Why aren't rosés taken more seriously?

But that leaves point two. Can we agree that there are perfect light crisp wines for summer days and perfect wines for contemplation that show different qualities? If so, can we find rose in the second group, or are we then asking roses to do something they really aren't suited to do?

I'd put the LdH mentioned in initial post in second group. I've had the '93, '95, and '97, and wouldn't serve any of them at a picnic. Personally I think the Tondonia Rosado is the perfect example of the rosé that would suck as a picnic wine.

But I personally can enjoy contemplating it over an entire evening. A wine that is perfect in its category, because it is sui generis - I can't think of another wine like it.

But is anyone going to try to argue that the best possible White Zin should, hypothetically, be rated as equal, in whatever evaluation of greatness/achievment you care to choose, to say, a legendary vintage of Romanee-Conti?

Strawman alert: within its class, that White Zinfandel may be tops.

What you are saying is that it can never be tops because it is White Zinfandel. That's why so many consumers don't like us wine people.

I'm one of those silly wine people who in fact has experienced one or two great rose wines--for the time, the place, and the overall experience that I expect form a rose. And of course, I agree with Steve: if you are talking rose and scores, you aren't talking rose. But I extend that to all wine. If you are talking scores you aren't talking wine, you're talking sports.

a 97 pt petite syrah????? - a 97 pt zin????? the guy is daft!

But is anyone going to try to argue that the best possible White Zin should, hypothetically, be rated as equal, in whatever evaluation of greatness/achievment you care to choose, to say, a legendary vintage of Romanee-Conti?

If I felt like being argumentative, I might try to argue that at some point in the future it might happen. And it would probably be made in China . And what's more it might well be an influential Chinese wine critic that makes the judgement, and the rest of the world takes notice.

I agree, with Dale, a few posts up. I was a little surprised to see the '95 Luneau-Papin in the picnic basket, for the same reason.

Your point about LdH is exactly what I was driving at. Whether or not it will ever equal DRC Montrachet, that rosé is an utterly compelling wine. It's serious and worth the time and effort to figure out what it has to say.

a 97 pt petite syrah????? - a 97 pt zin????? the guy is daft!

Not necessarily. I've tasted some of these wines (and own a couple). They are unreal!

Here is a sample note from the Wine Advocate:

1999 Turley Cellars Petite Syrah Hayne Vineyard (97) -

Potentially perfect, the 1999 Petite-Syrah Hayne Vineyard (475 cases, 15.2% alcohol) is a 50-year wine. If it is showing any age after a decade of cellaring, I will be as surprised as its producers. An opaque black/blue color is followed by an extraordinary perfume of blackberry and creme de cassis blended with spices, minerals, and earth. Frightfully tannic, with unreal concentration, texture, and length, this behemoth is one of the most concentrated wines I have ever tasted. Anticipated maturity: 2012-2050+.

If you are talking scores you aren't talking wine, you're talking sports.

Perhaps the next official Olympic sport?

a 97 pt petite syrah????? - a 97 pt zin????? the guy is daft!

Not necessarily. I've tasted some of these wines (and own a couple). They are unreal!

Here is a sample note from the Wine Advocate:

1999 Turley Cellars Petite Syrah Hayne Vineyard (97) -

Potentially perfect, the 1999 Petite-Syrah Hayne Vineyard (475 cases, 15.2% alcohol) is a 50-year wine. If it is showing any age after a decade of cellaring, I will be as surprised as its producers. An opaque black/blue color is followed by an extraordinary perfume of blackberry and creme de cassis blended with spices, minerals, and earth. Frightfully tannic, with unreal concentration, texture, and length, this behemoth is one of the most concentrated wines I have ever tasted. Anticipated maturity: 2012-2050+.

David says daft, Bill says unreal--meaning great, I expect.

I can't imagine any better way than these two posts to prove the point of futility about those who choose to be the arbiters of taste. Thanks guys

David says daft, Bill says unreal--meaning great, I expect.

I can't imagine any better way than these two posts to prove the point of futility about those who choose to be the arbiters of taste. Thanks guys

Nope, you are misapplying those two data points. David can't conceive of a PS that good because he hasn't tasted one; I pointed out one that was the exception to what he was saying (which was probably generally more or less correct - that few PS would attain those dizzying heights).

If David had tasted that specific wine and panned it, then you could validly use it as evidence that taste is so subjective there is no point rating wines. But he didn't, so your conclusion is not warranted by the data you cited.

David says daft, Bill says unreal--meaning great, I expect.

I can't imagine any better way than these two posts to prove the point of futility about those who choose to be the arbiters of taste. Thanks guys

Nope, you are misapplying those two data points. David can't conceive of a PS that good because he hasn't tasted one; I pointed out one that was the exception to what he was saying (which was probably generally more or less correct - that few PS would attain those dizzying heights).

