Why aren't rosés taken more seriously?

Not really offended, Thomas. Just wanted to hammer home my point.

To carry through with some of your recent points, I very much agree that there is an objective element to wine tasting. For examples tannins and acids in wine are physical realities and their type and quantities can be inferred by taste. It isn't easy, but it is possible - to an extent.

It is the value judgments (this wine is good, that is bad) that are IMO (inter?)subjective. Having said that, when a wine merchant for example notes to himself "this is a good wine", it could be viewed as shorthand, or code, for "we can sell this for a lot of money" or "we will sell a lot of this", which is more of an objective judgment - it can be tested.

Not really offended, Thomas. Just wanted to hammer home my point.

To carry through with some of your recent points, I very much agree that there is an objective element to wine tasting. For examples tannins and acids in wine are physical realities and their type and quantities can be inferred by taste. It isn't easy, but it is possible - to an extent.

It is the value judgments (this wine is good, that is bad) that are IMO (inter?)subjective. Having said that, when a wine merchant for example notes to himself "this is a good wine", it could be viewed as shorthand, or code, for "we can sell this for a lot of money" or "we will sell a lot of this", which is more of an objective judgment - it can be tested.

Oh, yes. As a retailer, I had to make that judgment with each new wine brought my way. The problem that wine salesmen and women had with me, is that I first screened the wine for its technical faults. But there were many times when detected technical faults did not prevent me from buying the wine, as I knew the limit of certain faults and the market for them.

Believe it or not, many wine people like what a winemaker might consider a faulty wine, or am I stating the obvious

There's no doubt in my mind that the objective/subjective get skewed, are inter-related, and sometimes the results of either goes counter to prevailing wisdom. Yet that does not negate measurable elements from preferences (provided there is a standard).

I understand completely the idea that some wines gain a certain pinnacle for whatever reason, but I reject the notion that only certain wines or grape varieties are or should be capable of reaching a pinnacle. That's a belief system. Just like beauty in the beholder's eyes, a wine pinnacle is in the beholder's palate--add a little of that magical wine romance (and maybe how much the wine costs, too) and the experience takes over the palate.

Steve, I love your concept of intersubjectivity - I think that's actually what I've always tried to use as a basis for my rhetoric in this particular debate, but I never presented it as well as you have, nor even knew of the concept as such. Bravo! I think what I've always tried to get at is that you can usually find a consensus opinion on a particular subject, and while not necesarily strictly objective, such a consensus does carry weight. I was reluctant to invoke the 'experts' argument because I was sure someone would say 'that's just their opinion.' But if that is completely true, why does anyone bother to study anything. There are objective standards out there, particularly in the realm of science, and winemaking does cross at least somewhat into the realm of science.

I am particularly interested in Ryan's chemical/physiological reasons for placing one wine over another. I'm sure it would be enlightening.

Oh boy, I hope it didn't seem like I was claiming to know more than I do (although it might have, and I can understand that, knowing my rhetorical style and its faults). I am not a winemaker, or a chemist, and I can give you no specifics. Basically, what I was getting at is that since there is a scientific component to winemaking, there should in principle be chemical components that explain, or are indicators for, or at least corolate with perceived wine quality. And some of the ways in which chemical compounds affect wine are common knowledge, for example, tannins, various forms of acid, the dreaded TCA, etc. So we know that there is a chemical basis for at least some components of a wines character, and the balance, or lack thereof, between those components largely determines the character, and yea, even the perceived quality of a wine. I imagine that one could even do a quantative analysis of the relative chemical components of a wine, and compare that to whether or not wine tasters like the wine, and I would think some kind of correlation would emerge. I realize that this is not a rock solid argument, but I think we can agree that the character of a wine is determined by its relative chemical components. As for the physiological side, to within statistical limits, the response of most human palates to certain chemical components ought to be similar - we know that some people are more sensitive to certain compounds than others, and that some people have more taste buds than otherr, but those are simply 'detection limits.' Now given, those detection limits have a hell of lot to do with how some people percieve wine - for example, the so-called 'super-tasters' who cannot tolerate even small amounts of certain compounds, but the actual kind of signal (if not the strength) that gets sent to the brain to in reaction to a particular compound ought to be, on average, comperable for each human being, to within the errors of how similar each human palate is. And for the typical human being, we have no reason to believe that there are some folks out there that have fundamentally different physiology. This is similar to the fact that, although philosophically you can argue whether what I percieve as red is actually the same color that you perceive as red, in physiological terms, the behaviour and response of the human eye ought to be pretty similar in each human because it is a human eye, and not that of, say, a chimp.

