I never heard anyone disparge Opus One before I wrote about it in this
thread. It never occurred to me that it would or could be great wine. I
just
basically ignored it, and never talked to anyone about it before. Prove
otherwise!


wrote:
> JEP62 wrote:
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I have never tasted Opus One.
> > > My opinion is that Opus One is a hype-up wine, not worth $165 except to
> > > the deluded and naive.
> > >
> >
> > I rest my case.
> > Polly want a cracker?
>
> I never heard anyone disparge Opus One before I wrote about it in this
> thread. It never occurred to me that it wculd be great wine. I just
> basically ignored it, and never talked to anyone about it before. Prove
> otherwise!
>
> >
> >
> > Andy

Polly want a cracker?

> Tell me what you mean by 'precision' and 'accuracy'. Precision usually
> means falling into a tight distribution (91 ± 2). Accuracy means that
> 200 judges will all score it the same.

No. Precision refers to repeatability, as you said. Accuracy refers to
a measurement falling close to the =actual= value. If you have
something that is exactly 15.6 cm long, and measure it many times, the
measure of how close you get to 15.6 is accuracy. The measure of how
close you get to all the other measurements (the tightness of the
distribution) is precision.

This of course presupposes an "actual" value really exists and is
meaningful. How big across is a cloud? The question does not have -no-
answer, but how you answer it depends on how you define "size".

> Quite true, but establishing that is somewhat subjective. Some people
> love wood. I don't. Parker does. Which is 'right' for Barbaresco? Botti
> or Barrique? Which is right for Dolcetto di Dogliani?

How big is a cloud?

I will heartily agree with you that one can validly disagree with
somebody's score. I disagree that that fact makes the score
meaningless, no matter what its precision is. If you find a judge whose
ratings tend to agree with yours, then, for you, that judge is "right".
The closer his opinions are to yours, the more meaningful to you is
his precision.

> Not necessarily, unless one is simply defective

What does it mean for a wine to be "defective", and how does that differ
from being "of poor quality"?

> I have tatsed a few Morellino di Scansano,
> and have found quit a difference between the $12 and $20 bottles. I
> prefer the $20 bottle. Do I assign points[...]?

You did assign points. You are using a "penny a point" scale. IF the
$12 bottle sold for $20, would you buy it? Would you buy it at $13.50?

>>When you say this wine is "better" than that wine, what exactly do you mean?
>
>
> Take the Taurino wines, for example. The Salice Salintino is quite a
> good wine for $11. The Notarpanaro offers more concentration and more
> flavor at $17. The Patrigliano at $40 is even more extracted (it's made
> from semi-dried grapes) and you can smell it at arm's length. Yet all
> of these wines express the character of the Negroamaro grape. I have
> never had a bottle of Taurino wine that was badly made.

Ok, let's play a game. Those three bottles are in front of you, but the
price tags fell off. They are at auction, and you want all three of
them. The bidding starts. For each of them, when do you decide to stop
bidding?

Is that not a rating system?

If you did this many times, you may stop at different places each time
(a measurement of precision). Would the =range= of where you stopped be
useful to indicate just how precise (or coarse) your rating system
really is underneath it all?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Tell me what you mean by 'precision' and 'accuracy'. Precision usually
> > means falling into a tight distribution (91 ± 2). Accuracy means that
> > 200 judges will all score it the same.
>
> No. Precision refers to repeatability, as you said. Accuracy refers to
> a measurement falling close to the =actual= value.

That's just the point! There is no 'actual' value!

> If you have
> something that is exactly 15.6 cm long, and measure it many times, the
> measure of how close you get to 15.6 is accuracy. The measure of how
> close you get to all the other measurements (the tightness of the
> distribution) is precision.
>
> This of course presupposes an "actual" value really exists and is
> meaningful. How big across is a cloud? The question does not have -no-
> answer, but how you answer it depends on how you define "size".
>
> > Quite true, but establishing that is somewhat subjective. Some people
> > love wood. I don't. Parker does. Which is 'right' for Barbaresco? Botti
> > or Barrique? Which is right for Dolcetto di Dogliani?
>
> How big is a cloud?
>
> I will heartily agree with you that one can validly disagree with
> somebody's score.

I disagree with scoring in principle. It's like trying to measure
poetry.

Scoring is to wine as rust is to astronomy.

> I disagree that that fact makes the score
> meaningless, no matter what its precision is. If you find a judge whose
> ratings tend to agree with yours, then, for you, that judge is "right".
> The closer his opinions are to yours, the more meaningful to you is
> his precision.
>
> > Not necessarily, unless one is simply defective
>
> What does it mean for a wine to be "defective", and how does that differ
> from being "of poor quality"?

Badly stored, oxidized, corked, etc.

> > I have tatsed a few Morellino di Scansano,
> > and have found quit a difference between the $12 and $20 bottles. I
> > prefer the $20 bottle. Do I assign points[...]?
>
> You did assign points. You are using a "penny a point" scale. IF the
> $12 bottle sold for $20, would you buy it? Would you buy it at $13.50?

No, I did not. I simply bought the more expensive one because the price
spread was so small.

> >>When you say this wine is "better" than that wine, what exactly do you mean?
> >
> >
> > Take the Taurino wines, for example. The Salice Salintino is quite a
> > good wine for $11. The Notarpanaro offers more concentration and more
> > flavor at $17. The Patrigliano at $40 is even more extracted (it's made
> > from semi-dried grapes) and you can smell it at arm's length. Yet all
> > of these wines express the character of the Negroamaro grape. I have
> > never had a bottle of Taurino wine that was badly made.
>
> Ok, let's play a game. Those three bottles are in front of you, but the
> price tags fell off. They are at auction, and you want all three of
> them. The bidding starts. For each of them, when do you decide to stop
> bidding?
>
> Is that not a rating system?

Sorry, I don't follow you eher. WHICH three bottles?

> If you did this many times, you may stop at different places each time
> (a measurement of precision). Would the =range= of where you stopped be
> useful to indicate just how precise (or coarse) your rating system
> really is underneath it all?

Do they put points on artwork because some sells for millions and some
doesn't?

Is a Picasso 99 points?
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Every one has their own palate & subject to the environment and general
health. For instance you may a sore throat and be ultra sensitive to
acidity.

