Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

Rahsaan,

I agree.

Good!

At least our sub-discussion is resolved. Will see what happens to the rest of the thread

Was there a 'rest of this thread???'

Rahsaan,

I agree.

Good!

At least our sub-discussion is resolved. Will see what happens to the rest of the thread

Was there a 'rest of this thread???'

NO!

David,

From my experience, I don't know of any established standards for oak extraction in Pinot Noir or in any other wine.

I believe this area falls into the overall category of balance. When I judge wine, if wood--or anything done to the wine--intrudes heavily on what I expect of the wine's character and characteristics, that wine will likely not score well with me, not for a measurable technical reason, but because some element is dominating the wine and unbalancing it.

I agree, but even there, the concept of balance is still subjective, and can vary from one taster to another. Some prefer balance more to the acid side of the spectrum, others more to the fruit side, and yet others to the alcohol or tannin/oak side. One person's "intrudes heavily" may be another's "just right." There are no established standards for that, though there is often a genearlly accepted sense of the "expected" degree of predominance of one component or another for a given region. Though these expectations are based more on historical precedent than on any objective rule. OK, in some regions historical precedent has enough longevity to consider it a rule, but a lot of these rules are being challenged.

To complicate the question of balance even further: if you think of balance as a triangle (acid <-> fruit <-> alcohol/sweetness) or a square (acid <-> fruit <-> alcohol/sweetness <-> tannin) which is "balanced" on top of a pole or fulcrum, equilibrium can be acheived with each element at equal distances from the center point. Some may prefer a wine with each element relatively close to the center point (I think of these as "comfort" or "conservative" wines: Lafite), while others may prefer a wine with each element pretty far from the center point but nevertheless in balance (I think of these as "wild" or "radical" wines: Guigal La Las). There are no established standards for that, either. And I would argue that both examples qualify as "balanced."

My overall point is that there is a way to evaluate the wine as a product intended to deliver a certain level of quality and there is a way to evaluate what we think of the wine as something intended to give us pleasure. The former is an exercise in objectivity (which is achieved by evaluating the measurables against pre-set parameters) the latter is an exercise in perception, which is of course subjectivity.

Determining the "pre-set parameters" is an exercise in subjectivity, even if a majority of experts agree on them. That level of agreement may be enough to qualify those parameters as a definition of "quality," but it does not make it objective. If you're talking about an ability to identify agreed-upon parameters used to define quality, fine. But the agreement that those parameters define quality is a subjective judgment based on what the majority believe to be of value. It is not an objective truth.

David,

From my experience, I don't know of any established standards for oak extraction in Pinot Noir or in any other wine.

I believe this area falls into the overall category of balance. When I judge wine, if wood--or anything done to the wine--intrudes heavily on what I expect of the wine's character and characteristics, that wine will likely not score well with me, not for a measurable technical reason, but because some element is dominating the wine and unbalancing it.

I agree, but even there, the concept of balance is still subjective, and can vary from one taster to another. Some prefer balance more to the acid side of the spectrum, others more to the fruit side, and yet others to the alcohol or tannin/oak side. One person's "intrudes heavily" may be another's "just right." There are no established standards for that, though there is often a genearlly accepted sense of the "expected" degree of predominance of one component or another for a given region. Though these expectations are based more on historical precedent than on any objective rule. OK, in some regions historical precedent has enough longevity to consider it a rule, but a lot of these rules are being challenged.

To complicate the question of balance even further: if you think of balance as a triangle (acid <-> fruit <-> alcohol/sweetness) or a square (acid <-> fruit <-> alcohol/sweetness <-> tannin) which is "balanced" on top of a pole or fulcrum, equilibrium can be acheived with each element at equal distances from the center point. Some may prefer a wine with each element relatively close to the center point (I think of these as "comfort" or "conservative" wines: Lafite), while others may prefer a wine with each element pretty far from the center point but nevertheless in balance (I think of these as "wild" or "radical" wines: Guigal La Las). There are no established standards for that, either. And I would argue that both examples qualify as "balanced."

David,

I'm not sure where you are heading, but I answered your oak question--hopefully, to your satisfaction.

As to balance regarding wines that make no claim to varietal correctness (blends in a regional context) that is a subject which, separate from technical considerations, I consider completely dependent on precedent, which itself can be a kind of unclassified standard. In this regard, most evaluations would be made by people trained or experienced in the specifics of the region in question, and they likely would be out of their league evaluating another region (I believe that RP himself started with a Bordeaux specialty and got into trouble during his first foray into Burgundy).

