Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

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

Daniel Rogov,

You are both right and wrong...how's that for a critique?

I am somewhat playing Devil's Advocate, especially when a definitive statement is issued without empirical data to back it up--that wine evaluations cannot be objective, ever.

I did say somewhere that criticism is an aesthetic exercise. Aesthetics are particularly difficult to pin down and agree on--no? That's what makes the subjective so much a pain in the ass.

Still, critics can make objective determinations about wine, provided they have the training to identify those elements (components, call it what you will) inherent in the product.

To me, wine judging and wine criticism are two separate animals, and maybe that's why the former rarely earns money at it But a critic is paid to pass along opinions. I view a wine judge as someone asked to pass along judgments, which, in my view, should be much less opinion and much more based in knowledge, which with wine encompasses a great deal of technicalities. That's the part that can--and does--include objective analysis or at least an attempt at it.

Just yesterday a local winery owner complained to me about the level of expertise of some wine competition judges that are unable to smell a fault when it is right there staring them in the nose.

Does this make any better sense to you as to what i am trying to say?

Alex brought up the 20 point Davis scale. The guy largely responsible for that scale, Maynard Amerine, wrote some wonderful stuff concerning the subject of wine analysis and evaluation. See if you can find it online. He was far more eloquent than I. Essentially, it isn't the scale he designed that matters; it's what that scale forces the evaluator to consider that matters.

That which is measurable is objective.

Thomas,

In the realm of analytical chemistry and the statistical validation of analytical methods,
scientists set an even higher stringency requirement. A measurement's "repeatability" is a critical
criterion in the validation of a technique to measure something. This is one place where a
consensus of scientists would probably focus their attention when considering the
proposition that a GROUP of wine tasters can or cannot be scientifically objective
when it comes to an overall evaluation of a given wine sample a some point in time.

This doesn't contradict your statement that pros can accurately estimate particular analytes.
I'm sure some can. But there can be a big difference between objective intents by measurers and
validatable wine tasting data. The clever self-promoters (not you) convey an aura of objective certitude
without submitting themselves to the rigors of running the gauntlet of systematic scrutiny.

The good scientists also admit human fallibilities as well. A well-respected biochemist stated long ago,
with respect to peer review panels at NIH, something along the lines of (to paraphrase him):
the intent of these panels isn't to empanel absolutely objective scientists. Heaven help us !
The intent is to create a balance of viewpoints by consensus of informed opinions.

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge. Daniel Boorstin

I also have to chuckle at encountering the usual suspects attempting to place their assessments as above the fray
when a cursory surf around the web, or even this website, discloses a forked tongue or two.

In closing, The Scientist published a headline this week disclosing that a pharmaceutical firm
published a fake journal as a nonobvious way to promote their products. Caveat emptor....

Edited addition: The Red Wine District? http://winecamp.squarespace.com/journal ... trict.html

I am somewhat playing Devil's Advocate, especially when a definitive statement is issued without empirical data to back it up--that wine evaluations cannot be objective, ever.

Agreed on your point. Mine is to the effect that I would not want a critic's reports to be fully objective. But you do respond to that later on in your comments about wine judging versus wine criticism. Accepted there as well.

...That's what makes the subjective so much a pain in the ass.

Indeed, and thus so challenging.

Just yesterday a local winery owner complained to me about the level of expertise of some wine competition judges that are unable to smell a fault when it is right there staring them in the nose.

As might be said "oy, could I tell you horror stories about competitions and judges". I suspect you know many of those stories, and those are the reasons why I refuse in all cases to be a judge. Forgive the use of the vernacular, but I ain't gonna sit with some of them peoples!

Does this make any better sense to you as to what i am trying to say?

Indeed yes and I thank you for the clarification.

Alex brought up the 20 point Davis scale. The guy largely responsible for that scale, Maynard Amerine, wrote some wonderful stuff concerning the subject of wine analysis and evaluation. See if you can find it online. He was far more eloquent than I. Essentially, it isn't the scale he designed that matters; it's what that scale forces the evaluator to consider that matters.

Douze points! I know Amerine's work quite well. Agreed with your conclusion as well.

