Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Wine Critics

Hi folks

I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.

Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
various wine critics. What I have yet to do is understand the
difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.

So some questions for this group:

- Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
opinion?
- How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
Parker vs. Suckling?

I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
critics seemed
to disagree on the quality of the wine. I imagine I'll need to some
some extensive research to find representative samples.

- Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
them quite differently?

Thanks,
John

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 177
Default Wine Critics

A good old wine-newsgroup topic. For historical interest (recommendations
are not up to date), see last paragraph of a wine-newsgroup posting on the
subject from before Parker, Tanzer, or Suckling were on the radar generally
in the US. (This was on the wine newsgroup under its original name,
net.wines. Created 24 years ago this month.)



It's unlikely still to be on today's servers (very few of which existed
then) so here's a current link to Google's archive of it:

http://tinyurl.com/3vjrg


Cheers -- Max


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default Wine Critics

The last question:

1989 Chateau Margaux is one of my favorite Margaux's ever.

I beleive following is accurate.

Spectator I think rated this 100
Parker we 89 point.

That is a big difference. I think in this case I agree with Spectator. But
when 1990 came out....it oveshadowed the complexity of the 1989.

Style vs substance.

Parker seemed to favor---huge, bold, fruit....Spectator seem to notice all
the complexity in the 1989.

"John LaCour" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi folks
>
> I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.
>
> Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
> various wine critics. What I have yet to do is understand the
> difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
> understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.
>
> So some questions for this group:
>
> - Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
> opinion?
> - How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
> Parker vs. Suckling?
>
> I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
> critics seemed
> to disagree on the quality of the wine. I imagine I'll need to some
> some extensive research to find representative samples.
>
> - Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
> them quite differently?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>



  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 567
Default Wine Critics

John LaCour wrote:

> I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.
>
> Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
> various wine critics. What I have yet to do is understand the
> difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
> understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.



I think that "understanding which one(s) [your] personal preferences are
aligned with" is exactly what you should do. If you know of someone who
likes the same things you do, you can buy what he recommends with confidence
that you will probably like it too.



> So some questions for this group:
>
> - Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
> opinion?
> - How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
> Parker vs. Suckling?



But those two questions don't seem to gibe with your statement above. If you
want to find a critic whose tastes match yours, it shouldn't matter which
ones anyone else thinks are best, or what the differences are between any
two.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup


> I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
> critics seemed
> to disagree on the quality of the wine. I imagine I'll need to some
> some extensive research to find representative samples.
>
> - Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
> them quite differently?
>
> Thanks,
> John



  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Wine Critics

Here's a wine to try and see what YOU think:
HdV, Chardonnay, Carneros, 2002.
WS80, RP93
I had it at a trade tasting before I knew what the scores were. One
taste, and I bought it.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics

1, Pay no attention to critics. NONE.

2. NEVER taste wines. Wines are impossible (not difficult, IMPOSSIBLE)
to evaluate outside of the context of a full meal. Wines that are great
paired with a full meal often taste quite different when tasted alone,
and often taste peculiar.

Tasting wines is in principle stupid. Whoever started this should be
shot.


John LaCour wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.
>
> Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
> various wine critics. What I have yet to do is understand the
> difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
> understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.
>
> So some questions for this group:
>
> - Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
> opinion?
> - How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
> Parker vs. Suckling?
>
> I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
> critics seemed
> to disagree on the quality of the wine. I imagine I'll need to some
> some extensive research to find representative samples.
>
> - Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
> them quite differently?
>
> Thanks,
> John


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics


John LaCour wrote:

>
> I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
> critics seemed
> to disagree on the quality of the wine.



WHY? Who cares? Wines are made tio be drunk, not tasted, with FOOD.

> I imagine I'll need to some
> some extensive research to find representative samples.
>
> - Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
> them quite differently?


WHO CARES?
>
> Thanks,
> John


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics


John LaCour wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.
>
> Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
> various wine critics.


I don't. It's a waste of time.

> What I have yet to do is understand the
> difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
> understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.


Why?

>
> So some questions for this group:
>
> - Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
> opinion?


Irrelevant.

> - How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
> Parker vs. Suckling?


Irrelevant.

>
> I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
> critics seemed
> to disagree on the quality of the wine.


Why? Totallly pointless and misleading. The wine that 'tastes' best may
not be the one that drinks best, and THAT is what matters!

> I imagine I'll need to some
> some extensive research to find representative samples.


So? Do you like wasting your time on useless tasks?

> - Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
> them quite differently?


No. I pay no attention to wine critics.