In the New World, we don't evaluate regions as much as we evaluate varietal wines, and in fact, I think that's a much easier way to create standards beyond the technical parameters of what it is that constitutes wine as opposed to, say, vinegar or a quaffing alcoholic grape juice. Of course, we complicate the issue by not really talking about 100% varietal wines and never really knowing what percentage we are talking about, unless the label tells us. That is yest another complication in the evaluation process.

At this point, we are into a realm that exceeds the basic issue that Alex R raised: that no one can employ objectivity to wine evaluation. That is complete nonsense.

Thomas, I am going off on a tangent.

I do believe that one can objectively evaluate wine through tasting, though it is not an easy task and requires training and concentration and discipline and elimination of confounding factors. On that I think we agree. Though at times the process of objective analysis can diminish the simple hedonistic pleasure wine can give.

What I was trying to say above, which is tangential to the subject of evaluating an individual wine, is that determining the standards that define quality is inherently subjective. Entirely different from the question of whether a given wine can be objectively evaluated. And now that I've said it, I'm not sure I actually want to delve into a Plotnicki-esque debate over what and how "quality" parameters are determined. So I think I will slink away to the cellar for another glass of Pinot...

Thomas,

The paradox is that the more things can be measured "objectively" (a word, as I've said above, that cannot be applied to wine judging or criticism) the further one moves away from fine wine.

There *is* the famous Davis scale, which *does* present is an element of "objectivity" , yes. But that has to do with things that are utterly useless to describe subtleties or, let's say, the difference between a Lynch Bages and a Latour.
At a very basic level, it does indeed have meaning, but not for the fine wines that interest most of the people on this board.

I, too, judge at wine tastings. But I do not have the hubris or the self-delusion to imagine that my rankings are "objective".

Such a thing is impossible. Anymore than any other kind of criticism. We all need to be modest here!

Best regards,
Alex R.

To complicate the question of balance even further: if you think of balance as a triangle (acid <-> fruit <-> alcohol/sweetness) or a square (acid <-> fruit <-> alcohol/sweetness <-> tannin) which is "balanced" on top of a pole or fulcrum, equilibrium can be acheived with each element at equal distances from the center point.

To complicate the issue even further, there is organoleptic balance and degustatory balance. All of us evaluate the nose first, where the crucial acid/sweet balance does not yet enter the picture, then we move on to the mouth, where acid/sweet & tannin come into play. In each phase we judge objective and subjective elements, using related but different sets of data, for complexity, balance, tipicity, distance from the center, etc.

My overall point is that there is a way to evaluate the wine as a product intended to deliver a certain level of quality and there is a way to evaluate what we think of the wine as something intended to give us pleasure. The former is an exercise in objectivity (which is achieved by evaluating the measurables against pre-set parameters) the latter is an exercise in perception, which is of course subjectivity.

Determining the "pre-set parameters" is an exercise in subjectivity, even if a majority of experts agree on them. That level of agreement may be enough to qualify those parameters as a definition of "quality," but it does not make it objective. If you're talking about an ability to identify agreed-upon parameters used to define quality, fine. But the agreement that those parameters define quality is a subjective judgment based on what the majority believe to be of value. It is not an objective truth.

David,

That which is measurable is objective. If the parameters can be measured, then an objective decision can be made concerning them. Vinegar is not wine and so, when you can measure the v.a. and it says vinegar, then what you have before you is not wine. Whether or not the established vinegar standard got there by whim or by some other means, the objective activity was the results of the measurement--vinegar.

Yes, there is a Plotnicki-quality to this debate In fact, I was sucked into that one, too...

To complicate the question of balance even further: if you think of balance as a triangle (acid <-> fruit <-> alcohol/sweetness) or a square (acid <-> fruit <-> alcohol/sweetness <-> tannin) which is "balanced" on top of a pole or fulcrum, equilibrium can be acheived with each element at equal distances from the center point.

To complicate the issue even further, there is organoleptic balance and degustatory balance. All of us evaluate the nose first, where the crucial acid/sweet balance does not yet enter the picture, then we move on to the mouth, where acid/sweet & tannin come into play. In each phase we judge objective and subjective elements, using related but different sets of data, for complexity, balance, tipicity, distance from the center, etc.

Precisely.

