Excellent NY Times article on "vintage tyranny"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/dinin ... ref=dining

I think this article makes a *great* point.

So many people get hung up about "the best", that they completely lose perspective.

It's not *just* about value for money (although the price differential between 2005 and other good recent vintages in Bordeaux is also nothing short of indecent)
Some of the "less than stellar vintages" are neverthleless pretty damned good!
*Furthermore* these vintages are frequently more enjoyable to drink young!

I, too, have some great wines from great vintages in my cellar. But I admit that I cannot understand people who have *only* such wines and still less ones who disdain vintages without the winning lottery number...
Once again, this is not a fox-and-the-grapes gripe.
The same applies to food! I love eating in fancy restaurants, but wouldn't, quite honestly, want to all the time!

Here's hoping that people will investigate things for themselves, and not meekly accept the dictates of a handful of "experts"...

A votre santé,
Alex R.

Robin,

By the way, I should know this, but I can't remember what your policy is on posting links.
Hope I haven't transgressed it...

All the best,
Alex

[Robin Garr]

By the way, I should know this, but I can't remember what your policy is on posting links.
Hope I haven't transgressed it...

Not to worry, Alex ... I'm not sure what a policy on posting links might entail (other than the obvious, spam, which is already governed by the rule that reads "Don't spam.")

Your link was fine, but just out of curiosity, what led you to wonder whether it might not be?

Robin,

I think things are much more freewheeling in the US than here with regard to copyright and intellectual property.

As a journalist, I'm sure you can appreciate that some authors are very wary of free dissemination of what they write.
In fact, isn't that part of the reason for the scriptwriters' strike in Hollywood (which I believe has just ended)?

All the best,
Alex

[Robin Garr]

I think things are much more freewheeling in the US than here with regard to copyright and intellectual property.

As a journalist, I'm sure you can appreciate that some authors are very wary of free dissemination of what they write.
In fact, isn't that part of the reason for the scriptwriters' strike in Hollywood (which I believe has just ended)?

Alex, whoa! You're now talking about posting CONTENT. I'm absolutely opposed to pasting in the entire content of someone else's work here.

But that has nothing to do with LINKS, which merely direct readers to the site where the original content resides. This is not a copyright issue in ANY jurisdiction. (Remember, too, that the basis of copyright law, the Berne Convention, is international, not American.)

You seem to be confusing two utterly different matters. It is always permissible to link to any site on the 'net, and no prior permission is required. (Although obviously some self-editing is wise - we don't want to link people out to illegal sites, sites that distribute malware, hard-core pornography or Wine Spec^H^H^H^H^H er, never mind!) But in the context here present, linking to original material is never against this forum's policy, nor does it have any bearing on copyright.

Robin,

Fine, although I find it hard to see the distinction between copying and pasting someone's article and having them click once to read it somewhere else!

However, as minor as this distiction may be, I'm fully prepared to believe that it makes a world of difference to lawyers!

All the best,
Alex

[Robin Garr]

Fine, although I find it hard to see the distinction between copying and pasting someone's article and having them click once to read it somewhere else!

Alex, the difference is substantial: It's the difference between showing someone where to find a book in the library, and making a copy for him to read. Trust me. There is NO legal issue here. Authors and publishers LIKE to be linked. It brings traffic to their site and exposes readers to their original work. I'll say no more, let's return this thread to its excellent original purpose.

Alex,
As to copyright/link issues, it's pretty simple- you are pointing to a public link they have provided. In this case, Asimov and the NYT have put this in their public forum, hoping people will read. Putting in a link increases the number of people who read their site, presumably increasing the value in eyes of advertisers. If however someone posted the content here, then it is using (stealing) their intellectual property without them having the possible benefits.*

I enjoyed the article, certainly it reflects my views for the most part about vintages. 2000 Burgs are among my favorite choices for drinking now, especially in restaurants. '99 Bdx probably is my fave current restaurant vintage. I always find it amusing watching folks with vintage charts picking "the best" wines - often picking wines that I guess are shut down or at least too young (the infanticide of '97 Brunelli in this area about 2003 was especially gruesome, while the lighter but tasty '96s were ignored). That doesn't mean I don't love great vintages. But due to price differences, I tend to buy du Tertre, Cantemerle, Gloria, etc in the "great' vintages, and my LLC purchases tend to be "off" vintages. Similarly I bought more GC Burgs in '00 and '04 than in '02 or '05, while in the latter pair I concentrated on non-trophy wines such as Jadot Beaune 1ers, good Savignys, etc.