When I am a wine judge, I try to calibrate how my palate is acting by trying
a wine not on the program or spending some time with the first wine, which I
try to returned to later. I also pay attention to what other tasters might
say. When I used to taste once a week with a Parkton based group, I could
predict what our host would score a wine.

I don't want to be repetitive but the Wine Advocate, Tanker, Meadows, Coates
have their own criteria which does not vary--for instance a score of 89 for
a current release may mean the Parker thinks its a notch below the sales
critical 90 points. So in his system one point makes a defense.

My good friend Dale this I was lacking in proof about what I wrote about the
Wine Spectator---I think 99.99 times of 100 their review is their best
estimate but if they can let readers no they can't be intimidated they might
throw a 72 point score out there. It could have been pointed out to the
taster and pass on advise of characteristic to look for in a flawed wine.

I know Bruno Giacosa and he would not release a wine that had the 3 faults
subscribed too. Yes there is no correlation between scores and inches of ad
copy, but based on their availability in all markets, some wines are not
mentioned on any list.

The Spectator over the years has changed its policy for accepting and
tasting samples--generally the preference is for wines sold in at least 5
states that are major markets. They usually prefer 5-6 bottles of new
releases' samples, so they can be prescreened. One year samples went to San
Francisco and another years a location in Europe for imports. A lot of the
wineries I represented were not in 5 states and could afford giving anybody
a half case of each release.

All wine publications interpose their judgment on an individual. The WS
pushes the wine life style to 1) make more money from books 2)
winegatherings and advertisement. Like food or travel mags, no one
advertises cars under $10,000, clothes you can't find at Walmart etc.
Americans just love the 50-100 point scale; it makes it easier for
one-upmanship. I really resent their take on the whole scene, not their
sales strategies. Maybe its because I butted heads with them for 15 years.
I'm enough of a whore to want to play their game but they kept changes the
rules on me..........


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> > Tell me what you mean by 'precision' and 'accuracy'. Precision usually
> > means falling into a tight distribution (91 ± 2). Accuracy means that
> > 200 judges will all score it the same.
>
> No. Precision refers to repeatability, as you said. Accuracy refers to
> a measurement falling close to the =actual= value. If you have
> something that is exactly 15.6 cm long, and measure it many times, the
> measure of how close you get to 15.6 is accuracy. The measure of how
> close you get to all the other measurements (the tightness of the
> distribution) is precision.
>
> This of course presupposes an "actual" value really exists and is
> meaningful. How big across is a cloud? The question does not have -no-
> answer, but how you answer it depends on how you define "size".
>
> > Quite true, but establishing that is somewhat subjective. Some people
> > love wood. I don't. Parker does. Which is 'right' for Barbaresco? Botti
> > or Barrique? Which is right for Dolcetto di Dogliani?
>
> How big is a cloud?
>
> I will heartily agree with you that one can validly disagree with
> somebody's score. I disagree that that fact makes the score
> meaningless, no matter what its precision is. If you find a judge whose
> ratings tend to agree with yours, then, for you, that judge is "right".
> The closer his opinions are to yours, the more meaningful to you is
> his precision.
>
> > Not necessarily, unless one is simply defective
>
> What does it mean for a wine to be "defective", and how does that differ
> from being "of poor quality"?
>
> > I have tatsed a few Morellino di Scansano,
> > and have found quit a difference between the $12 and $20 bottles. I
> > prefer the $20 bottle. Do I assign points[...]?
>
> You did assign points. You are using a "penny a point" scale. IF the
> $12 bottle sold for $20, would you buy it? Would you buy it at $13.50?
>
> >>When you say this wine is "better" than that wine, what exactly do you
mean?
> >
> >
> > Take the Taurino wines, for example. The Salice Salintino is quite a
> > good wine for $11. The Notarpanaro offers more concentration and more
> > flavor at $17. The Patrigliano at $40 is even more extracted (it's made
> > from semi-dried grapes) and you can smell it at arm's length. Yet all
> > of these wines express the character of the Negroamaro grape. I have
> > never had a bottle of Taurino wine that was badly made.
>
> Ok, let's play a game. Those three bottles are in front of you, but the
> price tags fell off. They are at auction, and you want all three of
> them. The bidding starts. For each of them, when do you decide to stop
> bidding?
>
> Is that not a rating system?
>
> If you did this many times, you may stop at different places each time
> (a measurement of precision). Would the =range= of where you stopped be
> useful to indicate just how precise (or coarse) your rating system
> really is underneath it all?
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Sorry, I don't follow you eher. WHICH three bottles?

These three, from your example:
> Take the Taurino wines, for example. The Salice Salintino is quite a
> good wine for $11. The Notarpanaro offers more concentration and more
> flavor at $17. The Patrigliano at $40 is even more extracted (it's made
> from semi-dried grapes) and you can smell it at arm's length.

>> You did assign points. You are using a "penny a point" scale. IF the
>> $12 bottle sold for $20, would you buy it? Would you buy it at $13.50?
>
> No, I did not. I simply bought the more expensive one because the price
> spread was so small.

It was almost a factor of two (between 12 and 20)

> Do they put points on artwork because some sells for millions and some
> doesn't?
>
> Is a Picasso 99 points?

No, a Picasso is 99 million points (a penny a point). I don't think
it's worth it though.

>>What does it mean for a wine to be "defective", and how does that differ
>> from being "of poor quality"?
>
> Badly stored, oxidized, corked, etc.

This comes out in the flavor, no? What about errors in production?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't follow you here. WHICH three bottles?
>
> These three, from your example:
> > Take the Taurino wines, for example. The Salice Salintino is quite a
> > good wine for $11. The Notarpanaro offers more concentration and more
> > flavor at $17. The Patrigliano at $40 is even more extracted (it's made
> > from semi-dried grapes) and you can smell it at arm's length.

Could I tell them apart? Of course! Each has a specific character,
andybody can tell them apart. Patrigliano is sooooooooooooooooo good!

