http://www.musingsonthevine.com/tips_rate.shtml

certainly seems long on color, short on taste for a rating system

gerald > wrote in news:ebv212dbetm6b8bnif8bj2ttbc9vv966h4
@4ax.com:

> http://www.musingsonthevine.com/tips_rate.shtml
>
> certainly seems long on color, short on taste for a rating system
>

That scale is just nonsense to me, mind you. It is absurdidly short on the
nose character.Only 4 points over 20. The sweetness issue is nonsense. For
a wine to be balanced you need the wine to counterbalance the acidity with
either residual sugar or alcohol (which tastes sweet). Why is acidity more
important than sweetness? It all has to be in balance.

Besides, what is the appropiate color for a red burgundy? Do we favor dark
wines in a modern style (think of a Gevrey-Chambertin by Alain Burguet) or
the lightly extracted wines of, say, de Montille?. Both are great wines,
and both could have the same rating providing they are in balance and
provide the same pleasure.

I really prefer DES (Dale's Easy Scale) to a quantitative approach, even if
I understand that points-drinkers need a ninety-something tag in the bottle
they are drinking to feel confident.

S.

"gerald" in :
>
> certainly seems long on color, short on taste for a rating system

"For a rating system." (Among others?)

I gather that you understand the history connected here?

That this was the original "high-resolution" rating system in the US and
pushed for a decade or two, and did _not_ catch on?

That it was the reason many people, journalists, consumers, books, concluded
(by around 1980) that "numerical" scoring had been shown to lack support in
the US?

That a later, even higher-resolution, "numerical" rating system did, despite
all this history, catch on, with a new bunch of wine consumers?

That this is among the many implicit ironies and conflicts in the modern
history of US wine markets?

gerald wrote:
> http://www.musingsonthevine.com/tips_rate.shtml
>
> certainly seems long on color, short on taste for a rating system

All numerical systems are totally absurd.

> skrev i melding
ups.com...
>
>
> But 89 points vs 91? That's ridiculous.
>
For once I agree with you..., at least partly.
Professional tasters are supposed to be objective, but we all know they
judge the same wines differently, of course.
So, publishing scores from, say, 5 or 10 tasters as an average and claiming
the 91 point wine is 'better' than the 89 point one is meaningless.
But, if you know a taster with the same preferences as yourself you may
indeed feel confident that the differences he finds are real - to your
taste.
And yes, the difference between wines of the same area and type what counts.
Standards seem to vary between countries - I've a feeling that Germans
regularly award less points, than Austrians do (Do we get an opinion from
Michael, our resident professional? :-)

Btw, the 100 point scale, really is only 20 points - or when do you see or
buy anything below 80? Pure water gets 50, you know.

Anders

" when do you see or buy anything below 80?"

2001 Havens Bourriquot, WS (Laube) 67, one of my rare case buys.

I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator---they claim
to be doing them blind but I was amazed when they gave a 72 to a Bruno
Giacosa Barolo--when Giacosa opens his eyes in the morning he's already at
80.

One would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could
get a wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or
89. Steiman has a decent palate even though he's a **** in public.
Suckling is a left handed hand shaker, only the true players in the wine
universe get to shake his right hand. Laube is in it for the book sales. The
restaurant awards is a great way to give Shanken's scribes a free meal.

The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is that the
Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to making it seem
like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling their readers who's hot
who's not. When they decide to do a feature on a wine region is like a
bunch of piglets running for the troth. I do not know for sure what
freebies the Spectator gets but I'm sure they're shown a grand time.

I think the Wine Advocate is followed in the Northeast and major cities in
the USA but in the rest of the country its the Spectator. I don't how many
sales I didn't get because the Spectator wouldn't take my samples--they want
4-6 of each wine. A broker from Oz told me how he gets his wines reviewed,
give the office workers lots of samples. Another way is buy a signifigent
number of tickets to one of the WS' "events"and schmooze Marvin. Getting a
celeb to be featured in the WS is a plus. I understand some Lone Star
winery & sheep ranch, promised Marvin an interview with VP Cheney's human
target. The man is a major investor in local wineries and has assembled a
collection of Mouton Cadet back to the 1930's.

My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a difference
between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a function of the
weekly cash-flow.
"DaleW" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> " when do you see or buy anything below 80?"
>
> 2001 Havens Bourriquot, WS (Laube) 67, one of my rare case buys.
>

"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" in :
>I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator ... One
>would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could get a
>wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or 89.
>Steiman ...

That's strong criticism Joe, though I'm in no position to judge because I
see the Spectator very occasionally. What's ironic is with the demise of
Vintage in 1983 --popular independent US wine magazine from the 1970s, I saw
it on east and west coasts, it used various writers and took contributed
articles but never, on principle, advertising -- after it folded, many of
those writers appeared in the _Wine Spectator_ with its very different
policies. (Steiman was familiar as a local wine journalist in San Francisco
newspapers.)

> ... The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is
> that the Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to
> making it seem like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling their
> readers who's hot who's not.

I have heard this from many people of diverse perspectives. And though I
didn't take his publication, I came to respect Parker in particular after
figuring out that certain behaviors reflected not him, but zealous fans.
The more independent critics the better. I've read those others off and on;
Meadows (not mentioned) I've read and actually tasted with, he seems good as
a US Burgundy specialist respected among US Burgundy fans I hear from.

> My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a
> difference between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a function
> of the weekly cash-flow.

(Again strong stuff.) To the first part, a specific that surfaced when
Parker was discussed here (or rather its differently-named original
newsgroup) in the1980s, before Parker himself was online at the private
Prodigy subscription service* (discussions remarkably civil and constructive
by current standards, BTW) was instances cited where Parker allegedly
identified the same wine with what he would call significant point-rating
disparities when trying it in different circumstances. That information is
one of those things that the zealous fans, especially later ones, apparently
were unaware of (and, being unaware of it, like to deny).

-- Max

* One of the several large private services that set up independent email
and news services in competition with the actual Internet (that's us), but
eventually merged into it starting in the middle 1990s. Posted details
earlier.

"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" > wrote in message
...
>I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator---they claim
> to be doing them blind but I was amazed when they gave a 72 to a Bruno
> Giacosa Barolo--when Giacosa opens his eyes in the morning he's already at
> 80.
>
> One would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could
> get a wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or
> 89. Steiman has a decent palate even though he's a **** in public.
> Suckling is a left handed hand shaker, only the true players in the wine
> universe get to shake his right hand. Laube is in it for the book sales.
> The
> restaurant awards is a great way to give Shanken's scribes a free meal.
>
> The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is that
> the
> Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to making it
> seem
> like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling their readers who's
> hot
> who's not. When they decide to do a feature on a wine region is like a
> bunch of piglets running for the troth. I do not know for sure what
> freebies the Spectator gets but I'm sure they're shown a grand time.
>
> I think the Wine Advocate is followed in the Northeast and major cities in
> the USA but in the rest of the country its the Spectator. I don't how
> many
> sales I didn't get because the Spectator wouldn't take my samples--they
> want
> 4-6 of each wine. A broker from Oz told me how he gets his wines
> reviewed,
> give the office workers lots of samples. Another way is buy a signifigent
> number of tickets to one of the WS' "events"and schmooze Marvin. Getting a
> celeb to be featured in the WS is a plus. I understand some Lone Star
> winery & sheep ranch, promised Marvin an interview with VP Cheney's human
> target. The man is a major investor in local wineries and has assembled a
> collection of Mouton Cadet back to the 1930's.
>
> My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a difference
> between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a function of the
> weekly cash-flow.

