Are there objectively good and bad wines?

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
User avatar
GregT
Posts: 8046
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 3:12 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#51 Post by GregT » November 17th, 2019, 12:02 pm

Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 8:23 am
Mark Golodetz wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 8:00 am


Perhaps we should get rid of the toaster analogy quickly. It has a very specific purpose, and toasters either do it well or badly. Everything about the toaster can be broken down, and in the end, I think it is pretty easy to see which is the best. (A little harder with a car though.)

On the contrary. The point was that all things which are made can be made well or not. A toaster's set of criteria is much simpler than wine or a car, but it is still a valid example of a thing being well or poorly made. Having a simplistic item on the list helps to define the basic argument. I don't think the validiry of the premise (things can be made well or not) suddenly disappears at some point along the complexity scale.
I guess I agree with Sarah. Part of the problem is deciding what you're using as your standard. So if a wine realizes its vision, no matter how vile you may think it, that wine can be considered "good". Just like a toaster.

If you disagree with the vision, then it's bad. My mother hated toast. Thought it ruined bread and dried it out. So no matter how efficient the toaster was, a toaster was a bad appliance.

Same with wine. If you make a perfect Meiomi, does that make it a good wine? If your measurement is consistency, a certain sugar level, a certain color level, etc., then I suppose it's good if it meets those set standards. But if you reject the entire point of the wine, then it's bad. Just like an Oreo or a cigar. They may meet certain standards, but I don't consider them anything I would ever want in my mouth, so objectively they're bad.

One can argue that it comes down to personal preference. But not always. Back to Oreos and tobacco. They offer no benefit and may be actually harmful. Is there an objectively good or bad cigar? If you accept that they are harmful to your body, they are all objectively bad. If however, harm is taken out of the equation, then there are probably people who are happy to argue the merits of one vs the other.

So with wine, once you define your parameters, you can determine if it's objectively good or bad. But if you don't define your parameters, the conversation has no point.
G . T a t a r

[i]"the incorrect overuse of apostrophes is staggering these days. I wonder if half the adults these days have any idea what they are for." Chris Seiber, 5/14/19[/i]

PhillipDube
Posts: 12
Joined: March 20th, 2016, 10:36 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#52 Post by PhillipDube » November 17th, 2019, 12:54 pm

Assuming that a wine can be objectively bad (exhibiting universally accepted faults and flaws), is objectively good wine simply wine that is not objectively bad? Or are there objective criteria that can be applied to wine that would result in our being able to find the objectively "best" wine.
ITB, MDWS

User avatar
RyanC
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3368
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:20 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#53 Post by RyanC » November 17th, 2019, 1:15 pm

PhillipDube wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 12:54 pm
Assuming that a wine can be objectively bad (exhibiting universally accepted faults and flaws), is objectively good wine simply wine that is not objectively bad? Or are there objective criteria that can be applied to wine that would result in our being able to find the objectively "best" wine.
The answer to both of your questions is "no." And it's because you've set up a false dichotomy.

There is objectively "good" wine. There is also objectively "bad" wine. But there is certainly no objectively "best" wine. Wine is just not the sort of thing that is susceptible to a Platonic ideal.

That is not to say, however, that good-vs-bad is binary. An over-extracted, mass-produced $5 grocery store wine is "bad"; it does not have the characteristics of good wine. Decent-vintage Mugneret-Gibourg Bourgogne is an objectively "good" wine; it has many characteristics of "good" wine (as arrived at collectively by experienced wine drinkers over the course of centuries). But good-vintage Mugneret-Gibourg Clos Vougeot is objectively "better" than the Bourgogne because it has more characteristics of "good" wine, and the characteristics it shares with the Bourgogne are largely superior versions of the Bourgogne's characteristics. But is M-G's Clos Vougeot objectively superior to the version from Chateau de Clos du Vougeot? I say "no." Wine does not lend itself to that level of minute objective scrutiny. Certainly at some point the objective analysis breaks down and it all becomes subjective. But that breakdown does not rebut the whole notion that some wine is objectively better than other wine. Just because it's hard to tell if some balls near the foul line are fair or foul doesn't mean it's also hard to say that balls in the stands are foul.

This is of course the case with many things. Bach and Mozart are objectively "good" because they have all the characteristics of "good" music and hundreds of years of cultural understanding has cemented the notion that they are "good" from any standpoint. Vanilla Ice's music is objectively bad because it shares few, if any, characteristics of "good" music. But there is no objective basis to say that Bach is "better" than Mozart. The same holds true for art and cuisine and even something like vacation destinations (Paris and Hawaii are both "good" destinations but which one is "better" is subjective).
C@ughey

User avatar
Marcu$ Stanley
Posts: 1113
Joined: November 1st, 2010, 3:31 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#54 Post by Marcu$ Stanley » November 17th, 2019, 1:27 pm

mattbillet wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 11:13 am
My first observation is that there is no requirement of an educated palate in discerning good/bad wines objectively or subjectively (if that is even a major thing... subjective/objective dichotomy). Years of drinking wine amongst highly trained and novice palates has taught me that if we taste wine in blind lots (without placing a thumb on the scale by serving wines that clearly are not within a drinking window or of dramatically different varietals/profiles within that lot)... making the assumption that the group generally likes red or white wine depending on the flight... the majority of the people tasting the wines will pick out the best bottle. Whether you are observing subjective or objective factors... I find that there are undeniable aspects of a good wine that are equally perceivable to both trained and untrained palates.

I have put this theory to the test so many different times with the same results. Some may prefer Pinot over Cabernet... or Syrah etc. Some may be wowed by higher residual sugar.. although these people when tasting say Cabernet with reasonable or lower residual sugars still can identify the best cabernet in a flight (assuming that you can structure a flight where there is a perceivable best bottle). If the flight is five extremely premium great bottles with distinctions such as bench land vs. mountain vs. Beckstoffer vs. Stags Leap ... now you are really getting a better fix on personal palate. Similarly, if the flight is Pinot vs. Cab. vs. Syrah vs. Barolo vs. Sangiovese ... now you are determining personal taste.