Very best
Rogov

Instead of trying to cut & paste various posts, (which by now you know I have no idea how to properly do ) these are my final thoughts on the topic I posted originally.

Wine tasting is both subjective and objective - depending who you are, the reason you are tasting/evaluating may change the percentages between the two.

In the RP/JM issue with dinners, trips, etc... I can see no possible way the taster will be able to taste without bias - and that is one of the components folks expect when making a buying decision on someone elses thoughts. Here is an example :
At work I may taste several wines during a day, sometimes in a flight, sometimes stand alone. It is my position that I will always taste blind when I am trying to "evaluate" a wine that is "close to me" - either mine or one of my winemaking pals - I have found that if I KNOW what I am tasting I cannot be "objective" with my thoughts. The reasons vary, from having expectations, liking the winemaker (if it's not me), knowing the history of the wine and trying to shove my own pre-concieved thoughts into an evaluation and make it make sense.

In the JM instance, and I can only use his Oregon tastings as an example. He calls for certain vintage, certain varietal - therefore he knows what he is tasting. How can he possibly taste non-blind, not be influenced by outside forces, not have "expectations" based on the label, winemaker or vineyard ? Its simply impossible. Along those same lines, if you are playing with your buddies and having grand times, there is no way you can fairly evaluate thier portfolio without bias - we are human, we have pre-concieved ideas of what to expect, we have memories and probably have the idea that we would like to spend more time with them in the future (so if we dis thier wine, do the fun times go away ?)

A good analogy is a physician - not a good idea for the nice Dr to treat his own family in a serious situation - why is that ? He/She can no longer be objective, as the family member is just too close.

Another one, in business / real estate - a close transaction is treading on very thin ice, where an arms length transaction seems to be more equitable for both parties - it takes away what could be construed as an "advantage" or "inside knowledge".

Now take the two examples above and apply them to the professional wine critic - I rest my case

Linda
PS - David B it still seems you dont like my words to Salil, posting that it still appeared that I "schooled" him. Maybe I did, so what is the big deal here, at his age, hell at my age I am happy when someone can help me along my path to enjoying fine wine !

That which is measurable is objective.

Thomas,

In the realm of analytical chemistry and the statistical validation of analytical methods,
scientists set an even higher stringency requirement. A measurement's "repeatability" is a critical
criterion in the validation of a technique to measure something. This is one place where a
consensus of scientists would probably focus their attention when considering the
proposition that a GROUP of wine tasters can or cannot be scientifically objective
when it comes to an overall evaluation of a given wine sample a some point in time.

OK, Mitch split the remaining hairs that I have... Good to see you around here.

If an evaluator claims a particular fault with a wine and then it is analyzed and confirmed, would you accept that as enough proof that there is a fault?

Before you answer, remember: we are not talking life threatening disease--only wine

Incidentally, many wine competitions have shifted from trying to tally an average or mean of individual scores to first scoring individually and then having the panel discuss and come to consensus. It's at the consensus point when those with analytical skills argue with those without skills. Sometimes, the arguments are even fun!!!

Alex brought up the 20 point Davis scale. The guy largely responsible for that scale, Maynard Amerine, wrote some wonderful stuff concerning the subject of wine analysis and evaluation. See if you can find it online. He was far more eloquent than I. Essentially, it isn't the scale he designed that matters; it's what that scale forces the evaluator to consider that matters.

Douze points! I know Amerine's work quite well. Agreed with your conclusion as well.

Very best
Rogov

Daniel, is that douze pointe or http://www.douzepoints.org/ ? As they say in all the hot restaurants: enjoy.

If an evaluator claims a particular fault with a wine and then it is analyzed and confirmed, would you accept that as enough proof that there is a fault?

Yes. I fully accept that pros can probably accurately estimate singular and perhaps even multiple constituents in a wine sample. Where I have problems is when people extrapolate from there to assume that one or a collection of trained pros (critics or judges) can generate repeatable wine scores when identical blinded samples are presented in a lineup. I might be wrong, but the Riesling shoot-out that you and John Zuccarino organized so well seemed to underscore how the ordering of samples alone! affected a group's individual scoring.

