules that are in other fruits and vegetables. When someone says they smell bell pepper in their Cabernet Franc, they may be smelling 2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine, which also exists in bell peppers and gives them that characteristic "green" smell.

I suppose you could define complexity as the presence of higher than average number of such volatile flavor and aroma-producing molecules, but in balance so one does not dominate. But you are still left with the issue of individual sensitivities and perceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top