Joe, C'mon - don't hold back! Tell us what you really think about the WS.

Cheers!
Martin

Most of what I wrote was informed hearsay---I did broker a wine the received
89 points and took out a nice sized ad---I was a sub-contractor- the main
broker told me, he spoke to some one at the WS because in several markets
like mine orders were cancelled because retail was $45 and it only got an
"89" score plus a nice sidebar. The WS guy allegedly said that a bigger ad
would get another point tacked on but was said in a joking manner. BTW the
wholesaler I sold it too has to reduce Wholesale pricing by 40% to move it
out. They must have gone thru a case sampling the trade after the "bad"
review.

I do remember Vintage a quirky publication--I heard the publisher is still
producing magazine promoting "T & A".....Everything I've heard about Meadows
is good---You are "spot on" about how consumers & merchants frenzy over
points, not his reviews are objectionable. I sold a Barolo from Annunciata
in La Morra that was rated 89+ by Parker & presold about half a
palate---when the wine arrived I got any angry call from a merchant seems
hos customer found the wine too "soft". The text in Parker's review which
neither the merchant or customer read mentioned the wines elegance and
balance.

At times I did use raw scores to sell, mostly allocated wines from DeGrazia,
some merchants hadn't gotten the WA yet--I'm still first class mail--so I
went over the scores with my group of DeGrazia players, who ordered the
wines before Mr. Bob's first reviews. My POS always highlighted the text &
score even for WA purposes.

I met Steiman twice--once at the first or second Napa Wine Auction-he was
sitting in the sake row & I got up & introduced my self. I mentioned I
taught wine classes and was part of Parkers "control group" big boo-boo-- he
said he was to busy to chat--O saw him at a Hublein auction event and
pointed him our to Parker. I was walking to shake his hand when he turned
his back on me, which was not as rude as James Sucking was when Angelo Gaja
introduced me at VinItaly---he held out his left hand and started a
conversation with someone else. I met Tom Mathews a few times and he's a
real person.

I have to admire Shanken, when he bought the WS it was pretty lame-Besides
Parker the Conn. Guide & San Diego Grapevine were darlings of my fellow wine
geeks--Finnegan newsletter was very well written but was not
comprehensive--- Jerry Meads huzzahs & rants were very entertaining. After
9-11 Shankin stepped up to the plate and gave not only money but supported
the efforts to lift up the beverage & food communities in New York--so I
forgive him his celebrity reviews of Hal Prince & Mel Brooks ( I had thought
Brooks was a Dr Brown & Selzer guy--who knew he loved Bordeaux)

Often times the WS gives an honest score but a "national" brand gets the
most play in best 100 lists & best buys etc---One year they gave Pertimali
Brunello 93 points & Banfi's 92---Livio Sasseti and DeGrazia never
advertised in the WS so I wasn't surprised the Banfi was in the top 100 not
Pertimali--A few Years later the two DeGrazia exported Brunellos,Ciacci &
Pertimali were not mentioned in a Tuscan feature while the Brunellos of
Paterno, Banfi and Hublein aka Palace Brands were---they did mention the two
restaurants, I dined at in the Siena environs.........

"Max Hauser" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" in :
> >I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator ... One
> >would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could get
a
> >wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or 89.
> >Steiman ...
>
> That's strong criticism Joe, though I'm in no position to judge because I
> see the Spectator very occasionally. What's ironic is with the demise of
> Vintage in 1983 --popular independent US wine magazine from the 1970s, I
saw
> it on east and west coasts, it used various writers and took contributed
> articles but never, on principle, advertising -- after it folded, many of
> those writers appeared in the _Wine Spectator_ with its very different
> policies. (Steiman was familiar as a local wine journalist in San
Francisco
> newspapers.)
>
> > ... The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is
> > that the Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to
> > making it seem like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling
their
> > readers who's hot who's not.
>
> I have heard this from many people of diverse perspectives. And though I
> didn't take his publication, I came to respect Parker in particular after
> figuring out that certain behaviors reflected not him, but zealous fans.
> The more independent critics the better. I've read those others off and
on;
> Meadows (not mentioned) I've read and actually tasted with, he seems good
as
> a US Burgundy specialist respected among US Burgundy fans I hear from.
>
> > My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a
> > difference between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a
function
> > of the weekly cash-flow.
>
> (Again strong stuff.) To the first part, a specific that surfaced when
> Parker was discussed here (or rather its differently-named original
> newsgroup) in the1980s, before Parker himself was online at the private
> Prodigy subscription service* (discussions remarkably civil and
constructive
> by current standards, BTW) was instances cited where Parker allegedly
> identified the same wine with what he would call significant point-rating
> disparities when trying it in different circumstances. That information
is
> one of those things that the zealous fans, especially later ones,
apparently
> were unaware of (and, being unaware of it, like to deny).
>
> -- Max
>
> * One of the several large private services that set up independent email
> and news services in competition with the actual Internet (that's us), but
> eventually merged into it starting in the middle 1990s. Posted details
> earlier.
>
>

Young Martle wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2006 10:25:34 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >But 89 points vs 91? That's ridiculous.
> >
>
> That's why I like reading Dale.
>
> Myron

But is giving scores of 89 vs 91 ridiculous or is running around trying
to find the 91 point wine when the 89 is being sold around the corner
for a lower price the part that's ridiculous?

Is there an imaginary line at 90 points? Many people that follow Parker
or WS scores believe so, but is this a function of the scale or the
people reading the review. Could it not be said, that the same people
would probably only buy Dale A wines or Decanter ***** wines?

Frankly, I have no issue with any rating system anyone wishes to use.
Parker's 100 point (ok 50 point) scale can easily be converted to Dales
A,B,C,D scale. And even Dale doesn't really use ABCD, he uses + and -
so his 4 grade scale now becomes a 12 grade scale. It's his scale, he
can do whatever he wants with it (as long as he keeps posting notes).
It's what WE do with the scores and notes that matter.


Andy

I am not a fan of WS. I gave up subscription many years ago. Though
someone gave me a gift subscription for a year about 5 years ago, and
one year ago I got a year courtesy of Zachys (I just got my "this is
your final issue- renew!" flyer).

There are many reasons for my disdain- it can be hard to figure who
tasted some things (though that seems to have improved lately), II find
Laube's crusade for squeaky clean wines doesn't match up with my
tastes, Suckling I can't seem to get a grip on - he's all over the
place, etc. And taking advertisements can open questions of bias.

But..but...but...

While Joe Rosenberg might percieve bias, the only study I have ever
seen didn't find any. I thought it was posted here, but I can't find
through Google. The more I think of it, the more I think that it was
posted on WCWN (in the old format, I think I remember the threading).
Perhaps Max remembers? The poster (a wine geek with a background in
statistics) did a fairly sophisticated formal analysis of WS ratings
for domestic wines for a couple years (he did domestic as it was harder
to identify advertising for imports- some had different West Coast/East
Coast importers, etc). He found no relationship between points and
advertising. Except that advertisers had a small edge at being retasted
in case of a bad score. I believe he did not analyze whether
advertising increased ones chances of being featured as a "collectors
corner", "best value", or making the WS 100 (other charges that have
been leveled at WS).