* as an aside, someone recently pointed out the slimiest theft of content I've ever encountered. A website purporting to be a drinks forum has a forum, alright. But the vast majority of the wine posts are stolen from the Usenet group alt.food.wine, with no attribution. Old posts (well, entire threads) are posted with the posters' names changed to "user names" apparently supplied by this site (so there are posts by "KrispyKritters", "Laidback420", and "Azn_Girl", complete with my signature). I guess we could spend a lot of time complaining to the ISP, but as site registrant is "Micky M" it doesn't seem this is a ISP trying to root out illicit activity)>

Getting back to the subject I was thinking about vintages. I pay absolutely no attention to RP or WS ratings but after reading many sources and trying some wines I admit that vintages make a difference to me. More than not it is a style issue, not a hype issue. As an example I skipped '03 almost everywhere because of the ripeness and lack of structure. I did buy several $15-20 Chablis and a couple Chiantis for early drinking as they held up to the ripeness. I also bought very few '00 Bordeaux but then purchased quite a few '01 which was more to my liking and more classic, IMO. I have enjoyed all '05 Burgs I have tasted but found almost nothing in '04 that I liked (red) and purchased none to cellar. Good wines can be made in any year but I have to admit to paying attention to vintages, particularly if the wine is going to be cellared.
Walt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/dining/13pour.html?ref=dining

I think this article makes a *great* point.

So many people get hung up about "the best", that they completely lose perspective.

Alex,
I am in complete agreement. Kermit Lynch has long railed against "vintage chart mentality" which I view as his shorthand for the intellectual laziness of judging wines by their label rather than by their contents. I do find some vintage generalizations useful, though. For instance, I have steered clear of most '03 whites (and all but a few '03 reds) in Europe because of low acidity and overripe flavors. Likewise, I also steered clear of most '02s from the S. Rhone because of the flooding problems. However, I am increasingly finding myself drawn to the "lesser" years in most regions (i.e., '04 vs. '05 in Bdx; '00 vs. '99 in Burgundy) as they often produce wines of greater character to me, in addition to the financial and temporal advantages that you and Asimov cite. The old adage that great winemakers make great wine in poor years is as true today as it ever was.

Mark Lipton

p.s. What a shocking story, Dale!

I admit that vintages make a difference to me.// Good wines can be made in any year but I have to admit to paying attention to vintages, particularly if the wine is going to be cellared.

Walt,
I don't think anyone would argue that one shouldn't pay attention to vintages or that vintages don't make a difference. I'd just say:
1) often "lesser" vintages drink better at an early stage
2) often the quality difference is less than the premium for the "better" vintage
3) it's not wise to ignore a vintage completely, as there are always producers who find a way to make great wine in difficult vintages (read Florida Jim's post on the '96 Hirtzberger Singerriedel).

And of course vintage characteristics make a difference. I own 2 bottles of 2003 Burgundy, and no more 1997. Just not my style, I'm happy if Rovani and company enjoy them.

For instance, I have steered clear of most '03 whites (and all but a few '03 reds) in Europe because of low acidity and overripe flavors.

I generally agree (as I just posted), but even there one can find exceptions. Some areas with marginal ripening probably flourished in 2003. I don't cellar '03 Burgs, but I had some tasty Hautes Cotes du Nuits, Givrys, Maranges, etc. I also thought Loire reds were mostly pretty good, and some German Rieslings surprised me.

And of course vintage characteristics make a difference. I own 2 bottles of 2003 Burgundy, and no more 1997. Just not my style, I'm happy if Rovani and company enjoy them.

Hi Dale,
what is it you don't like about -97 burgundy? As I'm having very little experience with this vintage a new perspective is always welcome.

what is it you don't like about -97 burgundy? As I'm having very little experience with this vintage a new perspective is always welcome.

I don't actively dislike '97 Burgundies, there have been quite a few that I enjoyed. But it was a riper and less structured vintage, and on the level I buy (primarily village and 1er wines from good but not superstar winemakers) most have matured for my taste. So the ones I bought, I drank (if you are buying Roumier or Mugnier Musigny, those have lots of life left, but that's beyond my budget).

It has been a vintage I've ordered in restaurants, as they were mostly readier than '96s, '98s, '99s. Most were good riper Pinots, but there were some that went into overripeness (for my tastes). The vintage has a lot of champions (notably Pierre Rovani formerly of the Wine Advocate), but at this point I'm not looking to buy any. Others here might disagree (notably Max, who has more experience than I, especially with top wines).

I don't actively dislike '97 Burgundies, there have been quite a few that I enjoyed. But it was a riper and less structured vintage, and on the level I buy (primarily village and 1er wines from good but not superstar winemakers) most have matured for my taste. So the ones I bought, I drank (if you are buying Roumier or Mugnier Musigny, those have lots of life left, but that's beyond my budget).

It has been a vintage I've ordered in restaurants, as they were mostly readier than '96s, '98s, '99s. Most were good riper Pinots, but there were some that went into overripeness (for my tastes). The vintage has a lot of champions (notably Pierre Rovani formerly of the Wine Advocate), but at this point I'm not looking to buy any. Others here might disagree (notably Max, who has more experience than I, especially with top wines).