I often find people bashful to discuss wine because they don't feel they have the training or vocabulary to discern... but good wine is actually broadly identifiable as good... bad wine is equally easily identified... without going into specific identifiable reasoning or details. It is simply how we identify what is in the glass in front of us!
I agree with this, "untrained" people will gravitate to wines we wine buffs would consider good, and naturally like them more than "bad" wines, when the quality difference is large. That has been my experience as well in blind tastings or in settings where people aren't steered to particular wines. You don't often hear this but I think it's true.

With that said, people want different things at different times. Sometimes I want a Bud Light more than aged Bordeaux and enjoy it more. Good wine is a particular sensory experience and some times are more appropriate for it than others. Taste is very context dependent.

User avatar
SOvery
Posts: 36
Joined: April 16th, 2017, 10:29 am
Location: Northumbria

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#55 Post by SOvery » November 17th, 2019, 1:28 pm

GregT wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 12:02 pm





So with wine, once you define your parameters, you can determine if it's objectively good or bad. But if you don't define your parameters, the conversation has no point.
Defining your parameters is pretty much the definition of subjective.
ST€V€ OVERY

crickey
Posts: 410
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#56 Post by crickey » November 17th, 2019, 1:53 pm

Not that I agree with Mark's general point, but I do agree that the toaster analogy is a poor one. A toaster is a tool, a means to an end, and the question is about measuring the end product. The better analogy would be whether there are objective measures to what is good toast.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
RichardFlack
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 10:41 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#57 Post by RichardFlack » November 17th, 2019, 2:57 pm

With respect, the question is meaningless since there is no metric for quality.

It is an objective fact that the Beatles sold more records than Zager & Evans. But Zager and Evans are only objectively bad if it is agreed that quality is defined and measured by life time record sales. Most people would in fact say quality is a subjective criterion and hence an opinion, even if widely held.

I don’t think there’s an agreed metric for quality of wine. (Certainly not sales, vide Yellow Tail, Meiomi etc. ). What we do have is various degrees of agreement with the opinion that wine x is good or bad. The more that tends to unanimity the more it may be thought of, erroneously , as objective. But it’s really just popular opinion. And of course different groups may have different popular opinions.

So, no, question is meaningless. But it has triggered some great responses about wine.

User avatar
Markus S
Posts: 6122
Joined: May 20th, 2010, 7:27 am

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#58 Post by Markus S » November 17th, 2019, 3:04 pm

Mark Golodetz wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 8:00 am
Perhaps we should get rid of the toaster analogy quickly. It has a very specific purpose, and toasters either do it well or badly. Everything about the toaster can be broken down, and in the end, I think it is pretty easy to see which is the best. (A little harder with a car though.)
Wine is not toast (unless it is crap), and a toaster is not as "objective" as you think, as each toaster will toast a little differently. A toaster's design is very subjective, but their are still good designs and bad designs among them. Think of a better analogy.
$ _ € ® e . k @

User avatar
RichardFlack
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 10:41 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#59 Post by RichardFlack » November 17th, 2019, 4:13 pm

It occurs to me that the lack of complete agreement in this thread implies the answer must be “no”.

User avatar
Howard Cooper
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16913
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#60 Post by Howard Cooper » November 17th, 2019, 4:55 pm

RichardFlack wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 2:57 pm
With respect, the question is meaningless since there is no metric for quality.

It is an objective fact that the Beatles sold more records than Zager & Evans. But Zager and Evans are only objectively bad if it is agreed that quality is defined and measured by life time record sales. Most people would in fact say quality is a subjective criterion and hence an opinion, even if widely held.
Hey. I used to love this when I was in high school.



But, if you are measuring wine by sales you would find that the best wine out there is Gallo Hearty Burgundy and the best "premium" wine is Kendall Jackson Chardonnay. By contrast, Romanee Conti would not be very good.
Howard

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things." Tyrion Lannister

User avatar
GregT
Posts: 8046
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 3:12 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#61 Post by GregT » November 17th, 2019, 5:19 pm

SOvery wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 1:28 pm
GregT wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 12:02 pm





So with wine, once you define your parameters, you can determine if it's objectively good or bad. But if you don't define your parameters, the conversation has no point.
Defining your parameters is pretty much the definition of subjective.
But then what is the definition of objective? The Cambridge and other dictionaries say it is something based on facts and not influenced by personal prejudice. So if you feel that high sales equate to good, then you're able to say the wine is good if you can demonstrate high sales. But if sales don't matter, then you need to pick something else.

You're right though - the reason that people can't answer the question is that it all depends on what they feel is included in "objectively good and bad". But unless you know what you're measuring, you can't measure anything.
G . T a t a r

[i]"the incorrect overuse of apostrophes is staggering these days. I wonder if half the adults these days have any idea what they are for." Chris Seiber, 5/14/19[/i]

User avatar
Mark Golodetz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6268
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#62 Post by Mark Golodetz » November 17th, 2019, 7:22 pm

GregT wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 5:19 pm
. But unless you know what you're measuring, you can't measure anything.
And the moment you do decide is the moment it takes on your values, and becomes subjective.
ITB

User avatar
Chris Seiber
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 8710
Joined: April 28th, 2010, 3:22 pm
Location: Newport Beach, CA

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#63 Post by Chris Seiber » November 17th, 2019, 8:15 pm

crickey wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 1:53 pm
Not that I agree with Mark's general point, but I do agree that the toaster analogy is a poor one. A toaster is a tool, a means to an end, and the question is about measuring the end product. The better analogy would be whether there are objective measures to what is good toast.
Paintings, however, are a great analogy. We all recognize the objective difference in quality between a Rembrandt painting and something I would paint. Skill, difficulty of composition, quality of materials, amount of time and effort, etc.

Now, maybe my mom or my daughter might like my painting more than one of Rembrandt’s. Or maybe some unaffiliated person out there just finds more interest in the modest efforts of unskilled laymen than the works of the greatest painters. That’s certainly their prerogative.

But none of it means we can’t distinguish the difference between the two in an objective scale.

The key here is this isn’t an either or, it’s a “both.” Wines can be measured in both objective and subjective ways. DRC and Haut Brion are objectively better wines than Charles Shaw. But someone can still subjectively prefer Charles Shaw. And there isn’t a clearly objectively better wine between DRC and Haut Brion.

