Was looking over the Spectator’s “Insider” email with their latest yet to be published wine reviews, and saw this from Laube:
Cavus
Cabernet Sauvignon Stags Leap District 2005
95 points | $80 | 330 cases made | Red
Combines bold, ripe, rich and supple currant and blackberry fruit
with shades of anise, mineral, black licorice, mocha and graphite.
Picks up a complex earthiness, ending with a long, focused
finish and fine-grained tannins. Drink now through 2017. From
California.—J.L.
I remembered tasting this wine recently at Family Winemakers, and wrote my own short note:
2005 Cabernet - lush, sweet, bit short on the finish, lacks complexity and structure. Another poster child for the overripe, overpriced Napa Cab crowd. 86
Just a reminder that one size does not fit all, taste for yourself before buying, as much as possible.
The hard thing is that your note and his don’t match. If I drank Napa cab and was willing to spend $80 for it, his note makes it sounds very appealing and doesn’t jibe with yours re complexity. That’s a problem bigger than the score and, let’s face it, we can’t taste everything before buying a bottle.
"Who are these stooges you speak of? (girl to Jerry Seinfeld) "
Doesn’t help
OH! YOURS!!
You won’t find a bigger critic of scores than me - but an accurate tasting note can have value. After all we can’t taste everything - so I would hope we can use the notes themselves to get an idea of the wine and whether it might be worth trying. Alan’s note and Laube’s don’t match up though and, aside from bottle variation, I’m at a loss…
Good point. I didn’t really mean to zero in on the score alone, but written note as well. My post isn’t meant to be critical of Laube, just a cautionary tale to remind us all that it’s easy to be sucked in by glowing reviews, either written notes or scores
BTW, Richard Jennings tasted the wine at the same event I did (though presumably a different bottle), and disliked it even more than I did:
The note that that is closest to describing the actual wine is the most accurate. Generally speaking, I’m firmly in the subjective column… and I’m all the way there with regards to how much someone likes a wine… but, the tasting note, when used to describe a wine, can be wrong. Someone can say blueberry when it’s actually blackberry… or peach… just to add a more drastic deviation. Aromas can be analyzed and for a given wine there is a correct description. Aroma kits serve a purpose and a good critic will use one. High acidity, low acidity, high tannin… certainly these are subjective, but that doesn’t mean there’s not an accurate description of them either… my two cents.
But that’s just my point: maybe neither of these notes is “wrong.” They’re just different, and some people might identify with Laube’s note, some with mine. You just never know until you taste for yourself
I have to disagree with this quite strongly-surely there is no one who chooses a wine on the basis of particular fruit analogues? this is both entirely subjective and something that changes from day to day let alone bottle to bottle. Nor are such descriptions any indicator of quality. I really suggest that fruit juice is a far better option for people who want fruit drinks, possibly with vodka added for the alcohol.
Jeb,
I agree wholeheartedly with you sentiment. That said, it makes me wonder why everyone is so into quoting stats from Cellar Tracker. I don’t get it?
Brian - how would I know? Presuming the bottles were at the same stage in their evolution and not different, one of those notes is ‘wrong’ in the sense that they disagree with each other. I don’t see how you could taste, say, the same exact wine (from the same bottle, say) and get both of those notes. If you did, then either Alan or Laube is a poor taster. However, I can’t tell that - it could be that the bottles were different, that one was freshly opened, the other had been open for 8 hours, temp differences, etc .
Jeb - ‘know your critic’ is shorthand for ‘try enough wines that you can tell if critic X tastes the same things as you’ However, while good advice, I think we assume that a critic will not make up or omit flavors. Your advice also is not a guide if two critics disagree. If Alan were also a published critic (because that means… what?) then we’d still have an issue where two tasters wrote very different notes.
I’ve seen comparisons of notes from Parker, Tanzer and others where the poster was saying “but X scored this in the mid-90s and Y scored it in the high 80s, what gives?” and yet the notes were very similar. IN those cases, the explanation is easy - the score is a summary of how the critic interpreted the flavors. At that point, Jeb’s advice rocks - the wine tastes basically the same, one critic loves it and thinks the wine is extraordinary, the other critic feels it’s merely very good. To me, notes like the above, where two tasters disagree to a large degree on how the wine actually tastes are more troubling.
Finally, in this specific case I can’t trust Laube since a few years ago he admitting giving Montelena the benefit of the doubt and going through multiple bottles to find an outstanding one which he then wrote up (this was when Montelena had some level of a TCA issue). For me, that makes notes like this (that have contrasting opinions) suspect.
I’m glad you say you don’t know. However, I do not agree with the implied assumption here that one of those notes is ‘right’. Couldn’t they both be ‘wrong’, in the sense that you define ‘wrong’ here?
I don’t see how you could taste, say, the same exact wine (from the same bottle, say) and get both of those notes. If you did, then either Alan or Laube is a poor taster.
I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with this sentiment. On one hand, one’s perception of scents and flavors is necessarily formed by one’s life experiences. On the other hand, Jeb’s aforementioned point [i.e.: a wine can by ‘analyzed’ scientifically to determine what scents/flavors it is actually comprised of – then, the tasting note that most corresponds with said scientific analysis is the most ‘right’]. Your definition of “good taster” seems to be “taster who can come closest to the scientific analysis.” In contrast, my definition of “good taster” is “taster who is consistent, in and of themselves.” Different strokes … different folks, I think there’s value in both. Quite frankly, I don’t see how a “taster who can come closest to the scientific analysis” would be of much help to somebody unless that somebody is also a “taster who can come closest to the scientific analysis.” or unless that somebody knows how their perceptions differ from that “good taster.” And, if that somebody does have different perceptions than that “good taster,” then isn’t any other consistent taster just as helpful as the “good taster?”
