Enologix?

[Boris_A]

once a wine is determined to be sound (unflawed) then there is never a time when one wine is better than another in the universal sense. ...  When it comes to quality, the one universal truth I can hang my hat on is that the best wine in the world is the wine you like best.

←

Unfortunately, it seems that even flawed wines can be great wines:

However, there are some negatives to consider. For example, some of the prodigious 1947 Bordeaux (....), most notably Cheval Blanc, has residual sugar, elevated volatile acidity, extremeley high alcohol as well as pH levels that would cause most modern day oenologists to faint. Sadly, despite all the improvements that have been made, few modern day oenologists would permit a wine such as 1947 Cheval Blanc to ever get into the bottle under the name Cheval Blanc Anyone who has tasted a pristine bottle of this recognizes why most competent observers feel this is one of the most legendary wines ever produced in Bordeaux, All of its defects are outweighed by its extraordinary positive attributes. It is also the defects that often give the wine its singular individiuality and character. So, a word of warnig ... despite all the techniques to make higher qualitiy, there is still a place for wines with a handful of defects that give them undeniably character as well as greatness. Somehow, all these techniques need to make an allowance for wines such as these 1947s."

Robert M. Parker jr., The Wine Advocate 146 , p. 4

"Still confused, but on a much higher level" we are, no?

[JohnL]

Boris,

Thanks for the post!

a little honest perspecitve is always good.

(even if it "complicates" things for us).

[Daniel Rogov]

Several comments:

(a) I stand among the front line of those who say that "the best wine is the wine you like the best", but here we are speaking to personal taste and not to standards and there are, indeed standards.

(b) When presented by impartial critics tasting notes and scores are not meant to be absolutes. Their goal is to share the evaluation of a hopefully well trained and not biased professional.

© Critics may be without sin but they are human and here enters the role of the reader and that is in determining how any critic or several critics may serve to calibrate his/her own tastes. This of course as true for the critic of the arts, theater, restaurants or, if you will football as it is for those of wine.

(d) The critic who allows his/her wine tasting notes and evaluations to be influenced by the inner politics of the wine trade is a critic who should be fired and scorned.

(e) Using an example I have used often in the past - I do not enjoy semi-dry white wines made from Emerald Riesling grapes. Believe me, if I live to be 135 years old I will never buy such a bottle for my personal pleasure. That does not, however, in any way disqualify me from tasting and evaluating such wines for my personal tastes have nothing whatever do with whether the wine has the appropriate balance and structure, whether it is typical of its variety, and judging it against other wines in its class. The same is true of whether the critic "likes" or "dislikes" a particular winemaker or a specific winery. The critic's role is not writing about people or companies he/she likes - only in evaluating their wines. It should go without saying that the honest critic has ways of protecting him/herself from projecting personal biases onto any wine.

[Chris Amirault]

I read the article and appreciate the typically compelling discussion here. I have two questions for y'all:

The article implies that terroir and uniqueness are, in the world of US consumer wines, basically irrelevant or on the way to being irrelevant. As someone who really enjoys trying different grapes and wines in a variety of styles from across the globe, I find this pretty sad. Are things that dire? How accurate is that implication?

The article also makes it clear that Enologix serves producers of big ticket Cabs. Does Enologix also serve producers of other wines -- say, big, oaky chardonnays? rhone-style reds for dining? Or is this service only built to produce one style of one wine?

[Florida Jim]

(a) I stand among the front line of those who say that "the best wine is the wine you like the best", but here we are speaking to personal taste and not to standards and there are, indeed standards. 

Daniel,

Your point is not lost on me. I write tasting notes and do hope that those who know me and my palate gleen something objective from them. But I wonder from time to time if I am only fooling myself. Likely folks are learning more about me than the wine.

If the example is that I like a certain Emerald Riesling despite the fact that it does not adhere to any standard for the variety or terroir, those standards are irrelevant to me.

Your evaluation of the wine and comments, as a professional critic (or mine as an enthusiast), that the wine does or does not meet certain standards may be of some value to others who have not tasted the wine (and know your work and my rantings) but, even there, I have some difficulty with the concept. Where do standards for Emerald Riesling arise? Do some people/critics have differing standards? Does an Emerald Riesling grown in Virginia have a different set of standards than one from the Finger Lakes? And so on . . .