As the latest and greatest have admitted, there's little upside to submitting themselves to rigorous scrutiny under controlled conditions and a serious downside. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN says the great and powerful Wizard of OZ...

If an evaluator claims a particular fault with a wine and then it is analyzed and confirmed, would you accept that as enough proof that there is a fault?

Yes. I fully accept that pros can probably accurately estimate singular and perhaps even multiple constituents in a wine sample. Where I have problems is when people extrapolate from there to assume that one or a collection of trained pros (critics or judges) can generate repeatable wine scores when identical blinded samples are presented in a lineup. I might be wrong, but the Riesling shoot-out that you and John Zuccarino organized so well seemed to underscore how the ordering of samples alone! affected a group's individual scoring.

Yes, it's always good to check for consistency.

Wow! Almost half-way there! Another week or two, and maybe this will pass into oblivion!

Wow! Almost half-way there! Another week or two, and maybe this will pass into oblivion!

Doubtful Steve. This tempest has been building for years, sort of like torture, so its doubtful IMO that it will pass any time soon.

M Smith

All true, this has been brewing for a few years and now it has finally spilled over. I find it amusing that some critics are still not taking any allegations seriously.

As Linda says, when critics admit that there is bias in the reviews that they are doing, maybe this will slow down at page 20.

But even today, Parker recommended 2 wines and poked fun at the allegations.
http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=201012

I wonder if Parker has ever vacationed with Fran Kysela in the Rhone Valley? Perhaps taken a river boat cruise down the Mississippi River after a few days of tasting wines? Or decided to hop on a plane to Tampa and decided to do a weekend of wine guzzling at Bern's with Fran picking up the wine tab? or even if they split it would it be alright?

http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23660&p=204717&hilit=Telmo+posner#p204717

Dan, you've been doing a yeoman's lift on this subject but I am compelled to re-ask a question that John Zuccarino asked. Do you have a dog in this fight, re: Telmo Rodriguez? I respect your insights but am compelled to inquire simply for the record. In any event, keep up the muck-raking. Mitch

Mitch

I am a retailer. That is all. I have been ridiculed on numerous occasions by Mark Squires for promoting my business on his site for years. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have engaged many interesting people over there, which has only enhanced my resume for being unbiased. I am paying subscriber (online/print) of the Wine Advocate.

Robert Parker has a "code of ethics" that he has supposedly been following for years. Taking his code at face value, I am appalled that he would hire anyone and allow him to carry on the fashion that some of his "independent contractors" allegedly have.

Where I come from, people earn their stripes. I have worked very hard to get where I am. I expect the same of those around me, which includes wine critics that are supposedly living up to a code of ethics.

I did not write that code, presumably Parker did. If that code is complete bullsh**, as it appears to be, then he needs to address that.

If it is truthful, then heads need to roll.

Someone is lying. I hate liars. That is my angle in all of this.

Mitch

Telmo is one of quite a few examples of the Rioja Mafia ensuring that certain wineries have been completely ostracized once leaving the "inner circle."

Thomas,

I stick to my my "definitive statement" that winetasting cannot possibly be objective. It is a plain as the nose on your face!
(whose presence can be confirmed by all, as opposed to the quality of a glass of wine!).

The obvious proof of this is that the only objective aspect there is to tasting is laboratory analysis.
And how much does that tell us?
Not a lot!!!

The step I took towards you is to say that acidity, alcohol, sugar, etc. can indeed actually be measured and that there is therefore an objective side to tasting in that respect. But, even there, the impression of these components can be perceived in different ways as Dale rightly pointed out.

Put 10 people together. If winetasting were objective, they would all agree. But, hell, they will never agree exactly because wine tasting is NOT an exact science. Jeez, how can anyone say differently?
And even *experienced* tasters disagree...

