2002 red Burgundies, Côtes de Nuits. Tasted at San Francisco 27 July 2004,
double-blind.

This was a "supplemental," not part of a regular tasting-group series,
because of the volume of products now coming to market. 11 tasters, mixed
trade and Burgundy enthusiasts, one wine writer. (5-40 years blind tasting
experience. A group of younger tasters around 30 years old, congregating at
a separate table, banteringly dubbed the children's table, and needing
indeed to be hushed once or twice, nevertheless again belied such factors
through sharp observations and accurate blind identifications.)

Wine names were filled in after the tasting. We took notes blind, then
ranked by personal preference (1 = favorite), combined these scores to give
points counts (the less popular wines getting more points), sorted these
points counts into group rankings., then revealed the wines. I am not a
professional wine critic so these are personal rather than professional
notes, with language to match. Letter "T" stands for "Taste" in contrast to
smell, and its first appearance marks start of tasting in contrast to
smelling. Also, my final "rating" for wines for some decades has been
(Yes) -- I could see spending some of my wine budget on it -- or (No) -- I
could not.

8 wines, 11 tasters, so a wine everyone ranked last (8th place) would have
88 total points.

The 2002 vintage in this region overall was extremely ripe, remarked two
professionals who had visited and tasted widely in barrel. Producers
reported inconsistent preferences between their 01 and 02. One thing
consistent among those two years is high prices. Also, the close reader of
these notes will spot a poor correlation between group preference and price.


2002 Richebourg, Domaine Anne Gros. Lot L R 02. $280.
(Preferences: Mine 8 Group 8 [last place] Points 74) Lighter in color
than most. Moldy hint, possibly not TCA but some defect. Strong cloves,
much like the Gros Vougeot. Mint, volatile wood. T again cloves; sage;
these components almost cloyingly strong. Young raw imbalance, heavy wood,
fruit, acid. Young! [Several people ranked this wine last, almost all
noted the moldy nose defect and also that this might not be TCA. The defect
was an issue, otherwise it was an impressive, though young and disjointed,
wine. There is some history of corked 2001s from Anne Gros by the way, I
posted another note on a Web site some months ago] (No.)


2002 Clos Vougeot "Le Grand Maupertui," Domaine Anne Gros. Lot L CV 02.
$120.
(Preferences: Mine 1 Group 3 Points 42) Sharp, sage-like herb; sharp
clove beneath it. Dental topical anesthetic (DTA), that's the only way I
can put it -- like Oil of Cloves. Pinot rubber. Burnt. T: sassafras,
clove, intense. Hard, concentrated, beautiful structure, generous fruit. I
rank it over my #2 because T is so concentrated here. (Yes!)


2002 Bonnes-Mares, Robert Groffier Père & Fils. Lot L7. $150.
(Preferences: Mine 3 Group 2 Points 46?) Gentle. Meaty, fruit is hidden
beneath. Bit of sulfur, SO2 type. Vanilla, coffee, mint. T the coffee and
mint in the smell hinted at what is a very classy assembly in the taste.
Very. Fine subtle dark fruits, appealing rather than closed. (Yes.)


2002 Chambolle-Musigny "Les Amoureuses," Robert Groffier Père & Fils. Lot
L6. $105.
(Preferences: Mine 4 Group 7 Points 58) Vegetal note, maybe transient.
Meaty. Bit of Mercaptan. Oak toast. Coffee grounds. T pleasant
coffeeishness and dark fruit. Aroma citrus peel. More of a smooth balance
than a hard one. (Yes.)


2002 Chambolle-Musigny "Les Sentiers," Robert Groffier Père & Fils. Lot L5.
$65.
(Preferences: Mine 5 Group 1 Points 36) Young fruit acid, licorice. Oak
toast. Pickle juice (or very strong fruit acid?). T strong
coffee-chocolate-cappuccino flavors, I like it, more toast than fruit but
still melon, licorice. (Yes)


2002 Chambolle-Musigny "Les Hauts-Doix," Robert Groffier Père & Fils. Lot
L4. $65.
(Preferences: Mine 6 Group 6 Points 54) Fruit-acid, otherwise reserved,
closed. Opening later, vanilla, classic pinot, orange. T harder, more
tannic than the others, ripe fruit-acid finish, pleasant herbality, floral,
nicely made, should age. (No.)


2002 Chambolle-Musigny "Les Beaux Bruns," Domaine Denis Mortet. Lot L12.
$92.
(Preferences: Mine 2 Group 4 Points 44) Toast, toast. Explosion of
encouraging Nuits smells -- reserved truffles. Varnish, Sage. Orange peel.
Port-salut. T intensely concentrated, rich fruit core, young sap-like
tannin. (Yes.) [Others, one respected taster especially, decried excess of
both oak and manipulation and instantly identified it blind as Mortet.]


2002 Gevrey-Chambertin "Les Champeaux," Domaine Denis Mortet. Lot L10.
$92.
(Preferences: Mine 7 Group 5 Points 48) Darker than most. Spice, cherry
fruit, port-salut. Carbonic acid. T alcoholic, almost "wood alcohol,"
almost madeirized note that may just be oak. Very hard wood. Bright red
berry fruit. Nothing wrong, but awkward (No.)


Prices quoted were retail paid. Co-operative tasting groups are a way for
people to share the expense as well as the enjoyment of trying such wines.