User avatar
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3076
Joined: March 12th, 2013, 7:32 am

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#64 Post by Sc0tt F!tzger@ld » November 17th, 2019, 8:40 pm

93 points on this thread.

Tom Reddick
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1317
Joined: June 30th, 2009, 9:56 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#65 Post by Tom Reddick » November 17th, 2019, 10:04 pm

Howard Cooper wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 6:26 am
Tom Reddick wrote:
November 16th, 2019, 8:57 pm
There is a great deal of objectivity in the evaluation of wine.

***

The notion of Leoville Las Cases, Leoville Barton or Lynch Bages being elevated in the 1855 Classification makes no sense to me. Sure they have all made some great wines, but they lack the breed and full potential of what the firsts offer. There have been times in history when the firsts were lesser wines in terms of overall quality due to a lack of care in the vineyard and in elevage- but the breed of a first growth is always there, even if only barely visible, and its hallmark of greatness. I do by the way agree with the elevation of Mouton FWIW.

***
1. I agree that their is a great deal of objectivity in the evaluation of a wine. But, I don't drink wine solely with objectivity. I like to drink "better" wines but only when they conform with my subjective preferences. Shouldn't subjective preferences be more important in buying wines than some objective standard. I always think of the ultimate in this - the wine that somehow is objectively perfect, only nobody likes it. What good is this wine?

As to your discussion of the 1855 classification, I think it has a few flaws. First, you seem to assume that the 1855 classification was objective and absolutely "correct." As I understand it, it was largely based on prices at the time, which deal with terroir but also with care in the vineyard and in elevage AT THAT TIME. Why is it absolutely "correct" that Lynch Bages should not have been say a second growth because for longer periods of time (most of the 20th century and what we have seen of the 21st century) it has performed at this level? Similarly, Margaux performed very poorly in much of the 1960s and 1970s. If that had happened in 1855, it might not have been classified as a first growth. Does that mean that the classification should not have been "corrected"?

Second, unlike in Burgundy, estates were classified, NOT terroir. As I understand it, part of the reason Palmer is better than it was classified in 1855 is because of parcels bought and sold. Shouldn't that be reflected by reclassifications? Wouldn't it be a better system if the classification was done by specific parcels, as it is in most places in the world?
Good evening Howard,

To your first point- I totally agree that subjectivity should be the driver for what one purchases and cellars. And I would also say that even within the realm of the subjective, there are many reasons to buy and drink wines that a person- and the wine world at large- find to be objectively less "great" even within the genre of what they subjectively like.

Making myself an example- let's talk Pomerol. Objectively, I think Lafleur is arguably the greatest wine of the region. If in my choice of lifestyle I regularly dined on fine French cuisine, Lafleur would probably be very heavily represented in my cellar. In reality, when I open nice bottles I am usually at an offline that is a more casual setting, or I am cooking at home. And if I am cooking at home, I am more likely to be making a boeuf bourguignon or steak frites versus the really lofty dishes like- to give a classic example- Tournedos Rossini. More generally, I tend to like simple and hearty food.

And so most of my Pomerol holdings are in L'Evangile and La Conseillante. I love those wines. They are also great wines. Objectively, I do not think they are on the same level as Lafleur. But at the end of the day I have all 3 and will enjoy them at the appropriate juncture in their proper context.

This is true for me broadly in Bordeaux. Lafleur is the only really top end Bordeaux I own in any quantity any more. Magdelaine is the backbone of my Bordeaux cellar, followed by Montrose, La Conseillante, L'Evangile and Lynch Bages because those are the wines I personally enjoy drinking most in the various environments in which I am most likely to serve wine.

But that does not change the fact that I personally think Lafleur and Lafite are the two greatest wines of Bordeaux- whatever that ultimately means (which is not much other than a personal declaration.)

To take your question of an objectively perfect wine that nobody likes and what good is that wine- the answer is in practical terms that such a wine is the greatest wine in the world, but of no practical use or enjoyment to anyone.

And I think I can provide an example of such a wine for you- if a theoretical one. What if the great Ausones of the 1920s were being made today in exactly the same manner as they were back then? We now life in a time when most high end wine drinkers are first generation enthusiasts and buying wines they want to drink for themselves. They are not European nobles drinking the wines their grandfathers laid down as they lay down wines for their grandchildren.

If 1928 Chateau Ausone could be somehow reincarnated in its original form today as a new vintage, given how painful the wines were to taste young and even at 20-30 years of age for most of the 20th Century (by reputation admittedly- Gilman's article in issue 79 speaks to this), and given we are in a world where people are buying wines they plan to drink in their own lifetimes and most wineries have shifted their winemaking practices accordingly (and not necessarily in a spoofy way)- where would 1928 Ausone fit into the grand scheme of things? I know many people who claim it is one of the greatest Bordeaux ever made- but even if you knew in advance that was what the future held, how interested would you or anyone else be in buying a wine at release that would be practically undrinkable for the next 50 years?

Point being I agree that subjectivity should drive purchases, and I also do believe that it is theoretically possible for an objectively great wine to have little or no practical use, following or secondary monetary value if it does not offer any subjective pleasure or practical utility (which I think a nearly perfectly subjective concept.)

As for the 1855 Classification, I readily concede there was much money and politics in the works at the time- as there would be at any time when creating a set of standards that would set the general price ranges and levels of prestige for a population of products in what was intended to be a very permanent and enduring manner.

All I am saying is that in general I think it has proven out reasonably well for the era of Bordeaux which with I am most familiar (1959 to the present for the greatest concentration of tasting notes- and reaching back sporadically to 1924.)

And by proven out- I mean the inherent breed and potential of the wines. Yet as you say, not everyone is always at the top of their game. Even though the breed of Lafite is evident in the 1970 and 1971, and even in 1970s Margaux- though just barely- I would rather have Magdelaine and Figeac from the 1970s than Lafite or Margaux (and happily I do for that matter.)