In the final analysis, I believe that objective standards for wine evaluation are red herrings; they are meant to profess objective knowledge about a matter that is either wholey subjective or so subjective as to make any objective comment of little use.

Or, at least, that's my theory. And I do admit that I am in a very small minority.

BTW, one of the finest tasting notes I ever read never described the wine - rather it described the feelings the taster had through imagery and adjectives. I say it was one of the finest because it made no attempt to impart facts but concentrated 100% on the feelings of the taster when he drank the wine. And I wanted those same feelings; communication acheived. Were that I could follow such a lead.

'Hopeless romantic?

Best, Jim

Edited August 11, 2005 by Florida Jim (log)

[Brad Ballinger]

Likely folks are learning more about me than the wine.

←

I'm not exactly sure the two can be completely separated. Maybe Enologix could perform a deconstruction on your palate and your psyche.

[Florida Jim]

Maybe Enologix could perform a deconstruction on your palate and your psyche.

If Douglas Adams can quantify life, the universe and everything with a 42, I have no doubt Leo could get me right with arithmatic. And with the same validity.

Best, Jim

[JohnL]

In any area of criticism (music, art, literature, wine) there needs to be objective standards--there must be. Otherwise there would be chaos.

When evaluating a wine-things like color,acidity, balance, typicity of the varietal, weight etc. should be assessed and conveyed.

Most every "scoring" system has "objective evaluation componants. from Davis to Parker....

Also-odors and flavors exist that can be identified-presence of Botrytis, Bret, corked wines, flavors and odors due to unclean barrels winery handling , sulphur. These things are not a matter of personal taste-they are there or they are not there.

Tasting notes--should be-a way of communicating information to the reader.

There is room for "subjective impressions" but a good taster can convey important information to his/her reader, enabing them to make a decision as to whether or not they try/buy the wine or what they will find when they taste the wine themselves.

I believe that wine criticism/tasting often lapses into little more than-"this wine is great-it tastes like oriental saddle leather and blueberries."

I also believe that the industry often "hides" behind code words and notes that are vague and imprecise. For eg out of balance, thin and tannic wines are sometimes said to be "austere" and ageworthy or "of an elegant" style or "food wines".

It is no wonder that consumers are often confused and "at sea" when it comes to wine appreciation.

Edited August 11, 2005 by JohnL (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

Where do standards for Emerald Riesling arise? Do some people/critics have differing standards? Does an Emerald Riesling grown in Virginia have a different set of standards than one from the Finger Lakes? And so on . . .

Jim, Hi...

Leaving wine behind for the moment and looking only at the issue of standards. No question but that in physics and mathematics standards are somewhat easier to come by than in any artistic endeavor or one involving taste........Simply stated, Planck's constant remains constant. Despite that, I think there can and should be agreed upon standards - not heaven forbid standards that tell us what to "like" but that do speak to issues of fundamental definitions.

Again, staying away for wine, but turning to the cinema (of which my standing as a critic is merely one of the hopefully intelligent and informed public). Many years ago I went to a theater in Harvard Square there to see the showing of the then brand new "Midnight Cowboy". After the film, which I saw with my brother, we left the cinema and I, somewhat confused, commented to him that "I thought that Dustin Hoffman was supposed to be in the film". He looked at me askance and of course told me that Hoffman was indeed the star of the film, having portrayed Ratzo Rizzo.

I in turn stood in amazement and it took me a moment to focus and realize that of course my brother was correct. It was just that for me, in that film, Hoffman had been such a superb actor that he did not exist. All that existed for me was Ratzo Rizzo. I define that as one of the standards of truly fine acting.

Returning to wine - but with apologies forgetting about Emerald Riesling (a very minor grape at best) and turning to Tempranillo. As memory serves, over time within the last two years I have blind-tasted Tempranillo based wines from Spain, Texas, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Israel, the Georgian Republic, China, and California. If I could not, at those various tastings, identify the wine as a Tempranillo, that was so noted in my tasting notes and the wine lost points because of that. If the wine showed certain levels of balance, depth and length, those facts were also noted and the score reflected this. I recall, for example, one of those wines in which I noted "reminds me more of a Beaujolais cru wine than a Tempranillo". It was a nice little wine and one that might have even offered pleasure but did not meet the standards of what a mature Tempranillo should present.

