Judgment of Paris

A couple of weeks ago I picked up George Taber’s recent book about the ballyhooed event for something to read on a long flight. I had put off reading it for the same reason that many Frenchmen discounted it as fabled.

I am now convinced that California cab-based reds and chard-based whites for the most part taste better than comparable French wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy, especially when aged, as New World preference was even stronger in reenactments of the same event with the same vintage wines.

Still, wine connoisseurs consistently pay much more money for aged Bordeaux than they do for aged California wines. This apparent incongruity is no problem to fathom when you consider that wine appreciation is only partly a function of taste.

Apart from the cause célèbre, the book is full of wonderful history of Napa Valley and sociology of America’s sensual turning point concomitant with the Revolution: the one in ‘60s California.

All I'm going to say is that vintage is everything.


Prost!
Bill

I agree on the book, Covert. The details of the tasting were fascinating, and the history of what happened afterwards almost as interesting -- certainly a fresh perspective for me. Thanks for reminding me of a very interesting read.

My in-laws gave me the book at Christmas, but I haven't had time to read it yet. I'm spending some time in the mountains this weekend - Covert, you've convinced me what to take for reading material.

Sounds like a neat book. I'm not sure I'm convinced though. I honestly think "better" is not the right word-"different" is. California certainly has riper fruit, but those strange and fascinating secondary flavors in Bordeaux. Of course, older, less alcoholic California wines can have good secondary flavors, too....so....

[Jenise]

I am now convinced that California cab-based reds and chard-based whites for the most part taste better than comparable French wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy

You fishin' for trouble? I can't believe you said that and mean that. I believe it's generally true that they have more primary fruit forwardness, but that's not equal to tasting better. All that, to my mind, is at work here is the same principal by which I do not take my subtlest, most nuanced wines to offlines.

A couple of weeks ago I picked up George Taber’s recent book about the ballyhooed event for something to read on a long flight. I had put off reading it for the same reason that many Frenchmen discounted it as fabled.

I am now convinced that California cab-based reds and chard-based whites for the most part taste better than comparable French wines from Bordeaux and Burgundy, especially when aged, as New World preference was even stronger in reenactments of the same event with the same vintage wines.

Still, wine connoisseurs consistently pay much more money for aged Bordeaux than they do for aged California wines. This apparent incongruity is no problem to fathom when you consider that wine appreciation is only partly a function of taste.

Apart from the cause célèbre, the book is full of wonderful history of Napa Valley and sociology of America’s sensual turning point concomitant with the Revolution: the one in ‘60s California.

"Taste better?" Is there anything more subjective than a statement like that, Covert? I completely disagree with your comparison, so what does that mean? I'm right, your wrong, or the other way around?

Surely, you must know that a conversation can't even begin when someone states a taste preference as an absolute.

Methinks Covert is just being provocative.

I have not read the book, but I've participated in a tasting or two over the last 30 years.

And what I think is that tasting competitions, by their very nature, favor California wines. Why? Because a big California cab hits you with everything at once: It takes only the first nosing and tasting to find out everything about it.

What most tastings leave out is the dimension of time, and it is time that makes a fine Bordeaux or Burgundy worthwhile: It doesn't yield up all its secrets at once. There is an expectation that you will keep coming back to it, and that each time you do, the wine will have more to give.

As far as which style is "better," well, that's up to you and your palate, obviously, but also has something to do with context: I find big showy California wines can be fine as apéritif wines, but I don't care for them at the table--they are so busy showing themselves off, they don't seem to cooperate well with food.

But that's just me. Your results may differ.

Methinks Covert is just being provocative.

I have not read the book, but I've participated in a tasting or two over the last 30 years.

And what I think is that tasting competitions, by their very nature, favor California wines. Why? Because a big California cab hits you with everything at once: It takes only the first nosing and tasting to find out everything about it.

What most tastings leave out is the dimension of time, and it is time that makes a fine Bordeaux or Burgundy worthwhile: It doesn't yield up all its secrets at once. There is an expectation that you will keep coming back to it, and that each time you do, the wine will have more to give.