>
> Thanks,
> John


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 177
Default Wine Critics

"John LaCour" in ups.com:
>
> . . . What I have yet to do is understand the difference in preferences
> between the critics . . .
>
> - How would you describes the differences in preferences of [various
> critics]


There has been some serious and sophisticated study of this question. One
survey of the subject that appeared online (five years ago?) was by a
wine-enthusiast engineer, and used statistical methods to compare some
popular US critics' rankings of the same wines over several years of thier
publications. That study identified areas where they coincide closely, and
others where systematic differences were evident. (I don't have the
reference handy just now.)

I've heard of at least one other serious study, large and searching,
conducted privately with considerable resource, but I don't think it was
published.

Posted in the 1980s on the wine newsgroup were second-hand accounts of the
pioneering 100-point-scale critic (Parker),both opining that small score
differences were meaningful, and also giving specific wines score
differences (very significant, according to the first comment) when he
tasted it under conditions he did not control. However, Parker stresses
right up front in his publication the primacy of the consumer's own palate
in judging wines. (I wonder sometimes if all of his readers notice that
advice.)

> I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where critics
> seemed to disagree on the quality of the wine.


Sounds to me like an excellent and provocative basis for a tasting.

Blind tastings are how many good tasters developed their palates over the
years. The blind format (carefully arranged to maximize the palate's
sensitivity if possible) is essential (for wine as in other things) to
exclude distracting or biasing influences. The University of California at
Davis, near Sacramento is famous for its food-science program, wine being
one specialty thereof (the famous "Davis" winemaking training, which several
friends of mine completed, is a Master of Science program in Food Science
with "E and V" specialization, enology and viticulture). That university
offers weekend trainings to the public on sensory evaluation. After
training, students are asked to take blind wine samples (technically matched
for color and other cues) and sort them, blind, after randomization. (Those
who can sort the blind samples consistently, a number of times, are then
recruited as wine judges for agricultural fairs.) The ultimate point of
wine for most people is to enjoy it with good food and/or company,
obviously. Tasting wine critically and systematically, on its own, is a
powerful tool along the way to that. It's how wine is made, for example.

Cheers -- Max


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,554
Default Wine Critics

Max,Ken and others make good points. Only you will be able to decide
what critic is best for you. I'd also point out that one's tastes might
sync well with a critic one area, and not another. Even more
complicating is the fact that the bigger publications have multiple
critics (WA is not just Parker, but now Rovani, Thomases, and David S.
; WS has a half-dozen critics).

I find FOR ME Parker is reasonably reliable for Medoc, so-so for CA cab
& Right Bank, way off for Australia. Rovani is so-so for Germany and
way off my tastes in Burgundy. But at WS I find Suckling maddeningly
inconsistent. As for Laube, he's less a critic these days than a
crusader for squeaky-clean "Davis" wines. I do find Claude Kolm (Fine
Wine Review) and Allen Meadows (Burghound) fairly reliable for Burgundy
FOR MY TASTES, yet I still disagree at least 20% of the time.



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics

What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
this some kind of sick joke.

Grow up, people!


Max Hauser wrote:
> "John LaCour" in ups.com:
> >
> > . . . What I have yet to do is understand the difference in preferences
> > between the critics . . .
> >
> > - How would you describes the differences in preferences of [various
> > critics]

>
> There has been some serious and sophisticated study of this question. One
> survey of the subject that appeared online (five years ago?) was by a
> wine-enthusiast engineer, and used statistical methods to compare some
> popular US critics' rankings of the same wines over several years of thier
> publications. That study identified areas where they coincide closely, and
> others where systematic differences were evident. (I don't have the
> reference handy just now.)
>
> I've heard of at least one other serious study, large and searching,
> conducted privately with considerable resource, but I don't think it was
> published.
>
> Posted in the 1980s on the wine newsgroup were second-hand accounts of the
> pioneering 100-point-scale critic (Parker),both opining that small score
> differences were meaningful, and also giving specific wines score
> differences (very significant, according to the first comment) when he
> tasted it under conditions he did not control. However, Parker stresses
> right up front in his publication the primacy of the consumer's own palate
> in judging wines. (I wonder sometimes if all of his readers notice that
> advice.)
>
> > I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where critics
> > seemed to disagree on the quality of the wine.