Perhaps one the best ways to determine standards would be much as we taste wines - that is to say by measuring our own evaluations in conjunction with those of our own peers whom we respect. And of course to determine our ability to produce notes and evluations that are both "reproduceable and generalizeable" that for example by re-tastings and doubling up on tastings.

On that note, to steal a line from Tiny Tim, "god bless us, every one!"

[JohnL]

Daniel,

I wish more writers/critics had your approach and sensibility.

We consumers would be a lot better off!

I am now going to seek out your work regularly.

thanks!

[Florida Jim]

In any area of criticism (music, art, literature, wine) there needs to be objective standards--there must be. Otherwise there would be chaos.

When evaluating a wine-things like color,acidity, balance, typicity of the varietal, weight etc. should be assessed and conveyed.

Most every "scoring" system has "objective evaluation componants. from Davis to Parker....

John,

Surely this is the counter to my theory and your points (no pun intented) are well taken. And I suppose that if you say this or that wine has the color of lemonade, makes my mouth water, goes well with pasta prima vera, smells and tastes like chardonnay, you have conveyed some useful information to the reader.

Nonetheless, I think there are difficulties in explaining what chardonnay tastes like in any universal sense. One can say a wine smells like oak even though the wine may never have seen a barrel. Or that it seems to have high acidity even though the wine's ph says otherwise. These things happen and your idea of acidity, oak and chardonnay may be entirely different than mine. Even so, there is some common ground in such descriptions - although, I would argue that it is substantially smaller then one might think at first blush.

But when one assigns points, stars or puffs, I think the whole process breaks down. Such quantifiers imply not only intrinsic value but universiality - and that is too much for me to sit idle by and not challenge.

Honestly, a little more chaos in areas of subjective judgment might just lead to a little more tolerance.

Also-odors and flavors exist that can be identified-presence of Botrytis, Bret, corked wines, flavors and odors due to unclean barrels winery handling , sulphur. These things are not a matter of personal taste-they are there or they are not there.

Which I tried to address in my initial post when I said once a wine is deemed sound then personal preference takes over.

Tasting notes--should be-a way of communicating information to the reader.

There is room for "subjective impressions" but a good taster can convey important information to his/her reader, enabing them to make a decision as to whether or not they try/buy the wine or what they will find when they taste the wine themselves.

I believe that wine criticism/tasting often lapses into little more than-"this wine is great-it tastes like oriental saddle leather and blueberries."

I also believe that the industry often "hides" behind code words and notes that are vague and imprecise. For eg out of balance, thin and tannic wines are sometimes said to be "austere" and ageworthy or "of an elegant" style or "food wines".

It is no wonder that consumers are often confused and "at sea" when it comes to wine appreciation.

And I would argue the flip-side of that coin; that such descriptions are vague and imprecise because subjective measurements are vague and imprecise when used to communicate ones feelings and impressions. One man's austere is another's focused, if you will.

I'm not saying that any descriptive language can't be subverted to one's own ends; clearly it can, but I strongly believe that sterilized attempts at objective statements of fact have no place in the description of Clos St. Hune anymore than they do when the subject is the works of Mozart or Hockney. Rather, tell me what you feel and why; tell me the emotional effect it has on you, compare it to other such feelings and moments of emotional power - and let me judge for myself if that is the path I want to take or not.

In any event, thank-you for articulating one of the arguments against my position; hopefully those who read both our comments will make up their own mind.

Best, Jim

[Florida Jim]

Returning to wine - but with apologies forgetting about Emerald Riesling (a very minor grape at best) and turning to Tempranillo.  As memory serves, over time within the last two years I have blind-tasted Tempranillo based wines from Spain, Texas, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Israel, the Georgian Republic, China, and California.  If I could not, at those various tastings, identify the wine as a Tempranillo, that was so noted in my tasting notes and the wine lost points because of that. If the wine showed certain levels of balance, depth and length, those facts were also noted and the score reflected this. I recall, for example, one of those wines in which I noted "reminds me more of a Beaujolais cru wine than a Tempranillo".  It was a nice little wine and one that might have even offered pleasure but did not meet the standards of what a mature Tempranillo should present. 