If David had tasted that specific wine and panned it, then you could validly use it as evidence that taste is so subjective there is no point rating wines. But he didn't, so your conclusion is not warranted by the data you cited.

We'll have to ask David, but his post appeared to me like a blanket pan against a Petite Sirah and a Zinfandel receiving such high scores.

In any event, you point out an exception to the rule. I'm sure hundreds of others can point out hundreds of exceptions to the rule. The idea that one wine can't be considered any better than another is arbitrary and, dare I say it, manipulative by those who earn a living making such claims.

I simply don't know why people can't be happy with the wines they like and unhappy with the ones they don't like, and leave it at that. But then, I'm not much for horse racing either

But is anyone going to try to argue that the best possible White Zin should, hypothetically, be rated as equal, in whatever evaluation of greatness/achievment you care to choose, to say, a legendary vintage of Romanee-Conti?

No, not equal. Better.

I have a mother-in-law, Ryan.

My mil is a lovely lady, very cultured, well traveled, well read, highly educated. She is also a terrible cook, primarily because, as she will eagerly tell you, she is not interested much in the practice of cooking. She likes wine. Quite a bit, actually. I sampled her on numerous wines over the last 20 years that I've known her. But for several years I've brought and poured for her what she most likes. And that's because what she most likes is sweet, fruity wine (generally low value Rieslings or White Zinfandels; we're not talking Dr. Loosen here), and then she mixes them with red Kool-Aid.

I know, I know: it makes you shudder. It made me shudder a bit too, I can tell you.

I feel confident in saying, though, that this cultured, educated,, traveled, sophisticated woman, given a shoot out between White Zinfandel and Domaine Romanee-Conti, would unquestionably choose the White Zinfandel.

Would you tell my mother-in-law that she is wrong, Ryan?

Case study 2. Tim Hanni is a well known wine personality, and something of a polymath. He's a brilliant guy, and he's applied that brilliance to the assiduous study of the sensory aspects of wine. He often tells the story of his mother, a former full Professor at the University of California. She is fiercely intelligent, and highly respected in her field, and thinks nothing of jetting off to Paris or Rome. She is a woman of refinement and superb taste. She is also known for going to very fine restaurants and ordering steaks and white zinfandel. When sniffed at by sommeliers and waitstaff ("Oh, madam, I can suggest a much better wine than that for you!") she is known to inform said persons with particularly pointed explanations that she knows very well what she wants, knows very well what she likes, that she is the person paying for meal, service and wine, and said person's concerns are appreciated, but they should now shut the hell up and bring her what she ordered, thank you.

Would you tell Tim's Mom she is wrong, Ryan?

In your judgement, there is no contest as to subjective worth. In my mother-in-law's world, and in Tim's Mom's world, there is no contest. Yet there's is the total opposite of yours. And that's because wine is a totally subjective experience. Their '100 pointer' would not, definitely not, be your '100 pointer'. Does that make them wrong?

(And why, pray tell, is it necessary for them to agree to agree with your judgement, Ryan? Do you need that validation? I don't think so. Why can't they like what they like and you like what you like? Why must everyone agree on a rank and hierarchy, when it is not necessary? One value scale does not fit all.)

Care to take any more whacks at that supine stallion, Hoke?

Mark Lipton

Wow . . . . thank you Hoke, may I have another?

Perhaps it's a good time to emphasize, yet again, that I do not care about score as much now as you might remember from when you were active at Strat's place. I'm not debating score, which is about as valid a measure of a wine as the SAT or ACT is of academic achievement - they are very good and useful for measuring what they are designed to measure, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps I should also emphasize how much I love, for example, Garnacha based Spanish rose . . . . and when I'm in the mood for such a wine, I would not rather have, e.g., a good Rioja. When I go wine shopping, I tell the sales staff, 'here's the sort of wine I want, now what's your best recommendation for the price?' I do not go in and just blindly snap up the highest scoring wine I can afford. In fact, in the case of Parker in particular, if he gives a score above 90 to a wine, it actually makes me less likely to buy it, because I don't agree with Parker's palate. Anybody from Strat's place can tell you how many anti-Parker rants I've gone on.

I am not a wine snob - I take a classical epicurian approach to wine, which is to say, I do try to see the best in each wine that I taste, and enjoy them for what they are. I know a few wine salesmen who are at least a little derisive about how much I enjoy things they dismiss as 'cheap juice.' Remember, I'm a grad student, and I enjoy finding an excellent value almost as much as finding an excellent wine.