Evaluating wine is a mix of subjectivity and objectivity, but only the latter can be tested and either proved or disproved. The problem with criticism rises when the critic either isn't trained in identifying the objective problems or simply likes a wine with measurable (objective) faults such as excessive v.a., reduction, dangerously high pH (unstable), etc.

I will muddy the waters here even further, a endeavor at which I can thoroughly excel. And given the subject matter, this is kind of ironic.

Do you folks realize that the word "objective" has a number of definitions? And that two of those definitions could be in play here? And that those two definitions are subtly different?

One definition of "objective" would be totally, absolutely, factual. Another definition, just slightly different, of "objective" would be without bias or prejudice. A person may have an "objective opinion" even though to some those words are contradictory. But they aren't; there is a slightly different definition of "objective" at work.

As I read through these posts, I believe some disagreement is arising because the word "objective" is used by a lot of posters but the intended meaning is not the same for each person.

Thomas,

The paradox is that the more things can be measured "objectively" (a word, as I've said above, that cannot be applied to wine judging or criticism) the further one moves away from fine wine.

There *is* the famous Davis scale, which *does* present is an element of "objectivity" , yes. But that has to do with things that are utterly useless to describe subtleties or, let's say, the difference between a Lynch Bages and a Latour.
At a very basic level, it does indeed have meaning, but not for the fine wines that interest most of the people on this board.

I, too, judge at wine tastings. But I do not have the hubris or the self-delusion to imagine that my rankings are "objective".

Such a thing is impossible. Anymore than any other kind of criticism. We all need to be modest here!

Best regards,
Alex R.

Where were you trained to be a wine judge, Alex?

I have laid out numerous arguments and conditions, talking in some technicalities (trying not to get too technical) because I am attempting to back up what I say rather than to proclaim my superiority. If those arguments seem to you immodest, may I suggest that you study wine a little more technically so that we can talk on the same plane.

Let me ask you some questions: if we can't be objective about evaluating wine, why do we need wine evaluations in the first place, and why are you a wine judge? Is it so that you can tell the world what you think is great? Who should care about that kind of evaluation? If you can't identify when a wine probably should not have been bottled, what's the value of your evaluation?

Wine criticism is often an exercise in aesthetics. It is as personal as any other exercise in aesthetics. It is also as valuable as the talent and training of the critic.

I will muddy the waters here even further, a endeavor at which I can thoroughly excel. And given the subject matter, this is kind of ironic.

Do you folks realize that the word "objective" has a number of definitions? And that two of those definitions could be in play here? And that those two definitions are subtly different?

One definition of "objective" would be totally, absolutely, factual. Another definition, just slightly different, of "objective" would be without bias or prejudice. A person may have an "objective opinion" even though to some those words are contradictory. But they aren't; there is a slightly different definition of "objective" at work.

As I read through these posts, I believe some disagreement is arising because the word "objective" is used by a lot of posters but the intended meaning is not the same for each person.

Mike,

My use of the word has been spelled out many times: that which is measurable.

If someone says, 'this wine sucks," that is a subjective opinion. But if someone says, 'this wine sucks because it suffers from an x spoilage," the spoilage can either be proved or disproved by measuring for it. The question for consumers is: which of those evaluations has merit?

[David M. Bueker]

So Thomas, you are reducing wine criticism or judging to the pointing out of flaws (sounds like a great time...yee ha), unless we admit that subjective criteria come into play.

Stupid question but can one objectively measure the tannin level in wine in the same way one can measure sugar, for example?

So Thomas, you are reducing wine criticism or judging to the pointing out of flaws (sounds like a great time...yee ha), unless we admit that subjective criteria come into play.

If you go back and read the thread, David, I believe more than once I agreed that evaluating wine is a mix of the subjective and the objective. I've also stated that I believe there are two types of evaluation: evaluating what we think of a wine (subjective); and evaluating the wine itself (a mix of sub and ob, hopefully leaning heavily on the ob).

I have proposed sub arguments about the validity of evaluations that do not test the objective, but am tired of making them, so you'll have to wade through the text of two threads if you remain interested.

Stupid question but can one objectively measure the tannin level in wine in the same way one can measure sugar, for example?

Yes, Bob,

Type in 'tannin assay' and you'll get information online.

Thomas,

Please understand that this is not a personal thing! It's just that black is not white, and subjective is not objective.