Nope, I can't go there. Tempranillo is produced in such a wide variety of styles that I would be amazed if any set standard could be discerned. Jovan styles are very much in the lightweight, quaffable style and not even remotely similar to Vega Sicilia; does that make one better according to whatever standard we are comparing it to? Is one standard better than the other? Is one style better than the other? Does one deserve more points than the other? Are there separate standards for different styles? For different wine-making treatments within a single style? Ad infinitum . . .

(BTW, I like the Beaujolais style better than Vega Sicilia so my "should" would be headed in the opposite direction.)

Perhaps one the best ways to determine standards would be much as we taste wines - that is to say by measuring our own evaluations in conjunction with those of our own peers whom we respect. And of course to determine our ability to  produce notes and evluations that are both "reproduceable and generalizeable" that for example by re-tastings and doubling up on tastings.

Comparison to other's evaluations seems to me to be the slippery slope. First we must identify our peers and then those we respect. This leads to some pretty fine distinctions (subjective distinctions I might add) and moreover, the elimination of those in the standard setting that do not share our evaluations, for whatever reason deemed sufficient to exclude their opinions.

Am I splitting hairs? Yes, indeed but I think that the setting of objective standards as to quality leads to hair splitting that winds-up back where we started; with the individual standing alone as the only real source of experience and comparative evaluation, ie., preference.

Best, Jim

Edited August 11, 2005 by Florida Jim (log)

[JohnL]

Jim,

I am not sure we really disagree.

Impressions are very important. And we do agree that there are two parts to tasting notes. One which is -- let's say "more" objective. and one that is most certainly subjective.

Mr Rogov -I think-presented this-better than I did.

For eg. a good taster/critic should be able to apply a lot of point of reference or perspective to his notes.

Take a basic area like typicity. The notes should convey if the wine in question is, say, typical in flavor profile to other,say Alsatian Rieslings, does it reflect the characteristics of the vintage, of the Clos St Hune vinyard, of the winemaker, the weight of the wine on the palate, is the finish long or short etc.

I would argue these are let's say more objective because most critics would agree on these points. That is why they arew professionals--they have a level of knowledge and experience.

If it was all about subjectivity then why provide notes at all?

Just give me a score.--If through my experience, I seem to like the wines you like--and I am going to have my own subjective impressions anyway, why should I care about your notes at all?

It would be: I seem to like all the wines Jim likes and Jim says this wineA is great (he rates it 100) so I will go and buy/try the wine--odds are I will like it too.

Instead --the point of reading your notes would be to gain some knowledge or perspective based upon your knowledge and perspective--some insight as to what the wine you are describing is like.

[Florida Jim]

If it was all about subjectivity then why provide notes at all?

Just give me a score.--If through my experience, I seem to like the wines you like--and I am going to have my own subjective impressions anyway, why should I care about your notes at all?

It would be: I seem to like all the wines Jim likes and Jim says this wineA is great (he rates it 100) so I will go and buy/try the wine--odds are I will like it too.

Instead --the point of reading your notes would be to gain some knowledge or perspective based upon your knowledge and perspective--some insight as to what the wine you are describing is like.

John,

For sake of argument, lets leave 'scoring' out of your example (I will get distracted).

Let's just say that if I like a wine I should say so. And, if in your experience, you usually like the wines I do, that might make it easier for you to buy that wine. Will that work for you?

I provide more than just saying I like it because I think I can convey more than that. I don't do it just to compare the wine to a hypothetical standard, although sometimes I do compare it to other wines. I don't say more because I am trying to convince anyone it is a great wine, although I may be trying to describe the impact the wine has on me and that it may be wonderful.

I know that's convuluted and certainly paradoxical, but I think some feel for the experience can be conveyed in words without any attempt to state a universal truth about the wine.

Here's a note that I love. The note was entitled "a little proseco:"

"NV Toffoli Prosecco ($10-12)

I had just finished shopping at Trader Joe's for my weekly pantry maintenance, when I saw a fifty-ish man in a floral print shirt, Dockers and old loafers hop up on the back of his cart. He proceeded to ride along the gentle slope right to his car. Following his example (and much to three year old Michael's delight) I did the same. Just that bit of breeze and fun on a hot, muggy day made me feel refreshed. The fellow shot me a knowing smile and drove off. It was a brief encounter, but it still makes me happy. I should do that more often.

