Big Reds

[Robin Garr]

I'm generally no fan of a number of styles of wine, but I've been trained to evaluate them in competitions on their merits, not on mine, and I think all wine judges need that kind of training.

This is a very good and important point. I have a known blind spot for Riesling, for example; yet I can judge it fairly. Same goes, even more so, for judging French-hybrid grapes or even V. labrusca in Eastern competitions. I may not respect the grape, but I can competently judge it on the basis of balance, intensity and respect for the fruit, without letting my personal preferences enter into the equation. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be judging wine.

(Personally, it's my opinion that if you can't do that, you shouldn't be reviewing wine either, but I guess there's room for debate there. Or is there?)

All of this should probably be viewed in context of this thread and Tim's assertion that everyone should drink what they like. This is certainly true, but there's also room for a general community consensus. It would be as reasonable to say "I don't know art, but I know what I like," which is certainly reasonable, but it won't keep you from being laughed at if you walk into the Museum of Modern Art waving a Mickey Mouse comic book and declaring it "art."

"It would be as reasonable to say "I don't know art, but I know what I like," which is certainly reasonable, but it won't keep you from being laughed at if you walk into the Museum of Modern Art waving a Mickey Mouse comic book and declaring it "art."

Reasonable?....maybe. Human nature certainly. I'd prefer it if that statement were followed by "and I'm eager to learn more." Same would of course go for wine.

but it won't keep you from being laughed at if you walk into the Museum of Modern Art waving a Mickey Mouse comic book and declaring it "art."

Unless you're Roy Lichtenstein....or Robert Parker

(Personally, it's my opinion that if you can't do that, you shouldn't be reviewing wine either, but I guess there's room for debate there. Or is there?)

Robin,

That depends on the purpose for the review. If the review is to actually give credence to the wine's individual merits, then I agree: a reviewer that can't separate personal from wine merits, well...

On the other hand, if the review is to proclaim "what I like," which is the general attitude of criticism, then it doesn't matter whether the reviewer is trained or not. It's a hedonistic review, and those inclined to can go ahead and "calibrate" their palates to what someone else likes, whether or not the wine is riddled with little critters...

[Robin Garr]

but it won't keep you from being laughed at if you walk into the Museum of Modern Art waving a Mickey Mouse comic book and declaring it "art."

Unless you're Roy Lichtenstein....or Robert Parker

I don't think Lichtenstein did Mickey, did he? On the other hand, Parker probably did ...

Anyone who drinks wine can be a “critic” of wine, but not everyone who drinks wine can be a “judge” of wine.

Salute

I'm generally no fan of a number of styles of wine, but I've been trained to evaluate them in competitions on their merits, not on mine, and I think all wine judges need that kind of training.

This is a very good and important point. I have a known blind spot for Riesling, for example; yet I can judge it fairly. Same goes, even more so, for judging French-hybrid grapes or even V. labrusca in Eastern competitions. I may not respect the grape, but I can competently judge it on the basis of balance, intensity and respect for the fruit, without letting my personal preferences enter into the equation. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be judging wine.

(Personally, it's my opinion that if you can't do that, you shouldn't be reviewing wine either, but I guess there's room for debate there. Or is there?)

All of this should probably be viewed in context of this thread and Tim's assertion that everyone should drink what they like. This is certainly true, but there's also room for a general community consensus. It would be as reasonable to say "I don't know art, but I know what I like," which is certainly reasonable, but it won't keep you from being laughed at if you walk into the Museum of Modern Art waving a Mickey Mouse comic book and declaring it "art."

Good point, Robin.

In general, the community concensus is museum art carries much more value. But this same community also felt the only enclosure for wine should be cork. That's changing, too.

But there again, I don't know that anyone would consider a comic book art in the sense that the work of the great classic painters of the last two centuries is Art. More like art with a little "a" vs Art with a capital "A" and somewhat doubtful that anyone can confuse the two. Relative to wine, specifically reds, those same educated palates would most definately see a clear distinction between a finely crafted red vs a bottle of Ripple. Yes?


Besides, if anyone did confuse one with the other, I submit they aren't drinking $30 dollar bottles of wine either...more likely they would fall in with the wine cooler or sangria crowd, er...not that this is a bad thing, necessarily.

But within its “class” that comic book art can be considered “great”.

Salute

But within its “class” that comic book art can be considered “great”.

Salute

Indeed.


But it doesn't compare well with the greatness of museum Art. True?

But it doesn't compare well with the greatness of museum Art. True?

Which museum?

But it doesn't compare well with the greatness of museum Art. True?

Which museum?

Good point.

TimMc wrote:

"It just seems to me that 1.5% isn't all that much to get worked up over."

...misses the point. Of course 1.5% doesn't sound like much, but in the context of this discussion that number is meaningless. What is meaningful is that if a bottle of wine is 12% alcohol it contains 90ml of pure alcohol or 3.03 US ounces. If on the other hand a bottle of wine contains 16% alcohol, it will contain 4.04 Us ounces of pure alcohol. Two people splitting the 16% bottle will therefore consume an additional half ounce of pure alcohol each as opposed to the 12% bottle. A half ounce of pure alcohol, which as another poster pointed out is a 33% increase, is meaningful to consume. How much 80 proof vodka would that equate to?

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally at 140 pounds I notice a big difference between the 12% and 16% bottle. I much prefer the way the 12% bottle leaves me feeling. If it happens to be one of those nights, which we've probably all experienced, when there are numerous bottles and something considerably north of a half a bottle being consumed per person, well then, for me the difference between the 12% & 16% bottles is the difference between feeling good or like road kill the next day. Tom V