My step-mother is a similar case to your MIL. She is a White Zin, Liebfraumilch, etc. drinker. But knowing her preferences, I've always been able to find 'better' wines that she enjoys a great deal. I believe you can always find a 'serious' wine that the non-serious wine drinker will love. In my step-mother's case, I bring her well-made sweet wines to try, and she loves them, and I appreciates them more than the stuff that she drinks on an everyday basis.

Now, all that aside, I do have an ellitist bias, and in my opinion, anybody who orders White Zin with, e.g., a Porterhouse, has commited a grave sin (besides, even said Garnacha rose is every bit as fruity and delightful, but would have something to offer in the match, rather than bowling your palate over with RS so you can't appreciate the richness of a good steak - there is an objective reason why I think that is an improper match). Of course people are entitled to their opinions, and I don't randomly berate people because they order White Zin, in fact, the thought that goes through my head is usually that they're simply not into wine in the same way that I am, and so its better not to say anything.

On the other hand, one of my mantra's is "Better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a fool satisfied." I believe in objective standards, and the thing is, 160 years from now, will anybody be talking about the best White Zin of th 2008 vintage in the same way we talk about the 1847 d'Yquem now . . . . ? You will probably say, 'but that's not the purpose of White Zin,' and you'd be right, but that does not change the fact that there is a objective and fundamental difference. No White Zin will ever become a living myth, and that is the difference. And I promise you that if you gave a good Sauternes to a White Zin drinker, they'd love it too.

And I promise you that if you gave a good Sauternes to a White Zin drinker, they'd love it too.

But you didn't say Sauternes, Ryan. You said Domaine Romanee-Conti.

How can you objectify different wines to the point (get it, point?) where you compare a White Zinfandel to a DRC?

When you say you are both a classicist and elitist as a way of defining your approach to wine, you're establishing that you approach wine with an attempt to place it in a taxonomy. That I can understand. The problem is you then take a quantum leap and insist on putting them in competition with each other. You're not handicapping a race, Ryan, and wine need not be a contest.

You state that you have objective standards for all wine you consume. I could argue that, but let's leave it. Problem is, your objective standards are for you alone, and not for anyone else. Your value judgement is only good for you; it's a suggestion or an indication for someone else. (For instance, you love Grenache Rose. So do I. My wife doesn't, since she doesn't care all that much for the basic expression of Grenache. Usually. The Grenache is the same; the value judgement is different.)

As to the matter of food and wine: your cardinal sin there is confusing "in my opinion" with "objective". Yes, I'll agree, there are certain physiochemical reactions among food/wine/palate that indicate there are likely better matches than others, and we probably have a good idea of what those basics are. But they are not objectively consistent from palate to palate. That's why there are no "rules", Ryan.

And how can a grave sin be committed if the person doesn't belong to your church, doesn't subscribe to your values, and doesn't feel the way you feel?

(And thank you, btw, for not going into a fit of pique at this give and take. No offense intended on my part, and I'm sure there is none on yours: simply a different way of looking at things.)

I think you know me well enough by now to know that I'm simply defending my opinions, not trying to convert anyone. And it often depends on my mood and the circumstances which of my opinions I choose to defend. You might have realized that I play devil's advocate from time to time. I hope you don't think I'm too hung up on this objective standards thing. I believe in it as a principle yes, but on a day to day basis, my approach to wine is much more casual. There is part of me that truly believes there are only two kinds of wine - those you like, and those you don't. But in so far as their is a scientific component to wine making, I believe there are objective, chemical/physiological reasons why some wines are in fact better than others.

Perhaps I did do a bait and switch going from DRC to d'Yquem, but it was only to make a specific point, which is that only a very few, very special wines attain 'immortality.' And whatever other charms and merits they might have, rose's simply don't do that. Strictly speaking it is 'simply' a differnce, but I think you'll give me that there is a difference. I just think that that particular difference is evidence of objective superiority.

BTW, and with all due respect, you seem to have taken my note about being a 'classicist' out of context, and put it together with my note about being an elitist. Perhaps I should have italicised the whole phrase 'classical epicurianism,' and that would have made the context more robust. I am in fact a classicist, but that's not the point I was making here.

And just so everybody is on the same page, by 'classical epicurianism,' I mean achieving maximum pleasure by being content with the simple things in life. Modern epicurianism has almost nothing to do with its classical origins. The objective of modern epicurianism is basically to attain pleasure by partaking generously (in fact, in most cases to excess) in the finest food and drink. The objective of classical epicurianism would be to take the greatest possible pleasure from, e.g., bread and water - and thereby making the greater pleasures in life that much better. And that truly is my approach to wine in practice.