Happy summer, friends.

LM"

Obviously, this says nothing about the wine other than its name. But what it said to me was more than enough to perk my interest and convey the pleasure and increased awareness that such an experience can offer.

A stretch? Yes - but one worth considering, IMO.

Best, Jim

[Brad Ballinger]

If it was all about subjectivity then why provide notes at all?

Just give me a score.--If through my experience, I seem to like the wines you like--and I am going to have my own subjective impressions anyway, why should I care about your notes at all?

←

This is just sad. It may be your personal opinion (which I doubt), or it may be that you are representing an opinion that is "out there." Regardless, it's sad. It also runs counterintuitive to what you like about Daniel's comments.

For example, a Margaux may no longer taste like a wine from the Margaux appellation, but still gets a point score that is a buying trigger for the person looking at it. A California Pinot Noir wine has more in common with a California Syrah wine than it does with a Burgundy, but gets a high enough score to sell the entire production. Now does the person who is looking at so-and-so's scores only really care what he or she is buying that's in the bottle? No, that person is only buying points. You might as well just soak off the label and replace it with a big fat "93." "Honey, what wines did you buy today?" "Well, I picked up a couple of 90s, a 92 and I got the last 96 in stock."

I originally logged in to post the following on its own, but it seems to fit here:

This whole discussion about standards is interesting. But when standards come into play, in whatever arena, there has to be some “authority” that has determined what the standard is going to be. The authority may be one person, it may be a consensus, it may be something from the sciences such as how much mercury expands to let us know what the temperature is. But even standards of measurement such as one meter, one inch, one gram, one pound, and one degree C or F were “set” by someone at some point in time.

With respect to wine, one can measure ph, alcohol, residual sugar, perhaps SO2 in a flawed wine, and then all the other things that Enologix measures. Some wineries even display some of this information on their back labels.

But here’s where it falls apart for me – people experience standards differently. I think 80 degrees is hot hot hot, and my wife is putting on a sweatshirt. To claim that we should each react to 80 similarly is ridiculous.

Florida Jim and I can taste the same wine and maybe one of us will like it and the other won’t. But that can, in no way, mean that one of us is “right” or that one of us has a more “standardized” palate than the other. And no one should expect that the one of us who doesn’t like the wine in question should like it or vice versa. And do I need to even get into how the perception of the wine is going to change depending on what I am eating, if I have a cold, what other aromas are in the area, who I am with, etc? Oh, and what about bottle, fuder, vat, barrel, and provenance variation? Variation that doesn’t necessarily result in a flawed wine.

So can there be actual hard and fast scientific standards with respect to wine quality? I’m not so sure. I am entirely of the opinion, however, that perceived or de-facto standards exist and exist in a big way. The perceived standard of a certain number of points, stars, puffs, etc, being just one. There is aldo the perceived standard of color of the wine (deeper is better). The perceived standard of price (costlier is better). The perceived standard of grape variety (cabernet sauvignon is better than pinotage). The perceived standard of region (Napa is better than Sonoma). The perceived standard of producer (Chateau Margaux is better than Chateau Brane Cantenac).

These perceived standards play out in the marketplace all the time. And not just with wine. Go clothes shopping with my daughter who will only buy Nike. Go car shopping with my stepfather who won’t buy anything but a Ford. Go to the video store with my wife who won’t rent a DVD unless it received “two thumbs up.” Actually, “two thumbs up” doesn’t cut it anymore. That’s like an 88 in winescorespeak. She now needs “two thumbs way up” or “two enthusiastic thumbs up.”

Scores and other forms of “standardized” measurement are starting places for conversations about the wines. They have practically become a part of the “language” of wine – someone may not know what a person means by sexy with respect to wine, but they certainly understand “88” or at least it holds more meaning for them.

I went to a local retailer for the first time last week. The shop was having an end of bin sale and the sale inventory was changing daily. I took a look at the online inventory, and shot off an e-mail asking if two of the wines were still available. I received a return reply that they were, and that some would be set aside for me. I showed up, and the owner (it’s a one-person shop) was busy with a customer and someone else was there before me. For every wine he suggested, his description included the Parker or WS score is if the score number was on par with terms such as fruity, bold, elegant, etc.