-- Max Hauser

"Max Hauser" > skrev i melding
...
> 8 wines, 11 tasters, so a wine everyone ranked last (8th place) would have
> 88 total points.
>
Hi
Adding points awarded I get 402. The total should have been 396 :-)
A quite another point is whether proper statistical analysis could confirm
the claim that the number one wine with 36 points really was better that the
second one with 42 points. Most often the "winner" in such rankings trumpet
his score as a proof of superiority which it isn't.
I'm sure this NG has a number of professional statisticians who could give
an proper analysis based on the 88 scores.
:-)
Anders

"Anders Tørneskog" in ...
>
> Adding points awarded I get 402. ... should have been 396 :-)

(My hasty transcription, no doubt!)

> A quite another point is whether proper statistical analysis
> could confirm the claim that the number one wine with 36
> points really was better that the second one with 42 points.
> Most often the "winner" in such rankings trumpet
> his score as a proof of superiority which it isn't.

I gather that this can happen, though it is not how these points were used
in this particular tasting.

The "preference" rankings were understood by these tasters as a ritual to
add structure, flow, to the tastings. The ranking results become a novel
by-product of the tasting notes that are the real result. Different
"rankings" than I reported could have resulted from the same tasting with an
unflawed bottle of the Richebourg, or with the tasters in different moods
and seeking different things, or had our twelfth taster also ranked the
wines. In years past, I objected to this ranking step for its obvious
absurdity of forcing a complex appraisal into a trivial, rigid ordering and
then combining this across different people. I later saw that it is more
important as a useful ritual, it helps organize the procedure. With some
wines and some tasters, the rankings correlate to each other closely, and
sometimes not at all. This time, the most expensive wine "ranked" lowest,
and the cheapest highest, which might interest someone. Anyway it
interested me!

-- Max

"Max Hauser" > skrev i melding
...
> "Anders Tørneskog" in ...
>
> ... I later saw that it is more
> important as a useful ritual, it helps organize the procedure. With some
> wines and some tasters, the rankings correlate to each other closely, and
> sometimes not at all. This time, the most expensive wine "ranked" lowest,
> and the cheapest highest, which might interest someone. Anyway it
> interested me!
>
Just to make it clear - I do that too :-) - and at times results may be
quite surprising. Of course these rankings are fit for entertainment only.
Anders

"Max Hauser" > skrev i melding
...
> "Anders Tørneskog" in ...
>
> ... I later saw that it is more
> important as a useful ritual, it helps organize the procedure. With some
> wines and some tasters, the rankings correlate to each other closely, and
> sometimes not at all. This time, the most expensive wine "ranked" lowest,
> and the cheapest highest, which might interest someone. Anyway it
> interested me!
>
Just to make it clear - I do that too :-) - and at times results may be
quite surprising. Of course these rankings are fit for entertainment only.
Anders

Max Hauser wrote:
> 2002 red Burgundies, Côtes de Nuits. Tasted at San Francisco 27 July 2004,
> double-blind.

Thanks for the nice notes, Max. I hadn't realized that so many 2002s
had already hit these shores. FWIW, my only problem with ordinal
scoring is that it doesn't reflect any substantive qualitative
differences, only order of preference. I'd rather just see a
Broadbent/Johnson-esque use of a few stars or our own "Hoare" scale of
1-5 "yum"s. However, you do note that it's basically for entertainment
purposes, so what the heck!

Mark Lipton

Max Hauser wrote:
> 2002 red Burgundies, Côtes de Nuits. Tasted at San Francisco 27 July 2004,
> double-blind.

Thanks for the nice notes, Max. I hadn't realized that so many 2002s
had already hit these shores. FWIW, my only problem with ordinal
scoring is that it doesn't reflect any substantive qualitative
differences, only order of preference. I'd rather just see a
Broadbent/Johnson-esque use of a few stars or our own "Hoare" scale of
1-5 "yum"s. However, you do note that it's basically for entertainment
purposes, so what the heck!

Mark Lipton

Also, what do the "Lot" numbers signify? I couldn't figure that one out...

Mark Lipton

Also, what do the "Lot" numbers signify? I couldn't figure that one out...

Mark Lipton

"Mark Lipton" in message ...
> Also, what do the "Lot" numbers signify?
> I couldn't figure that one out...
>

Those are lot numbers discreetly printed on the labels. In the regular
co-operative tasting groups I attend, the organizer of each tasting
assembles a sheet of information with all available details of each wine,
including price, source, importer for imported wines, and any lot or batch
information available -- the important part of the AP, with German wines,
for example. Occasionally that information is important. This information
sheet is distributed at the tasting.

I've got lots and lots of notes from these blind tastings, actually over 25
years of them (but only occasionally do I have the patience to type them
into a computer).

-- Max

"Mark Lipton" in message ...
> Also, what do the "Lot" numbers signify?
> I couldn't figure that one out...
>

Those are lot numbers discreetly printed on the labels. In the regular
co-operative tasting groups I attend, the organizer of each tasting
assembles a sheet of information with all available details of each wine,
including price, source, importer for imported wines, and any lot or batch
information available -- the important part of the AP, with German wines,
for example. Occasionally that information is important. This information
sheet is distributed at the tasting.

I've got lots and lots of notes from these blind tastings, actually over 25
years of them (but only occasionally do I have the patience to type them
into a computer).

-- Max

"Mark Lipton" in message ...
> Also, what do the "Lot" numbers signify?
> I couldn't figure that one out...
>

Those are lot numbers discreetly printed on the labels. In the regular
co-operative tasting groups I attend, the organizer of each tasting
assembles a sheet of information with all available details of each wine,
including price, source, importer for imported wines, and any lot or batch
information available -- the important part of the AP, with German wines,
for example. Occasionally that information is important. This information
sheet is distributed at the tasting.

I've got lots and lots of notes from these blind tastings, actually over 25
years of them (but only occasionally do I have the patience to type them
into a computer).

-- Max