> >> You did assign points. You are using a "penny a point" scale. IF the
> >> $12 bottle sold for $20, would you buy it? Would you buy it at $13.50?
> >
> > No, I did not. I simply bought the more expensive one because the price
> > spread was so small.
>
> It was almost a factor of two (between 12 and 20)

It's not that much in absolute terms ($8). $20 for a bottle of this
wine is quite reasonable. $12 for a merely fair one is not.

> > Do they put points on artwork because some sells for millions and some
> > doesn't?
> >
> > Is a Picasso 99 points?
>
> No, a Picasso is 99 million points (a penny a point). I don't think
> it's worth it though.

No, my point stands. It's entirely subjective.

> >>What does it mean for a wine to be "defective", and how does that differ
> >> from being "of poor quality"?
> >
> > Badly stored, oxidized, corked, etc.
>
> This comes out in the flavor, no? What about errors in production?

There are sloppy producers and cheap producers and those who are more
fastidious. You get what you pay for. Gaja's vintards are probably the
most carefully kept fields on Earth.

>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Joe:

I think all of this is extremely silly. The wine business in the US has
been turned into a joke...

Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg wrote:
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> Every one has their own palate & subject to the environment and general
> health. For instance you may a sore throat and be ultra sensitive to
> acidity.
>
> When I am a wine judge, I try to calibrate how my palate is acting by trying
> a wine not on the program or spending some time with the first wine, which I
> try to returned to later. I also pay attention to what other tasters might
> say. When I used to taste once a week with a Parkton based group, I could
> predict what our host would score a wine.
>
> I don't want to be repetitive but the Wine Advocate, Tanker, Meadows, Coates
> have their own criteria which does not vary--for instance a score of 89 for
> a current release may mean the Parker thinks its a notch below the sales
> critical 90 points. So in his system one point makes a defense.
>
> My good friend Dale this I was lacking in proof about what I wrote about the
> Wine Spectator---I think 99.99 times of 100 their review is their best
> estimate but if they can let readers no they can't be intimidated they might
> throw a 72 point score out there. It could have been pointed out to the
> taster and pass on advise of characteristic to look for in a flawed wine.
>
> I know Bruno Giacosa and he would not release a wine that had the 3 faults
> subscribed too. Yes there is no correlation between scores and inches of ad
> copy, but based on their availability in all markets, some wines are not
> mentioned on any list.
>
> The Spectator over the years has changed its policy for accepting and
> tasting samples--generally the preference is for wines sold in at least 5
> states that are major markets. They usually prefer 5-6 bottles of new
> releases' samples, so they can be prescreened. One year samples went to San
> Francisco and another years a location in Europe for imports. A lot of the
> wineries I represented were not in 5 states and could afford giving anybody
> a half case of each release.
>
> All wine publications interpose their judgment on an individual. The WS
> pushes the wine life style to 1) make more money from books 2)
> winegatherings and advertisement. Like food or travel mags, no one
> advertises cars under $10,000, clothes you can't find at Walmart etc.
> Americans just love the 50-100 point scale; it makes it easier for
> one-upmanship. I really resent their take on the whole scene, not their
> sales strategies. Maybe its because I butted heads with them for 15 years.
> I'm enough of a whore to want to play their game but they kept changes the
> rules on me..........
>
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> m...
> > > Tell me what you mean by 'precision' and 'accuracy'. Precision usually
> > > means falling into a tight distribution (91 ± 2). Accuracy means that
> > > 200 judges will all score it the same.
> >
> > No. Precision refers to repeatability, as you said. Accuracy refers to
> > a measurement falling close to the =actual= value. If you have
> > something that is exactly 15.6 cm long, and measure it many times, the
> > measure of how close you get to 15.6 is accuracy. The measure of how
> > close you get to all the other measurements (the tightness of the
> > distribution) is precision.
> >
> > This of course presupposes an "actual" value really exists and is
> > meaningful. How big across is a cloud? The question does not have -no-
> > answer, but how you answer it depends on how you define "size".
> >
> > > Quite true, but establishing that is somewhat subjective. Some people
> > > love wood. I don't. Parker does. Which is 'right' for Barbaresco? Botti
> > > or Barrique? Which is right for Dolcetto di Dogliani?
> >
> > How big is a cloud?
> >
> > I will heartily agree with you that one can validly disagree with
> > somebody's score. I disagree that that fact makes the score
> > meaningless, no matter what its precision is. If you find a judge whose
> > ratings tend to agree with yours, then, for you, that judge is "right".
> > The closer his opinions are to yours, the more meaningful to you is
> > his precision.
> >
> > > Not necessarily, unless one is simply defective
> >
> > What does it mean for a wine to be "defective", and how does that differ
> > from being "of poor quality"?
> >
> > > I have tatsed a few Morellino di Scansano,
> > > and have found quit a difference between the $12 and $20 bottles. I
> > > prefer the $20 bottle. Do I assign points[...]?
> >
> > You did assign points. You are using a "penny a point" scale. IF the
> > $12 bottle sold for $20, would you buy it? Would you buy it at $13.50?
> >
> > >>When you say this wine is "better" than that wine, what exactly do you
> mean?
> > >
> > >
> > > Take the Taurino wines, for example. The Salice Salintino is quite a
> > > good wine for $11. The Notarpanaro offers more concentration and more
> > > flavor at $17. The Patrigliano at $40 is even more extracted (it's made
> > > from semi-dried grapes) and you can smell it at arm's length. Yet all
> > > of these wines express the character of the Negroamaro grape. I have
> > > never had a bottle of Taurino wine that was badly made.
> >
> > Ok, let's play a game. Those three bottles are in front of you, but the
> > price tags fell off. They are at auction, and you want all three of
> > them. The bidding starts. For each of them, when do you decide to stop
> > bidding?
> >
> > Is that not a rating system?
> >
> > If you did this many times, you may stop at different places each time
> > (a measurement of precision). Would the =range= of where you stopped be
> > useful to indicate just how precise (or coarse) your rating system
> > really is underneath it all?
> >
> > Jose
> > --
> > Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Could I tell them apart?

That's not what I asked. The excercise is the auction. You want to buy
each of them. The price keeps going up. At what point to you let any
given wine go?

> It's not that much in absolute terms ($8). $20 for a bottle of this
> wine is quite reasonable. $12 for a merely fair one is not.