Thank you Dale,
no Roumier or likewise but Perrot-Minot Mazoyères-Chambertin and Hudelot-Noellat Romanée St. Vivant that I'm going to drink soon.

So many people get hung up about "the best", that they completely lose perspective. ...

Good topic.

Informed discussion in November on the Squires wine forum spotlighted the wildly nonuniform prices rises for 05 Burgundies (a celebrated case in point), which I experienced first-hand because I blind-taste a good number of newly available Burgs regularly, and sometimes buy. As one contributor put it succinctly, prices shot up sharply for high-profile producers, for wines rated highly by credible critics specializing in that region (Burghound), and for "newly anointed trophy producers;" they rose somewhat for certain subregions; but elsewhere they were not up much (beyond relative currency values). I found impressive products in the $20-$40 range retail, typically village or unclassified lieus-dits, especially around the Côte de Beaune.

It looks in other words like the timeless phenomenon of fad buying. (No doubt enhanced by some people hoping to speculate and flip the wines back to market at higher prices later.) Such attentions always focus on wines everyone talks about, and an implicit message is that to get much more for your money, look elsewhere. Which still embraces some very good Burgundies, in 2005.

(That is of course, if you are buying the wines to drink, rather than speculate.) All the more incentive to develop your palate so you can assess wines directly, rather than via the proxy of widely-read critics.

"Rich but not so experienced wine drinkers, buying by name, often go for wines like Cheval-Blanc '21, '34 and '47, and this inevitably increases demand, in the same way as an international prima donna attracts to Covent Garden Opera the not-so-musical as well as the regulars." -- Edmund Penning-Rowsell, 1985. (The Wines of Bordeaux, 5th Ed. 1985, ISBN 0932664512, Edition published by the wine Appreciation Guild, San Francisco.)

Robin,

By the way, I should know this, but I can't remember what your policy is on posting links.
Hope I haven't transgressed it...

All the best,
Alex

Alex, the "New York Times" specifically permits posting links to its articles:


CUSTOMER SERVICE

May I create a link to your homepage, section, or specific article?
Links may be created to The New York Times on the Web homepage, any area or articles that you can locate in a search of our Web site. If the article does not come up in a search of our site, the article is no longer available for linking.

Bob

The same applies to food! I love eating in fancy restaurants, but wouldn't, quite honestly, want to all the time!

Alex, you bring up a very good point: why would you prefer the same style of anything every time? You wouldn’t always bring a murder mystery video home unless you were unimaginative.

The article also again brought up the brain scan studies that show that perception of the wine consumed is highly influenced by the label - in this case, the “label” of coming from a great vintage. Again it is important to understand that wine is an experience of perception, not of sensation, which would be identical for physically identical liquid samples regardless of what label the liquid had. The wine experience is thus perception and not a matter of taste, in the strict sense.

It would be interesting to look at how the “label” of intellectual knowledge about a vintage, such as 2004 Bordeaux, might influence the so called “pleasure center” region of brain. If unblinded Leoville Bartons from 2004 and 2005 were taste compared, the brain activity of a Parker sycophant might show a much greater variation than the brain activity of someone who had studied the respective styles with appreciation for the respective efforts of the wine maker vis-à-vis the conditions of the respective seasons.

Re your food analogy, I once went to the top rated Vietnamese restaurant in Manhattan, according to Zagat or some other rating bible. While waiting for my order, the owner sat down at a table and quickly consumed a hamburger (no bun), dollop of catsup, and ball of white rice – with a fork. I could not enjoy my food after that. All I could think of was how much on that day I would have preferred the hamburger.

Great article and thanks for posting the link. It made me want to use this forum to organize a worldwide boycott of the most highly rated vintages to force the producers to lower their prices.

Great article and thanks for posting the link. It made me want to use this forum to organize a worldwide boycott of the most highly rated vintages to force the producers to lower their prices.

Although I know that you probably meant that tongue-in-cheek, I'll just chip in to point out that secondary boycotts are notoriously difficult to pull off and usually just end up hurting retailers with no control over the situation. In particular, a successful boycott needs buy-in from a majority of consumers, else there isn't enough pressure on sales, but readers of this forum (or the Wine Internet in general) constitute a smallish fraction of the total consumers of wine. As an example, I'll point out that I've been boycotting Gallo's wines for 30-odd years now to protest their absymal labor practices. Just see how much effect that's had...

Mark Lipton

I'll just chip in to point out that secondary boycotts are notoriously difficult to pull off and usually just end up hurting retailers with no control over the situation.

Going way off-topic, my personal favorite in "doomed to fail" boycotts is the stupid email that circulates every time gas prices jump, "Don't Buy Gas This Wednesday! Show the Power of the Consumer!" I find it shocking that supposedly intelligent people can't think that one through.

Yes, Mark, it was tongue-in-cheek, but its still a dream I have.