I would not even say that the closer one comes to a theoretical objectivity the better. Once we've estatblished that a wine has no flaws (yes, we agree there too - this is important, but only the first tiny step in tasting) people's imagination takes over, and their own private frame of reference and weak, hopelessly weak vocabulary or - even more inadequate: numbers...
There *is* a codified language to tasting. And people use this shorthand to express complex ideas in the hope of conveying an impression. But saying this is objective is as absurd as trying to describe the smell of Chanel no. 5 or the taste of an orange. This is impossible, as is the notion of "objective wine tasting."

On a more - dare I say - subjective level, I find winemakers and enologists often make terrible tasters, thinking in terms of processes and those rare objective elements you like so much, and totally missing the point. I'm not saying ALL winemakers by any means! But the technical guys are frequently tongue-tied when it comes to the aesthetic side of wine tasting - the only side that interests me.

The subjective nature of wine tasting is what delights me! It defies definition (rather, "objective" definition) and is at the same time sensual and intellectually stimulating.
Heck, I wouldn't want winetasting to be objective even if such a thing were possible! I'll go one step further: wine appreciation is akin to appreciating art. And, as we all know, objectivity is not possible there either...

If I read a well-written tasting note on this forum, I can put myself in the shoes of someone thousands of miles away and imagine what it was like to be there with the taster. This proves that we are fortunately not totally powerless when describing our impressions. But from there to claim objectivity, no way José! By the same token, someone who sees a movie, attends a concert, or visits an art exhibition can share his impressions in such a way as to help us anticipate what to expect if we go their ourselves. But we need to form our own opinion because such things cannot be measured objectively, as with wine.

We also part company on the subject of training. Training is beside the point. You can train yourself. The world's most famous wine critic received no training as such!

I figure that these issues are of a philosophical nature. Perhaps (I don't know) in your ideal world, you feel you can pin down tastes exactly and even assign numbers to them. In what I take to be the real world, this is neither possible nor desirable. Any more than I would "rate" my CDs of Bach, Mozart... or the Rolling Stones.

Best regards,
Alex R.

FWIW, While surfing this morning, I came across this 2005 post by J. D. Lasica on the The cost of ethics: Influence peddling in the blogosphere:
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050217lasica/

Most observers agree on one point: Bloggers and traditional journalists don’t play by the same rulebook. Consider the unsparing standards set out in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Code, which instructs journalists to:

* Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
* Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
* Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
* Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
* Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money …

While they may not have a rulebook, bloggers have evolved a loose-knit set of general tenets. These principles seem to be widely held:

* Disclose, disclose, disclose. Transparency – of actions, motives and financial considerations – is the golden rule of the blogosphere.
* Follow your passions. Blog about topics you care deeply about.
* Be honest. Write what you believe.
* Trust your readers to form their own judgments and conclusions.
* Reputation is the principal currency of cyberspace. Maintain your independence and integrity – lost trust is difficult to regain.

Wine writers weigh in on ethics
http://www.redwinebuzz.com/winesooth/20 ... on-ethics/

Mitch

What did the code say about Independent Contractors of the Wine Advocate?

Surely they are exceptions to such silly rules like following the ethical standards set by journalists!

Dan,

Perhaps you are referring to special dispensations from the Pope?

Michael Dietrich: My main way of assessing the wines is to taste without knowing what the prices are. For me then, I first figure out how much I like the wine and then ask what do I think the price should be relative to other wines.

This sounds like one of the most useful approaches for consumers to assess for themselves a wine's inherent value.
One doesn't have to worry about the relative reliability or consistency of another person's measurements.

But even today, Parker recommended 2 wines and poked fun at the allegations.
http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=201012

I never look at eBob except for the occasional link posted here. Though I respect RP and think he has been, for the most part, unfairly maligned because so many sheep rely on his palate (or point scores) rather than developing their own taste, I find the sycophantic fawning that seems to greet his every utterance on eBob really offputting.

So Alex let me get this straight, you’re more concerned with the “science” of taste and not so much concerned with the “science” of the wine itself. But isn’t the “science” of the wine itself going to influence the “science” of taste? IMHO the taste of wine is due to the chemistry or “science” of the wine. The chemical components present in the wine are going to give the wine its taste. Now how one interprets this is another matter.