You've just graded them. "This wine" is worth 2000 points, at least.
"a merely fair" one is worth less than 1200 points.

> There are sloppy producers and cheap producers and those who are more
> fastidious.

And the more fastidious ones produce better wines, overall. How much
better? Well, that's what the points are about.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Could I tell them apart?
>
> That's not what I asked. The excercise is the auction. You want to buy
> each of them. The price keeps going up. At what point to you let any
> given wine go?

I'm not sure what you mean. I know the wines and what they usually sell
for. I don't understand your point here. How much will I pay for
Patrigliano? It sells for $40 or so. Is it 'worth it'? Yes. Is every
$40 wine 'worth it'? I doubt that very much.
>
> > It's not that much in absolute terms ($8). $20 for a bottle of this
> > wine is quite reasonable. $12 for a merely fair one is not.
>
> You've just graded them. "This wine" is worth 2000 points, at least.
> "a merely fair" one is worth less than 1200 points.

This is simply my judgement. I can buy other Sangiovese wines for $12
that I would prefer. These particular bottles ($12) of Morellino were
more than adequate, but for $8 more I could get one I liked more.
Others may have liked the $12 just fine, so I cannot speak for them.

> > There are sloppy producers and cheap producers and those who are more
> > fastidious.
>
> And the more fastidious ones produce better wines, overall.

Not necessarily. They produce more consistent wines, is what I would
say.

> How much
> better? Well, that's what the points are about.

There's too much room to assign points. It imoplies precision that does
not exist. It's like rating poetry in points. Pointless.

>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

This is Parker's doing:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Con...id=oid%3A19816

"Somewhere along the line, a few wine writers and demanding importers
decided that thick, muscle-bound wines were what consumers wanted. The
growers, wanting to expand their markets, acceded to these wishes. But
truly experienced palates have always delighted in the difference that
soil, regional grapes, and a structure that matches the local cuisine
makes. Who wants rich all the time? As with foie gras, the pleasure is
in occasional richness. Who wants goose liver every day? I'm so tired
of retailers, wholesalers or "in the know" promoters insisting that
these heavy-handed, tannic wines taste great right now, while the
customer scratches her head and thinks, "I don't like it and I don't
want to drink it. Is there something wrong with me? Even if there is,
I'm not going to suffer this." The day of reckoning is today. You can
only pull people's chain for so long--and I think we're down to the
last flush."

J

> I'm not sure what you mean. I know the wines and what they usually sell
> for. I don't understand your point here. How much will I pay for
> Patrigliano? It sells for $40 or so. Is it 'worth it'? Yes. Is every
> $40 wine 'worth it'? I doubt that very much.

Let's say you can't get Patrigliano, at any price. You can get other
wines, of course, but everyone is "out" of Patrigliano. Now you are
offered a bottle at auction. Bidding starts: $10.00 $11.50
$15.50.... it gets up around $40 and you're still in the bidding, but so
are others. It gets to $45... $55... $78.50, and finally sells for
$523.00 (but not to you, probably). You dropped out of the bidding when
you thought the price was getting too high.

What price was that?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean. I know the wines and what they usually sell
> > for. I don't understand your point here. How much will I pay for
> > Patrigliano? It sells for $40 or so. Is it 'worth it'? Yes. Is every
> > $40 wine 'worth it'? I doubt that very much.
>
> Let's say you can't get Patrigliano, at any price. You can get other
> wines, of course, but everyone is "out" of Patrigliano. Now you are
> offered a bottle at auction. Bidding starts: $10.00 $11.50
> $15.50.... it gets up around $40 and you're still in the bidding, but so
> are others. It gets to $45... $55... $78.50, and finally sells for
> $523.00 (but not to you, probably). You dropped out of the bidding when
> you thought the price was getting too high.
>
> What price was that?

It depends on my mood. Probably $60. A premium of 50% over retail is
about as much as I would go, I should think. There are lots of good
wines. Have you ever had Patrigliano?


>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> It depends on my mood. Probably $60.

Then you have given that wine 6000 points, and when you can buy it for
4000 pennies, you are happy. On another day, you may only give that
wine 4500 points... if you did this often enough, you could come up with
a very accurate (for you) rating, and a standard deviation error bar
that would deliniate its precision (or lack of it).

> There are lots of good wines.

Yep, there are. Now, aside from the fact that the error bars are much
bigger than the resolution of a (100 point) scale, consider what might
happen if the scale were reduced to three (bad, okay, great). A wine
that's borderline bad but not awful is probably going to be rated as
okay. A wine that's borderline excellent, but not quite great, on this
scale would also be rated okay. Two wines with the identical ratings,
but one is much more satisfying (you would pay more for it) than the
other. Of course they also taste very different.

On the 100 point scale, one might rate a 76 and the other a 92. Now I
will admit (with gusto) that the difference between a 16 point
difference and a 17 point difference is not much. But a 16 point
difference may well signal that, sight unseen, I am likely to prefer the
higher rated one. I will also grant that given a one point difference,
I am =not= likely to prefer the higher rated one.

> Have you ever had Patrigliano?

No. Most of my experience is with California wines, since I travel to
California often and don't get to Italy all that much. Therefore I have
had the opportunity to taste more California wines, and it is easier for
me to get the more obscure ones.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote .....
>
>> There are lots of good wines.
>

With the greatest respect Michael, how would you know?

You only drink Italian wines, and since Italy only accounts for about 18% of
the worlds total production, that means you have no experience with 82%.

On this basis alone, perhaps 82% of everything you write is expressed out of
ignorance.

Ah yes, I remember - you read books - and based your buying decisions on
other peoples opinions - and since you constantly remind us, that tasting
is a complete waste of time, you are no doubt suggesting that the authors of
these authorative manuals never actually tasted the wines of which they
write, but opened the bottles, and poured a glassful, and stuck the cork
straight back in the bottle - to preserve their unopened flavours (quoting
your absurd ramblings circa Dec, 2004) - and drank the wines with meals
(good lord, they must all be the size of houses - oops, I mean Tuscan
villas!), without taking tasting notes of any kind, and without apportioning
any sort of grading system (20pt or 100pt or stars etc).

Hold the horse, of course, these authors are "professionals" and we, the
great unwashed, are mere amateurs!!!!!