One can't take a stand for blind tasting and then criticize a low score
because someone deserves 80 points for getting out of bed in the
morning. Besides, hasn't Giacosa (my favorite Barolo producer) long
been a LoCascio/Winebow import? I don't recall a WS that didn't have a
Winebow ad!

I just prefer that critcisms be based in fact, not innuendo.

DaleW wrote:

>
> One can't take a stand for blind tasting and then criticize a low score
> because someone deserves 80 points for getting out of bed in the
> morning. Besides, hasn't Giacosa (my favorite Barolo producer) long
> been a LoCascio/Winebow import? I don't recall a WS that didn't have a
> Winebow ad!


What are talking about? He's a surpeb wine-maker. Giacosa's urine
probably tastes better than most wine.

>
> I just prefer that critcisms be based in fact, not innuendo.

wrote:
>
> No, the notion that wine can be evluated to that fine a degree is
> ridiculous.

That's just not true. Anyone can evaluate wine to that degree. OK,
maybe you can't because you would have to take your blinders off first.


>
> Who cares? I sdon't read wine reviews anymore, ESPECIALLY Parker's.
> He's a moron. He thinks wine should be as thick as syrup.

He doesn't agree with your tastes so he's a moron. I think that sums up
your approach to wine very clearly. You must be a blast to share a
bottle with. Hopefully you're a little more tollerant in other areas of
your life.

Frankly no one cares that you don't read reviews. It doesn't even cause
a blip on the screen. In your warped little mind you may think it
makes you superior in some way but running around proclaiming it to the
world only makes you appear small and petty.


> I know there are people who are too stupid to trust their own
> judgement.

And some people are so stupid that they will only drink wine from one
country because they have this absurd romantic notion that it's the
only country that has wine makers that are true to their craft.

> Fair
> Good
> Very Good
> Exceptional
> Superb
>
> That's all you need.

That's all you need. Other people need more. Why does it bother you so
much what other people use? Does it harm you in some way? Do you feel
theatened when some one uses a 100 point scale?

Tell me about your mother, was she too strict with you when you were a
child?

What about your father? Did he ever tell you he loved you?

Seek professional help before it's too late.

Andy

JEP62 wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > No, the notion that wine can be evluated to that fine a degree is
> > ridiculous.
>
> That's just not true. Anyone can evaluate wine to that degree. OK,
> maybe you can't because you would have to take your blinders off first.

Two wines may differ ever so slightly, but that does not make one
BETTER than the other, just DIFFERENT. Two hypothetical'91 point
Barbaescos, for instance, may come from different makers, different
years, and will NOT taste the same. So what's the point of assigning
them 91 points? It means nothing! What more do you get from that than
saying "Excellent"?

> > Who cares? I sdon't read wine reviews anymore, ESPECIALLY Parker's.
> > He's a moron. He thinks wine should be as thick as syrup.
>
> He doesn't agree with your tastes so he's a moron.

No, that has nothing to do with it.

> I think that sums up
> your approach to wine very clearly. You must be a blast to share a
> bottle with. Hopefully you're a little more tollerant in other areas of
> your life.

I'm a blast to share a bottle with, because I never talk about stupid
points: we drink the wines and eat the food and have a great time!

> Frankly no one cares that you don't read reviews.

You....consumer...

> It doesn't even cause
> a blip on the screen. In your warped little mind you may think it
> makes you superior in some way but running around proclaiming it to the
> world only makes you appear small and petty.

No, I'm not some neurotic, insecure wimp who needs OTHER people to tell
him what he likes. I know what I like and what I don't like, and nobody
else's opinion matters at all, especially not that of a ****wit like
Parker...

> > I know there are people who are too stupid to trust their own
> > judgement.
>
> And some people are so stupid that they will only drink wine from one
> country because they have this absurd romantic notion that it's the
> only country that has wine makers that are true to their craft.

No, you misunderstand. Italian wines are the only ones that matter....

>
> > Fair
> > Good
> > Very Good
> > Exceptional
> > Superb
> >
> > That's all you need.
>
> That's all you need. Other people need more. Why does it bother you so
> much what other people use? Does it harm you in some way? Do you feel
> theatened when some one uses a 100 point scale?

Precisely the oppsite: You feel insecure if your wine does not 'score'
high enough on the Parkeri scale. I drink expensive wines and cheap
wines, and I can tellt he differences easily enough. I am in wine shops
often enough to have seen the witless come in and buy a case of Opus
One...

I saw it with my own eyes. I almost fell onto the floor in a fit of
convulsive laughter...

Then there was the time a blonde came into the shop, to buy a case of
Pinot Grigio for a 'wine-tasting party'. When the clerk started strode
over toward the Italian section, she gasped: "Oh, I didn't know there
was Italian Pinot Grigio..."

DaleW wrote:
> I normally try to refrain from responding,but...
>
> Is Giacosa one of those producers who would be so insulted by someone
> tasting his wine?

He'd be pleased most by people drinking it, rather than by amateurs who
don't know what they are doing trying to pretend they are pros..

>
> http://www.westcoastwine.net/ubb/sho...rue#Post450868
>
> If you read Chris's travelogues there's some great notes on folks like
> Bartolo Mascarello proudly offering tastes of wines that have been open
> for a week, too.
>
> I like Bruno's Barbarescos and Barolos, I'll leave the urine to you.

His Grignolino and Barbera is good too...

wrote:
>
> Two wines may differ ever so slightly, but that does not make one
> BETTER than the other, just DIFFERENT.

Of course it does. I like one a little better so it gets a slightly
higher score.

>Two hypothetical'91 point
> Barbaescos, for instance, may come from different makers, different
> years, and will NOT taste the same. So what's the point of assigning
> them 91 points? It means nothing! What more do you get from that than
> saying "Excellent"?

Again, I liked one a little bit more so little higher score. It's
really a very simple concept.

>
> > > Who cares? I sdon't read wine reviews anymore, ESPECIALLY Parker's.
> > > He's a moron. He thinks wine should be as thick as syrup.
> >
> > He doesn't agree with your tastes so he's a moron.
>
> No, that has nothing to do with it.

Really? It doesn't sound that way based on what you said before. On the
other hand it could just be envy but we'll leave that for another
session.

>
> I'm a blast to share a bottle with, because I never talk about stupid
> points: we drink the wines and eat the food and have a great time!

And you are completely intollerant of anyone else's opinions. A real
blast as long as everyone agrees with you. You seem to have this
uncontrollable urge to force your opinions on everyone else. Did your
mother have a very dominant personality? Was your father more of a,
let's just say pacifist, that just wanted harmony in the house?

>
> > Frankly no one cares that you don't read reviews.
>
> You....consumer...

Now you've really hurt my feelings. Pass the tissue please. The shame
of it all, I... I ... I consume wine.....

>
>
> No, I'm not some neurotic, insecure wimp ....

I think you protest too much.

> who needs OTHER people to tell
> him what he likes. I know what I like and what I don't like, and nobody
> else's opinion matters at all, especially not that of a ****wit like
> Parker...

Why do you feel this need to express your opinion using vulgarity? This
really isn't very becoming and can be very offensive to others in this
group.

>
> No, you misunderstand. Italian wines are the only ones that matter....

I understand completely, trust me. You are narow minded and egotistical
and your views are completely opposite to some of the greatest wine
makers and wine drinkers from all different countries.