By the time the owner got to me, I mentioned that I had e-mailed ahead and gave the names of the wines I was having held for me. Keep in mind, the “sale” was technically already made. I was going to buy the wines if their condition looked okay, and there was not reason to suspect it wouldn’t. He started going into descriptions about the wines, including scores. For this person scores are simply part of the wine lexicon. To that point, I don’t believe they are any more objective of standardized than fruity, bold, elegant, acidic, oaky, tannic, etc.

Scores as standards only exist because there is a market demand for them. They are almost a sub-brand. Before scores, consumers reacted similarly to price, producer name, appellation (which at one point was THE standard of quality according to the government – if one relied on them), or public opinion.

For Enologix, we can probably assume that if a critic rated a wine from Producer A a certain number of points, a wine from Producer B with a similar chemical (or whatever) profile – using Enologix’s research – to the wine from Producer A will probably be rated similarly by that same critic. I doubt Enologix guarantees that, however. They merely provide the deconstruction, and let the producer do what he or she will with the information.

But we aren't far from the day where the retail shop, the wine list, whatever, will no longer be organized by region, grape variety, or even price. The day will come when we'll see the 80-85 point aisle, the 85-87 point aisle, the 88-89 point aisle, you get the idea.

[JohnL]

Brad,

I used the example of what you cite as "sad" to make a point.

We probably should follow Jim's advice and stay away from any mention of "scores."

You guys become so overwrought! lol

Jim,

I actually loved your review of the Prosecco! It is most definitely not a more typical tasting note. I don't know if you can sustain that level of creativity over a large number of wines though. If you can I'd love to be your agent! :->

seriously--I believe that one can be entertaining and informative at the same time.

Brad and Jim,

we are close to tumbling over the abyss into a subjective vs objective debate.

(interestingly this debate rages in the world of music and stereos)

believe it or not I stand very firmly in the middle. I see value in both. My point was/is if wine tasting is totally subjective then every wine is potentially a good wine or bad wine it all depends upon who is tasting the wine.

This is a bit too loose for me.

An example:

I was at a tasting recently that focused on the wines of a well known importer of Burgundy--"old school/old style terriorist" The importer led the tasting of a numbewr of wines in the portfolio.

First--many of these wines I love and have in my cellar.

At the tasting a few of the wines --these were first growth and grand cru wines with some age--were IMOP and others not very good. They were not bad wines they were "lesser" quality wines. Other exaples from the same grower were fine-some excellent. When asked about the "lesser" quality wines the importer dismissed the comments with something to the effect that "Americans" do not understand the French palate."

I'm sorry but that does not fly with me. Compared side by side some of the wines were better than others due to different vintages, problems in the vinyard or whatever.

There is no argument here-and i have no doubt that there are people who will enjoy the lesser wines--I liked them enough but they were inferior to the other wines from the same grower.

Nine out of ten people with reasonably sophisticated palates and some experience with these wines would agree.

Not every wine (even from the same source) is equal. They are not all good.

This has nothing to do with "like" or "prefer." it has nothing to do with "getting" a certain style or sensibility or a french or American or Tanzanian palate!

In 1990 Pichon Lalande a wine that was agreed by almost everyone I know and have read to be of lesser quality than the 82 or 83 or other Bordeaux in 90.

The 83 Burgundies are a mixed bag due to hail in a lot of the vinyards--one can taste the rot in a lot of the wines--without making any value judgement there is rot and dilution in many wines from 83. Why0-because if you taste the wines affected by the hail next to the wines not affected and even if you had no point of reference-a taster would come to the conclusion that many of these wines were thinner than usual.

Again-no value judgements just a recognizable problem in the wine.

How about oak. A good taster will note that a winemaker uses oak as it is present. That is an objective observation. Even a lot of oak or this wine is oaky has an amount of objectivity to it. or how about this one we see often enough --the wine has "gobs" of toasty new oak.

Whether or not I like oak or whether or not the critic likes or dislike oak-- this observation is important to me. If I do--I will be encouraged to try the wine--if not I will move on.

A critic should be able to identify oak in the flavor of a wine whether he/she likes oak or not. It is either there or it is not.

This is not a value judgement.