Move from Ohio to Hollywood, Michael.

And take up script writing - for South Park or some other noted docucartoon
channel.

This would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.

--

st.helier

Jose wrote:
> > It depends on my mood. Probably $60.
>
> Then you have given that wine 6000 points, and when you can buy it for
> 4000 pennies, you are happy. On another day, you may only give that
> wine 4500 points... if you did this often enough, you could come up with
> a very accurate (for you) rating, and a standard deviation error bar
> that would deliniate its precision (or lack of it).

My willingness to pay 'X' is in no way to be considered a numerical
rating of the wine. These are two distinct things.

>
> > There are lots of good wines.
>
> Yep, there are. Now, aside from the fact that the error bars are much
> bigger than the resolution of a (100 point) scale, consider what might
> happen if the scale were reduced to three (bad, okay, great). A wine
> that's borderline bad but not awful is probably going to be rated as
> okay. A wine that's borderline excellent, but not quite great, on this
> scale would also be rated okay. Two wines with the identical ratings,
> but one is much more satisfying (you would pay more for it) than the
> other. Of course they also taste very different.

Two wines that have different prices can have similar overall appeal.
Barbera and Dolcetto, for instance, are usually less expensive than
Barolo and Barbaresco, because Barbera and Dolcetto grapes ripen
earlier and are generally easier to make into good wine. But the appeal
of Barolo and Barbaresco is quite a bit different as well. They are
generally more complex wines that are somewhat more appropriate with
certain types of courses. Thus, they command higher prices. Scoring
Barolo and Barbaresco against Barbera and Dolcetto is silly. Each has
its own style. A 95-point Barbera or Dolcetto is not at all comparable
to a 95-point Barolo or Barbaresco.

> On the 100 point scale, one might rate a 76 and the other a 92. Now I
> will admit (with gusto) that the difference between a 16 point
> difference and a 17 point difference is not much. But a 16 point
> difference may well signal that, sight unseen, I am likely to prefer the
> higher rated one. I will also grant that given a one point difference,
> I am =not= likely to prefer the higher rated one.
>
> > Have you ever had Patrigliano?
>
> No. Most of my experience is with California wines, since I travel to
> California often and don't get to Italy all that much. Therefore I have
> had the opportunity to taste more California wines, and it is easier for
> me to get the more obscure ones.

You should try some Patrigliano. It is for me the quintessential
Italian wine
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

st.helier wrote:
> "Michael Scarpitti" wrote .....
> >
> >> There are lots of good wines.
> >
>
> With the greatest respect Michael, how would you know?

Even just among Italian wines, there are lots of good wines.
>
> You only drink Italian wines, and since Italy only accounts for about 18% of
> the worlds total production, that means you have no experience with 82%.

Italy makes more types of wine and more wine than any other nation.
Getting to be familiar with only a small portion of them is a real
challenge.

> On this basis alone, perhaps 82% of everything you write is expressed out of
> ignorance.

See previous comment. Life is not long enough to explore even just
Italy!

> Ah yes, I remember - you read books - and based your buying decisions on
> other peoples opinions - and since you constantly remind us, that tasting
> is a complete waste of time, you are no doubt suggesting that the authors of
> these authorative manuals never actually tasted the wines of which they
> write, but opened the bottles, and poured a glassful, and stuck the cork
> straight back in the bottle - to preserve their unopened flavours (quoting
> your absurd ramblings circa Dec, 2004) - and drank the wines with meals
> (good lord, they must all be the size of houses - oops, I mean Tuscan
> villas!), without taking tasting notes of any kind, and without apportioning
> any sort of grading system (20pt or 100pt or stars etc).
>
> Hold the horse, of course, these authors are "professionals" and we, the
> great unwashed, are mere amateurs!!!!!

Exactly. They KNOW how to 'taste'.

> Move from Ohio to Hollywood, Michael.

Hollywood? I'd rather die first...

> And take up script writing - for South Park or some other noted docucartoon
> channel.
>
> This would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.
>
> --
>
> st.helier

My tuppence on ratings...
The problem with Parker, Wine Expectorator, et al, is that the ratings
usually reflect one person's opinion ONLY. That IS rather pointless.
What happens when you go to a restaurant with friends? Does everybody
order the same entree, same beverage, same dessert...generally not!
People's tastes in wine will differ, just like in food. I happen to
like ketchup, mustard and sauerkraut on my hot dogs, while others will
prefer chili and jalapeno cheese sauce. You get the picture.
If the magazines want to gain some credibility, they will assign
MULTIPLE tasters to try out each wine, not just one.

Dan-O (found this thread quite entertaining in a perverse way)

Dan, this is true.

Why are so many morons buying wine based on what that shit-head thinks?


Dan The Man wrote:
> My tuppence on ratings...
> The problem with Parker, Wine Expectorator, et al, is that the ratings
> usually reflect one person's opinion ONLY. That IS rather pointless.
> What happens when you go to a restaurant with friends? Does everybody
> order the same entree, same beverage, same dessert...generally not!
> People's tastes in wine will differ, just like in food. I happen to
> like ketchup, mustard and sauerkraut on my hot dogs, while others will
> prefer chili and jalapeno cheese sauce. You get the picture.
> If the magazines want to gain some credibility, they will assign
> MULTIPLE tasters to try out each wine, not just one.
>
> Dan-O (found this thread quite entertaining in a perverse way)

"You should try some Patrigliano. It is for me the quintessential
Italian wine "

The Taurino wine? It's Patriglione. So the quintessential Italian wine
is aged in 100% French barrique? Interesting..................

> My willingness to pay 'X' is in no way to be considered a numerical
> rating of the wine. These are two distinct things.

How so? You are saying the wine is worth X to you.

> Two wines that have different prices can have similar overall appeal.

.... in which case the cheaper one is the one to drink. If the more
expensive one is preferred, it has more appeal. That's what the word
means, no?

> Scoring
> Barolo and Barbaresco against Barbera and Dolcetto is silly. Each has
> its own style. A 95-point Barbera or Dolcetto is not at all comparable
> to a 95-point Barolo or Barbaresco.