Maybe we should explore your hatred of anything that's not Italian a
little more. Were you abused by your French teacher when you were
younger? It wasn't sexual abuse, was it?

>
> Precisely the oppsite: You feel insecure if your wine does not 'score'
> high enough on the Parkeri scale.

How can I be insecure when I don't even know what the wines I buy
receive for scores. But that's neither here nor there, we're discussing
your hang ups, not mine.

>I drink expensive wines and cheap
> wines, and I can tellt he differences easily enough. I am in wine shops
> often enough to have seen the witless come in and buy a case of Opus One...

Why do you care what other people buy? Are they making you drink their
wine or is this just some deep seated feeling of insecurity because you
can't afford a case of Opus One? Does their choice of wines really
determine their inteligence level as you imply above? If some one
drinks a wine that you feel is not worthy, is the person then not
worthy? If someone eats a fast food burger, are THEY judged by you as
not worthy also?

>
> I saw it with my own eyes. I almost fell onto the floor in a fit of
> convulsive laughter...

That I don't doubt. I'm actually sure it happens frequently. Although I
think some people would classify it as hysterical laughter.

>
> Then there was the time a blonde came into the shop, to buy a case of
> Pinot Grigio for a 'wine-tasting party'. When the clerk started strode
> over toward the Italian section, she gasped: "Oh, I didn't know there
> was Italian Pinot Grigio..."

What does the color of her hair have to do with it? It's very
interesting that you mention blond. Was your mother a blond and you
harbor some deep seated resentment to blond hair? Perhaps it was your
stern, Austrian nanny that insisted on monthly enema's that was blond?

Does this person's ignorance of Italian Pinot Grigio make them unworthy
to drink wine? Are they unworthy to breath the same air as you? What
about drink from the same water fountain? Are you that insecure with
your knowledge of wine that people that know less than you are some how
worth less as human beings? Or is it just the blond hair that sets you
off?

Andy

JEP62 wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Two wines may differ ever so slightly, but that does not make one
> > BETTER than the other, just DIFFERENT.
>
> Of course it does. I like one a little better so it gets a slightly
> higher score.

I was talking about two different wines with 91 point scores. They will
taste different.

>
> >Two hypothetical'91 point
> > Barbaescos, for instance, may come from different makers, different
> > years, and will NOT taste the same. So what's the point of assigning
> > them 91 points? It means nothing! What more do you get from that than
> > saying "Excellent"?
>
> Again, I liked one a little bit more so little higher score. It's
> really a very simple concept.

See point above. Take two wines from the WS with identical scores (say
a Barbera and a Barberesco) and drink them. The wines will differ
considerably. What will the scores then mean?

> > > > Who cares? I sdon't read wine reviews anymore, ESPECIALLY Parker's.
> > > > He's a moron. He thinks wine should be as thick as syrup.
> > >
> > > He doesn't agree with your tastes so he's a moron.
> >
> > No, that has nothing to do with it.
>
> Really? It doesn't sound that way based on what you said before. On the
> other hand it could just be envy but we'll leave that for another
> session.

No, that 'person' (using the term generously) has ruined the wine
business.

> > I'm a blast to share a bottle with, because I never talk about stupid
> > points: we drink the wines and eat the food and have a great time!
>
> And you are completely intolerant of anyone else's opinions.

No, I point out that some people have no business expressing opinions,
as all they have done is parrot someone else's. I drink lots of wines,
and I have very few opinions to express about them. It seems to me to
be pointless to spend two hours discussing a great bottle of Valtellina
when one could spend that time drinking it (and several other bottles)
and dining (Italian regional dishes, of course) with a dozen friends in
an atmosphere of conviviality.

> A real
> blast as long as everyone agrees with you.

Most people don't do the research I do, or take the time to learn
first-hand the way I do.

>You seem to have this
> uncontrollable urge to force your opinions on everyone else.

I simply point out that most people don't know half of what they think
they know.

> > You....consumer...
>
> Now you've really hurt my feelings. Pass the tissue please. The shame
> of it all, I... I ... I consume wine.....

No, I meant 'consumer' as in someone who reads Consumer Digest or Wine
Spectator and then goes out and buys a case of Opus One. It has nothing
to do with income; it has to do with attitude.

> > No, I'm not some neurotic, insecure wimp ....
>
> I think you protest too much.

See previous comment.
>
> > who needs OTHER people to tell
> > him what he likes. I know what I like and what I don't like, and nobody
> > else's opinion matters at all, especially not that of a ****wit like
> > Parker...
>
> Why do you feel this need to express your opinion using vulgarity? This
> really isn't very becoming and can be very offensive to others in this
> group.

Because Parker is a disgraceful example of what is worst about American
attitudes about wine.

> > No, you misunderstand. Italian wines are the only ones that matter....
>
> I understand completely, trust me. You are narow minded and egotistical
> and your views are completely opposite to some of the greatest wine
> makers and wine drinkers from all different countries.

There is only ONE wine-producing country. The other countries produce
swill.

> Maybe we should explore your hatred of anything that's not Italian a
> little more. Were you abused by your French teacher when you were
> younger? It wasn't sexual abuse, was it?

I studied German, my friend.

> > Precisely the oppsite: You feel insecure if your wine does not 'score'
> > high enough on the Parkeri scale.
>
> How can I be insecure when I don't even know what the wines I buy
> receive for scores. But that's neither here nor there, we're discussing
> your hang ups, not mine.

I meant 'you' in the collective sense. I visit wine shops often enough
to see things that are deeply disturbing.....

> >I drink expensive wines and cheap
> > wines, and I can tellt he differences easily enough. I am in wine shops
> > often enough to have seen the witless come in and buy a case of Opus One...
>
> Why do you care what other people buy?

I don't 'care', but I find it hilarious that someone who apparently has
the brains to earn a good living in his chosen profession shows so
little use of them outside of it.

> Are they making you drink their
> wine or is this just some deep seated feeling of insecurity because you
> can't afford a case of Opus One?

Over-priced swill?

> Does their choice of wines really
> determine their inteligence level as you imply above?

It certainly shows what their psychological make-up is, and how easily
influenced they are. It shows him to be a fool.

> If some one
> drinks a wine that you feel is not worthy, is the person then not
> worthy? If someone eats a fast food burger, are THEY judged by you as
> not worthy also?

Of course not. My point is made above.

> > I saw it with my own eyes. I almost fell onto the floor in a fit of
> > convulsive laughter...
>
> That I don't doubt. I'm actually sure it happens frequently. Although I
> think some people would classify it as hysterical laughter.

No, I almost had convulsions...

> > Then there was the time a blonde came into the shop, to buy a case of
> > Pinot Grigio for a 'wine-tasting party'. When the clerk started strode
> > over toward the Italian section, she gasped: "Oh, I didn't know there
> > was Italian Pinot Grigio..."
>
> What does the color of her hair have to do with it?

It was classic. You had to be there.

>It's very
> interesting that you mention blond.

No, 'blonde'. Female. 'Blond' is male.

> Was your mother a blond and you

My mother was not a blonde. She was a dark-haired Italian.

> harbor some deep seated resentment to blond hair? Perhaps it was your
> stern, Austrian nanny that insisted on monthly enema's that was blond?

She would have been a 'blonde', not a 'blond', had had an Austrain
nanny, but I did not.

> Does this person's ignorance of Italian Pinot Grigio make them unworthy
> to drink wine?