However, I can’t tell that - it could be that the bottles were different, that one was freshly opened, the other had been open for 8 hours, temp differences, etc .
very true, which is why it is helpful to include this information in a TN.
I disagree that there is a scientific test (or set of tests) to ascribe specific flavors and scents to specific chemicals. It certainly could, but I don’t think such a think exists at this point. More accurately, I don’t think we have a way to map, say, the taste of a hint of graphite to a specific compound or set of compounds. Put simply, I don’t believe Jeb’s assertion of such a scientific analysis, so your supposition about my meaning is incorrect. Matching a (nonexistent) analysis isn’t the point .
You’re talking about right and wrong. Those are the incorrect terms to use. What I’m looking for is an accurate representation of the wine as the taster perceived it. Presuming that the taster has a relatively normal palate (no head cold, didn’t just eat spicy food or something, etc) and that the environment is pretty neutral (no woodsmoke blowing past, etc), then I’d imagine that most people would taste substantially the same thing as each other AND as the critic if we were all tasting from the same bottle in the same glasses. That’s what we always assume when reading a tasting note - that if we tasted that same wine alongside the note taker both of us would perceive the wine to be very similar. If this assumption isn’t made then critics and their tasting notes are useless.
Alan’s note and Laube’s cannot be reconciled. One damns the wine for not showing complexity, the other praises it as complex and gives specific flavor examples. There are really only three explanations for this - a) The bottles showed very differently, or b) one of the tasters’ palate was substantially off either inherently or due to some external factor or c) they tasted wines that were in fact very similar and perceived them in a very similar fashion but the notes from one of them are simply an inaccurate representation of what the wine was like.
If the two bottles were the same, then it’s (b). If the two tasters perceptions are close, then it’s (a). However, it’s not possible for both tasters to have palates that are able to perceive the same flavors and write vastly different notes unless (c) is true and one of them writes inaccurate notes.
ok, cool. Although I agree with Jeb that such a test exists, I disagree with him that it is of any importance.
You’re talking about right and wrong. Those are the incorrect terms to use. What I’m looking for is an accurate representation of the wine as the taster perceived it.
right and wrong were your terms, not mine. I would be extremely hard-pressed to call somebody’s TN “wrong” – I might not agree with their note, but I wouldn’t consider it wrong. Aren’t all TN’s “accurate representations of the wine as the taster perceived it”? Who determines what is and isn’t “accurate”? Your modifier, “as the taster perceived it” implies that you do NOT believe there is a right or wrong when it comes to one’s description of flavors and scents of a wine – you actually say this, in different words, in your par. (1). I wholeheartedly agree with this point. My confusion is with your use of the word “accurate” – who determines what is and is not accurate? Isn’t “accurate” the same as “right” and “inaccurate” the same as “wrong”? Please reconcile your (apparently contradictory) viewpoints, or tell me how I am misinterpretting what you’re saying.
Presuming that the taster has a relatively normal palate (no head cold, didn’t just eat spicy food or something, etc) and that the environment is pretty neutral (no woodsmoke blowing past, etc), then I’d imagine that most people would taste substantially the same thing as each other AND as the critic if we were all tasting from the same bottle in the same glasses.
This is probably where our main point of disagreement lies. Sensory perceptions, and a lexicon therefore, are formed by one’s life experiences. Different people have different life experiences, therefore will have different perceptions and lexicon to draw on when describing a wine. I do think that most people will taste the same thing when tasting from the same bottle at the same time (that is assuming, of course, that everyones’ tongues and brains operate the same – which is probably a faulty assumption), but peoples’ varying life experiences will produce varied perceptions of that “same taste.” If all you are looking for is “an accurate representation of the wine as the taster perceived it” then varied descriptions of the “same taste”are not neccessarily of varying accuracy. I think what you are actually looking for from a TN is a description of the wine as you, Rick, would perceive it.
That’s what we always assume when reading a tasting note - that if we tasted that same wine alongside the note taker both of us would perceive the wine to be very similar.
speak for yourself on this point. I think this approach is doing a huge disservice to yourself, and the person who wrote the TN.
If this assumption isn’t made then critics and their tasting notes are useless.
I disagree strongly with you on this point. I would say TN’s are useless when that writer is not consistent in and of themselves.
I would argue that a lot of people choose wines based on the aromas. While I agree that what people smell is subjective, the actual aromas in a glass of wine are objective and I would take issue with a note that claims a ripe wine is green or that an oak driven wine doesn’t show any oak. I believe we can use our subjective senses to accurately describe something and just because it’s subjective, doesn’t mean there’s no right or wrong… hence, calling a blue sky red is incorrect.
I agree with you that such descriptions are not an indication of quality and I don’t believe I’ve stated such either.
Taking a step back though, this is a very small part of a tasting note and to me, the important part of a note is the more personal and subjective portions… balance, texture, length, preference, style, typicity, etc.
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