.... and on the other side, I don't think Parker (or anybody else for
that matter) really does that.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

DaleW wrote:
> "You should try some Patrigliano. It is for me the quintessential
> Italian wine "
>
> The Taurino wine? It's Patriglione. So the quintessential Italian wine
> is aged in 100% French barrique? Interesting..................

I don't know how he makes it, and I don't care.....

Sorry about the typo.

Jose wrote:
> > My willingness to pay 'X' is in no way to be considered a numerical
> > rating of the wine. These are two distinct things.
>
> How so? You are saying the wine is worth X to you.
>
> > Two wines that have different prices can have similar overall appeal.
>
> ... in which case the cheaper one is the one to drink.

Not necessarily. One may be more suitable than another for a certain
dish.

> If the more
> expensive one is preferred, it has more appeal. That's what the word
> means, no?

No, not at all. Some wines are mosre costly to make because of grape
ripening patterns, etc. Nebbiolo-based wines (Barolo, Barbaresco, etc.)
will always cost more than Barbera, because Nebbiolo grapes ripen
later, and must be grown on sites that are suitable for that ripening
pattern. Nebbiolo grapes therefore get the most expensive plots of
land. Also, much of a Nebbiolo harvest can be ruined when in the same
season Barbera is already picked and in the vat. there's more risk with
Nebbiolo. Nebbiolo wines cost more than Barbera for reasons other than
their 'appeal'.

> > Scoring
> > Barolo and Barbaresco against Barbera and Dolcetto is silly. Each has
> > its own style. A 95-point Barbera or Dolcetto is not at all comparable
> > to a 95-point Barolo or Barbaresco.
>
> ... and on the other side, I don't think Parker (or anybody else for
> that matter) really does that.

I don't think so.

>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Not necessarily. One may be more suitable than another for a certain
> dish.

.... in which case you'd pay more for it when you are having that dish,
or you would have another dish. It is a rating system, imperfect though
it may be. And it is accurate to the penny, if not precise.

> Some wines are mosre costly to make...

No doubt. They will cost more. But they had better be better. Nobody
cares how much a wine costs somebody else, they care only how much the
wine costs =them=. And this is true for all things.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Not necessarily. One may be more suitable than another for a certain
> > dish.
>
> ... in which case you'd pay more for it when you are having that dish,
> or you would have another dish. It is a rating system, imperfect though
> it may be. And it is accurate to the penny, if not precise.

Jose:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I suggest you read Vino Italiano. Becuase the EU does not allow new
planting of grapes in Italy (i.e., no new fields), existing vineyards
in regions such as Tuscany and Piedmont are becoming more and more
expensive. In the south, old idle vineyards can be bought for a small
fraction of what equivalent vineyards in the north cost. But VERY good
wines can be made in Puglia, my friend! The result is that high-quality
wines from Puglia will cost less to produce than equivalent quality
wines from Tuscany and Piedmont.

I can buy a wine like Patrigliano for $18 that is every bit as good as
a Barolo for $35, but if I am making a dish that demands Barolo, then I
buy Barolo.

> > Some wines are more costly to make...
>
> No doubt. They will cost more. But they had better be better.

Not at all. You don't understand the economics involved.

> Nobody
> cares how much a wine costs somebody else, they care only how much the
> wine costs =them=. And this is true for all things.
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Correction:

"I can buy a wine like Notarpanaro for $18 that is every bit as good as
a Barolo for $35, but if I am making a dish that demands Barolo, then I
buy Barolo."


wrote:
> Jose wrote:
> > > Not necessarily. One may be more suitable than another for a certain
> > > dish.
> >
> > ... in which case you'd pay more for it when you are having that dish,
> > or you would have another dish. It is a rating system, imperfect though
> > it may be. And it is accurate to the penny, if not precise.
>
> Jose:
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> I suggest you read Vino Italiano. Becuase the EU does not allow new
> planting of grapes in Italy (i.e., no new fields), existing vineyards
> in regions such as Tuscany and Piedmont are becoming more and more
> expensive. In the south, old idle vineyards can be bought for a small
> fraction of what equivalent vineyards in the north cost. But VERY good
> wines can be made in Puglia, my friend! The result is that high-quality
> wines from Puglia will cost less to produce than equivalent quality
> wines from Tuscany and Piedmont.
>
> I can buy a wine like Patrigliano for $18 that is every bit as good as
> a Barolo for $35, but if I am making a dish that demands Barolo, then I
> buy Barolo.
>
> > > Some wines are more costly to make...
> >
> > No doubt. They will cost more. But they had better be better.
>
> Not at all. You don't understand the economics involved.
>
> > Nobody
> > cares how much a wine costs somebody else, they care only how much the
> > wine costs =them=. And this is true for all things.
> >
> > Jose
> > --
> > Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote ......
>
> Italy makes more types of wine and more wine than any other nation.
> Getting to be familiar with only a small portion of them is a real
> challenge.
>

Sorry Michael - yet again you are living in the past.

Italy used to be the number one producer by volume, but since 1998, having
been overtaken by France.

See - http://www.awbc.com.au/winefacts/dat...sp?subcatid=41

Actually, overtaken is the wrong word, because both country's production has
declined, so I guess Italy's production has declined more.

Of course, when considering wine quality, both countries produce a great sea
of very indifferent table wine.

I have no intention in wasting my time becoming familiar with wines from
Puglia or Sicily or other regions where the vast majority of wines are
characterless swill, just so I can find the one or two serious producers who
do have the pride and patience to make excellent examples of local wines.

I also take issue with your statement "more types of wine" - what do you
mean by this ambiguous statement?

If you mean "more local grape varieties" I would have no argument.

--

st.helier

> You have no idea what you are talking about.

I appreciate that information. I'll go back to the corner and put on my
dunce cap.

> Becuase the EU does not allow new
> planting of grapes in Italy [... some wines cost more to make...]

No doubt. That doesn't make them worth more. This is true for wines as
well as for bird seed. What makes them worth more is something else...

> if I am making a dish that demands Barolo, then I
> buy Barolo.