You had to have been there to appreciate this event. Did you ever see
'Born Yesterday'?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042276/

> Are they unworthy to breath the same air as you?

How can anybody who knows the name 'Pinot Grigio' NOT know that the
name, at least, is Italian? How can anybody express surprise that the
wine is made in Italy? It is impossible! You'd have to be born
yesterday! How can you even be familiar with the name of this wine and
not know that it comes from Italy? The 'io' ending shows it to be
Italian! The name of this grape is Pinot Gris in F_____.

http://www.winepros.org/wine101/grap...pinot_gris.htm

> What
> about drink from the same water fountain? Are you that insecure with
> your knowledge of wine that people that know less than you are some how
> worth less as human beings? Or is it just the blond hair that sets you
> off?

You just had to see it to believe it....it was hysterical...a classic
'blonde joke' moment...
>
> Andy

wrote:
>
> See point above. Take two wines from the WS with identical scores (say
> a Barbera and a Barberesco) and drink them. The wines will differ
> considerably. What will the scores then mean?

That some one likes them the same. Well, with WS it's more likely that
the group average was the same. So what? Why could that possibly bother
you so much? If you don't like scores, ignore them. Very simple.

> No, that 'person' (using the term generously) has ruined the wine
> business.

Do you have feelings of persecution or just inferiority? One man,
single handedly, has ruined the whole wine business? WOW, from the way
you talk you would think the guy was a god.

> No, I point out that some people have no business expressing opinions,

IMHO every one, every where has every right to express their opinion.
In my experience, usually the more forcefully the opinion is expressed
the more untrue, uninformed and damaging the opinion is. Sound
familiar?

BTW, RP actually has a business expressing his opinions on wine, or so
I'm told anyway.

> as all they have done is parrot someone else's.

Just as you consistently do. RP ruined the wine business. I suppose you
have some facts that the wine business is ruined? Or that RP is
responsible for it? You are only doing what you accuse others of doing,
parroting someone else's opinion.

> I drink lots of wines,
> and I have very few opinions to express about them. It seems to me to
> be pointless to spend two hours discussing a great bottle of Valtellina
> when one could spend that time drinking it (and several other bottles)
> and dining (Italian regional dishes, of course) with a dozen friends in
> an atmosphere of conviviality.

So you don't enjoy discussing the wine and the food. How good it is?
How it may be improved? How it compares to other dishes you've made or
tried? Who makes the best ... fill in your favorite dish ..? Why this
wine or food has a special place in your heart because your Granma used
to make it or you vacationed in the place of it's origin? What do you
discuss, how great YOU are?

> Most people don't do the research I do, or take the time to learn
> first-hand the way I do.

Most people don't drink wine at all. Of couse of the people that do,
you are just so much more superior. We should all bow down in your
presence. You are the only one that tries different wines, oh that's
right, as long as they are Italian because no other country can produce
anything that's good.

>
> I simply point out that most people don't know half of what they think
> they know.

No you don't. You feel you are superior because you "know" so much more
than other people. Mother Teresa probably knew very little about wine
so you must be superior to her.

>>
> No, I meant 'consumer' as in someone who reads Consumer Digest or Wine
> Spectator and then goes out and buys a case of Opus One. It has nothing
> to do with income; it has to do with attitude.

I'm a consumer. I consume products. You can do anything you want to try
to change the meaning of the word but it doesn't make it true or an
insult. Just like you emphatically proclaiming your "wisdoms" don't
make them any more true.

> Because Parker is a disgraceful example of what is worst about American
> attitudes about wine.

Some people would argue that you are and Parker is only trying to sell
subscriptions.

> There is only ONE wine-producing country. The other countries produce
> swill.

There it is. You have spoken and no one can have a different opinion of
what is good wine.

> I meant 'you' in the collective sense. I visit wine shops often enough
> to see things that are deeply disturbing.....

I am not the Borg. There is no collective. There is no them vs you. The
rest of the world is not trying to get you. I've read enough of your
words to recognize deeply disturbed.

> I don't 'care', but I find it hilarious that someone who apparently has
> the brains to earn a good living in his chosen profession shows so
> little use of them outside of it.

But you obviously do care. It upsets you. It disturbs you even.

> Over-priced swill?

If that's your opinion, don't buy it. No one cares one way or the
other. Of course it must make you feel very superior when you see this
happen. BTW, how many times have you tried properly aged Opus One? Or
are you just parroting someone else's opinion.

> It certainly shows what their psychological make-up is, and how easily
> influenced they are. It shows him to be a fool.

Or possibly that they truely find some redeeming quality in the wine
and they are willing to sacrifice their money. Maybe they just don't
value money the way you appear to.

> Of course not. My point is made above.

There was a point? Sorry, must have missed it. I'll have to try to find
it later.

> No, 'blonde'. Female. 'Blond' is male.

Not in common use US English.

> You just had to see it to believe it....it was hysterical...a classic
> 'blonde joke' moment...

No I don't have to see it. I respect people that know less than me
about a certain subject and if they express a desire to learn, I try to
teach and share, not ridicule. But that's just my nature. Your nature
is obviously different from mine.

It's people like you that have pat answers that mimic someone else's
opinion and think they know everything about subject, that's what I
find amusing. How anyone could think what they "know" is at best an
informed opinion, that there is some univeral truth in the world of
wine, is just beyond me.

Andy

"JEP62" > wrote in news:1142539137.545775.178420
@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:

Dear Andy, please don't feed the troll, thank you!

d.

PS - my rating system (lifted and abbreviated from someone named Jay, if I
remember correctly?)
A - This wine is great!
B - This wine is good!
C - This is wine!
D - Is this wine?!

JEP62 wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > See point above. Take two wines from the WS with identical scores (say
> > a Barbera and a Barberesco) and drink them. The wines will differ
> > considerably. What will the scores then mean?
>
> That some one likes them the same. Well, with WS it's more likely that
> the group average was the same. So what? Why could that possibly bother
> you so much? If you don't like scores, ignore them. Very simple.

What bothers me so much? That people take these scores seriously,
that's what.

>
> > No, that 'person' (using the term generously) has ruined the wine
> > business.
>
> Do you have feelings of persecution or just inferiority? One man,
> single handedly, has ruined the whole wine business? WOW, from the way
> you talk you would think the guy was a god.

A devil, more like it....

>
> > No, I point out that some people have no business expressing opinions,
>
> IMHO every one, every where has every right to express their opinion.

Yes, THEIR opiion, not something they picked up somewhere, like
syphilis..

> In my experience, usually the more forcefully the opinion is expressed
> the more untrue, uninformed and damaging the opinion is. Sound
> familiar?

Oh please, spare me. Drink a Taurino Brindisi and tell me what you
think.

> BTW, RP actually has a business expressing his opinions on wine, or so
> I'm told anyway.

Yes, for the suckers...

> > as all they have done is parrot someone else's.
>
> Just as you consistently do.

I certainly do not.

> RP ruined the wine business. I suppose you
> have some facts that the wine business is ruined?

Numerous accounts of how idigenous Italian wines have become
'Parkerized', i.e., made to appeal to Parker, instead of the
traditional styles for those wines.

Over-oaked everything. I prefer the lighter touch of the botti to the
barique.