An unfortunate example of how this has been exploited is that there are companies now that serve as consultant wine makers and promise to help a winery make a wine that will get a certain score, and they do so on the basis of the chemical components of the wine. And however much we may object to the scoring system, there are lot of people out there who believe in it and agree with (in some cases blindly) the same kind of palate as the tasters, i.e., the palate that the wines are being chemically crafted for.

Well, there you have it. I'm not claiming gospel truth or expertise here, but I believe that there is some legitimate basis to the arguments, and that's what I've tried to explain. You all now have permission to tar & feather me, then run me out of town.

Ryan,

You did rather well for someone who has no winemaking education. Brought to its basics, winemaking is science. You likely can't imagine how many components interact in the product. (Notice how I never say "we can agree..." Hoke is right to get on your case for that phrase. Used to drive me crazy in philosophy class, especially when I did not agree!)

Anyway, wine science was slowly being understood throughout the ages, but it was after Pasteur's discoveries when the science of wine truly blossomed. Once the science was better understood, it became a lot easier to produce more drinkable, lasting wine--and also a lot easier to create wines for particular purposes, like those consultants promise.

The problem is that the science of wine is also a moving target. A wine can remain stable for a period of time even when it suffers from some form of disease as measured against an already set standard. To make matters worse (or better?) when consumers have a preference for that disease, the science becomes an aesthetic, and aesthetics are the parts of wine that consumers mainly talk about.

No doubt that wine is a complicated subject. Still, it isn't difficult to separate the science from the aesthetic. The problem arises when those without or with cursory basis in the science of wine ascribe objectivity to its aesthetics. That, to me, is what gives rise to the seemingly endless discussions over the same issues.

As an aside, I also have major problems with people trying to force their aesthetics down my throat--figuratively and, with wine, literally

Oops, I failed to mention the crux: the science can identify quality when measured against an established standard, but if all the science is clean and proper between two different wines, I doubt that the science can speak to the aesthetic question: which wine is better?

Does anyone know the percentage of Bordeaux wines that are Roses?

Does anyone know the percentage of Bordeaux wines that are Roses?

A little quick googling comes up with 3%. I've always wanted to try one.

You Google better than I. Thanks.

You Google better than I. Thanks.

50% skill, 50% luck, I think, but you are most welcome. I Googled "Bordeaux rose." The first hit is a review of a specific wine, but I know that some wine reviews (the best ones, in my mind) will give background on the type of wine, so I looked at the page, and it just so happened that they gave the numbers. In retrospect, probably more like 10% skill, and 90% luck!

Here's the link to the page I found:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/love-fre ... -rose.html

Believe it or not, many wine people like what a winemaker might consider a faulty wine, or am I stating the obvious

OK, I'll bite, Thomas. Which faults are popular, and why are they considered faults? Or is RS in a purportedly "dry" table wine considered a fault?

Mark Lipton

Believe it or not, many wine people like what a winemaker might consider a faulty wine, or am I stating the obvious

OK, I'll bite, Thomas. Which faults are popular, and why are they considered faults? Or is RS in a purportedly "dry" table wine considered a fault?

Mark Lipton

I understand and agree with this. Rogov notes that 'wines without fault' can be boring. I think the reason is that some of these wines have so little else going on that without fault they have no contrast or interest. For example (you're all going to love this, after my series of rants in this thread), although I generally do not care for blush wines (i.e., light rose's with some RS, of which White Zin is the most notorious example), I find them quite enjoyable when they have advanced in bottle age enough that they become somewhat oxidized. The oxidation provides contrast. And now that I think of it, oxidation is arguably an excellent example of what would be considered a fault in some wines, but beyond being simply appealing to some people's palates, is actually desirable in some wines, and even fundamental to the character of some the worlds greats, Madiera and Sherry being the most obvious examples.