But in so far as their is a scientific component to wine making, I believe there are objective, chemical/physiological reasons why some wines are in fact better than others.

Ryan,

Can you elaborate--which objective chemical/physiological reasons qualitatively determine that one wine is better than another?

I'm pleased to discover that I am a classical epicurean. I'd no idea I was, but it is good to put a tag on it

Here's another fancy concept, which sums up my attitude to wine quality: "intersubjectivity - A term used primarily in phenomenological sociology to refer to the mutual constitution of social relationships. It suggests that people can reach consensus about knowledge or about what they have experienced in their life-world—at least as a working agreement if not a claim to objectivity." (encyclopedia.com)

IOW I believe that a judgement of wine quality is totally subjective. But if a number of people, especially those with a claim to authority, come to a common judgement (albeit within a certain social and historical context) then the concept of wine quality is meaningful, if not objective. The concept allows me simulateously to accept statements like "DRC wines are better than white zin" and "Hoke's MIL prefers white zin to DRC wines".

But if a number of people, especially those with a claim to authority, come to a common judgement . . .

And deciding who has a 'claim to authority' would be determined . . . intersubjectively? By those with a claim to authority to know what constitutes a claim to authority?

But if a number of people, especially those with a claim to authority, come to a common judgement . . .

And deciding who has a 'claim to authority' would be determined . . . intersubjectively? By those with a claim to authority to know what constitutes a claim to authority?

I'm Thomas and I authorized this authority

I've always wanted a windshield sign that reads "Authorized Vehicle." That way, I could go where only Authorized Vehicles are allowed.

But if a number of people, especially those with a claim to authority, come to a common judgement . . .

And deciding who has a 'claim to authority' would be determined . . . intersubjectively? By those with a claim to authority to know what constitutes a claim to authority?

Basically, yes. For example, I have learned about wine from a number of books (judged by publishers to be worthy of printing) and from the WSET (recognised by the wine trade over here as suitable vocational training). Armed with that knowledge, I regard myself pretty well-equipped to recognise authoritative opinion. And also pretty well-equipped to recognise frauds and charlatans. I'm not saying it is a great system, but it is the way of the world for many (most?) subject areas.

I'm Thomas and I authorized this authority

I remember from "The Ethics of Wine Critics" thread that you have strong opinions about wine critics having technical training. So you attribute authority to those that provide training, and to those that have attended the courses.

(judged by publishers to be worthy of printing)

Well, for most publishers that judgment is predicated on how much money they think the book will make more than the content of the book.

And basically, you're saying that reading, say, The Wine Spectator, makes you an authority. (Many think so.)

Seriously, though, Steve, I agree with your statements on intersubjectivity and wine quality...with the stipulation

at least as a working agreement if not a claim to objectivity.

and

the concept of wine quality is meaningful, if not objective

duly noted.

Good work.

I've read the different appoaches to appreciating wine and at first I favored Hoke's reasoning. Well then I realized I was a long time member of the Steve Plotnicki school of wine drinking. It's simple, the more expensive the wine the better it is. It comes down to that the market determines value.

I'm Thomas and I authorized this authority

I remember from "The Ethics of Wine Critics" thread that you have strong opinions about wine critics having technical training. So you attribute authority to those that provide training, and to those that have attended the courses.

Steve,

Sorry, I was joking. Didn't mean to offend you.

I attribute authority to wine education, where winemaking and wine marketing are taught. Everything else that is talked about by hobbyists and obsessives is just that. As far as I am concerned, standards can and should be established, but those standards would hardly fit into the scheme of wine criticism and scoring (as I have said before) if critics don't accept and are not trained in the standards.

One of the best authorities on wine in the U.S. was professor Maynard Amerine. He is the only American whose evaluation of wine quality and the need for its recognition on a technical as well as subjective level makes much sense to me. Amerine made a great case for creating standards and for objectivity, and how by understanding and codifying those standards the subjectivity of wine consumers would stand to benefit.

Amerine wrote these thoughts in the 1950s--so far, he's been resoundingly ignored.

Talk of technical and objective measures concerning wine either is misunderstood or it gets little respect on most wine forum sites. That's because objectivity is about the wine--subjectivity is about the wine drinker. The latter can't seem to separate the two. Trained people are expected to do so, and I don't care what a geek says about it, it is possible. Not only I, but many of my colleagues do it regularly.

I worry over people who serve as wine judges and go into the endeavor armed with prejudices such as "this wine can never be great but that one can," and so on. That is a belief system and not a wine evaluation system. It isn't even close to being objective--the subjective evaluation of someone else has little meaning to me, just as I expect that my subjective evaluation should have little meaning to someone else. It's nice for conversation, but again, it isn't about the wine.

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