The core of my argument rests in looking at the potential and the degree to which it is evident- ie the nature versus the nurture. And so in that sense a wine could be objectively great, but in a particular vintage or range of vintages be something neither you or I would want in the cellar.
ITB - Cellar appraisals

User avatar
RichardFlack
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 10:41 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#66 Post by RichardFlack » November 17th, 2019, 10:52 pm

Dup, but no delete button for some reason.
Last edited by RichardFlack on November 17th, 2019, 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RichardFlack
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 10:41 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#67 Post by RichardFlack » November 17th, 2019, 10:53 pm

Chris Seiber wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 8:15 pm
crickey wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 1:53 pm
Not that I agree with Mark's general point, but I do agree that the toaster analogy is a poor one. A toaster is a tool, a means to an end, and the question is about measuring the end product. The better analogy would be whether there are objective measures to what is good toast.
Paintings, however, are a great analogy. We all recognize the objective difference in quality between a Rembrandt painting and something I would paint. Skill, difficulty of composition, quality of materials, amount of time and effort, etc.

Now, maybe my mom or my daughter might like my painting more than one of Rembrandt’s. Or maybe some unaffiliated person out there just finds more interest in the modest efforts of unskilled laymen than the works of the greatest painters. That’s certainly their prerogative.

But none of it means we can’t distinguish the difference between the two in an objective scale.
....
And Picasso or Lowry or Pollock... ?

User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 694
Joined: May 31st, 2009, 5:43 am
Location: Saarland, Germany

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#68 Post by Rudi Finkler » November 17th, 2019, 11:42 pm

RichardFlack wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 2:57 pm
With respect, the question is meaningless since there is no metric for quality.

It is an objective fact that the Beatles sold more records than Zager & Evans. But Zager and Evans are only objectively bad if it is agreed that quality is defined and measured by life time record sales. Most people would in fact say quality is a subjective criterion and hence an opinion, even if widely held.

I don’t think there’s an agreed metric for quality of wine. (Certainly not sales, vide Yellow Tail, Meiomi etc. ). What we do have is various degrees of agreement with the opinion that wine x is good or bad. The more that tends to unanimity the more it may be thought of, erroneously , as objective. But it’s really just popular opinion. And of course different groups may have different popular opinions.

So, no, question is meaningless. But it has triggered some great responses about wine.
I couldn’t agree more!

I think in a world full of uncertainty and fear of life, it’s a relief for many people to believe in 'objectivity', in so-called experts or seemingly objective rating systems. But objectivity is a fiction and the belief in a supposed objectivity a kind of refusal to take a conscious position and therefore also a kind of refusal of personal responsibility.

As Richard says, we have various degrees of agreement, which is 'objectively' and subjectively not a bad thing, but no absolute objectivity, wich is a good thing, too. :-)
Rudi - The Bordeauxphile

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." Francis Bacon

A Songeur
Posts: 949
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 6:45 am

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#69 Post by A Songeur » November 18th, 2019, 12:23 am

When I start learning to play a piece of music (currently Waldstein sonata), I start playing bad... the reason I persevere is I hope to play it better and better.
Of course, once I have practised it a lot and speak out my interpretation, it may become a bit subjective to judge whether I played it better yesterday or today... it may depend of what aspects I feel are more important...

...but this claim that everything is subjective so we should not rate it good or bad is plain silly.

It is one of the rootcauses for the regression of civilisation we observe in many areas.
There are good wines and there are bad wines, granted with regard to a number of points one may find more or less important.
There are also wines a producer is more satisfied with than others because he/she knows he/she did a better job... or because the weather was better or worse...
Antoine

User avatar
Howard Cooper
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16913
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#70 Post by Howard Cooper » November 18th, 2019, 6:41 am

Tom Reddick wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 10:04 pm
Howard Cooper wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 6:26 am
Tom Reddick wrote:
November 16th, 2019, 8:57 pm
There is a great deal of objectivity in the evaluation of wine.

***

The notion of Leoville Las Cases, Leoville Barton or Lynch Bages being elevated in the 1855 Classification makes no sense to me. Sure they have all made some great wines, but they lack the breed and full potential of what the firsts offer. There have been times in history when the firsts were lesser wines in terms of overall quality due to a lack of care in the vineyard and in elevage- but the breed of a first growth is always there, even if only barely visible, and its hallmark of greatness. I do by the way agree with the elevation of Mouton FWIW.

***
1. I agree that their is a great deal of objectivity in the evaluation of a wine. But, I don't drink wine solely with objectivity. I like to drink "better" wines but only when they conform with my subjective preferences. Shouldn't subjective preferences be more important in buying wines than some objective standard. I always think of the ultimate in this - the wine that somehow is objectively perfect, only nobody likes it. What good is this wine?

As to your discussion of the 1855 classification, I think it has a few flaws. First, you seem to assume that the 1855 classification was objective and absolutely "correct." As I understand it, it was largely based on prices at the time, which deal with terroir but also with care in the vineyard and in elevage AT THAT TIME. Why is it absolutely "correct" that Lynch Bages should not have been say a second growth because for longer periods of time (most of the 20th century and what we have seen of the 21st century) it has performed at this level? Similarly, Margaux performed very poorly in much of the 1960s and 1970s. If that had happened in 1855, it might not have been classified as a first growth. Does that mean that the classification should not have been "corrected"?

Second, unlike in Burgundy, estates were classified, NOT terroir. As I understand it, part of the reason Palmer is better than it was classified in 1855 is because of parcels bought and sold. Shouldn't that be reflected by reclassifications? Wouldn't it be a better system if the classification was done by specific parcels, as it is in most places in the world?
Good evening Howard,

To your first point- I totally agree that subjectivity should be the driver for what one purchases and cellars. And I would also say that even within the realm of the subjective, there are many reasons to buy and drink wines that a person- and the wine world at large- find to be objectively less "great" even within the genre of what they subjectively like.

Making myself an example- let's talk Pomerol. Objectively, I think Lafleur is arguably the greatest wine of the region. If in my choice of lifestyle I regularly dined on fine French cuisine, Lafleur would probably be very heavily represented in my cellar. In reality, when I open nice bottles I am usually at an offline that is a more casual setting, or I am cooking at home. And if I am cooking at home, I am more likely to be making a boeuf bourguignon or steak frites versus the really lofty dishes like- to give a classic example- Tournedos Rossini. More generally, I tend to like simple and hearty food.

And so most of my Pomerol holdings are in L'Evangile and La Conseillante. I love those wines. They are also great wines. Objectively, I do not think they are on the same level as Lafleur. But at the end of the day I have all 3 and will enjoy them at the appropriate juncture in their proper context.