I have judged at the Concours des Vins d'Aquitaine, Le Courcours d'International de Blaye-Bourg, the Citadelles du Vin, and am a regular participant in tastings for the Guide Hachette. I do this for no other reason than that I love wine, enjoy seeing my friends on such occasions, and consider it a mental excercise. I have no puffed up image of myself, any more than when I post my tasting notes on WLDG or elsewhere.

I agree that there are certain broad technical parameters that people CAN agree on with regard to winetasting. But they are only a MINOR PART of evaluting a ***fine*** wine. While a flaw, is a flaw, is a flaw, that is only a minor aspect when it comes to evaluating a fine wine! Any attempt at objectivity beyond that point is doomed to failure.
In other words, it is important that a wine be sound. But that covers the huge majority of wines out there on the market. PAST that stage any attempt to codify wine tasting is hopeless, a shot in the dark...

Wine critics are popular because many misguided consumers believe otherwise. That is their problem, not mine!

You go on to ask a very cogent question:

>>>Let me ask you some questions: if we can't be objective about evaluating wine, why do we need wine evaluations in the first place, and why are you a wine judge?

I think that several competent people (juries are usually 3 or 4 here) have a better chance of approaching a valid overview than one person alone.
However, that valid overview can in no way be assimilated to an impossible "objectivity" any more than a movie critic's review of a film.
I have no illusions!

Furthermore, at two of these tastings, I fill in the "categories" virtually the same way for all the wines, because I strongly feel you cannot "break down" wine judging, that this is the wrong way to go about it. I'm speaking here of "so many points for this" and "so many points for that". This is the wrong end of the stick!
Rating a wine's balance numerically and then adding it to the other sub-categories? Total nonsense!
I suggest medal attribution and think the written comment is far more important than trying to quantify anything.

What is the value of my evaluation? Not a great deal, and I'm the first to admit it!
People can take it or leave it. I'm no pundit and I am wary of pundits in general!

Our opinions are not far apart with regard to basic wines, industrial-type wines. But once you go to wines of subtlety, any attempt at a precise grading system pales into insignificance and is totally inappropriate. Please notice that the key word here is precise.
Could you IMAGINE tasting a Romanée Conti or Vega Sicilia or a Pétrus and dutifully noting points for the constituent parts? Isn't that the height of hubris, of trying to describe the effable, of Man trying to be God?
Needless to say, I think it is pure folly.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Certainly measurements of pH, volatile acidity, brett, tannins, etc are objective. But it is subjective (imho) as to when things become faults. If "faultlessness" is one's goal, I'd guess that Yellowtail or 2BC probably qualify. Yet most bottlings of Vega Sicilia, Musar, old style Rioja, Port, as well as a fair percentage of old school Barolo or Cote Rotie might have levels of VA that some might find objectionable. Personally I've quite enjoyed bottles of '89 Beaucastel, '90 Montrose, as well as countless bottles from the old Cordier stable (Gruaud, Meyney, and Talbot) that certainly would be deemed flawed (as far as brett) by the average UC Davis grad.

If winemakers are looking for objective wine evaluation, great. But as a consumer I find subjective notes (especially by those I know) much more useful.Let's look at 2 wine descriptions:

1999 Nigl, Grüner Veltliner, Piri Privat:
The texture of a big viognier but the precision of a fine riesling; a wine of contradictions, fleshy and cerebral; showing well but no secondary development; intensity and concentration yet no flab or diffusion; endless finish.

Delheim Pinotage 2008
Alc 14.46, TA 5.85 g/l, RS 1.43 g/l, pH 3.71

The first totally subjective, the second totally objective. But the former is far more valuable to me (thanks Fl. Jim)

I realize subjectivity introduces much more possibility of "error", but I am not looking for precision in wine tasting.

I realize subjectivity introduces much more possibility of "error", but I am not looking for precision in wine tasting.

True enough, but I was never talking about what I seek in a wine, Dale.

We (you all) were first talking about a certain critic's bias. Then, as I remember it, Alex made a couple of definitive statements, one of which is that wine evaluation can never be objective. That particular statement is simply not fact, and if it is fact, then as far as I am concerned, the only value in judging wine is to validate the judge's feelings, rather than to employ the judge's knowledge. I don't buy that as a reason for making professional wine evaluations.

Thomas,

Please understand that this is not a personal thing! It's just that black is not white, and subjective is not objective.

I have judged at the Concours des Vins d'Aquitaine, Le Courcours d'International de Blaye-Bourg, the Citadelles du Vin, and am a regular participant in tastings for the Guide Hachette. I do this for no other reason than that I love wine, enjoy seeing my friends on such occasions, and consider it a mental excercise. I have no puffed up image of myself, any more than when I post my tasting notes on WLDG or elsewhere.