My opinion is not unique:

http://www.slate.com/id/2125025/

"Many oenophiles, as they get older, tend to gravitate toward more
subtle [correct form: subtler] wines, but Parker appears to want them
even brawnier and bawdier. His growing predilection for freakish wines
(Australian Shirazes with 15 percent alcohol and the consistency of
sludge) and freakish vintages (the 2003 Rhones, the product of a lethal
heat wave that nearly turned the grapes into raisins) has raised
eyebrows even among some of his most slavish followers."

> Or that RP is
> responsible for it?

See above.

>You are only doing what you accuse others of doing,
> parroting someone else's opinion.

No, sir. I have come to this conclusion quite independently.

> > I drink lots of wines,
> > and I have very few opinions to express about them. It seems to me to
> > be pointless to spend two hours discussing a great bottle of Valtellina
> > when one could spend that time drinking it (and several other bottles)
> > and dining (Italian regional dishes, of course) with a dozen friends in
> > an atmosphere of conviviality.
>
> So you don't enjoy discussing the wine and the food. How good it is?

Yes, we do, then we move on to other discussions.

> How it may be improved? How it compares to other dishes you've made or
> tried? Who makes the best ... fill in your favorite dish ..?

Three or four times a year my friend Mike Sellaroli and I cook Italian
regional dinners and serve Italian regionall wines with them. The last
one, we went through 10 bottles and served 12 people. We prepared lamb
stew, saffron risotto, etc, and Arrosto Ripieno (veal):

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

It evaporated off the table in two minutes....

> Why this
> wine or food has a special place in your heart because your Granma used
> to make it or you vacationed in the place of its origin? What do you
> discuss, how great YOU are?

We talk about all kinds of things, but never discuss the wines in the
way done here or in WS.

> > Most people don't do the research I do, or take the time to learn
> > first-hand the way I do.
>
> Most people don't drink wine at all. Of couse of the people that do,
> you are just so much more superior.

Hardly. I just don't buy expensive crap.

> We should all bow down in your
> presence. You are the only one that tries different wines, oh that's
> right, as long as they are Italian because no other country can produce
> anything that's good.

Now, you begin to understand.

> > I simply point out that most people don't know half of what they think
> > they know.
>
> No you don't. You feel you are superior because you "know" so much more
> than other people. Mother Teresa probably knew very little about wine
> so you must be superior to her.

It's the PRETENSE of knowledge I find repugnant. I know what I NEED to
know about Italian wine: what to buy. I can go to the shop and look at
the bottles in the Italian section and have a pretty good idea of
what's in the bottle.

> > No, I meant 'consumer' as in someone who reads Consumer Digest or Wine
> > Spectator and then goes out and buys a case of Opus One. It has nothing
> > to do with income; it has to do with attitude.
>
> I'm a consumer. I consume products. You can do anything you want to try
> to change the meaning of the word but it doesn't make it true or an
> insult. Just like you emphatically proclaiming your "wisdoms" don't
> make them any more true.

Do you buy from a magazine?

> > Because Parker is a disgraceful example of what is worst about American
> > attitudes about wine.
>
> Some people would argue that you are and Parker is only trying to sell
> subscriptions.

The obsession with measuring everything, having the biggest and best is
something uniquely American that I find repugnant. Where else do they
have spam that says: Increase your penis size!

> > There is only ONE wine-producing country. The other countries produce
> > swill.
>
> There it is. You have spoken and no one can have a different opinion of
> what is good wine.

Of course they can, but it does not mean anything.

> > I meant 'you' in the collective sense. I visit wine shops often enough
> > to see things that are deeply disturbing.....
>
> I am not the Borg. There is no collective. There is no them vs you. The
> rest of the world is not trying to get you. I've read enough of your
> words to recognize deeply disturbed.

'You' can mean 'one' or 'many'. It's a 'grammatical' collective that I
meant. Do I really have to explain that to you?

> > I don't 'care', but I find it hilarious that someone who apparently has
> > the brains to earn a good living in his chosen profession shows so
> > little use of them outside of it.
>
> But you obviously do care. It upsets you. It disturbs you even.

It supplies material for discussions and no end of entertainment. Opus
One costs $165 per bottle. I just went to the wine store a few minutes
ago.

> > Over-priced swill?

I asked the clerk who bought this stuff. He laughed and said what I
thought he would say.

> If that's your opinion, don't buy it. No one cares one way or the
> other. Of course it must make you feel very superior when you see this
> happen. BTW, how many times have you tried properly aged Opus One? Or
> are you just parroting someone else's opinion.

Some things one can tell without having to be told...

> > It certainly shows what their psychological make-up is, and how easily
> > influenced they are. It shows him to be a fool.
>
> Or possibly that they truely find some redeeming quality in the wine
> and they are willing to sacrifice their money. Maybe they just don't
> value money the way you appear to.

Maybe they are trying to impress themselves...why not buy a case of
Bricco Roche?
Perhaps because of the big ads in WS?

http://www.ceretto.com/enter-e.html

> > Of course not. My point is made above.
>
> There was a point? Sorry, must have missed it. I'll have to try to find
> it later.
>
> > No, 'blonde'. Female. 'Blond' is male.
>
> Not in common use US English.

Nope. Wrong. Look it up. The fact that you are ignorant of its truth
does not make it false.

> > You just had to see it to believe it....it was hysterical...a classic
> > 'blonde joke' moment...
>
> No I don't have to see it. I respect people that know less than me
> about a certain subject and if they express a desire to learn, I try to
> teach and share, not ridicule. But that's just my nature. Your nature
> is obviously different from mine.

I find things entertaining that you may not.

> It's people like you that have pat answers that mimic someone else's
> opinion and think they know everything about [a] subject, that's what I
> find amusing.

I don't knw 'everything about a subject' and don't pretend to. What I
do know is gained by trial and error, not from reading Robert Parker.
THAT is what I am talking about.

< How anyone could think what they "know" is at best an
> informed opinion, that there is some univeral truth in the world of
> wine, is just beyond me.
>
> Andy

> Two wines may differ ever so slightly, but that does not make one
> BETTER than the other, just DIFFERENT. Two hypothetical'91 point
> Barbaescos, for instance, may come from different makers, different
> years, and will NOT taste the same. So what's the point of assigning
> them 91 points? It means nothing! What more do you get from that than
> saying "Excellent"?

IT would be instructive to not only show the "91 point" score, but the
standard deviation of the putative measurements. We'd end up with
something like

wine A 91 +/-7
wine B 89 +/-5
wine C 91 +/-10
wine D 93 +/-8

.... and that would give people some idea of just how precise (or not)
these scores are. But then people might learn something, and decide
that "great, good, bad, ugh" is fine for them.

Of course, they'd likely add "good, not quite great but getting there"
and "good enough" and "not quite bad, but more than tolerable"... and
we're up to lots of points. But at least they're vague enough.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Two wines may differ ever so slightly, but that does not make one
> > BETTER than the other, just DIFFERENT. Two hypothetical'91 point
> > Barbaescos, for instance, may come from different makers, different
> > years, and will NOT taste the same. So what's the point of assigning
> > them 91 points? It means nothing! What more do you get from that than
> > saying "Excellent"?
>
> IT would be instructive to not only show the "91 point" score, but the
> standard deviation of the putative measurements. We'd end up with
> something like
>
> wine A 91 +/-7
> wine B 89 +/-5
> wine C 91 +/-10
> wine D 93 +/-8
>
> ... and that would give people some idea of just how precise (or not)
> these scores are.