This is true for me broadly in Bordeaux. Lafleur is the only really top end Bordeaux I own in any quantity any more. Magdelaine is the backbone of my Bordeaux cellar, followed by Montrose, La Conseillante, L'Evangile and Lynch Bages because those are the wines I personally enjoy drinking most in the various environments in which I am most likely to serve wine.

But that does not change the fact that I personally think Lafleur and Lafite are the two greatest wines of Bordeaux- whatever that ultimately means (which is not much other than a personal declaration.)

To take your question of an objectively perfect wine that nobody likes and what good is that wine- the answer is in practical terms that such a wine is the greatest wine in the world, but of no practical use or enjoyment to anyone.

And I think I can provide an example of such a wine for you- if a theoretical one. What if the great Ausones of the 1920s were being made today in exactly the same manner as they were back then? We now life in a time when most high end wine drinkers are first generation enthusiasts and buying wines they want to drink for themselves. They are not European nobles drinking the wines their grandfathers laid down as they lay down wines for their grandchildren.

If 1928 Chateau Ausone could be somehow reincarnated in its original form today as a new vintage, given how painful the wines were to taste young and even at 20-30 years of age for most of the 20th Century (by reputation admittedly- Gilman's article in issue 79 speaks to this), and given we are in a world where people are buying wines they plan to drink in their own lifetimes and most wineries have shifted their winemaking practices accordingly (and not necessarily in a spoofy way)- where would 1928 Ausone fit into the grand scheme of things? I know many people who claim it is one of the greatest Bordeaux ever made- but even if you knew in advance that was what the future held, how interested would you or anyone else be in buying a wine at release that would be practically undrinkable for the next 50 years?

Point being I agree that subjectivity should drive purchases, and I also do believe that it is theoretically possible for an objectively great wine to have little or no practical use, following or secondary monetary value if it does not offer any subjective pleasure or practical utility (which I think a nearly perfectly subjective concept.)

As for the 1855 Classification, I readily concede there was much money and politics in the works at the time- as there would be at any time when creating a set of standards that would set the general price ranges and levels of prestige for a population of products in what was intended to be a very permanent and enduring manner.

All I am saying is that in general I think it has proven out reasonably well for the era of Bordeaux which with I am most familiar (1959 to the present for the greatest concentration of tasting notes- and reaching back sporadically to 1924.)

And by proven out- I mean the inherent breed and potential of the wines. Yet as you say, not everyone is always at the top of their game. Even though the breed of Lafite is evident in the 1970 and 1971, and even in 1970s Margaux- though just barely- I would rather have Magdelaine and Figeac from the 1970s than Lafite or Margaux (and happily I do for that matter.)

The core of my argument rests in looking at the potential and the degree to which it is evident- ie the nature versus the nurture. And so in that sense a wine could be objectively great, but in a particular vintage or range of vintages be something neither you or I would want in the cellar.
I agree with virtually everything in your post.
Howard

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things." Tyrion Lannister

User avatar
John Kight
Posts: 646
Joined: September 7th, 2009, 5:45 pm
Location: Dallas, Tx

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#71 Post by John Kight » November 18th, 2019, 1:02 pm

I'm much more interested in whether a wine (or a specific bottle of wine) can be "evil". But before we can discuss whether or not good, bad and evil are "objective" terms, we must first define them....And it seems difficult to define "good wine" as anything other than a wine you like or a wine you dislike but choose to acknowledge to be "good". And that doesn't seem objective...

User avatar
Keith Levenberg
Posts: 5438
Joined: June 6th, 2009, 3:11 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#72 Post by Keith Levenberg » November 18th, 2019, 1:22 pm

Howard Cooper wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 8:10 am
Besides, what good is it to me if a wine somehow "objectively" is a 95 point wine and I think subjectively it deserves 75 points. For example, how does one rate SQN or Truchot objectively? Say there is a wine from both that somehow are objectively rated 92.5. Many, many tasters will find that one deserves a 95 rating and the other a 75 rating.
Some of those people are right and some of them are wrong

User avatar
Keith Levenberg
Posts: 5438
Joined: June 6th, 2009, 3:11 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#73 Post by Keith Levenberg » November 18th, 2019, 1:28 pm

Good talk:

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1731
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#74 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » November 18th, 2019, 1:56 pm

Keith Levenberg wrote:
November 18th, 2019, 1:22 pm
Howard Cooper wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 8:10 am
Besides, what good is it to me if a wine somehow "objectively" is a 95 point wine and I think subjectively it deserves 75 points. For example, how does one rate SQN or Truchot objectively? Say there is a wine from both that somehow are objectively rated 92.5. Many, many tasters will find that one deserves a 95 rating and the other a 75 rating.
Some of those people are right and some of them are wrong
Yes, but according to what criteria? We know that the earth revolves around the sun because of evidence that is visible or intelligible regardless of our beliefs. What criteria of taste meet that aspect of what it takes to call something objectively true?

User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 694
Joined: May 31st, 2009, 5:43 am
Location: Saarland, Germany

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#75 Post by Rudi Finkler » November 19th, 2019, 8:21 am

I guess your question will remain unanswered, Jonathan. :-)

BTW, I find these the most interesting questions in this thread:
Sarah Kirschbaum wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 7:24 am
... If bad wine exists objectively, what does it mean if I like that "bad" wine? Does that mean my palate is bad? Does that mean I'm bad?...
The answer is not as simple as one might think. [wink.gif]
Rudi - The Bordeauxphile

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." Francis Bacon

Robert Sand
Posts: 448
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 1:19 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#76 Post by Robert Sand » November 19th, 2019, 1:53 pm

All those who deny that there are "objectively" bad wines (not 100% objectively, but to a high degree) deserve to drink these wine for the rest of their life - just to admit that there are (objecvtively) better wines ...
champagne.gif

User avatar
Howard Cooper
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16913
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#77 Post by Howard Cooper » November 19th, 2019, 2:11 pm

PhillipDube wrote:
November 17th, 2019, 12:54 pm
Assuming that a wine can be objectively bad (exhibiting universally accepted faults and flaws), is objectively good wine simply wine that is not objectively bad? Or are there objective criteria that can be applied to wine that would result in our being able to find the objectively "best" wine.
I would say that there are objectively sound wines and objectively wines with flaws. I would call the latter class of wines bad wines, but I could see someone subjectively liking them if they like the flaw (say brett) or cannot taste it (say TCA). Not all sound wines are subjectively good wines. For example, my guess is that most California jug wines are sound wines but I would rather not drink them.
Howard

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things." Tyrion Lannister

User avatar
Bob Davis
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 318
Joined: May 16th, 2011, 7:45 am
Location: Columbia,MD

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#78 Post by Bob Davis » November 19th, 2019, 2:14 pm

Pesenti wines before Turley bought them were truly awful.
-------
Pittsburgh Dad says, "Twenty bucks for a field trip to the art museum? Tell you what, I'll drive you past the Lemieux statue for free."