As far as which style is "better," well, that's up to you and your palate, obviously, but also has something to do with context: I find big showy California wines can be fine as apéritif wines, but I don't care for them at the table--they are so busy showing themselves off, they don't seem to cooperate well with food.

But that's just me. Your results may differ.

Nicely said Dave.


Prost!
Bill

As far as which style is "better," well, that's up to you and your palate, obviously, but also has something to do with context: I find big showy California wines can be fine as apéritif wines, but I don't care for them at the table--they are so busy showing themselves off, they don't seem to cooperate well with food.

But that's just me. Your results may differ.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. For me, food friendly wines rule.

The original "Judgement of Paris" and its recent updating by Le Grand Jury Européen have been the subject of jubilant headlines of Anglo-Saxon superiority in the francophobic press in Britain (and probably in the USA too).

More reasoned (but less mediatic) examination of the results (by, from memory, Jancis Robinson and Steven Spurrier in the Financial Times and Decanter respectively) highlights the fact that the comparison of more recent vintages in the Grand Jury tastings gives the advantage to Bordeaux.

There is no doubt, however, that the original Judgement of Paris did demonstrate that top Napa was in the same league as top Bordeaux and the re-run confirms this by demonstrating the (unexpected to some) capacity of the same wines to age gracefully.

Other points made by these writers were -

- the 70s probably represented the pinnacle of Bordeaux complacency and the nadir of Bordeaux quality in the 20th century (even 1970 itself does not seem to have lived up to its promise)

- many Californian wines from recent vintages have had a much bigger injection of steroids than their Bordeaux counterparts in the form of super-ripe fruit leading to high alcohol aggravated by high extraction; this lead to doubts about their balance and ageing ability compared with those in the Judgement of Paris.

Clearly at the upper end (top 20-25 wines) there is parity, with something to recommend both CA & Bdx, but IMO the big difference is the depth in Bdx, and all over France for that matter. There are 400-750 different chateaux producing credible wines in Bdx alone, and most at prices below $30, particularly when you shop around, buy futures, look for close-outs, explore lesser know AOC's, etc. For my money I much prefer the lower alcohol, food friendly wines of Europe and particularly France.

"Taste better?" Is there anything more subjective than a statement like that, Covert? I completely disagree with your comparison, so what does that mean? I'm right, your wrong, or the other way around?

Surely, you must know that a conversation can't even begin when someone states a taste preference as an absolute.

I don't know, Thomas. I think one can make a case for agreement being one of the few measures of reality.

This weekend, I asked a colleague (who visited our mountain camp with his wife) to bring a bottle of a good California cab for my wife and I to try, since he drinks Cal cab. He brought a Napa Valley 2002 Fisher Vineyards Coach Insignia, which he had drunk before and considered to be a fine red. For comparative purposes, I opened a 1998 La Chapelle de La Mission Haut Brion, which cost about half as much as the Calif cab. We served them to the four of us blind.

It was immediately obvious to my wife and me which was which. The cab tasted plumby, jammy and sweet, while the Graves was complex, refined and wonderful; and seemed to have a much better balance with regard to fruit and acid. We didn't like the cab at all.

My colleague thought both wines were very nice and complex. He said he liked them both equally. His wife didn't like the Bordeaux at all, which she described as barnyardy and smelling like a copy machine at the same time. She loved the Cal cab.

From the few Cal cabs I have tasted, I can't imagine anyone mistaking one for a Bordeaux. So, I will keep experimenting. I may have to flip for a lot of money to buy a Stags Leap, if I can find one, just so I can see whether I could ever mistake it for a Bordeaux. I'll do it blind again.

After my colleague declared the cab to be as complex as the Bordeaux, I had to question whether my wife and I may have the same palate defect whereby we can't appreciate the complexity of a Cal cab, while possibly others can. Good thing we never had children.