>
> Sounds to me like an excellent and provocative basis for a tasting.
>
> Blind tastings are how many good tasters developed their palates over the
> years. The blind format (carefully arranged to maximize the palate's
> sensitivity if possible) is essential (for wine as in other things) to
> exclude distracting or biasing influences. The University of California at
> Davis, near Sacramento is famous for its food-science program, wine being
> one specialty thereof (the famous "Davis" winemaking training, which several
> friends of mine completed, is a Master of Science program in Food Science
> with "E and V" specialization, enology and viticulture). That university
> offers weekend trainings to the public on sensory evaluation. After
> training, students are asked to take blind wine samples (technically matched
> for color and other cues) and sort them, blind, after randomization. (Those
> who can sort the blind samples consistently, a number of times, are then
> recruited as wine judges for agricultural fairs.) The ultimate point of
> wine for most people is to enjoy it with good food and/or company,
> obviously. Tasting wine critically and systematically, on its own, is a
> powerful tool along the way to that. It's how wine is made, for example.
>
> Cheers -- Max


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Wine Critics


> wrote in message
ps.com...
> What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
> drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
> the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
> do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
> something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
> connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
> my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
> this some kind of sick joke.
>
> Grow up, people!
>


So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?

I taste, and over 50 years of drinking wine, have found I can tell pretty
much how a wine will "drink" with a particular style of food. But I'm not
going to plunk down cash for a case of wine I haven't tasted, no matter what
any critic says. Then after tasting, and deciding it suits my purpose, I'll
buy and 'drink and enjoy'.


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics

I seldom get a bad bottle. I buy based on past experience, the
producer, and the recommendation of the wine shop owner. I experiment
a lot. I never taste a wine before buying it, unless the wine shop
owner happens to have a bottle open for sampling.

Why not? Barberas, for instance, taste quite astringent by themselves,
and anyone who would try one in a tasting would probably think it's
bad. But put that wine in its proper context, with a Piedmontese dish,
and it tastes quite different. Tasting is quite useless, and therefore
a foolish waste of time.


Ronin wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
> > drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
> > the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
> > do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
> > something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
> > connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
> > my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
> > this some kind of sick joke.
> >
> > Grow up, people!
> >

>
> So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?
>
> I taste, and over 50 years of drinking wine, have found I can tell pretty
> much how a wine will "drink" with a particular style of food. But I'm not
> going to plunk down cash for a case of wine I haven't tasted, no matter what
> any critic says. Then after tasting, and deciding it suits my purpose, I'll
> buy and 'drink and enjoy'.


  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Wine Critics

I don't mean to be argumentative, but from what you wrote, I read as your
accepting the taste of a critic, (your wine shop owner - which I also do,
but my owner upped and retired, so I'm looking for a new one - not an easy
task) and tasting (having a bottle open for sampling - most wine shops here
(Portland Oregon) have three or four open every Friday and Saturday. Past
experience I have come to rely on less as winemakers change (Kenwood's SB
gets 91 points by the new winemaker adding a healthy dose of Chardonnay - I
liked the old style much better. Ken Wright making monster PN in the late
90's, but I'm not happy with the early 0X's) and I'm always looking for
something new - I never would have discovered Greco di Tufo if I relied
solely on past experience.

As I said, over time I've gotten to have an idea of what a wine will taste
like with certain foods. For instance, I wouldn't buy a fat, soft nebbiolo
for a tomato sauced dish, but look for a leaner, more acidic nebbiolo. I
think it neither foolish, useless, nor a waste of time to taste before I
choose.


> wrote in message
ps.com...
>I seldom get a bad bottle. I buy based on past experience, the
> producer, and the recommendation of the wine shop owner. I experiment
> a lot. I never taste a wine before buying it, unless the wine shop
> owner happens to have a bottle open for sampling.
>
> Why not? Barberas, for instance, taste quite astringent by themselves,
> and anyone who would try one in a tasting would probably think it's
> bad. But put that wine in its proper context, with a Piedmontese dish,
> and it tastes quite different. Tasting is quite useless, and therefore
> a foolish waste of time.
>
>
> Ronin wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>> > What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
>> > drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
>> > the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
>> > do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
>> > something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
>> > connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
>> > my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
>> > this some kind of sick joke.
>> >
>> > Grow up, people!
>> >

>>
>> So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?
>>
>> I taste, and over 50 years of drinking wine, have found I can tell pretty
>> much how a wine will "drink" with a particular style of food. But I'm
>> not
>> going to plunk down cash for a case of wine I haven't tasted, no matter
>> what
>> any critic says. Then after tasting, and deciding it suits my purpose,
>> I'll
>> buy and 'drink and enjoy'.

>



  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics


Ronin wrote:
> I don't mean to be argumentative, but from what you wrote, I read as your
> accepting the taste of a critic,


Roger's recommendations are not based on 'tastings', at least not
alone, but on drinking or the recommendation of the wholesaler, I
suppose.

The very methodolgy of tasting is IN PRINCIPLE incorrect. Wines that
are superb with meals often taste terrible alone. There is a
DRASTIC(!!!!!!!), HUGE (!!!!!!!) difference between the way a wine
tastes by itself and the way it tastes in a meal.

