WSJ: LettieTeague on Wine Color

A rather vapid article in the WSJ in which Lettie scolds us to pay more attention to the color of a wine:
WSJ:WineColor

She claims to be able to identify the wine's variety from the color

The intensity of wine color may indicate a particular type of grape.

which I find unlikely. It might increase your chances about guessing the variety, but that's about it.

And she completely blows the MarangoniEffect:

Beginning wine drinkers often fixate upon a wine’s legs (also called tears) either because they’re easy to see or the word is provocative. Never mind that they aren’t legs at all but streaks formed by the evaporation of alcohol. The higher the alcohol, the slower the evaporation and the more viscous the wine.

But her basic premise is probably correct: that we should pay more attention to the visuals we get from the wine as to clues as to what the wine will be like.
Tom

Wine color intensity? She has it all wrong, give her a Picpoul, a Vinho Verde and an unoaked white Grenache..she would never get it right .

[Robin Garr]

Lettie

What exactly is her story? I've never quite been able to figure out how a wine writer of such apparently limited gifts has been able to fly at such high altitudes for so long without ever really earning that much respect.

[David M. Bueker]

So you are commenting that one of Lettie's articles is vapid? You expected rocket science?

And then you mischaracterize what she actually wrote.

Stir the pot much Mr. Hill?

[Robin Garr]

Ack! "Varietal" as a noun! In the intro!

[David M. Bueker]

We've lost that battle Robin.

We've lost that battle Robin.

Yeah, sad but true. Won't stop Robin from putting on his Donkey Hotey outfit though.

[Jenise]

And then you mischaracterize what she actually wrote.

Because she didn't claim to personally be able to identify wine by the color vs. suggesting that sometimes one can do so?

I'm with Robin--never give up the proper use of "varietal" even if the battle is seemingly lost.

When has the WSJ offered a writer with erudition concerning the subject of wine?

[Jenise]

When has the WSJ offered a writer with erudition concerning the subject of wine?

Not to defend Lettie, but in her piece she used 'variety' correctly. It was probably a headline writer who made the mistake.

[David M. Bueker]

And then you mischaracterize what she actually wrote.

Because she didn't claim to personally be able to identify wine by the color vs. suggesting that sometimes one can do so?

Tom's "Lettie claims to be able to" is not what she said.

I don't consider Lettie anything more than a lightweight, but...well...Tom got exactly what he wanted...a discussion about a meaningless article. Fell for a Tom Hill troll again.

When has the WSJ offered a writer with erudition concerning the subject of wine?

Not to defend Lettie, but in her piece she used 'variety' correctly. It was probably a headline writer who made the mistake.

I'm not talking only about use of "varietal". I'm talking about most of the WSJ wine writing past and present--it's either fluff or pretension. They seem to view wine either as vapid or snobby, and they don't want to be viewed as being snobby.

[David M. Bueker]

I don't think the mainstream media is going to examine wine at a level that would make people like us happy. Just...not...going...to...happen.

I don't think the mainstream media is going to examine wine at a level that would make people like us happy. Just...not...going...to...happen.

Exactly! The ignorant and disinterested have found their writer.

I don't think the mainstream media is going to examine wine at a level that would make people like us happy. Just...not...going...to...happen.

Exactly! The ignorant and disinterested have found their writer.

Not that I disagree. My perspective is as a fellow who makes his living (sometimes!) writing about this stuff. It grates to read some of the articles people are paid to put forth. Readers deserve better.

I'm not a fan of Lettie Teague, for the same reasons that she is favored by the WSJ to write a column about wine.

She does a highly satisfactory job for her employer and gives them precisely what they want---an elementary article that can be easily grasped, appears sophisticated but really isn't, and speaks to the lowest, casually-interested reader of the WSJ. (Hint: they are not wine connoisseurs but would like to be perceived as relatively knowledgeable.)

That, my friends, is not us. We don't read the WSJ for wine columns, and I seriously doubt any of us actually expect the WSJ to be a primary source for wine insight.

So that's why Teague does a great job. She's not a wine writer: she is a decent writer who understands her employer and her audience and is capable of fitting the format required. She know exactly how to choose a topic that will catch the attention, that won't make the reader feel like a dunce, and that will purport to add some sort of insight (but is really, usually, simple stuff for simple thought.) I mean, for god's sake, this article did not take a wine specialist to write; it's journalism applied to wine, not wine writing. And that is Teague's forte. Light, not overly complex, not troubling, doesn't speak over anyone's head but makes them feel okay (even has an obligatory fancy authority quote and makes everyone assume they know who the hell Emile Peynaud is), can be read in a couple of minutes and then you can move on.

So if you consider the message (not very much really) AND the medium in which it appears, Teague is delivering what the WSJ wants. And that ain't what WE want, so we grumble.

Fact is, most people reading the WSJ don't want anything more complicated than what Teague delivers.

Fact is, most people reading the WSJ don't want anything more complicated than what Teague delivers.

As I posted, Hoke: They (WSJ) seem to view wine either as vapid or snobby, and they don't want to be viewed as being snobby.

The problem is that this kind of wine journalism perpetuates myth and much misunderstanding, especially since articles are written in definitive, declarative language, like it's all truth...rarely is anything more than an interview spouting opinion offered as proof.

[Jenise]

Well said, Hoke.

Adding for emphasis that a Facebook post today but my town's one and only indie wine shop (owned by geeks) used the article to call attention to this week's in-store wine tasting.