My colleague also brought a 2002 Clio Jumilla, from Spain, composed of Monastrell and cab. It was so hot I could feel the heat on my lips long before the glass reached my mouth. I said This is hot! and looked at the bottle. 15.6% alcohol! I had to wonder whether this could actually be achieved on the vine, or do they add sugar? Incredible.

[Jenise]

After my colleague declared the cab to be as complex as the Bordeaux, I had to question whether my wife and I may have the same palate defect whereby we can't appreciate the complexity of a Cal cab, while possibly others can.

Most people I know who appreciate both styles love Bordeauxs for their earthiness and restraint and New World cabs for the sweet fruit and power. Moreover, what creates complexity for you and what constitutes that for your guest are likely somewhat different if he has a sweet tooth and you don't. As someone who didn't get the sugar gene myself, I'm keenly aware of the difference that makes in a lot of people's palates and I taste around other people often. You're no more defective than I am, you're just more stubbornly committed to one style of wine.

I know it is too simplistic, but I've found that in Spain & Italy both, it is wise to stay above Madrid & Rome to avoid alcoholic and sometimes flabby, hot wines. It's the climate and the fruit, just like in the new world, gets ripe. The more complex and interesting wines from Tempranillo, Sangiovese, Barbera, Grenache, Pinot Grigio, Verdejo, etc. seem to flourish in cooler climates.
At the SWE conference last August in Eugene, OR at a luncheon we had several of these wines from Yechla, Bullas, Jumilla, etc. and boy they would have been tough to take at night, but to serve them at lunch I thought was misguided. It may just be me, but I think that is a good rule of thumb. Does that make any sense?

After my colleague declared the cab to be as complex as the Bordeaux, I had to question whether my wife and I may have the same palate defect whereby we can't appreciate the complexity of a Cal cab, while possibly others can.

Most people I know who appreciate both styles love Bordeauxs for their earthiness and restraint and New World cabs for the sweet fruit and power. Moreover, what creates complexity for you and what constitutes that for your guest are likely somewhat different if he has a sweet tooth and you don't. As someone who didn't get the sugar gene myself, I'm keenly aware of the difference that makes in a lot of people's palates and I taste around other people often. You're no more defective than I am, you're just more stubbornly committed to one style of wine.

I confess that I am one of these "appreciate both styles" people, too. Even though my tastes are leaning more and nore to the earthy side. I think, though, that Old World wines do have more layers and nuances of flavor-nuances that are often lost in the fruit and the alcohol of "New World" style wines.

I can still enjoy them both-a dry 2004 Burgundy AND a 2002 Whitehall Lane Cab the same night!!!

I know it is too simplistic, but I've found that in Spain & Italy both, it is wise to stay above Madrid & Rome to avoid alcoholic and sometimes flabby, hot wines. It's the climate and the fruit, just like in the new world, gets ripe. The more complex and interesting wines from Tempranillo, Sangiovese, Barbera, Grenache, Pinot Grigio, Verdejo, etc. seem to flourish in cooler climates.
At the SWE conference last August in Eugene, OR at a luncheon we had several of these wines from Yechla, Bullas, Jumilla, etc. and boy they would have been tough to take at night, but to serve them at lunch I thought was misguided. It may just be me, but I think that is a good rule of thumb. Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure. I am just now discovering some of the odder rustic wines of Southern Italy. Maybe (see above) it's a case of like both styles, but I'm not Sardinian or Campanian or Salentino wines taste too much like "New World" fruit bombs. If anything, they are big and earthy and volutuous, but somehow pretty neat. Plus, I love syaing I am drinking a wine made of "Monica"

...you're just more stubbornly committed to one style of wine.

I resemble that remark.

I probably drink something like 6-8 Bordeaux for every CalCab I consume, but I'm under no illusion that this a function of one being "better" than the other, as opposed to just my own tastes.

And while I'm as good at generalizing as the next guy, it's also important to realize all Bordeaux are not alike, nor are all California Cabs. Does anyone really think that generalizations re Bordeaux apply equally to 1996 LLC, 2003 Lagrange, 1994 Leoville Barton, 2003 Pavie, or 2000 Le Dome ; similarly it makes a difference if your reference point for CalCab is Harlan, Ridge Monte Bello, Stag's Leap Cask 23 , Justin, Karl Lawrence, Grace, etc.