I drink Italian wines exclusively, so I have gotten to know almost all
of the basic types pretty well, and am familiar with many producers. I
do try a lot of different wines from time to time, but I do also expect
a certain degree of consistency from Argiolas, D'Angelo,
Mastroberardino, Lungarotti, Cerretto, Cavollotto, Taurino, Santadi,
Chiarlo, etc. I'm not in the least worried about what any 'critic'
thinks, nor in anyone else's opinions of the wines. I and a buddy give
Italian regional dinner parties from time to time, and we usually set
out an assortment of wines, based on the dishes. The last one we had
(Jan 28th, 12 people) featured dishes from all over Italy, so we had
wines from all over Italy: Vino Nobile, Primitivo, Valtellina, etc.
No-one asked about what the wine critics thought, and no-one had
anything but praise for our cooking and our wines, none of which was
cheap. Whether a different bottle of any of our choices would have
registered a point or two higher was the fartherst thing from our
minds. Wines are made to be enjoyed. Generally speaking, you get what
you pay for. If you expect a $10 wine to be as good as a $35 one,
you're usually going to be disappointed.

Tasting and analysis are a waste of time.

> (your wine shop owner - which I also do,
> but my owner upped and retired, so I'm looking for a new one - not an easy
> task) and tasting (having a bottle open for sampling - most wine shops here
> (Portland Oregon) have three or four open every Friday and Saturday. Past
> experience I have come to rely on less as winemakers change (Kenwood's SB
> gets 91 points by the new winemaker adding a healthy dose of Chardonnay - I
> liked the old style much better. Ken Wright making monster PN in the late
> 90's, but I'm not happy with the early 0X's) and I'm always looking for
> something new - I never would have discovered Greco di Tufo if I relied
> solely on past experience.
>
> As I said, over time I've gotten to have an idea of what a wine will taste
> like with certain foods. For instance, I wouldn't buy a fat, soft nebbiolo
> for a tomato sauced dish, but look for a leaner, more acidic nebbiolo. I
> think it neither foolish, useless, nor a waste of time to taste before I
> choose.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >I seldom get a bad bottle. I buy based on past experience, the
> > producer, and the recommendation of the wine shop owner. I experiment
> > a lot. I never taste a wine before buying it, unless the wine shop
> > owner happens to have a bottle open for sampling.
> >
> > Why not? Barberas, for instance, taste quite astringent by themselves,
> > and anyone who would try one in a tasting would probably think it's
> > bad. But put that wine in its proper context, with a Piedmontese dish,
> > and it tastes quite different. Tasting is quite useless, and therefore
> > a foolish waste of time.
> >
> >
> > Ronin wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ps.com...
> >> > What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
> >> > drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
> >> > the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
> >> > do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
> >> > something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
> >> > connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
> >> > my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
> >> > this some kind of sick joke.
> >> >
> >> > Grow up, people!
> >> >
> >>
> >> So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?
> >>
> >> I taste, and over 50 years of drinking wine, have found I can tell pretty
> >> much how a wine will "drink" with a particular style of food. But I'm
> >> not
> >> going to plunk down cash for a case of wine I haven't tasted, no matter
> >> what
> >> any critic says. Then after tasting, and deciding it suits my purpose,
> >> I'll
> >> buy and 'drink and enjoy'.

> >




  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default Wine Critics

Salut/Hi Ronin,

le/on Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:03:20 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

>
> wrote in message

As usual played the only tune he knows

ups.com...
>> What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for

[Snip]
>> Grow up, people!


>So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?


and you fell into the trap.

just remember

http://i1.tinypic.com/mr4osm.jpg

DFTT.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics

Troll? What the hell is a troll? I'm offering reasons why I think
tasting is fundamentally wrong. Argue otherwise, or be silent.



Ian Hoare wrote:
> Salut/Hi Ronin,
>
> le/on Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:03:20 -0800, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >
> > wrote in message

> As usual played the only tune he knows
>
> ups.com...
> >> What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for

> [Snip]
> >> Grow up, people!

>
> >So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?

>
> and you fell into the trap.
>
> just remember
>
> http://i1.tinypic.com/mr4osm.jpg
>
> DFTT.
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
> http://www.souvigne.com
> mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics


Mike Tommasi wrote:
> wrote:
> > Troll? What the hell is a troll? I'm offering reasons why I think
> > tasting is fundamentally wrong. Argue otherwise, or be silent.

>
> A troll tries to consistently inflame discourse, and resorts eventually
> to strong verbal abuse, as you did recently. This alone does not make
> you a troll.
>
> Generally speaking, by ignoring trolls, one makes them disappear after a
> short while. For this reason alone, I don't think you are a troll, but a
> rare variation thereof, a mutated troll. Everything else fits. Troll
> indeed may not be the right word. There is a consensus building up that
> other terms may be applicable. So please take "troll" as a compliment.