That's true, but it's a different point altogether. What I'm saying is
that NO TWO 91 point wines will taste identical, not even of the same
type and vintage (1990 Barbares, to give a good example). It is
intended as a measure of 'quality', but I maintain it cannot do that.

> But then people might learn something, and decide
> that "great, good, bad, ugh" is fine for them.

Obsessing over grades and points is, I maintain, a kind of
psychological disease. It's something uniquely American.

> Of course, they'd likely add "good, not quite great but getting there"
> and "good enough" and "not quite bad, but more than tolerable"... and
> we're up to lots of points. But at least they're vague enough.

Correct.

>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> NO TWO 91 point wines will taste identical, not even of the same
> type and vintage (1990 Barbares, to give a good example).

I don't think this in dispute.

> It is intended as a measure of 'quality',
> but I maintain it cannot do that.

To the extent that one can say "this wine is better than that wine",
quality can be measured. To the extent that one can say "this wine is
just a teensy bit better than that wine" it gets harder. How much
harder would be indicated by the standard deviation.

It is, of course, a matter of taste, but it is not =all= a matter of
taste. There are good movies and bad movies too, but there are reasons
why some stories just don't satisfy. Ditto wines. And there are people
for whom those things don't matter to them.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > NO TWO 91 point wines will taste identical, not even of the same
> > type and vintage (1990 Barbares, to give a good example).
>
> I don't think this in dispute.
>
> > It is intended as a measure of 'quality',
> > but I maintain it cannot do that.
>
> To the extent that one can say "this wine is better than that wine",
> quality can be measured. To the extent that one can say "this wine is
> just a teensy bit better than that wine" it gets harder. How much
> harder would be indicated by the standard deviation.
>
> It is, of course, a matter of taste, but it is not =all= a matter of
> taste. There are good movies and bad movies too, but there are reasons
> why some stories just don't satisfy. Ditto wines. And there are people
> for whom those things don't matter to them.

It's not that it does not matter, it's that it cannot be quantified, at
least not to the extent that it is supposed.

>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> at least not to the extent that it is supposed.

.... which the error bars would reveal.

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

"PS - my rating system (lifted and abbreviated from someone named Jay,
if I
remember correctly?)
A - This wine is great!
B - This wine is good!
C - This is wine!
D - Is this wine?! "

Yep, that's Jay Miller's system (and a damn good one). \

I don't know which is crazier, a belief that another person's
qualitative score is a true arbiter of quality for one's own tastes,
or the belief that all wines are just different, neither better nor
worse. As to the latter, let's face it, every single wine drinker I
know puts a qualitative judgement on a wine. There are wines I would
buy at $5, ones I'd buy at $10, $15, 20 etc up to $100 (once we get
over three figures, there are generally factors other than solely wine
quality that spur me to cross that threshold on the very rare occasions
- maybe 10 times total- that I have). Is anyone different? Deciding the
price we would pay for a wine is in effect a rating system.

Enough Scarpitti, enough !!!

We all know your thoughts re tasting.
We all know your thoughts re scoring.
We all know your thoughts re consuming wine only with food.
We all know of you passion for things Italian, to the exclusion of all else.

When you chose to express your considerable knowledge of Italian wines, you
are an informed contributor.

When you choose to rant on and on and on and on - you are just a bloody
bore.

Hey, some of us here will agree with your sentiments on tasting; some won't
agree - so what!
Some of us here may agree with your thoughts re scoring; others won't - so
what!
Some will agree that wine should only be consumed with food - I know I
don't - so what!
I know I enjoy many Italian wines - and French and German and Australian and
NZ and Chilean and South African and Spanish and Portuguese and Hungarian -
you choose to limit yourself - your choice - so what!

You choose to limit your experience to one country's produce. Your
specialist subject is wines of Italy. SO WHAT!
I do not place any limitations on my experiences - I do not have a
specialist subject - I know a little about a lot. SO WHAT!

At times I bow to your superior knowledge.

But most of the time, you are simply a pain in the f*#%^#g ass who is doing
his damndest to ruin an excellent forum.

--

st.helier

DaleW wrote:
> Deciding the price we would pay for a wine is in effect a rating system.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. It why I taste wine. To
determine if it's worth the asking price and if it's worth cellaring.

Andy

wrote:
>
> No, sir. I have come to this conclusion quite independently.
>

That is all you ever do is parrot other peoples opinions. I wouldn't be
surprised if your comments about specific wines even came from someone
else's website.

Andy

DaleW wrote:
> "PS - my rating system (lifted and abbreviated from someone named Jay,
> if I
> remember correctly?)
> A - This wine is great!
> B - This wine is good!
> C - This is wine!
> D - Is this wine?! "
>
> Yep, that's Jay Miller's system (and a damn good one). \
>
> I don't know which is crazier, a belief that another person's
> qualitative score is a true arbiter of quality for one's own tastes,
> or the belief that all wines are just different, neither better nor
> worse.

I didn't say that. What I said was that two so-called 91 point wines
may differ considerably. Such a finely graded point system is thus
almost meaningless.

> As to the latter, let's face it, every single wine drinker I
> know puts a qualitative judgement on a wine. There are wines I would
> buy at $5, ones I'd buy at $10, $15, 20 etc up to $100 (once we get
> over three figures, there are generally factors other than solely wine
> quality that spur me to cross that threshold on the very rare occasions
> - maybe 10 times total- that I have). Is anyone different? Deciding the
> price we would pay for a wine is in effect a rating system.

Yes, but it's a behavior, not a metric.

st.helier wrote:
> Enough Scarpitti, enough !!!
>
> We all know your thoughts re tasting.
> We all know your thoughts re scoring.
> We all know your thoughts re consuming wine only with food.
> We all know of you passion for things Italian, to the exclusion of all else.
>
> When you chose to express your considerable knowledge of Italian wines, you
> are an informed contributor.
>
> When you choose to rant on and on and on and on - you are just a bloody
> bore.
>
> Hey, some of us here will agree with your sentiments on tasting; some won't
> agree - so what!
> Some of us here may agree with your thoughts re scoring; others won't - so
> what!
> Some will agree that wine should only be consumed with food - I know I
> don't - so what!
> I know I enjoy many Italian wines - and French and German and Australian and
> NZ and Chilean and South African and Spanish and Portuguese and Hungarian -
> you choose to limit yourself - your choice - so what!
>
> You choose to limit your experience to one country's produce. Your
> specialist subject is wines of Italy. SO WHAT!
> I do not place any limitations on my experiences - I do not have a
> specialist subject - I know a little about a lot.

I prefer to know more about a more-restricted area. Knowing only a
little is useless. One could spend decades exploring ONLY Tusan wines!
Trying to know a little about all the wines in the world is to me a
pointless exercise, since so many of these wines are not compatible
with Italian regional cooking. Why, if I am engaged in Italian regional
cooking, should I bother with Australian or Chilean wines, when wines
from the region are a natural match? If I were going to produce a
Chilean meal, it might make sense.

>
> At times I bow to your superior knowledge.
>
> But most of the time, you are simply a pain in the f*#%^#g ass who is doing
> his damndest to ruin an excellent forum.

No, I'm simply poking fun at the absurdities I see in the wine world.

>
> --
>
> st.helier

> two so-called 91 point wines
> may differ considerably.

True.

> Such a finely graded point system is thus
> almost meaningless.

