Neal Rosenthal Sez...(long/boring/pot-stirring)

According to NealRosenthal, in his terrific book "Reflections of a Wine Merchant": "the finest of wines pave the path to memory".
This is a quote with which I wholly agree. Realizing that in some corners of CyberSpace, you can get in deep DooDoo by questioning the objectivity and impartiality of various wine critics; I'd like to apply this thought to wine "critics". We're assured that the professional/paid wine critics can taste wine w/ total objectivity, so let's leave them out of this discussion. By "critics", I mean the rest of us, for whom wine is merely a passion, not our day job...us amateurs. When we taste a wine, we all immediatially evaluate and pass judgement on that wine, at some level of cognizance. Some of us even put an objective 100-pt score on that wine. Some of us...gasp...even have the temerity to post our tasting notes our there in CyberSpace for everyone to see. Some of us even believe what we read in those tasting notes. Ahhhh..the futility of it all.
So, returning to Neal's thought...how in the world can we put any trust in those TN's posted by amateurs?? For each of us, when we taste a wine, it creates a path to a different memory for each of us.
How the heck can I trust the objectivity of a TN by Geo on a Ridge wine, knowing that when he tastes it, it creates a path into his memory of great times up on TheRidge w/ DaveBennion, FritzMaytag, PaulDraper??
How the heck can I trust the TN for objectivity of KenZinns on an EaglePointRanch Syrah, knowing that he's had some great times up there w/ CaseyHartlip, little PeeWee scampering about his feet, listening to the grunts and smelling the smells of Robert and James (or was it Bob and Jim..RIP) rooting away in their pen??
How the heck can anyone trust a TomHill TN for objectivity on a Coturri Zin; knowing that the path in my memory is led to a putrid outhouse on my GrandPa's farm, in the heat of Summer, sitting on the throne w/ flys buzzing about my head, reading the Sears&Roebuck catalog, Bud the collie pawing at the door to get me to come out and play...all wonderful memories (I know...cheap shot!!)??
How the heck can I trust the TN for objectivity of so&so on some Spanish Priorat; knowing the path in her memory leads to a great meal at Bern's or PerSe, sharing great times and much laughter w/ the importer or winemaker??
So...I think you get my drift. How the heck can we trust the objectivity of these amateur's TN's w/o knowing where the path is paved to in their memory??
Well...you argue...you taste the wine blind. That'll insure objectivity of the TN's of these friggin' amateurs!! Ahh...give me a break. You think Geo can't recognize the smell/taste of a Ridge Geezerville when it's thrust into his hand, and immediately think good thought and give it a 94?? You think I can't recognize that distinctive perfume of a lovely Cotturi Zin and immediately think of my dear GrandPa and award it a 47?? You think so&so can't immediately recognize the character of a SQN Syrah and immediately award it a 98 because it's the most sought-after wine in the world?? I don't think so.
So how the heck are we supposed to trust the scores and notes from all these amateurs out here in CyberSpace for objectivity w/o knowing where that path paves its way to in their memory. I guess we can only trust the scores of the professionals...that's the only solution to this dilema.
Tom (stirring the pot a bit afore he heads out to HdR to create some more memories of good wines, good food, and great friends...which is what wine is all about)

Fabulous, Tom. You've hit the mark. Tasting notes are so useless unless they're completely objective; devoid of any labels that can give info. on style, grapes, producers, vintages, done without any friends/importers/other wine-geeks/winemakers around - there's just nothing we can trust (other than those professionals who'll only taste blind).

I'm going to try opening a bottle in a vacuum soon.

Before I answer that, I've got a question for you: Long I understand. But how can a post be simultaneously boring and pot-stirring?

I love that Neal Rosenthal quote: "the finest of wines pave the path to memory." And the fact that it means each of us brings our own past experiences and preferences to each and every wine we drink is a good part of what makes drinking wine enjoyable. It also means that we can't trust Geo or KenZinns or TomHill or so&so until we have shared a little of that experience. That leads to a mutual understanding. And that leads to trust. As I see it, that's the whole point of posting tasting notes out there in CyberSpace for everyone to see.

[David M. Bueker]

David,

What you say is very true, but consumers DEMAND OBJECTIVITY. How can they put their hard earned billions down on Chateau So and So if the reviewer saw the label? What if the reviewer knew the winemaker? Oh my gosh it's tainted.

I hereby provide my next tasting note:__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Completely objective. I don't know the wine & I don't know what it tastes like.

Of course, it's your last line that sez it all, Tom. I'm guessing that's what brings most of us to this site and the others like it. Doesn't mean TNs are useless in describing a wine. A good one will give you some idea of whether the stuff's a bloated overoaked bomb, or a lean tart wine or something in between. It might get you to go out and try something you otherwise might pass up. Better than that, it might cause you to head out to the winery and meet the people who made the stuff. Or get you to have some friends over in order to see what they think of the stuff. Or incite you to blow off work for one afternoon and sit out on a spring day enjoying that wine with someone you're close to.

Objective? Maybe not. Useful? No doubt.

Repeat after me: objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting.

Thank you.

That feels much better.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting. objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting. objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting.

Somehow I feel like Bart Simpson.

Bud the Collie was saying "Could you keep the smell down - us dogs are a bit more sensitive than you humies"

A very fine and timely post. I know there will be times I will be very subjective. Other times, with no knowledge or history, I'm pretty much objective (albeit very much true to my own taste-buds and not particularly sympathetic to regional character).