I agree that there are certain broad technical parameters that people CAN agree on with regard to winetasting. But they are only a MINOR PART of evaluting a ***fine*** wine. While a flaw, is a flaw, is a flaw, that is only a minor aspect when it comes to evaluating a fine wine! Any attempt at objectivity beyond that point is doomed to failure.
In other words, it is important that a wine be sound. But that covers the huge majority of wines out there on the market. PAST that stage any attempt to codify wine tasting is hopeless, a shot in the dark...

Wine critics are popular because many misguided consumers believe otherwise. That is their problem, not mine!

You go on to ask a very cogent question:

>>>Let me ask you some questions: if we can't be objective about evaluating wine, why do we need wine evaluations in the first place, and why are you a wine judge?

I think that several competent people (juries are usually 3 or 4 here) have a better chance of approaching a valid overview than one person alone.
However, that valid overview can in no way be assimilated to an impossible "objectivity" any more than a movie critic's review of a film.
I have no illusions!

Furthermore, at two of these tastings, I fill in the "categories" virtually the same way for all the wines, because I strongly feel you cannot "break down" wine judging, that this is the wrong way to go about it. I'm speaking here of "so many points for this" and "so many points for that". This is the wrong end of the stick!
Rating a wine's balance numerically and then adding it to the other sub-categories? Total nonsense!
I suggest medal attribution and think the written comment is far more important than trying to quantify anything.

What is the value of my evaluation? Not a great deal, and I'm the first to admit it!
People can take it or leave it. I'm no pundit and I am wary of pundits in general!

Our opinions are not far apart with regard to basic wines, industrial-type wines. But once you go to wines of subtlety, any attempt at a precise grading system pales into insignificance and is totally inappropriate. Please notice that the key word here is precise.
Could you IMAGINE tasting a Romanée Conti or Vega Sicilia or a Pétrus and dutifully noting points for the constituent parts? Isn't that the height of hubris, of trying to describe the effable, of Man trying to be God?
Needless to say, I think it is pure folly.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex,

As a wine judge, the first thing I look for is organoleptic stability. Since I don't know whether or not I am judging Romanee, et al, their subtlety would matter not if they prsesent themselves as unsound wines. If that's playing God, so be it. I know that you don't believe it, but professional wine judges can, and in my opinion, should be trained to at least look for the measurables, which of course are not effable.

Thomas,
my response wasn't really "aimed" at you, just some musings based on various previous posts. I agree that some things are objective, though from a tasting standpoint even there is obviously some subjective decisions made (I don't think anyone can taste a wine and go "pH 3.6, TA 6 g/l" or whatever). Some are obviously better than others at evaluating those things.

Thomas, Hi.....

Your eloquence delights me. It also somewhat confuses me, because you seem to be playing the Devil's Advocate and in that taking amost anti-intellectual stance which is certainly not part of your essence. The confusion comes about because if you reject the subjective aspects of the critic, you are eliminating the function and act of criticism from the repertoire of the well-rounded individual.

As I have stated before, criticism must involve a certain level of subjectivity and that is precisely why we value it. And, as also said before, that is as true of criticism of the theater, the opera, the other various art forms as well as of wine and even social criticism. Let us keep in mind that the critic is nobody's enemy. Nor is the critic setting him/herself above others. The critic (at least the honest critic) is doing nothing more than sharing his/her point of view of the world. Hopefully of course, that point of view is well informed and well-judged. If so, and if that point of view was not uniquely his or hers, why bother to read them at all. And forgive me, in all fields we do have what to learn from the intelligent and honest critic.

As to deciding on which critic/s to follow - is that any more difficult than deciding on which historian to read, which performance of which symphony to listen to, even of something as banal as which automobile to buy? We too are critics for it is the critical function above all else that sets human beings at least somewhat aside from all other creatures.

Best
Rogov

Thomas,
my response wasn't really "aimed" at you, just some musings based on various previous posts. I agree that some things are objective, though from a tasting standpoint even there is obviously some subjective decisions made (I don't think anyone can taste a wine and go "pH 3.6, TA 6 g/l" or whatever). Some are obviously better than others at evaluating those things.

Dale,

I've met many winemakers who can pinpoint stats from a taste or two. Winemakers are barred from being judges at many competitions. I wonder why???