Believe it or not, many wine people like what a winemaker might consider a faulty wine, or am I stating the obvious

OK, I'll bite, Thomas. Which faults are popular, and why are they considered faults? Or is RS in a purportedly "dry" table wine considered a fault?

Mark Lipton

I understand and agree with this. Rogov notes that 'wines without fault' can be boring. I think the reason is that some of these wines have so little else going on that without fault they have no contrast or interest. For example (you're all going to love this, after my series of rants in this thread), although I generally do not care for blush wines (i.e., light rose's with some RS, of which White Zin is the most notorious example), I find them quite enjoyable when they have advanced in bottle age enough that they become somewhat oxidized. The oxidation provides contrast. And now that I think of it, oxidation is arguably an excellent example of what would be considered a fault in some wines, but beyond being simply appealing to some people's palates, is actually desirable in some wines, and even fundamental to the character of some the worlds greats, Madiera and Sherry being the most obvious examples.

Well, this gets to my question of why it's considered a fault. If we consider oxidation in Sherry or Madeira a fault, we're basically applying the standards for one style of wine (dry white) to another. By that token, then, the tannins of Cabernet Sauvignon would be a fault because they would render a Riesling undrinkable It seems to me that a true fault results from a problem in the winemaking process, such as Brett, VA or reduction. Even then, as DaleW has pointed out, there are many different strains of Brett and wildly different perceptions of the taste imparted by those strains, so at what point does Brett become a fault?

Mark Lipton

OK, I'll bite, Thomas. Which faults are popular, and why are they considered faults? Or is RS in a purportedly "dry" table wine considered a fault?

Mark Lipton

I understand and agree with this. Rogov notes that 'wines without fault' can be boring. I think the reason is that some of these wines have so little else going on that without fault they have no contrast or interest. For example (you're all going to love this, after my series of rants in this thread), although I generally do not care for blush wines (i.e., light rose's with some RS, of which White Zin is the most notorious example), I find them quite enjoyable when they have advanced in bottle age enough that they become somewhat oxidized. The oxidation provides contrast. And now that I think of it, oxidation is arguably an excellent example of what would be considered a fault in some wines, but beyond being simply appealing to some people's palates, is actually desirable in some wines, and even fundamental to the character of some the worlds greats, Madiera and Sherry being the most obvious examples.

Well, this gets to my question of why it's considered a fault. If we consider oxidation in Sherry or Madeira a fault, we're basically applying the standards for one style of wine (dry white) to another. By that token, then, the tannins of Cabernet Sauvignon would be a fault because they would render a Riesling undrinkable It seems to me that a true fault results from a problem in the winemaking process, such as Brett, VA or reduction. Even then, as DaleW has pointed out, there are many different strains of Brett and wildly different perceptions of the taste imparted by those strains, so at what point does Brett become a fault?

Mark Lipton

That's exactly what I'm talking about, Mark. You know the saying, "there's good Brett and there's bad Brett." I know winemakers that don't agree with that sentiment. In fact, on judging panels, it is not uncommon for technicians to argue with non-technicians over the merits of a wine on almost strictly "fault or no fault" levels. So many times I've heard one person on a panel say, "I like this wine," (which, incidentally is not supposed to be the criteria for judging wine) when others were saying something about the wine's reduction or Brett or whatever problem.

As to tannins, a standard that was set somewhere in the hierarchy of winemaking says that you don't want a lot of tannin in most whites but you do in reds--but even that stems from a technical situation: whites usually contain more overall acids than reds and so they can stand to be without high tannin levels whereas reds need the tannins for aging. It's a marriage of science and aesthetics at that point.