I appreciate your rare show of restraint. My point, and it is a valid
one, is that enjoyment of the wine is the primary objective. Simple
tasting is only one tool, and in many cases, a misleading one. MOST
people cannot evaluate a dinner wine from a simple tasting. In fact,
the VAST MAJORITY cannot do so. I know, from personal experience, that
a wine which tastes quite astringent and bitter when I first taste it
without food (for example, Barbera or Nebbiolo, Taurasi, Primitivo,
Patrigliano, or any big red for that matter) will change quite markedly
once I start eating food with it.

Only wine producers and wine experts (and I DON'T include Parker in
that class) have the capacity to evaluate a wine based on tasting
alone. The number who qualify as 'experts' is VERY, VERY small. I'm
taling about people who buy and sell and produce wine for a living, not
dilletantes and dabblers.

The wine producer, who shepherds the wine from grape to aged bottle,
understands at each stage what the wine should taste like, because he
has done it thousands of times, and this knowldege has been passed down
from his father and grandfather before him. Someone who works in an
office and reads a review of a wine in the Wine Spectator will get
NOTHING from tasting a wine outside of the context of a full meal. I
was in a wine shop when a haufarus came in gushing that she wanted a
bunch of different bottlings of Pinot Grigio to have a 'wine-tasting
party'. What utter rubbish. This is merely some fad that has arisen
among the Nouveau Riche who THINK they know what they're doing, but
DON'T.

When we have our dinners, we frequently open several bottles of
different wines, and a few of us will note the differences among them.
It is pointless, however, to evaluate the wines beyond that point.
That's not why we drink the wine and have the dinners. We drink the
wine and have the dinners for the sheer PLEASURE of doing so. It is a
complete waste of time to sit around and assign points.

The way to buy wine is to take a few bottles home and see what you
like, after having them with a dinner, not just tasting them in
isolation. If you like them, buy more of them.

The most reliable guide to buying wine is the knowledge of the
producer's style. I buy mixed cases. I never buy a case of one type of
wine. In my cellar are a variety of wines, seldom more than two or
three of any one bottling of anything.

I stopped buying Vietti wines when every bottle I tried was
disappointing. That's also when I stopped paying attention to wine
reviews. Vietti wines have been consistently given high marks by the
wine press, but I have never had a good bottle. It could be a problem
with shipping or storage, but I don't care. I'm not buying any more
Vietti wine!

>
>
> --
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> email link
http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics


Mike Tommasi wrote:

> I agree. Tasting in itself provides little pleasure, in fact it gets
> tiring and boring rather quickly if you ask me. But the effort is
> necessary when you have the opportunity to taste many different wines,
> with some training you can get to tolerate up to 12 glasses, more if you
> are a pro, but anyhow and I use this tool to try to decide if the wine
> tasted will be something I can enjoy, with friends, with dinner, or
> both, I try to determine the balance, the dominant aromas, and imagine
> when it would be most appropriate to drink and with what.


But amateurs have no business doing it. It provides a distorted picture
of what the wine experience is all about. Like bad porn, compared to
good erotica...

I drink wine all the time, and I have never attended a wine tasting,
and do not intend to.

>
> MOST
> > people cannot evaluate a dinner wine from a simple tasting. In fact,
> > the VAST MAJORITY cannot do so.

>
> Probably so.


So why encourage them?

>
> > I know, from personal experience, that
> > a wine which tastes quite astringent and bitter when I first taste it
> > without food (for example, Barbera or Nebbiolo, Taurasi, Primitivo,
> > Patrigliano, or any big red for that matter) will change quite markedly
> > once I start eating food with it.

>
> So you project that wine into a food situation. I do that.


Right.

>
> > Only wine producers and wine experts (and I DON'T include Parker in
> > that class) have the capacity to evaluate a wine based on tasting
> > alone.

>
> Why? First of all most wine producers are frankly not great wine
> tasters, although the best ones that I know are... And as for Parker, I
> would think that he is pretty good... ;-)


The point is they know what THEIR wines should taste like...for them,
tasting is an EVALUATION TOOL, not an end in itself, not a spastime,
not an amusement.

> > The number who qualify as 'experts' is VERY, VERY small. I'm
> > taling about people who buy and sell and produce wine for a living, not
> > dilletantes and dabblers.

>
> Probably true.


Great.

> > The wine producer, who shepherds the wine from grape to aged bottle,
> > understands at each stage what the wine should taste like, because he
> > has done it thousands of times, and this knowldege has been passed down
> > from his father and grandfather before him.

