The brain has been rumbling more than usual lately. I think it wants more wine.
On Pinot Noir:
I’ve had a meh/like/love/like/love/meh/like relationship with California Pinot Noir over the last several years. Every time a new crop of wines comes on the scene I get excited to try them, fall briefly in love with whatever the style is at that moment, and then after a while move on. It happened in the early 2000s with the big, bold Santa Lucia Highlands area wines, then again a few years later with the less exuberant Northern California versions. It happened again over the last few months with my first tastes of Pinot Noir from Littorai and Ceritas. Taking a step back, and looking at the bigger picture I am struck by the range of wines that have started to establish a real track record for consistent quality. There will always be nits to pick about style, but there is no reason that there cannot be room for Loring and Littorai in the same universe.
On scores (I posted this elsewhere, so a little context is missing):
I am not a fan of scores. That being said, I do not see them as evil incarnate. I’ve been in a tasting group since 1998 (it was originally established in 1974) where we taste blind and score the wines on a structured 20 point scale. It’s how the group was operating when I joined. I was not going to tell them that they did not understand wine because they assigned scores. For one thing it would have been incredibly rude, and also it was clear then, as it is now, that they understood wine just fine. Everyone in the group loves drinking and sharing fine wine, having a great bottle with a meal, and all the other things (e.g. excellent cellaring, an in depth understanding of certain regions and styles, etc.) that go into a love and enthusiasm for wine.
The scores out of 20 do not define how we feel about wine, in the same way that tossing off a score out of 100 on CellarTracker does not define how I feel about wine. It’s an exercise or just a casual thought that is ancillary, not central, to the experience. John Gilman, Steve Tanzer and yes, the dread pirate Robert Parker assign scores. I know it would be popular here to say that Parker does not understand wine, but would people say the same about Steve, John, David Schildknecht, Joel Payne or any number of other respected reviewers?
Then there’s the tasting note. Do a Google search on “absurdity of the tasting note” and watch the hits flow in. Word salad is a kind descriptor. So the note is also a problem? It does not leave us much room to talk about specific wines, only wine in general. Do we need to mount a defense of the tasting note? Do people who comment about a specific wine not understand wine?
On Rose, Muscadet & White Rhones:
I enjoy a nice glass of Rose. Same goes for Muscadet. White Rhones are something I have not given a ton of thought to, but when I have them I enjoy them. Here’s the thing though. I don’t care about any of them. They do not fire my interest, or cause me to go on a journey of exploration. I’ve done the whole “buy a mixed case and taste, taste, taste” thing with Rose and Muscadet, and my enduring thought was when the heck am I going to get through all of these wines. Too much wine, too little bandwidth. Other folks can get excited about these wines. I won’t even get into Sauvignon Blanc here, as my stance on that grape (when it is sans botrytis and a healthy dose of Semillon) is well known.
Have a great weekend!