Alex/David are right that we're rarely (if ever) completely objective, though it's good to make a conscious effort to avoid obvious bias when writing for an audience, or maybe better to explain that bias and let the reader judge for themselves. Thus acknowledge that the wine is 'an old favourite'. Useful if it's a positive review, perhaps more so if it's critical. The context is useful.

regards

Ian

Repeat after me: objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting, objectivity is IMPOSSIBLE in wine tasting.

Thank you.

That feels much better.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex,

You got it right. Objectivity is impossible in wine tasting. It's possible, however, in wine evaluating. Repeat after me, and maybe repeat as much as you like until you get it:

Objectivity in wine evaluation can be measured--subjectivity cannot. The concept gives the lab a reason to have scientific instruments...

[David M. Bueker]

Indeed Thomas - I buy all my wines based on a lab analysis.

Indeed Thomas - I buy all my wines based on a lab analysis.

Once again, David, you misunderstand a lucid point, but that's because you have no ability to be objective. But that's a good thing, because by not using the lab instruments you probably drink an awful lot of wines with microbial problems and aren't aware of it; then again, it may not be a good thing, as you may spit out a lot of stable wines because you subjectively find microbial problems that aren't there...

[David M. Bueker]

Gee Thomas you missed the little winky guy.

And thanks for insulting me. I really appreciate it.

David,

Since I used the identical winky guy at the end of my post, but you found it insulting, I'm now unsure how you intended your winky guy. Maybe we need a caption with the winky guys to explain whether or not the wink is tongue in cheek or sarcasm. Looks like the guy is ambiguous rather than indicative, which renders the emotos moot. This Internet protocol is becoming more taxing than long threads about wine critics...

Back to the lonely room for me--much less explaining to do in there.

I never take any of it seriously, unless it involves chili or cornbread. Ok, single-malts and deer hunting too.

chili is a very serious subject indeed, though whisky can be occasionally frivolous - hell we now even have an English distillery - and that just up the road from us (using a Scottish master distiller as a consultant, or in traditional Scottish I think the original word is "traitor" . You may take deer-hunting seriously, but I'm sure the deer take it every bit as seriously (of the very much non-sarcastic type )
regards
Ian

. You may take deer-hunting seriously, but I'm sure the deer take it every bit as seriously (of the very much non-sarcastic type )
regards
Ian

I wouldn't take it seriously, but the beasties are so damned tasty!

. You may take deer-hunting seriously, but I'm sure the deer take it every bit as seriously (of the very much non-sarcastic type )
regards
Ian

I wouldn't take it seriously, but the beasties are so damned tasty!

Fully agreed - it's clearly their own fault - a cleverer species would taste like tofu

[David M. Bueker]

Gaaaa...my saracasm detector was broken. Sorry Thomas. That's what I get for posting at work.

. You may take deer-hunting seriously, but I'm sure the deer take it every bit as seriously (of the very much non-sarcastic type )
regards
Ian

I wouldn't take it seriously, but the beasties are so damned tasty!

Fully agreed - it's clearly their own fault - a cleverer species would taste like tofu

It's for sure I'll never hunt the elusive Tofurkey.

It's for sure I'll never hunt the elusive Tofurkey.

Gary Larsen did a very good 'tofudebeest' IIRC (I liked the lion spitting it out distastefully)

Thomas,

Let me be precise, but more succint this time: evaluating wines objectively is ALSO impossible.

Maybe 21st century techno-man wishes this were not so, but I'm quite happy with the way it is: one of lif'e's sweet mysteries.

Evaluating wine is a stab in the dark to which I am prone too on occasion. But such evaluations are efforts to deal with the largely ineffable and the certainly unquantifiable.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Thomas,

Let me be precise, but more succint this time: evaluating wines objectively is ALSO impossible.

Maybe 21st century techno-man wishes this were not so, but I'm quite happy with the way it is: one of lif'e's sweet mysteries.

Evaluating wine is a stab in the dark to which I am prone too on occasion. But such evaluations are efforts to deal with the largely ineffable and the certainly unquantifiable.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex, I think we've had this conversation before. You are not talking about evaluating the wine--you are talking about evaluating whether or not you like the wine and yes, objectivity is impossible there.

Evaluating the wine has nothing to do with the taster. It has to do with the wine and how it was produced, may have been spoiled, etc. Those things can easily be measured with real live instruments that go beyond one's personal preferences, which is what makes for an objective analysis.

The fact that someone can't tell when a wine is infected with a particular spoilage organism does not negate that the wine is infected. Winemakers and others are trained to identify such objective measures before validating their suspicions in a lab. But I've witnessed many wines with obvious spoilage gain medals at wine competitions because no one ever puts them to the lab test.

Granted, most wine critics and consumers aren't trained to and don't do that kind of objective analysis. But that does not mean it isn't or it can't be done. Just means that others are strictly hedonistic in their 'evaluations.'

What determines when an infection has spoiled something and when it has enhanced it--can science tell us that? Don't many infections yield products that we take delight in--cheese, vinegar, etc? Many people clearly enjoy a bit of brett in some wines. Can science tell them that they are wrong to enjoy it? Young kids don't like a lot of smells (that result from infections) that adults have learned to enjoy. Are the kids right and the adults wrong?