As to oxidation, in the case of Madeira the oxidation is intended; in the case of table wines, oxidation isn't intended (unless it is in some table wines, but then that would be the same argument as for Madeira). If it isn't intended, then it's either a fault or the ravages of age. Further evidence that it is a fault is when the wine that oxidizes tastes nothing like it once did and nothing at all like Madeira

In the winemaking process there are standards--some are overall standards and some are specific to a winery's methods. Consumers, however, have the right and the inclination not to know or to care about those standards, but that doesn't mean consumers are any closer to a truth about wine than winemakers. It just means that consumers are working from a belief and an aesthetic system separate from the system of wine production.

Ryan,

You did rather well for someone who has no winemaking education.

Well, I'm glad you appreciated my humble efforts. Sorry I somehow didn't notice your response before responding to other posts father down in the thread. So I just looked at your profile and saw that you are a wine writer/educator. Well I hope I don't seem like too much of pretentious idiot. Being a scientist, inductive reasoning is my modus operandi, and I think that approach has allowed me to learn and understand a great deal more about wine than my age would allow. But if I have a fault with applying this to wine, it is that I sometimes attempt to present my inductive arguments as though they carry more weight than the sample size they are based on should allow (i.e., I have a tendancy to draw somewhat sweeping conclusions). I suppose it comes from my strong desire (and eagerness) to synthesize the information I have into new understanding. I think I draw pretty valid conclusions based on the sample size I have, but being a good scientist, I must be willing to handle exceptions to my 'hypotheses' gracefully, and I am always happy to admit where I am wrong, or to incorperate new information/perspective into my views (Rogov will back me up on that).

So at any rate, as we get to know each other, please remember that I come from this scientific perspective and it influences the way I think about things. But, I'm also a hopeless romantic, and I hope that you will also realize that my respect and appreciation of wine is far more than technical. I have said many times (Rogov will back me up on this), that I think of wine as a blend of science, art, history, and culture, and I truly do try to appreciate it a wholistic way. So I hope you'll forgive that my brain is just wired a certain way.

Best Wishes!

So many times I've heard one person on a panel say, "I like this wine," (which, incidentally is not supposed to be the criteria for judging wine)

Well, on that Thomas, you might be mistaken.

The criteria for judging a wine is set by the entity putting on the judging or competition. Many (I'd say most) competitions and judgings I have participated in and am aware of specifically ask the judge to use "I like this wine" as a criterion for judgement. Oh, they may phrase it differently, and they might use terms like "hedonic scale", but a large reason for the existence of the judgement/competition is clearly for the individual judge to state what he or she likes, and how much they like it.

If you were making a clinical judgement of the wine only----noting measurable characteristics, flaws and faults----then, yes, your statement would be correct. I know of no publicly posted competition that uses those standards alone however.

The only one I am aware of----and it's not a competition, but a business---is the one founded by Tim Hanni, wherein he trained his evaluators (not judges, note) to focus on a specific aspect of any given wine (of six major aspects, such as sugar, tannin, acid, oak,) and place it on a scale of plus/minus. The individual evaluations are input into a software program and a profile of the wine is established. This profile can then be compared to all other wines evaluated.

The primary purpose of this system was ( outside of addressing many of your frustrations, Thomas ) to enable a 'progressive wine list' approach to wine rather than the old standard list organizations of varietal and region alone. Of course, a major corollary of this is the ability to look at the evalualtion of trained and focused professionals to determine that "this wine is sweeter than the other", or "this wine is oakier than the other".

FYI, I've used this system for some years (although I'm not involved in that aspect of things now) in consulting with restaurateurs and helping them understand what they had on the list, versus what they thought they had on the list (actual vs. image).

Let's just say it was very enlightening for many people who thought they knew what they were tasting...only to find out they often hadn't a clue. And that is, in large part, because most people in the US that gain the job of wine steward/sommelier/buyer are not trained in that capacity, are self taught (with all the ignorance and misunderstanding and self-deception that self teaching can bring to the unwary), and indeed, have very little clue as to what they are doing.

(Although, I will say, it has gotten a modicum better in the last few years, what with basic certification programs and the need for the job holders to at least try to stay as informed as the populace they are buying for.)

Ryan, I think both the chemistry and the psychology of perception is a lot more complex, choatic even, than you imply. It's undeniable that one of the sources of pleasure is the chemical makeup of the wine, but the chemistry is very complex - many aromatic chemicals in small amounts - and the perception limits of individuals for these chemicals veries a lot, which can give totally different overall perceptions.