>
> You are talking about a VERY VERY small number there too. Many
> winemakers know how to make their own wine and never taste anything
> else, their knowledge of wine tasting can be surprisingly narrow. Now
> the good ones, that may be a different story.


Ditto: The point is they know what THEIR wines should taste like...for
them, tasting is an EVALUATION TOOL, not an end in itself.

> > Someone who works in an
> > office and reads a review of a wine in the Wine Spectator will get
> > NOTHING from tasting a wine outside of the context of a full meal.

>
> But why would such a person get something out of drinking the same wine
> with a meal?


Because wine is made for consumption with food!!!

> A Bud Light would probably do more for him than a great
> Barolo.


You missed the point. He should be drinking the wine and seeing if he
likes it. Not tasting, not reading critics.

> This requires training too. Or should I say "culture",
> background, experience. Think of what you drank with food when you first
> started being interested in wine.


I started with Lambrusco, in about 1972. I made rapid progress. I was
into Dolcetto next, then Barbera and Barolo by 1977.

> > I
> > was in a wine shop when a hausfrau came in gushing that she wanted a
> > bunch of different bottlings of Pinot Grigio to have a 'wine-tasting
> > party'. What utter rubbish. This is merely some fad that has arisen
> > among the Nouveau Riche who THINK they know what they're doing, but
> > DON'T.

>
> Let them do what they want, they are having harmless fun. So what if
> they are missing the point from an expert's point of view? And why not
> taste a bunch of PG bottles?


Why allow people to stay ignorant? It's cruel...

> > When we have our dinners, we frequently open several bottles of
> > different wines, and a few of us will note the differences among them.
> > It is pointless, however, to evaluate the wines beyond that point.
> > That's not why we drink the wine and have the dinners. We drink the
> > wine and have the dinners for the sheer PLEASURE of doing so. It is a
> > complete waste of time to sit around and assign points.

>
> I think so.


Agreed. We don't get out score sheets. We drink and have a good time.

> > The way to buy wine is to take a few bottles home and see what you
> > like, after having them with a dinner, not just tasting them in
> > isolation. If you like them, buy more of them.

>
> Look at all the posts here. Dale, Ian, Nils, myself, we are constantly
> talking about pairings, what we drank with so and so. So we agree ok?


OK

> > The most reliable guide to buying wine is the knowledge of the
> > producer's style. I buy mixed cases. I never buy a case of one type of
> > wine. In my cellar are a variety of wines, seldom more than two or
> > three of any one bottling of anything.

>
> Many of us do that...


OK

> > I stopped buying Vietti wines when every bottle I tried was
> > disappointing. That's also when I stopped paying attention to wine
> > reviews. Vietti wines have been consistently given high marks by the
> > wine press, but I have never had a good bottle. It could be a problem
> > with shipping or storage, but I don't care. I'm not buying any more
> > Vietti wine!

>
> So you see, you do look at points... ;-)


I USED TO. Then, it dawned on me that these guys are idiots or
crooks...like most so-called experts...

Vietti wines were crap...someone was being paid off...they tasted like
bear ****...

> Hey, Uranium, take my advice, open up, continue with your passion for
> the iti wines, but go beyond, there is a whole world out there, try some
> F_____ wines, the good ones are cheaper than comparable quality wines
> from I____ - look, as a true wop born and raised in spaghettiland but
> living in frogland, I am quite critical about lots of culinary and wine
> habits of the French, but hell they do so many things well, might as
> well give to Cesar what is unto Cesar or whatever the expression is
> "date a Cesare quel che č di Cesare", and when something is better here
> I reluctantl admit it ;-)


It's hard enough to keep track of Italy, or even just a few zones.
Sardegna, Puglia, and Sicily are doing some great things lately. I look
through the Gambero Rosso book for possibilities(!), and I do read the
descriptions, but pay little attention to the scores (3 glasses, etc.),
because the vintages change so frequently. I can tell an Argiolas wine,
though. They're great. The Gambero Rosso book is a valuable reference
source compiled by professional tasters familiar with the producers and
the products. But remember only a small fraction of the wines in that
book are available on the shelves in Ohio, even on special order, so I
use it simply as a ROUGH GUIDE.

My point is that 'Tasting' should be left to EXPERTS, not to suburban
hausfrauen having a party, nor to executives who do something else for
a living. People THINK they know what to taste for, but they don't. I
drink wine all the time(!!!!), and my judgement is respected by the
people to whom I serve the wines I choose, and I have no clue what to
'Taste' for. In other words, a pro would have a completely different
approach. I do know that I can smell a Taurino Patrigliano at arm's
length, farther than any other wine I have ever had: it's stunning
stuff. I bet you have never tasted it.