That's all I am saying--I believe there is a lot of room for the magic and subjective reactions-I think there is a difference between what a taster tastes and what those tastes evoke. Jim's Prosecco note is "evocative" (but Jim I still don't know if there was any oak in the prosecco!) lol

The best thing that can happen out here is we all inspire each other to think and see different angles perspectives.

I am certainly doing that!

<S>

[Florida Jim]

My point was/is if wine tasting is totally subjective then every wine is potentially a good wine or bad wine it all depends upon who is tasting the wine.

Exactly.

This is a bit too loose for me.

The words 'for me' are everything.

Best, Jim

[JohnL]

Jim,

Kinda like the blind men and the elephant!?

anyway--

I do like reading your notes--would love to see more.

It is hot as....here and I have a nice bottle (IMOP) of Domaine des Aubusierres Vouvray chilling.

--I love this wine (pretty good value too).

Cheers!!!

[Fat Guy]

Saw this on CNN.com the other day:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/12/29/wine.tech.ap/index.html

Talks about Professor Larry Biegler and his experiments with computer wine flavor models. The goal is to automate the fermentation process.

[Florida Jim]

Saw this on CNN.com the other day:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/12/29/wine.tech.ap/index.html

Talks about Professor Larry Biegler and his experiments with computer wine flavor models. The goal is to automate the fermentation process.

←

Sort of reminds me of the Enologix article about standardizing the whole damn thing to suit Parker's taste. May they rot in hell!

Best, Jim

[Rebel Rose]

Is the government giving out grants now for research on "how to take all the fun out of winemaking?"

Scientists don't fully understand the delicate mix of compounds that emerge during fermentation and why they create such pleasing sensations for wine drinkers. Biegler's research focuses on yeast, which consumes sugar and produces alcohol.

"We would like to come up with a reasonably good model of how this yeast cell behaves ... "

More and better knowledge is always welcome.

One goal is to help vintners avoid "stuck batches" -- batches that spoil and are thrown away when fermentation stalls, leaving too much sugar.

But come on . . . if you don't want a stuck fermentation, learn how to make wine properly. And if you want to announce a new wine computer model, hire a press release writer who understands wine. Stuck ferms are not spoiled, they're just stuck! A little water, or a little juice concentrate, addition of wine from a currently fermenting batch, electric blankets or fish tank heaters depending on the cause of the problem and you'll get it going again.

But almost always a stuck ferm is the result of a winemaker or cellar manager not paying attention to details when the grapes arrive. Proper sugar, acid, and pH levels, coupled with an appropriate yeast (chosen for vigor, flavor, temperature, extraction, etc.) and a few spoonfuls of yeast nutrient (generally made from yeast hulls, which are high in Vitamin Bs) and you should never have a problem.

Distinguishing fine wine from plonk is usually left to connoisseurs and winemakers, who rely on their senses, rough chemical measurements and the whims of nature to produce an exceptional tipple.

Whims of nature, I grant you, but rough chemical measurements? Does this list of Analytical Evaluations look like rough approximations?

[Rebel Rose]

In the recent media flap about allergen labeling on wine (fish, eggs, wheat, etc.) owner Leo McCloskey of Enologix was recently quoted in the media as being unequivocally in support of this law--which I found interesting, especially as his laboratory would benefit financially.

A while back, he responded to a post on the Goosecross Cellarss blog. The conversation started out politely, but deteriorated rapidly. (Trust me, start at the beginning and scan all the way to the end—you won’t want to miss the fencing, and the last post by Goosecross CEO David Topper.)

I followed up with an opinion piece on our winery site, titled Ego and Enologix. Although Mr. McCloskey has not posted, the two discussions share one or more posters. I heartily recommend that you read these public comments before continuing the discussion here. It will only take a few moments, and you will understand why I raise the following questions:

Is Enologix poised to become the "American version of the French A.O.C. since it is winemaker based"?

Is Enologix going to become the "consumer's score" as one poster claimed repeatedly?

Are wineries who don't submit to critics and who don't use Enologix' services "going around the consumer"?

What is McCloskey's vision? A visit to his website indicates many of the standard laboratory, winemaking and consulting services. What makes him unique is his quality matrix based on critic's scores. But is his vision to offer more than a wine consulting service? Is it his vision to grow, through working with fine wine clients, into replacing individual critics with artificially intelligent scores? It's all very muddled to me.