Salute

Thomas,

I stick to my my "definitive statement" that winetasting cannot possibly be objective. It is a plain as the nose on your face!
(whose presence can be confirmed by all, as opposed to the quality of a glass of wine!).

Perhaps, but forgive me if I ask that you provide more evidence than the nose on my face.

The obvious proof of this is that the only objective aspect there is to tasting is laboratory analysis.
And how much does that tell us?
Not a lot!!!
Alex R.

It tells us how good the taster may or may not be in identifying those things that make or break a wine. To me, that's a lot.

Seems to me that the attitude you take is similar to the attitude of critics who refuse to subject their talents of observation to a test. When all that stands behind a taster's proclamations and opinions is the taster's sense of self, I'll take the lab analysis any day!

Hi,

In my book (obviously not the only one out there!), science decidely plays a back seat in the sensory analysis of fine wines.
In the wine industry, such experience is precious. But not when we are talking about evaluating wine, the finished product.

I have no scientific training whatsoever and, if the truth be known, am the archetypical "non-math, non-scientific person".
And yet, I am a decent taster.

How many of the most respected wine critics have a background in enology, chemistry, or related fields?
Does this detract from their professionalism?
I agree that this can be helpful, but it is not the most important aspect by any means of addressing a wine's qualities.

If a trained enologist analyzes a wine as he has been taught can I as a consumer relate to that, will it help me?
I think it would be of only limited assistance. The higher up the quality scale, the less so.

How many back labels have I seen with a host of technical information, but far too little information about how the (expletive deleted) wine actually *tastes*?

Do Michelin critics need to know how to cook like the famous chefs?
If they did, might they not get too hung up on technique, and lose sight of the big picture?
Does one need to have studied the kama sutra to be a good lover?
Would knowing it inside-out trump performance by someone who has passion and determination on his side?
I think not.

Certainly, I do not consider wine tasting "a science" for the reasons described above. Let's call it "a discipline".

When you see someone "nail" a wine totally blind, it shows that there is not just hocus-pocus to tasting.
But even such a feat sidesteps the issue of evaluating quality!

The French system, for instances, stresses origin and winegrowing/winemaking techniques as the criteria for obtaining an appellation contrôlée.
Quality is much less important (as proved by the enormous percentage of wines approved for AOC status at obligatory blind tastings, and the hordes of boring or even poor wines out there on supermarket shelves).

The chemistry of wine is enormously complex, and relating it to our taste sensations is almost beside the point with regard to wine, the product.
A good taster need to, yes, pick up residual sugar, oak, TCA, volatie acidity, etc. - in short, the basics. This sort of technical framework is obviously useful.
It it the necessary first step, but quickly pales in comparison to the other aspects of winetasting, mostly of an unscientific nature.

All the best,
Alex R.

Thomas,

You wrote:

>>>Seems to me that the attitude you take is similar to the attitude of critics who refuse to subject their talents of observation to a test. When all that stands behind a taster's proclamations and opinions is the taster's sense of self, I'll take the lab analysis any day!

Quality with regard to wine can only to a very superficial degree be related to lab analyses IMHO.

And what other than "the taster's sense of self" could possibly stand behind a taster? He speaks of his experience and frame of reference. Period. He can't speak for me, or you, or a Professor of Enology, or anyone else. Because, as we've already said, we are in the realm of the subjective .

Like a book or a film, most of us may find a wine "good" or "bad". But the devil is in the details, and there is no way of pinning those down universally.

A Robert Parker is a self-made man. He tastes all the time, has a good memory, and is very methodical.
Do you think he, the world's foremost wine taster, would claim his notes were "objective"? It seems to me he has said just the opposite on many occasions.
He publishes his *opinions". You have only to read some of his descriptors ("gobs of fruit", etc.) to see that we are very far removed from anything pretending to be scientific.

For every part of science and objectivity in winetasting (as, let's say, most people on this board undersand it) there are ten parts *opinion* - up to and including the most respected critics.

I agree that someone at a winery needs to see things differently, and this is probably a good thing. Tasting for quality control, tasting to know how to make the wine, respond to needs that are far different from those of the marketplace.

All the best,
Alex