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics


Mike Tommasi wrote:
>
> Look at all the posts here. Dale, Ian, Nils, myself, we are constantly
> talking about pairings, what we drank with so and so. So we agree ok?



Pairings? Almost anything red goes well with almost any meat dish. I
made a veal roll (Arrosto Ripieno) on Jan 28th, and we had 7 different
reds out. We also had lamb and mushrooms, peas with pancetta, saffron
risotto, etc.

http://www.leitesculinaria.com/recip...eal_roast.html

My favorite was the 1998 Valtellina. We had some Vino Nobile riserva
(1999), some Copertino, and some good Primitivo as well. ALL of those
wines, even the southern ones, went well with the Arrosto Ripieno. It's
perverse and pointless to analyse this to death. Be spontaneous for
once!



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 177
Default Wine Critics

"DaleW" in ups.com:
> As for Laube, he's less a critic these days than a crusader for
> squeaky-clean "Davis" wines.


Can't speak for Laube, but yes, that stylistic issue is another face of the
Davis school, not mentioned in my earlier posting about it. Recall Paul
Draper's sharp comments in the early 1990s, in connection with the notorious
historic "AxR #1" rootstock hubris that ushered phylloxera back to
California. Currently archived for example he

http://tinyurl.com/2mqa3

It might also be worth mentioning for the serious student of wine
publications that the 100-point numerical-rating language is _relatively_
new to the US wine market, and has never been universally accepted by US
wine consumers, which is easy enough to see if one is interested. (It was
accepted more widely, though, than the major US numerical attempt before it,
coincidentally from UC Davis.) There have been US critics and critic
publications, and wine ratings, far longer than there have been 100-point
scores. The survey of US wine newsletters published in the landmark
University of California Press _Book of California Wine_ in the 1980s did
not mention any such scores. Many experienced and eager wine enthusiasts I
know have never mentioned a numerical score, except as a nuisance side issue
(because one thing a high numerical score consistently predicts is the price
the market must pay for the wine). The 100-point scores evidently clicked
most with wine newbies eager for simple but authoritative-looking guidance.
But as RP himself argues, they don't substitute for learning about wine in
general, or learning what you like.


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics

The notion that a 'point score' is of any relevance to wine is absurd.

Parker is a moron, even if he agress with that.


Max Hauser wrote:
> "DaleW" in ups.com:
> > As for Laube, he's less a critic these days than a crusader for
> > squeaky-clean "Davis" wines.

>
> Can't speak for Laube, but yes, that stylistic issue is another face of the
> Davis school, not mentioned in my earlier posting about it. Recall Paul
> Draper's sharp comments in the early 1990s, in connection with the notorious
> historic "AxR #1" rootstock hubris that ushered phylloxera back to
> California. Currently archived for example he
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2mqa3
>
> It might also be worth mentioning for the serious student of wine
> publications that the 100-point numerical-rating language is _relatively_
> new to the US wine market, and has never been universally accepted by US
> wine consumers, which is easy enough to see if one is interested. (It was
> accepted more widely, though, than the major US numerical attempt before it,
> coincidentally from UC Davis.) There have been US critics and critic
> publications, and wine ratings, far longer than there have been 100-point
> scores. The survey of US wine newsletters published in the landmark
> University of California Press _Book of California Wine_ in the 1980s did
> not mention any such scores. Many experienced and eager wine enthusiasts I
> know have never mentioned a numerical score, except as a nuisance side issue
> (because one thing a high numerical score consistently predicts is the price
> the market must pay for the wine). The 100-point scores evidently clicked
> most with wine newbies eager for simple but authoritative-looking guidance.
> But as RP himself argues, they don't substitute for learning about wine in
> general, or learning what you like.


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Wine Critics

In article .com>,
> wrote:
> But amateurs have no business doing it. It provides a distorted picture
> of what the wine experience is all about. Like bad porn, compared to
> good erotica...


I do agree that the best experience comes from a "divine marriage of
food and wine" although I get immense pleasure by just tasting wines by
themselves. It is rewarding to notice that you can actually spot a
difference between two given wines and maybe even put it to words. That
might just be the thing that makes amateurs become more interested in
wines, so I wouldn't condemn it straight on.

Let's just say that wine is like a religion. You are entitled to your
own opinion but it means different things to different people. (and no
one likes to be preached about how their religion is wrong...)

And remember, some people get aroused even by bad porn.

cheers,
Juho K.

--
Juho Kilkku
Kirkkonummi, Finland
sine signatura
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics


Juho Kilkku wrote:
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> > But amateurs have no business doing it. It provides a distorted picture
> > of what the wine experience is all about. Like bad porn, compared to
> > good erotica...