Whtether it is meaningless or not does not follow from the first
statement. If two people take two identical objective true-false tests,
and get the same 91% score, this does not mean that they have the
identical knowledge (they may have gotten different questions wrong),
nor does it mean that such tests are meaningless.

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

Jose wrote:
> > two so-called 91 point wines
> > may differ considerably.
>
> True.
>
> > Such a finely graded point system is thus
> > almost meaningless.
>
> Whether it is meaningless or not does not follow from the first
> statement. If two people take two identical objective true-false tests,
> and get the same 91% score, this does not mean that they have the
> identical knowledge (they may have gotten different questions wrong),
> nor does it mean that such tests are meaningless.

Again, Jose, what you say is true, but the two cases are quite
different.

The numbers derived from a student taking a test are objective. Given
the answer sheet, anyone can score the tests. Even though the score
does not tell us which questions were answered rightly or wrongly, the
answer to any of them is objectively right or wrong. The score is taken
as a measure of the student's overall competence.

But with a wine, we are dealing with entirely subjective factors. If we
take 20 wines before 200 judges, what are the odds that the wines will
score the same across 200 judges? Nill! It's ENTIRELY subjective. The
notion, then, that the score can be refined to single-digit accuracy in
a scale of 1-100 is preposterous, absurd, and harmful. THAT is why I
oppose such things in principle.


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

wrote:

> > That is all you ever do is parrot other peoples opinions. I wouldn't be
> > surprised if your comments about specific wines even came from someone
> > else's website.
>
> What evidence of this do you have?

You hate Opus one and than later say

>I asked the clerk who bought this stuff. He laughed and said what I
>thought he would say.

So is it your opinion or are you only parroting someone elses opinion?
How do you know the clerk has even tasted it? This could be even worse.
You could be parroting the opinion of someone parroting some ones else'
opinion whose never tasted the wine. Maybe we should just nickname you
parrot head.

You also said ;

>It's the PRETENSE of knowledge I find repugnant.

So you find yourself repugnant. Hating yourself is not a good place to
be but it does explain the personality you show here.

> What kind of chump do you take me for?

The worst kind.

> I can tell you that I express only my own opinions of wines, and only
> of those which I have enjoyed. Why would I waste my time talking about
> something with which I have no experience?

I'm not sure. Have you tried many vintages of Opus One which you have
expressed an opinion on?

> For the record, have you any experience with:
> Well, I do! I have enjoyed all of these wines within the last two
> years.

Did I express an opinion on those wines anywhere? BTW, isn't that a
mine is bigger than yours type of statement which you claim is one of
the problems?

How is this relevent to you being a phony, self hating, wine expert
wannabe? If you're not satisfied with yourself or your life, change
it.

See you later Parrot,

Andy

> But with a wine, we are dealing with entirely subjective factors.

True, mostly. But that it's (mostly) true does not argue against
precision, it argues against accuracy. They are two different things.

Even a three point (great, good enough, ugh) scale is entirely
subjective in that sense. After all, some people like White Zinfandel
and Bud Light. But even that isn't quite the analogy, since the object
of making a good wine is to make it true to what it's supposed to be.

Given two wines of the same type, is it valid to be able to say one is
really good and the other is just awful? Granted that sometimes an
awful wine will be better with certain foods, maybe even better enough,
but would you agree that one can make mistakes in making wine, and those
mistakes can show up in wine qualities which are well described as "awful"?

That's a subjective judgement too.

I maintain that the fact that it's subjective does not make the
judgement invalid. Do you agree or disagree?

When you say this wine is "better" than that wine, what exactly do you mean?

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

JEP62 wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > > That is all you ever do is parrot other peoples opinions. I wouldn't be
> > > surprised if your comments about specific wines even came from someone
> > > else's website.
> >
> > What evidence of this do you have?
>
> You hate Opus one and than later say

No, I have never tasted Opus One. It is impossible, however, that this
wine is not a fraud.
>
> >I asked the clerk who bought this stuff. He laughed and said what I
> >thought he would say.

I asked him what sort of customer bought it. Guys who drive big flashy
cars? He said yeah, and laughed. He started smiling when I first
pointed at the bottle, evben before I asked the question. He considers
the wine a joke, obviously.

> So is it your opinion or are you only parroting someone elses opinion?

My opinion is that Opus One is a hype-up wine, not worth $165 except to
the deluded and naive.

> How do you know the clerk has even tasted it? This could be even worse.
> You could be parroting the opinion of someone parroting some ones else'
> opinion whose never tasted the wine. Maybe we should just nickname you
> parrot head.
>
> You also said ;
>
> >It's the PRETENSE of knowledge I find repugnant.
>
> So you find yourself repugnant. Hating yourself is not a good place to
> be but it does explain the personality you show here.
>
> > What kind of chump do you take me for?
>
> The worst kind.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

> > I can tell you that I express only my own opinions of wines, and only
> > of those which I have enjoyed. Why would I waste my time talking about
> > something with which I have no experience?
>
> I'm not sure. Have you tried many vintages of Opus One which you have
> expressed an opinion on?

Does the name 'Rolex' ring a bell?

> > For the record, have you any experience with:
> > Well, I do! I have enjoyed all of these wines within the last two
> > years.
>
> Did I express an opinion on those wines anywhere? BTW, isn't that a
> mine is bigger than yours type of statement which you claim is one of
> the problems?

No, I was simply citing the wines with which I have some experience, at
various price points. They are not extremely common. I was simply
showing that I like to try various wines, and that I DO have some
breadth of experience with them.

> How is this relevent to you being a phony, self hating, wine expert
> wannabe? If you're not satisfied with yourself or your life, change
> it.

I don't claim to be an 'expert', and never have. What I DO claim is to
have good taste in wine. There is a difference, my friend.

>
> See you later Parrot,

Arrrrrggggggg

>
> Andy

Jose wrote:
> > But with a wine, we are dealing with entirely subjective factors.
>
> True, mostly. But that it's (mostly) true does not argue against
> precision, it argues against accuracy. They are two different things.

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.

> Even a three point (great, good enough, ugh) scale is entirely
> subjective in that sense.

> After all, some people like White Zinfandel
> and Bud Light. But even that isn't quite the analogy, since the object
> of making a good wine is to make it true to what it's supposed to be.

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?

> Given two wines of the same type, is it valid to be able to say one is
> really good and the other is just awful?

Not necessarily, unless one is simply defective or spoilt. In general,
you get what you pay for. 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, or should I assign points?
No. I simply buy with the recognition that the $20 is more complex and
satisfying.

> Granted that sometimes an
> awful wine will be better with certain foods, maybe even better enough,
> but would you agree that one can make mistakes in making wine, and those
> mistakes can show up in wine qualities which are well described as "awful"?

Not necessarily, although I have tasted some stuff from Chile that fits
that term. Occasionally I have been subjected to what guests have
brought to parties from all sorts of places (Chile, Canada, California,
Australia) and in only one instance in recent years was I pleasantly
surprised. by a Canadian red! Most of these other 'offereings' were
just plain dreadful. That is why I continue to buy Italian wines
exclusively.

>
> That's a subjective judgement too.
>
> I maintain that the fact that it's subjective does not make the
> judgement invalid. Do you agree or disagree?

Taste some cheap crap from Chile and you'll know what 'bad wine' is all
about.

>
> 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.



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

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?