....such as that. At least for that moment.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:
> This is Parker's doing:
>
> http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Con...id=oid%3A19816
>
> "Somewhere along the line, a few wine writers and demanding importers
> decided that thick, muscle-bound wines were what consumers wanted. The
> growers, wanting to expand their markets, acceded to these wishes. But
> truly experienced palates have always delighted in the difference that
> soil, regional grapes, and a structure that matches the local cuisine
> makes. Who wants rich all the time? As with foie gras, the pleasure is
> in occasional richness. Who wants goose liver every day? I'm so tired
> of retailers, wholesalers or "in the know" promoters insisting that
> these heavy-handed, tannic wines taste great right now, while the
> customer scratches her head and thinks, "I don't like it and I don't
> want to drink it. Is there something wrong with me? Even if there is,
> I'm not going to suffer this." The day of reckoning is today. You can
> only pull people's chain for so long--and I think we're down to the
> last flush."
>
> J

Polly,

Is this your opinion or are you just parroting someone else's?

Andy

Jose wrote:
> > You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> I appreciate that information. I'll go back to the corner and put on my
> dunce cap.
>
> > Becuase the EU does not allow new
> > planting of grapes in Italy [... some wines cost more to make...]
>
> No doubt. That doesn't make them worth more.

??? It costs 'X' to make a proper Barolo. It could cost 1/3 X to make a
fine Puglian wine made to the same standard, all other things being
equal. The fact that the Barolo costs more does not make it worth more,
but if you want Barolo, the price starts at 'X'. Since there is a
market for Barolo at 'X', it continues to be made. Many buyers are
turning to the better wines from the south, as they offer superb
quality. Try any Taurasi Riserva lately? About $40. Barolos start at
$30 and go up from there.

>This is true for wines as
> well as for bird seed. What makes them worth more is something else...
>
> > if I am making a dish that demands Barolo, then I
> > buy Barolo.
>
> ...such as that. At least for that moment.
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

What I found confirms my own opinions..


JEP62 wrote:
> wrote:
> > This is Parker's doing:
> >
> > http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Con...id=oid%3A19816
> >
> > "Somewhere along the line, a few wine writers and demanding importers
> > decided that thick, muscle-bound wines were what consumers wanted. The
> > growers, wanting to expand their markets, acceded to these wishes. But
> > truly experienced palates have always delighted in the difference that
> > soil, regional grapes, and a structure that matches the local cuisine
> > makes. Who wants rich all the time? As with foie gras, the pleasure is
> > in occasional richness. Who wants goose liver every day? I'm so tired
> > of retailers, wholesalers or "in the know" promoters insisting that
> > these heavy-handed, tannic wines taste great right now, while the
> > customer scratches her head and thinks, "I don't like it and I don't
> > want to drink it. Is there something wrong with me? Even if there is,
> > I'm not going to suffer this." The day of reckoning is today. You can
> > only pull people's chain for so long--and I think we're down to the
> > last flush."
> >
> > J
>
> Polly,
>
> Is this your opinion or are you just parroting someone else's?
>
> Andy

> The fact that the Barolo costs more does not make it worth more,
> but if you want Barolo, the price starts at 'X'.

Right. I would therefore expect that, while some Barolo would be sold,
less of it would be sold than if the price started at 1/3 X.

"Quality" or "goodness" (however you want to define it) is fuzzy, but it
always comes down to a binary decision: Yes, or No. That decision
happens every time you drink it (or not). Thus, "quality" is
imprecise... to the degree that the difference between 89 and 90 is
neglegible, but not nonexistant, and a 90 may easily get a score of 89,
and v.v.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I still think you don't understand.

For Barolo to exist, someone has to be able to make it and sell it at a
profit. This cannot happen at $8 retail. The grapes require too much
care, the vineyards are too expensive to lease or buy, and the risk of
bad harvest too high for that to be possible. Whether any given year's
Barolo gets 85 or 95 points is irrelevant. It must sell for at least
$30 retail or so. The wine laws of Italy require that wines made under
the name 'Barolo' be made in a certain way, aged a certain way, from
grapes grown on certain tracts of land, and with certain numbers of
grapes harvested per hectare.

This builds in costs that cannot be ignored.

Grapes grown for the Barolo DOC require the best vineyards in Piedmont.
The exposure to the sun must be optimum, and this usually means the
crests of hills, with southern exposure, etc. Otherwise, the grapes
don't ripen enough in time for the harvest. Ther are fewer of these
sorts of sites than of less-suitable ones.

Barbera grapes do not require so much ripening time, and thus Barbera
grapes can be planted on sites that would be unsuited for Barolo
grapes. This brings down the cost of Barbera compared to Barolo.

In addition, wines made in other parts of Italy (Puglia, Campania, and
Sicily) can be every bit as good and as well made, yet cost less. Part
of this is because those wines have not yet earned the reputation that
Barolo has, and therefore the cost pressures have not risen as high.
Vineyards of equivalent quality are cheaper in Puglia, Campania, and
Sicily.

So, just because Barolo costs more than Barbera or Notarpanaro does not
mean it's 'better'. It's just more costly to produce Barolo. Part of
that cost difference is indeed simply demand based on reputation.

Jose wrote:
> > The fact that the Barolo costs more does not make it worth more,
> > but if you want Barolo, the price starts at 'X'.
>
> Right. I would therefore expect that, while some Barolo would be sold,
> less of it would be sold than if the price started at 1/3 X.
>
> "Quality" or "goodness" (however you want to define it) is fuzzy, but it
> always comes down to a binary decision: Yes, or No. That decision
> happens every time you drink it (or not). Thus, "quality" is
> imprecise... to the degree that the difference between 89 and 90 is
> neglegible, but not nonexistant, and a 90 may easily get a score of 89,
> and v.v.
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote ..........

>> I have no intention in wasting my time becoming familiar with wines from
>> Puglia or Sicily or other regions where the vast majority of wines are
>> characterless swill, just so I can find the one or two serious producers
>> who
>> do have the pride and patience to make excellent examples of local wines.
>
> Then the loss is yours. Puglia, Sardinia, and Sicily have upgraded
> significantly in the past 20 years.
>

That may well be the case, however, what arrives on these shores from Sicily
or Puglia is (with one or two exceptions) quaffable cheap rubbish not to my
liking.

And why should I? There is a whole world of wine, waiting for me!

And "good value" well made Italian wines *are* on that list - but not to
the exclusion of anything else.

