Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34349
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Covert wrote:I agree with Dale that I bring up a tired and weary argument, going on as long as the difference between yin and yang has been recognized. I think it is interesting (as opposed to saying “it is interesting”) that some of us see insufferable arrogance in Suckling’s words, while others see none at all. Kind of like an evaluation of a wine, don’t you think? I think this could make my point to the first group and to the second, wouldn’t mean a thing.
Craig Pinhey
Wine geek
89
Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:19 pm
Rothesay, New Brunswick, Canada
Dale Williams wrote: However, I'm sure if you did an interview with most of us here it would be easy to edit to 60 seconds that made us appear an ass.
Dale Williams wrote:Mondovino is another thing. He did seem like an ass. However, I'm sure if you did an interview with most of us here it would be easy to edit to 60 seconds that made us appear an ass.
Paul Winalski
Wok Wielder
8016
Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm
Merrimack, New Hampshire
David M. Bueker wrote:But, you guys are missing something very crucial, and that is the huge number of people who don't understand "a nuanced wine with alluring black cherry and earth tones, accented by sweet vanilla oak and silky tannins." You think points are useless??? Try being the average consumer/Spec reader/shelf talker reader for a second. On sites like this one we are discussing the astrophysics of wine appreciation, while most folks just want directions to the Cabernet section.
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34349
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Paul Winalski wrote:Robert Parker, the King of the Points Ratings, has always maintained that the prose description of his reviews is more important than the raw points score. And I've always found it more instructive.
But the reliance on points by the critic lemmings seems to be unstoppable. Until those who are really serious about wine eventually learn and grow beyond it.
Stuart Yaniger's Stooges point system still is #1 in my book regarding honesty, precision, and accuracy.
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34349
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
AlexR wrote:If one of the gurus thinks the 2000 is better (if only a smidgen so) than 2005s, can someone explain why the latter are selling at higher prices, when they are 8 years younger and the dollar is so much weaker?
David,
Points are shortcuts for people who don't have time or knowledge.
There is obviously a need for such a shortcut, but the thing has sadly gotten way out of control, which is why so many wine lovers, including myself, rise up against the tyranny of points, the shallowness and fake objectivity they imply.
Attributing points is a rational potshot at something that is not rational.
In that, it is either laughable or pathetic, depending....
Best regards,
Alex R.
David M. Bueker wrote:Paul Winalski wrote:Robert Parker, the King of the Points Ratings, has always maintained that the prose description of his reviews is more important than the raw points score. And I've always found it more instructive.
But the reliance on points by the critic lemmings seems to be unstoppable. Until those who are really serious about wine eventually learn and grow beyond it.
Stuart Yaniger's Stooges point system still is #1 in my book regarding honesty, precision, and accuracy.
I've thought about rating wines on a Lord of the Rings scale, but defining a wine as a Frodo/Galadriel/Boromir sounds kinky. bad ratings would be easy though. A Gollum is bad. A Sauron is truly evil and unstoppable (e.g. Mollydooker).
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34349
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Peter M Czyryca wrote:I'm sticking with that, from now on - I'll refer to MD wines as "Sauron's Carnival of Love" and "Sauron's The Boxer."
Paul Winalski
Wok Wielder
8016
Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm
Merrimack, New Hampshire
David M. Bueker wrote:I like the Stooge system as well, except I don't care for the Stooges. I've thought about rating wines on a Lord of the Rings scale, but defining a wine as a Frodo/Galadriel/Boromir sounds kinky. bad ratings would be easy though. A Gollum is bad. A Sauron is truly evil and unstoppable (e.g. Mollydooker).
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34349
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Ian Sutton
Spanna in the works
2558
Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:10 pm
Norwich, UK
David M. Bueker wrote:Lemmings? You mean there are lemmings? Actually with the sheer volume of lemmings (in all areas of life) it's a wonder we dont run out of cliffs.
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34349
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
AlexR wrote:David,
It would be ballsy to reject points because it would show:
- knowledge of the trade
- initiative
- independence
I realize it is so much easier to do it the other way however.
I would just question how professional it is.
AlexR wrote:I went and looked up the meaning of "tyranny" to refresh my mind.
The first meaning in the Merriam-Webster is "oppressive power".
I think that would describe the situation to a great extent.
If you get wine people together in Bordeaux, most will agree that the upper echelon wines are made to a recipe to attract certain critics.
Thus, the wine is denatured, the flashy, oaky, over-extracted wine endured.
AlexR wrote:David,
Sure they are in it to make money, but this is hardly a virtue!
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34349
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
AlexR wrote:David,
Sure they are in it to make money, but this is hardly a virtue!
The easy way out is to sell products that are already "pre-sold" by guru-points.
This is the B-movie, mass culture way of selling wine.
Yes, it works.
But works for whom?
Arguably, not for the consumer.
I may be over-simplifying or misconstruing your argument, but you seem to be saying "If it sells, its good. People want it, they buy it, they come back for more.
End of story".
However, there are all sorts of things that sell well that are not exactly commendable
(Hostess Twkinkies anyone?=
OK, let's nuance things a little. Point buying might be a good introduction to the jungle of wine appreciation.
But, surely, the more one knows about wine, the less attention one pays to such nonsense - no?
Best regards,
Alex R.
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
11140
Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:32 pm
Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)
David M. Bueker wrote:2. That the person buying the wine has the opportunity to taste widely before buying. While I get to do that with German Riesling (and I suspect you do with Bordeaux, at least before buying in quantity), I certainly don't get to do that with Red Burgundy, and so must rely on a critic I trust (namely David Schildknecht) to point me in the right direction. It's not at all an ideal situation, but it's the real situation. Certainly there are some wines I now know well enough to buy blind (e.g. Jadot's Beaune Clos des Ursules), but I'm not throwing down $100 for a bottle of Premier Cru Burg I know nothing about unless I have some solid info from someone I trust.
I should point out that the important thing about David Schildknecht's reviews for me(even more than his fantastic writing) is that I have tasted with David on several occasions and know his palate well enough that I can safely buy what he recommends. Other people who know and love wine have "calibrated" their palates to Parker (even the recent Parker who is nothing like the original incarnation), and can do the same.
Dale Williams
Compassionate Connoisseur
11140
Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:32 pm
Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)
David M. Bueker wrote:Covert wrote:I agree with Dale that I bring up a tired and weary argument, going on as long as the difference between yin and yang has been recognized. I think it is interesting (as opposed to saying “it is interesting”) that some of us see insufferable arrogance in Suckling’s words, while others see none at all. Kind of like an evaluation of a wine, don’t you think? I think this could make my point to the first group and to the second, wouldn’t mean a thing.
You miss the group who can understand both sides of the discussion, and really don't see that there's all that much to care about.
As for the rest of your response, I would love to know what the heck you are talking about, but as usual you lost me after the carriage return. You said you were going to respond, but really didn't.
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34349
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Covert wrote:Didn't want to waste anybody's time talking about middle grounders.
That was my response. I liked it.
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests