from michael bauer's blog in the sf chron

[dvs]

Was the Paris tasting a scam?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=26

[Rebel Rose]

Goodness, Shanklin is getting curmudgeonly. More than half the fun of the Paris re-enactment is watching the opinionated fallout afterward.

[Daniel Rogov]

Nah.....it wasn't at all a scam. Completely legitimate. The problem was that it was a bore. As I've written in my own columns.....something akin to recreating Woodstock....the first time spontaneous and fun, the second time commercial and somewhat redundant.

[JohnL]

Was the Paris tasting a scam?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=26

←

One reason I dislike most "blogs."

Someone posting his or her thoughts often without much

rationale and supportive information.

Reading them is often akin to listening to one side of a conversation

or someone rambling "off the top of their head" into space.

Shanken rambles and then we wait for someone to respond to his ramblings.

I simply don't take this very seriously. (the reply by Spurrier is

interesting though--if one had the time and inclination to read it).

I tend to agree with Me Rogov. The "re-enactment" has lost much

from the original.

I would say that what is interesting is the evolution of the wine press (and the general press).

All the critic's and writers involved (and those not involved).

The re-enactment is very interesting if one looks not to the actual results but to how the press and the critics have "reported" and "responded" to those results.

No one to my knowledge has "noted" the consistencies and inconsistencies of the two "historical" tastings.

First and foremost--both point up the problems with recognizing "terroir"--How is it that such esteemed and experienced tasters can not seem to recognize terroirs so different and so far apart?

There are other interesting issues pointed up as well that challenge conventional wisdom these writers and critics have actively promoted over the many years between the two events.

---California wines don't age well.

This one is still promoted as many writers are fond of noting that current "cult" wines will not age.

"They are made to drink young." etc etc etc.

In fact, it is rather revealing to watch the critics apply a bit of twist to their logic in their interpretations of the results.

For me--this is where the fun is!

[MaxH]

A criticism I've heard (casually) is that few French people were among the tasters in the re-enactment.

Interesting to read Shanken complaining of organizers wanting "to attract attention for themselves and the wines involved were their puppets."

By the way, in the original ("French Resistance") thread, if my reference to mythology was unclear to anyone, I meant the narrow way that the recent tasting was typically reported in mainstream media that I saw. These gee-whiz reports could easily give readers an impression that the 1976 was the first or largest blind comparison of similarly styled French and California wines (it was neither, as demonstrated earlier here and in my postings about Gault-Millau). The stories might even give some people an impression that age-worthiness of solid California Cabernets was an open question, not seriously tested until the re-enactment (despite decades of documentation to the contrary). Only to the extent that reporting creates notions contrary to reality is it mythmaking.

[JohnL]

Max--

I enjoyed your post in the other thread.

I believe Shanken was just tossing out some

thoughts. (the problem with blogs).

It is hard to make a lot of them.

You make some good points about the

original tasting not being a "pioneering" as

many have made it out to be.

Nor is it as defining.

Again, I believe that these "events" often reveal more

about the state of affairs of the tasters and the critics and writers than the actual wines.

I am amused watching some critics and writers attempt to

"explain" the results so as to leave the conventional wisdom they

subscribe to, intact.

[Raoul Duke]

Why doesn't Marv stick to reviewing cigars.

Raoul