>
> I do agree that the best experience comes from a "divine marriage of
> food and wine" although I get immense pleasure by just tasting wines by
> themselves. It is rewarding to notice that you can actually spot a
> difference between two given wines and maybe even put it to words.


Correct. What I wish to point out is that the difference between
tasting wine alone and drinking the wine with food are immense, and
liable to swamp the differences you taste in tasting the wine without
food. What may seem like a flaw in tasting may actually be a good thing
when the wine is drunk with food. In other words, the result of tasting
the wine alone may be the very reverse of your evauation with food.

> That
> might just be the thing that makes amateurs become more interested in
> wines, so I wouldn't condemn it straight on.
>
> Let's just say that wine is like a religion. You are entitled to your
> own opinion but it means different things to different people. (and no
> one likes to be preached about how their religion is wrong...)
>
> And remember, some people get aroused even by bad porn.
>
> cheers,
> Juho K.
>
> --
> Juho Kilkku
> Kirkkonummi, Finland
> sine signatura


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 271
Default Wine Critics

I prefer Steven Tanzer's tastes certainly over Parker. Sometimes when I
read Parker's comments then drink the same wine I wonder if he is sane.

In article . com>,
"DaleW" > wrote:

> Max,Ken and others make good points. Only you will be able to decide
> what critic is best for you. I'd also point out that one's tastes might
> sync well with a critic one area, and not another. Even more
> complicating is the fact that the bigger publications have multiple
> critics (WA is not just Parker, but now Rovani, Thomases, and David S.
> ; WS has a half-dozen critics).
>
> I find FOR ME Parker is reasonably reliable for Medoc, so-so for CA cab
> & Right Bank, way off for Australia. Rovani is so-so for Germany and
> way off my tastes in Burgundy. But at WS I find Suckling maddeningly
> inconsistent. As for Laube, he's less a critic these days than a
> crusader for squeaky-clean "Davis" wines. I do find Claude Kolm (Fine
> Wine Review) and Allen Meadows (Burghound) fairly reliable for Burgundy
> FOR MY TASTES, yet I still disagree at least 20% of the time.



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Wine Critics

Maybe just bought off....


Lawrence Leichtman wrote:
> I prefer Steven Tanzer's tastes certainly over Parker. Sometimes when I
> read Parker's comments then drink the same wine I wonder if he is sane.
>
> In article . com>,
> "DaleW" > wrote:
>
> > Max,Ken and others make good points. Only you will be able to decide
> > what critic is best for you. I'd also point out that one's tastes might
> > sync well with a critic one area, and not another. Even more
> > complicating is the fact that the bigger publications have multiple
> > critics (WA is not just Parker, but now Rovani, Thomases, and David S.
> > ; WS has a half-dozen critics).
> >
> > I find FOR ME Parker is reasonably reliable for Medoc, so-so for CA cab
> > & Right Bank, way off for Australia. Rovani is so-so for Germany and
> > way off my tastes in Burgundy. But at WS I find Suckling maddeningly
> > inconsistent. As for Laube, he's less a critic these days than a
> > crusader for squeaky-clean "Davis" wines. I do find Claude Kolm (Fine
> > Wine Review) and Allen Meadows (Burghound) fairly reliable for Burgundy
> > FOR MY TASTES, yet I still disagree at least 20% of the time.


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 630
Default Wine Critics

"DaleW" > wrote:

> I find FOR ME Parker is reasonably reliable for Medoc, so-so for
> CA cab & Right Bank, way off for Australia. Rovani is so-so for
> Germany


Rovani doesn't cover Germany and Austria anymore. Since last year
David Schildknecht has taken his place.

M.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,554
Default Wine Critics

Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't read any of Schildknecht's WA
reviews yet (though when he was at Tanzer I saw a few, more in line
with my tastes than Rovani).

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.wine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 630
Default Wine Critics

"DaleW" > wrote:

> Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't read any of
> Schildknecht's WA reviews yet (though when he was at Tanzer I
> saw a few, more in line with my tastes than Rovani).


Fwiw, Schildknecht on Austria is to be found on pp. 32-50 of #160
(2005-08-29), Germany (Part 1, The Rhine Regions) on pp. 47-72 of
#161 (2005-10-31), while Part 2 has been promised for #163 (due
end of Feb., 2006).

M.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
red meat for the critics tert in seattle General Cooking 7 22-05-2016 09:21 PM
Critics of the Budweiser buyout are frothing John S. Beer 10 15-07-2008 08:40 PM
Critics of the Budweiser buyout are frothing [email protected] Beer 1 15-07-2008 06:00 AM
Restaurant critics beware! bob General Cooking 54 21-07-2007 05:24 AM
Looking for some wine critics Rob General 0 27-04-2006 06:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"