I am a great fan of Amarone (Speri 'Monte Sant Urbano' or Masi Costasera
Amarone) and Masi's Campofiorin.

My favourite Tuscan is currently Villa Cafaggio Chianti Riserva 2001.

You once asked if had tried Grignolino - well I have done better - I tried a
couple in 1989 at the regional enoteca in Vignale Monferrato - maybe I was
offered poorer versions, but I was left decidedly underwhelmed.

My point is Michael, that I am not blinkered - I am broad minded enough to
seek the best in *all* things.

You on the other hand will never experience the delights that 82% of the
worlds winemaking experience offers.

--

st.helier

I happen to be one that loves a good bold heavy red. Just a personal
preference. I get tired of 'experts' telling me what a good wine is or
isn't. A good wine is the one I like to drink.

I don't always want a heavy red. Depending on mood or what food I'm
having a lighter wine may suit me better.


wrote:
> This is Parker's doing:
>
> http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Con...id=oid%3A19816
>
> "Somewhere along the line, a few wine writers and demanding importers
> decided that thick, muscle-bound wines were what consumers wanted. The
> growers, wanting to expand their markets, acceded to these wishes. But
> truly experienced palates have always delighted in the difference that
> soil, regional grapes, and a structure that matches the local cuisine
> makes. Who wants rich all the time? As with foie gras, the pleasure is
> in occasional richness. Who wants goose liver every day? I'm so tired
> of retailers, wholesalers or "in the know" promoters insisting that
> these heavy-handed, tannic wines taste great right now, while the
> customer scratches her head and thinks, "I don't like it and I don't
> want to drink it. Is there something wrong with me? Even if there is,
> I'm not going to suffer this." The day of reckoning is today. You can
> only pull people's chain for so long--and I think we're down to the
> last flush."
>
> J
>

miles wrote:
> I happen to be one that loves a good bold heavy red. Just a personal
> preference. I get tired of 'experts' telling me what a good wine is or
> isn't. A good wine is the one I like to drink.
>
> I don't always want a heavy red. Depending on mood or what food I'm
> having a lighter wine may suit me better.

What do you include as 'lighter'?


>
>
> wrote:
> > This is Parker's doing:
> >
> > http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Con...id=oid%3A19816
> >
> > "Somewhere along the line, a few wine writers and demanding importers
> > decided that thick, muscle-bound wines were what consumers wanted. The
> > growers, wanting to expand their markets, acceded to these wishes. But
> > truly experienced palates have always delighted in the difference that
> > soil, regional grapes, and a structure that matches the local cuisine
> > makes. Who wants rich all the time? As with foie gras, the pleasure is
> > in occasional richness. Who wants goose liver every day? I'm so tired
> > of retailers, wholesalers or "in the know" promoters insisting that
> > these heavy-handed, tannic wines taste great right now, while the
> > customer scratches her head and thinks, "I don't like it and I don't
> > want to drink it. Is there something wrong with me? Even if there is,
> > I'm not going to suffer this." The day of reckoning is today. You can
> > only pull people's chain for so long--and I think we're down to the
> > last flush."
> >
> > J
> >

Mike, when you lead with your chin, it's too tempting.

le/on 17 Mar 2006 06:15:11 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

>What kind of chump do you take me for? It's impossible to prove a
>negative. I have a degree in philosophy.

The sort of chump you've been showing yourself to be for the last eon.

Bigotted, ignorant and intolerant.

What do you know of wines from outside Italy? Bugger all. But that doesn't
stop you claiming it's no good.

What do you know of wisdom? Bugger all, but that doesn't stop you claiming
everyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant, or stupid or both.


--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

wrote:
> miles wrote:
>> I happen to be one that loves a good bold heavy red. Just a personal
>> preference. I get tired of 'experts' telling me what a good wine is or
>> isn't. A good wine is the one I like to drink.
>>
>> I don't always want a heavy red. Depending on mood or what food I'm
>> having a lighter wine may suit me better.
>
> What do you include as 'lighter'?

I mostly drink full bodied bold reds. Lighter for me would be a
sangiovese. While not tradionally light I have found many lighter Pinot
Noirs that I enjoy.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote .....
>
>> Maybe you have not heras the news, but the South is making some
> spectacular wines!

And maybe one or two do make their way to New Zealand.

But I am spoiled for choice. Unlike you, I am not blind to the possibility
that Australia makes some superb shiraz ands semillon; and my country of
birth is doing excellent things with Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc and
Riesling.


> Have you tried Patriglione? It has much of the character of an Amarone
> (made from Negroamaro grapes, you see.....)


And I would certainly try it if I found it on these shores - just as I would
try any wine recommended via this forum which I could find in NZ.

>> You once asked if had tried Grignolino - well I have done better - I
>> tried a
>> couple in 1989 at the regional enoteca in Vignale Monferrato - maybe I
>> was
>> offered poorer versions, but I was left decidedly underwhelmed.
>
> Was it Giacosa?


I have no idea - it was over 15 years ago - and I rarely take notes, let
alone keep them for any period of time.


>> My point is Michael, that I am not blinkered - I am broad minded enough
>> to
>> seek the best in *all* things.
>>
>> You on the other hand will never experience the delights that 82% of the
>> worlds winemaking experience offers.

> Mostly ****...

I am sorry Michael, but this statement just shows your ignorance.

*Most* of the worlds wine is pretty ordinary stuff - probably 80% of Italian
and French table wine is rubbish.

But, you will never ever know the sheer sensual pleasure one can experience
from Ch. d'Yquem or DRC or Grange or a 6 putt Tokaji or Rutherglen Muscat or
Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc or Mosel.

I don't know why you believe that the only good things in life are Italian -
and personally, I don't care.

All I know is that you are poorer for the choices you are NOT prepared to
make.

And none of what I have written will make any difference to you will it?

Because you have a mind like concrete - all mixed up - and permanently set.

--

st.helier

wrote:
> What I found confirms my own opinions..
>

So Polly,

Exactly what information did you use to form your own opinion, besides
just reading other peoples opinions and parroting them?

Convince me, using real data not just someone elses opinion, that some
how Robert Parker is worthy of your juvenile diatribes against him.

Andy