Add to that mix the more imponderable psychological factors, such as the environment, the label and the price (remember that experiment widely reported at the beginning of this year?) and I am not sure what you are left with in terms of determining quality from the chemical make-up of a wine.

Actually, if judges are supposed to disregard whether they like something, the results of most wine fair competitions make much more sense to me now.

Well, on that Thomas, you might be mistaken.

The criteria for judging a wine is set by the entity putting on the judging or competition. Many (I'd say most) competitions and judgings I have participated in and am aware of specifically ask the judge to use "I like this wine" as a criterion for judgement. Oh, they may phrase it differently, and they might use terms like "hedonic scale", but a large reason for the existence of the judgement/competition is clearly for the individual judge to state what he or she likes, and how much they like it.

If you were making a clinical judgement of the wine only----noting measurable characteristics, flaws and faults----then, yes, your statement would be correct. I know of no publicly posted competition that uses those standards alone however.

The only one I am aware of----and it's not a competition, but a business---is the one founded by Tim Hanni, wherein he trained his evaluators (not judges, note) to focus on a specific aspect of any given wine (of six major aspects, such as sugar, tannin, acid, oak,) and place it on a scale of plus/minus. The individual evaluations are input into a software program and a profile of the wine is established. This profile can then be compared to all other wines evaluated.

The primary purpose of this system was ( outside of addressing many of your frustrations, Thomas ) to enable a 'progressive wine list' approach to wine rather than the old standard list organizations of varietal and region alone. Of course, a major corollary of this is the ability to look at the evalualtion of trained and focused professionals to determine that "this wine is sweeter than the other", or "this wine is oakier than the other".

FYI, I've used this system for some years (although I'm not involved in that aspect of things now) in consulting with restaurateurs and helping them understand what they had on the list, versus what they thought they had on the list (actual vs. image).

Yes, well, I did say earlier that Amerine was resoundingly ignored. You are right of course, many wine competitions aren't searching for wines that achieve a certain technical standard, they are trying to give away awards. If they didn't, who would send them wine entries?

I have in the past, but I no longer judge in competitions that want my hedonistic opinion. Why not, you ask?

Because most of the other judges obviously couldn't tell a good wine from a bad one and before some of our readers throw darts at me, I am joking.

I've been involved in numerous evaluations over the years alongside winemakers and it is incredible how difficult it is even for trained technicians to pin down faults or elements in wine. That's in part why I don't listen to wine critics, or to anyone else for that matter. Like everyone else, critics can go only as far as their bias takes them and in fact that's what they want to do--feed their biases. On the question of greatness in wine, I'm content to leave that to me. I will decide what is great, since it's my money and my mouth at stake.

More seriously, the subject of wine is so vast that there is room for a diversion between the professional and the consumer viewpoint. I just wish that one wasn't so often confused with the other.

Actually, if judges are supposed to disregard whether they like something, the results of most wine fair competitions make much more sense to me now.

Amen.

Ryan, I think both the chemistry and the psychology of perception is a lot more complex, choatic even, than you imply.

You are almost certainly correct. The chemistry and psychology of perception is something I am very interested in, but I am happy to note that I have little more, if any, expertise in those areas than anybody else here. I think everything is probably a good deal more complicated than anybody suspects it is. But that's the adventure!

Well, this gets to my question of why it's considered a fault.

Opening up a whole new can of savory beans here, Mark!

That's one of my often-asked head-scratchers too.

One of my sore spots, to the point my peers look extremely irritated when I bring it up anymore), is with the Society of Wine Educators, which I'm heavily involved with and their take on this subject.

The Certified Wine Educator (currently their highest level offered) is based on a four part test, including objective, essay, wine identification (variety and region) and what they have forever called "Identifying Flaws and Faults".

I've made myself an annoyance with numerous people when I take them to task for their nomenclature here, maintaining that these may be flaws or faults...and may not be. I'd say they are more like characteristics of certain wines.