User avatar
K John Joseph
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7407
Joined: June 8th, 2011, 11:55 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#79 Post by K John Joseph » November 19th, 2019, 2:19 pm

This OP should just be a final exam in Philosophy 301 at Uni.

Does the chair exist?

I am inclined to nod my head and immediately say that yes, there are objectively good and bad wines. But if a substance is subject to a matter of taste, can it ever be objectively judged? Is Koons's art objectively bad? Is 1982 Pichon Lalande objectively good to most of the folks who are drinking Apothic Red? Do we have to consider the purpose of something when determining whether it is good or bad? That test works for something like a toilet. Is this an objectively good toilet? Well, does it flush the shit down? Binary response there.

But perhaps wine is different as it presents a question of taste. Does this wine provide me enjoyment? I mean, that's the purpose of wine, right? If Barefoot Sparkling Wine provides enjoyment to so many people, how can we taste it and say "this is objectively bad." I mean, I think it is objectively bad and cannot understand how someone who likes that would scoff at Selosse, but alas, it happens.

Then again, we can all say The Room is an objectively bad movie, even if some of us have enjoyed it because it is so very, very bad. So maybe at some threshold, even matters of taste are subject to objectivity.

Did I pass?
J0hn-J-K4ne

User avatar
Howard Cooper
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16913
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#80 Post by Howard Cooper » November 19th, 2019, 2:22 pm

K John Joseph wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 2:19 pm
This OP should just be a final exam in Philosophy 301 at Uni.

Does the chair exist?

I am inclined to nod my head and immediately say that yes, there are objectively good and bad wines. But if a substance is subject to a matter of taste, can it ever be objectively judged? Is Koons's art objectively bad? Is 1982 Pichon Lalande objectively good to most of the folks who are drinking Apothic Red? Do we have to consider the purpose of something when determining whether it is good or bad? That test works for something like a toilet. Is this an objectively good toilet? Well, does it flush the shit down? Binary response there.

But perhaps wine is different as it presents a question of taste. Does this wine provide me enjoyment? I mean, that's the purpose of wine, right? If Barefoot Sparkling Wine provides enjoyment to so many people, how can we taste it and say "this is objectively bad." I mean, I think it is objectively bad and cannot understand how someone who likes that would scoff at Selosse, but alas, it happens.

Then again, we can all say The Room is an objectively bad movie, even if some of us have enjoyed it because it is so very, very bad. So maybe at some threshold, even matters of taste are subject to objectivity.

Did I pass?
Not sure. Are there objectively good and bad posts? [cheers.gif]
Howard

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things." Tyrion Lannister

User avatar
K John Joseph
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7407
Joined: June 8th, 2011, 11:55 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#81 Post by K John Joseph » November 19th, 2019, 2:28 pm

Howard Cooper wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 2:22 pm
K John Joseph wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 2:19 pm
This OP should just be a final exam in Philosophy 301 at Uni.

Does the chair exist?

I am inclined to nod my head and immediately say that yes, there are objectively good and bad wines. But if a substance is subject to a matter of taste, can it ever be objectively judged? Is Koons's art objectively bad? Is 1982 Pichon Lalande objectively good to most of the folks who are drinking Apothic Red? Do we have to consider the purpose of something when determining whether it is good or bad? That test works for something like a toilet. Is this an objectively good toilet? Well, does it flush the shit down? Binary response there.

But perhaps wine is different as it presents a question of taste. Does this wine provide me enjoyment? I mean, that's the purpose of wine, right? If Barefoot Sparkling Wine provides enjoyment to so many people, how can we taste it and say "this is objectively bad." I mean, I think it is objectively bad and cannot understand how someone who likes that would scoff at Selosse, but alas, it happens.

Then again, we can all say The Room is an objectively bad movie, even if some of us have enjoyed it because it is so very, very bad. So maybe at some threshold, even matters of taste are subject to objectivity.

Did I pass?
Not sure. Are there objectively good and bad posts? [cheers.gif]
Does it matter?
J0hn-J-K4ne

User avatar
Mark Golodetz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6268
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#82 Post by Mark Golodetz » November 19th, 2019, 3:51 pm

Is “Dogs playing poker” objectively good or bad art?

If it was done by Duchamp as an ironic take on what art is , does that change its innate quality?
ITB

User avatar
Howard Cooper
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16913
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#83 Post by Howard Cooper » November 19th, 2019, 6:58 pm

K John Joseph wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 2:28 pm
Howard Cooper wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 2:22 pm
K John Joseph wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 2:19 pm
This OP should just be a final exam in Philosophy 301 at Uni.

Does the chair exist?

I am inclined to nod my head and immediately say that yes, there are objectively good and bad wines. But if a substance is subject to a matter of taste, can it ever be objectively judged? Is Koons's art objectively bad? Is 1982 Pichon Lalande objectively good to most of the folks who are drinking Apothic Red? Do we have to consider the purpose of something when determining whether it is good or bad? That test works for something like a toilet. Is this an objectively good toilet? Well, does it flush the shit down? Binary response there.

But perhaps wine is different as it presents a question of taste. Does this wine provide me enjoyment? I mean, that's the purpose of wine, right? If Barefoot Sparkling Wine provides enjoyment to so many people, how can we taste it and say "this is objectively bad." I mean, I think it is objectively bad and cannot understand how someone who likes that would scoff at Selosse, but alas, it happens.

Then again, we can all say The Room is an objectively bad movie, even if some of us have enjoyed it because it is so very, very bad. So maybe at some threshold, even matters of taste are subject to objectivity.