[Don Giovanni]

Mary,

Think about this. If we are going to talk about computers then lets talk about the Quantum computer. When Quantum computers are perfected one all wine will be eviscerated down to the atom and reconstructed to fit anyone's preference. All security codes will be outdated inc. Launch codes...this is for another thread... back so wine will still be around and the critics will be listening to computers. People the public at large will enter what they like in a wine and the computer will model the wine towards perfection each time. In the next 5 years you will see this and the world will change overnight. So the real artificial intelligence is not what we have now, but what will come. The computers are just not ready for this now, they might get close.....but looking forward they are still in diapers ....as far as the Quantum computer...look out this would put him out in the cold...as others will have the same equal footing.... so if I was him I would save every dime because upon the arrival of this new technology he's done.

[JohnL]

The "flap" over globalization is nothing more than a flap.

Just like the flap over critic's scores.

there's a lot of flapping in the wine industry days. So much flapping that with the global warming underway it amounts to a lot of hot air being circulated.

There are more wines from more places in more styles on retailer shelves in most places around the world than ever before.

That's a fact.

This fact flies in the face of the globalization flappers.

Enologix is a consulting company. If wine makers who avail themselves of their services and sell more wine then everyone is happy. If its not Enologix then its Michele Rolland or.... whomever. Remember Guy Accad? There have always been consultants and consulting wine makers.

As for the critics. The entire wine industry has Parkeritis! A couple of points to consider. It is the wine industry that has elevated Parker and scores. The same industry has blown his influence so out of proportion as to be living in a fantasy world.

If Parker is the puppet master pulling the strings on millions of sheep like consumers then who is buying all that wine Parker never even considers? I would bet that more wine never rated by anyone is bought and drunk than wine that is rated.

Has anyone looked at the circulation of all the publications and newsletters with scores in relationship to the total number of wine buying consumers in existence?

McCloskey is a huckster a great salesman who is tapping into the industry desire to sell their wine. I am not qualified to assess his capabilities as a wine maker/consultant.

To answer all your questions:

No, No and No.

McCloskey is a consultant. He may have a vision but the only one that counts is the vision of the wine maker who hires McCloskey for advice. Again, I point to Guy Accad. he too was a consulting enologist. Only instead of california he was all the rage in Burgundy a while back. Interestingly his critics accused him of many of the same crimes Michel Rolland and McCloskey and any number of other consultants. He was ultimately not successful.

What kinds of wines are we talking about? The differences in many so called successful California wines are myriad. Is Harlan Estate the same wine as Mondavi PR? Funny, they both get high scores from the critics. Different styles.

Which style should a wine maker emulate?

In fact, I would doubt that many (if any at all) are making wines for critics. Funny but importers and merchants like Neal Rosenthal and Mahler Besse et al counseled their wine makers about fining and filtration use of oak and making riper flavorful wines long before the critics. Wine Makers have always been experimenting with techniques, science has always played a role in how wine is made. Anyone still long for the days before temperature controlled vats etc?

The industry should stop insulting the intelligence and palates of the wine buying and drinking public. No one is buying wine on someone's (anyone's) recommendation trying it finding it not to their liking and continuing to buy that wine.

Conversely, people would stop relying on advice that does not pan out and the critics would be out of business. (this is a salient point because, most people do not buy wine solely on a critic's advice).

Millions of bottles of unrated/un reviewed wines being purchased from retailers shelves. How do the industry Chicken Little's explain this?

Can we please back away from the relentless terroir issue?!

Where were all the globalization freaks when micro oxygenation was invented to soften unpalatable hard wines from SW France? Weren't all those wines simply reflecting the terroir?

As for the poor little ole nobel wine maker who only ants to make wines that speak of the earth. Please! You mean the folks who are adding maybe a little more sugar to their wines than the laws allows? By the way given that many many wine makesr in France chaptalize how is this not a violation of the purity of the terroir to begin with!? I suppose globalization began long before anyone realizes around 1800 or so.

Again, show me the evidence! What I see are shelves of wines from all over the world made in many many styles and from grapes that were unheard of until recently. Falanghina anyone?

Industry folks need to see beyond Parker and Yellowtail and scores and science and get some perspective --a sense of reality.