Basically, they take a base wine which is astoundingly neutral (I will not mention which brand is used publicly) and then doctor several different versions, each with a different addition concocted in a laboratory. The candidate is asked to identify what is different in each version. So far, so good.

But how, pray tell, is this "Flaws and Faults"? One wine has additional acid in it. Another has additional sugar. There might be other things induced, such as volatile acidity, brettanomyces, the effect of oxidation, or even cork taint.

But, as you pointed out, what's a "flaw" to one person may be a superior flavor to another. (Brett is probably the most debated, but oxidation is right up there with it as far as I'm concerned.)

"Ah, you're just nitpicker," I am told, "and everyone knows what we're talking about, so just leave it alone." But, I respond, we're supposed to be a professional society focused on wine education. We can't casually allow that "everyone knows what we're talking about." It is incumbent upon us to at least have more precision in what we call things.

I'm usually ignored until we move on to other things.

I've been made aware, via email, that some of the latest findings are causing some winemakers to believe that tannin in red wine is not the stuff that helps it gracefully age, it is the acidity. The tannins appear to fall out sooner than the wine's aging potential.

I've got to look into that more deeply.

Well, this gets to my question of why it's considered a fault.

Opening up a whole new can of savory beans here, Mark!

That's one of my often-asked head-scratchers too.

One of my sore spots, to the point my peers look extremely irritated when I bring it up anymore), is with the Society of Wine Educators, which I'm heavily involved with and their take on this subject.

The Certified Wine Educator (currently their highest level offered) is based on a four part test, including objective, essay, wine identification (variety and region) and what they have forever called "Identifying Flaws and Faults".

I've made myself an annoyance with numerous people when I take them to task for their nomenclature here, maintaining that these may be flaws or faults...and may not be. I'd say they are more like characteristics of certain wines.

Basically, they take a base wine which is astoundingly neutral (I will not mention which brand is used publicly) and then doctor several different versions, each with a different addition concocted in a laboratory. The candidate is asked to identify what is different in each version. So far, so good.

But how, pray tell, is this "Flaws and Faults"? One wine has additional acid in it. Another has additional sugar. There might be other things induced, such as volatile acidity, brettanomyces, the effect of oxidation, or even cork taint.

But, as you pointed out, what's a "flaw" to one person may be a superior flavor to another. (Brett is probably the most debated, but oxidation is right up there with it as far as I'm concerned.)

"Ah, you're just nitpicker," I am told, "and everyone knows what we're talking about, so just leave it alone." But, I respond, we're supposed to be a professional society focused on wine education. We can't casually allow that "everyone knows what we're talking about." It is incumbent upon us to at least have more precision in what we call things.

I'm usually ignored until we move on to other things.

I view wine faults as a simple matter: if the wine is not what it was intended to be then it is flawed. There are many levels for such faults and of course, you have to know what the wine is intended to be before you can call them such. Can we safely assume that a table wine is not intended to be a Madeira? If not, then that oxidized Chardonnay may not be flawed, but please don't bring it to my dinner party...

I've been made aware, via email, that some of the latest findings are causing some winemakers to believe that tannin in red wine is not the stuff that helps it gracefully age, it is the acidity. The tannins appear to fall out sooner than the wine's aging potential.

I've got to look into that more deeply.

Yes, I got into that particular can of worms years ago at the Santa Fe Wine & Chile Fiesta when I attended a seminar/tasting/panel discussion on "Does Pinot Noir age?" Putting aside the obviously rhetorical nature of that question, I raised the issue of acidity vs. tannins in the context of Burgundian vs. CA Pinot Noir aging. The panel (Axel Schug, the then-winemaker for Acacia whose name I've now forgotten and Richard Sanford) took me to task for daring to suggest that La Tâche might possibly be longer lived than Carneros PN, then found themselves deeply divided on the role of acid in aging, and I got some dirty looks for nearly derailing the event

Mark Lipton

On the subject of subjectivity, consensus, cultural differences and judging wine, I think this makes interesting reading:
http://www.wine-pages.com/features/georgia.htm
There's quite a bit of topical interest there too, but if you want to see specifically what I am referring to, skip down to "Judging the wines".