Did I pass?
Not sure. Are there objectively good and bad posts? [cheers.gif]
Does it matter?
You are the one who asked if you passed. Wouldn't you passing or failing require there to be objectively good and bad posts - a fact not in evidence.
Howard

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things." Tyrion Lannister

User avatar
Howard Cooper
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 16913
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 8:37 am
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#84 Post by Howard Cooper » November 19th, 2019, 6:59 pm

Mark Golodetz wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 3:51 pm
Is “Dogs playing poker” objectively good or bad art?

If it was done by Duchamp as an ironic take on what art is , does that change its inane quality?
Fixed it.
Howard

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things." Tyrion Lannister

User avatar
larry schaffer
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 7745
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 9:26 am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#85 Post by larry schaffer » November 19th, 2019, 7:45 pm

My answer would be 'no' - it all depends upon subjectivity and 'defining' good or bad. Period.

One of the challenges of the wine biz in the US is being 'pompous' or 'looking down upon' those who drink wines we consider 'bad'. At the end of the day, though, would someone who really enjoyed drinking these wines consider drinking something they considered 'bad'? No.

We can get into plenty of discussions about 'faulty' wines as well - but as many have pointed out, some 'faults' are considered 'non faults' by many, be it VA, brett or other compounds that we all have different thresholds for picking these up on the one hand and, based on perspective, may find part of 'terroir' or 'enjoyable' based on personal preference.

Wine is simply too 'complicated' to judge it in such a black and white manner, IMHO . . .

Cheers.
larry schaffer
tercero wines

Tom Reddick
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1317
Joined: June 30th, 2009, 9:56 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#86 Post by Tom Reddick » November 19th, 2019, 8:02 pm

John Kight wrote:
November 18th, 2019, 1:02 pm
I'm much more interested in whether a wine (or a specific bottle of wine) can be "evil". But before we can discuss whether or not good, bad and evil are "objective" terms, we must first define them....And it seems difficult to define "good wine" as anything other than a wine you like or a wine you dislike but choose to acknowledge to be "good". And that doesn't seem objective...
This is why in my response I indicated that extensive experience is required to be able to sort out what those criteria are. One needs to taste a whole lot of wine, and across many regions, ideally watching several examples go through the maturity process.

The criteria themselves I think are very general in nature- they have to be or you get into subjective territory pretty quickly.

As for what are the criteria, here are a few I think are important,

1. Complexity over simplicity.
2. Overall structural balance.
3. Not having one aspect of the wine unduly overshadow or conceal other aspects. #2 is all about the balance between structure and fruit. #3 gets a bit more specific about components. A key issue in #3 would be the levels of oak used and whether that overwhelms other aspects of the wine's expression thus making the wine less than it could be.
4. Uniqueness- this could come from terroir, it could come from some aspect of the winemaking, and in practical terms is a combination of many things. And not all need agree that the uniqueness is to their liking. Some of the most unique wines in the world have a fairly small base of fans who have tasted them on many occasions and truly love them.

And on point #1 alone you can see how subjectively a wine could be wildly popular and perhaps the favorite thing in your cellar while objectively there are greater wines. Lynch-Bages is a fine example. It will never have the breed or complexity of Lafite, but I am surely one of a great many people on this board who own and regularly indulge in Lynch-Bages to our total satisfaction. For my part, with the setting and type of food I most often consume when drinking good wine, Lynch-Bages is usually a far better companion to such a meal than Lafite. The fact Lafite is an objectively greater wine does not change the fact I love Lynch-Bages and that it is a thoroughly wonderful and satisfying wine that is more suited to my needs most of the time. Nor does it lessen the greatness of Lynch-Bages itself and the genuine enthusiasm and enjoyment it provides.
ITB - Cellar appraisals

User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 694
Joined: May 31st, 2009, 5:43 am
Location: Saarland, Germany

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#87 Post by Rudi Finkler » November 19th, 2019, 11:50 pm

Robert Sand wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:53 pm
All those who deny that there are "objectively" bad wines (not 100% objectively, but to a high degree) deserve to drink these wine for the rest of their life - just to admit that there are (objecvtively) better wines ...
champagne.gif
Objectivity 'to a high degree' is no objectivity. If objectivity were possible, it would always be 100% -and highly undesirable because of its inherent totalitarian nature.
Rudi - The Bordeauxphile

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." Francis Bacon

Robert Sand
Posts: 448
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 1:19 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#88 Post by Robert Sand » November 20th, 2019, 1:16 am

Rudi Finkler wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 11:50 pm
Robert Sand wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:53 pm
All those who deny that there are "objectively" bad wines (not 100% objectively, but to a high degree) deserve to drink these wine for the rest of their life - just to admit that there are (objecvtively) better wines ...
champagne.gif
Objectivity 'to a high degree' is no objectivity. If objectivity were possible, it would always be 100% -and highly undesirable because of its inherent totalitarian nature.


No, not correct imo.
I´m a lawyer - for a judgment (by a judge - an expert) there is the need for a "high degree of probability" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" (I hope I did it correct in English) - not for 100%, otherwise almost no judgements would be possible.
Also a judge has to be objective as far as possible to make a judgement.

User avatar
lleichtman
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 1380
Joined: June 28th, 2014, 6:28 pm
Location: Santa Fe NM

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#89 Post by lleichtman » November 20th, 2019, 5:17 am

Mattstolz wrote:
November 16th, 2019, 10:40 am
Henry Kiichli wrote:
November 16th, 2019, 10:01 am
I tend to not shit on other's opinions, but...

Yes.

Think of food. Is a microwaved HotPocket covered in LuckyCharms and CaptnCrunch just as viable as "good food" if someone likes it?
i can think of several people I know who would choose the hot pocket over Alinea.
Nope, prefer Alinea.
Lawrence G. Leichtman

User avatar
Mark Golodetz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6268
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#90 Post by Mark Golodetz » November 20th, 2019, 6:25 am

Robert Sand wrote:
November 20th, 2019, 1:16 am
Rudi Finkler wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 11:50 pm
Robert Sand wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:53 pm
All those who deny that there are "objectively" bad wines (not 100% objectively, but to a high degree) deserve to drink these wine for the rest of their life - just to admit that there are (objecvtively) better wines ...
champagne.gif
Objectivity 'to a high degree' is no objectivity. If objectivity were possible, it would always be 100% -and highly undesirable because of its inherent totalitarian nature.