This weekend, I asked a colleague (who visited our mountain camp with his wife) to bring a bottle of a good California cab for my wife and I to try, since he drinks Cal cab. He brought a Napa Valley 2002 Fisher Vineyards Coach Insignia, which he had drunk before and considered to be a fine red. For comparative purposes, I opened a 1998 La Chapelle de La Mission Haut Brion, which cost about half as much as the Calif cab. We served them to the four of us blind.

It was immediately obvious to my wife and me which was which. The cab tasted plumby, jammy and sweet, while the Graves was complex, refined and wonderful; and seemed to have a much better balance with regard to fruit and acid. We didn't like the cab at all.

My colleague thought both wines were very nice and complex. He said he liked them both equally. His wife didn't like the Bordeaux at all, which she described as barnyardy and smelling like a copy machine at the same time. She loved the Cal cab.

... and therein lies the proof that treating wine as an absolute in quality terms is sheer stupidity. I could rate wines on a numerical scale about as well as I could rate friends. I accept that critics will do it and I'm sure it's right for them. My notes will on the whole say whether I liked it and my memory will retain the best (and some of the worst). That's about all I'm fussed with.
regards
Ian

... and therein lies the proof that treating wine as an absolute in quality terms is sheer stupidity. I could rate wines on a numerical scale about as well as I could rate friends. I accept that critics will do it and I'm sure it's right for them. My notes will on the whole say whether I liked it and my memory will retain the best (and some of the worst). That's about all I'm fussed with. regards Ian

I know what you are saying, Ian, but whether quality can be considered an absolute is a philosophical question as much as a question of intelligence. Quality can be considered a fabrication of man, rather than anything outside of human consideration. If so, then if the majority of men and women agree that something has higher quality than something else, that's all there is to it. And the question at the tasting was whether men and women there thought one wine tasted better than another. The answer was categorically, yes.

Interesting conversation. I like both Old World and New World styles, but for different purposes.

Old World for serving w/ food - acidity, to my tastes, is lacking in most New World wines. Even in higher priced new world wines. There are exceptions, of course...but generally.

New World - for sipping...

Consequently, most of our wine consumption occurs with meals. 75-80% Old World (Italy, mostly...with some french and spanish thrown in)

Richard

... and therein lies the proof that treating wine as an absolute in quality terms is sheer stupidity. I could rate wines on a numerical scale about as well as I could rate friends. I accept that critics will do it and I'm sure it's right for them. My notes will on the whole say whether I liked it and my memory will retain the best (and some of the worst). That's about all I'm fussed with. regards Ian

I know what you are saying, Ian, but whether quality can be considered an absolute is a philosophical question as much as a question of intelligence. Quality can be considered a fabrication of man, rather than anything outside of human consideration. If so, then if the majority of men and women agree that something has higher quality than something else, that's all there is to it. And the question at the tasting was whether men and women there thought one wine tasted better than another. The answer was categorically, yes.

Covert
Yes, undoubtedly this is a little philosophical. I doubt we're far apart as it is difficult to argue against a number of wines being called 'great' wines (which it would be churlsih to argue with). Equally there are plenty of wines which you'd have to be very tolerant to call them 'great', or even 'adequate' .

However I see no point ( ) in trying to put a ranking on wines greatness and attempting to pass it off as an absolute. It's fine to compare (and contrast) wines and definitely OK to express preferences.

Such tastings are good to highlight similarities, differences and in particular, through blind tasting, to eliminate some prejudices (also throwing out though the benefit of understanding a wines style, history and hence ageing potential). Attempting to make it a sporting contest with absolute winners and losers makes good press, but is a misguided exercise (IMO). If such contests encourage wine into a defined style, then we'll all lose out in the diversity that we currently enjoy.

WHOA...! Who put this soap box under my feet?

regards

Ian