No, not correct imo.
I´m a lawyer - for a judgment (by a judge - an expert) there is the need for a "high degree of probability" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" (I hope I did it correct in English) - not for 100%, otherwise almost no judgements would be possible.
Also a judge has to be objective as far as possible to make a judgement.
That is the point. If objectivity is not 100%, then what is it? Over 70%? And does that change according to the reputation of the experts? It just doesn’t work.

I don’t think you can call any wines good or bad simply because there will never be 100% agreement. It is not like 2+2, which is a demonstrable fact, and calling a wine objectively good or bad is not.
ITB

User avatar
Jay Miller
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 14045
Joined: June 19th, 2009, 5:18 pm
Location: Jersey City

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#91 Post by Jay Miller » November 20th, 2019, 7:11 am

Henry Kiichli wrote:
November 16th, 2019, 10:01 am
I tend to not shit on other's opinions, but...

Yes.

Think of food. Is a microwaved HotPocket covered in LuckyCharms and CaptnCrunch just as viable as "good food" if someone likes it?
That depends. Was it done ironically?
Ripe fruit isn't necessarily a flaw.

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1731
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#92 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » November 20th, 2019, 7:44 am

Tom Reddick wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 8:02 pm
John Kight wrote:
November 18th, 2019, 1:02 pm
I'm much more interested in whether a wine (or a specific bottle of wine) can be "evil". But before we can discuss whether or not good, bad and evil are "objective" terms, we must first define them....And it seems difficult to define "good wine" as anything other than a wine you like or a wine you dislike but choose to acknowledge to be "good". And that doesn't seem objective...


As for what are the criteria, here are a few I think are important,

1. Complexity over simplicity.
2. Overall structural balance.
3. Not having one aspect of the wine unduly overshadow or conceal other aspects. #2 is all about the balance between structure and fruit. #3 gets a bit more specific about components. A key issue in #3 would be the levels of oak used and whether that overwhelms other aspects of the wine's expression thus making the wine less than it could be.
4. Uniqueness- this could come from terroir, it could come from some aspect of the winemaking, and in practical terms is a combination of many things. And not all need agree that the uniqueness is to their liking. Some of the most unique wines in the world have a fairly small base of fans who have tasted them on many occasions and truly love them.

And on point #1 alone you can see how subjectively a wine could be wildly popular and perhaps the favorite thing in your cellar while objectively there are greater wines.
Not a bad list, and one sees versions of it for literature, at least. The problem is that it is not self-evidently true. In other words, if a simple wine is subjectively more popular, why is the complex wine nevertheless a better one? It may be better for those who appreciate complexity, but that appreciation is subjective. It really comes down to this: one evaluates wine by tasting it. Taste is, by definition, subjective. In other words, one experiences what one senses internally. One can have consensus about pleasurable or valuable sensations, but one can't have objective evidence of the value. Things that are objective leave evidence that are not dependent on individual sensations. Oh, and by the way, with regard to complexity in literature, there are any number of straightforward lyric poems that have long been valued that are not particularly complex.

Robert Sand
Posts: 448
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 1:19 pm

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#93 Post by Robert Sand » November 20th, 2019, 8:32 am

Mark Golodetz wrote:
November 20th, 2019, 6:25 am

That is the point. If objectivity is not 100%, then what is it? Over 70%? And does that change according to the reputation of the experts? It just doesn’t work.

I don’t think you can call any wines good or bad simply because there will never be 100% agreement. It is not like 2+2, which is a demonstrable fact, and calling a wine objectively good or bad is not.
According to Einstein everything is relative, so nothing is 100% sure - but if a high probability doesn´t count (for you) this whole thread is senseless.

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1731
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#94 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » November 20th, 2019, 9:06 am

Robert Sand wrote:
November 20th, 2019, 8:32 am
Mark Golodetz wrote:
November 20th, 2019, 6:25 am

That is the point. If objectivity is not 100%, then what is it? Over 70%? And does that change according to the reputation of the experts? It just doesn’t work.

I don’t think you can call any wines good or bad simply because there will never be 100% agreement. It is not like 2+2, which is a demonstrable fact, and calling a wine objectively good or bad is not.
According to Einstein everything is relative, so nothing is 100% sure - but if a high probability doesn´t count (for you) this whole thread is senseless.
This is an enduring misreading of Einstein. In the Theory of Relativity, the speed of light is an absolute. Everything is relative to that absolute. In any case, this has nothing to do with objectivity. Einstein supported his theory in the standard scientific way, by making a falsifiable prediction which turned out not to be false. Can any evaluation of wine live by that standard?

User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 694
Joined: May 31st, 2009, 5:43 am
Location: Saarland, Germany

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#95 Post by Rudi Finkler » November 20th, 2019, 9:24 am

Robert Sand wrote:
November 20th, 2019, 1:16 am
Rudi Finkler wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 11:50 pm
Robert Sand wrote:
November 19th, 2019, 1:53 pm
All those who deny that there are "objectively" bad wines (not 100% objectively, but to a high degree) deserve to drink these wine for the rest of their life - just to admit that there are (objecvtively) better wines ...
champagne.gif
Objectivity 'to a high degree' is no objectivity. If objectivity were possible, it would always be 100% -and highly undesirable because of its inherent totalitarian nature.


No, not correct imo.
I´m a lawyer - for a judgment (by a judge - an expert) there is the need for a "high degree of probability" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" (I hope I did it correct in English) - not for 100%, otherwise almost no judgements would be possible.
Also a judge has to be objective as far as possible to make a judgement.
Sorry, Robert, a 'high degree of probability' and 'objective as far as possible' is not the same as objective and, moreover, this is a wine board and not a courtroom. We are not forced to deliver a final judgement, fortunately. :-)
Rudi - The Bordeauxphile

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." Francis Bacon

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1731
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#96 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » November 20th, 2019, 12:51 pm

I think probability is a tangent here. Things that are probably objectively true, may more likely or not be objectively true, and also, less likely than not, but possibly, objectively false. In neither case would they be a subjective, evaluative judgment. The absence of grounds for certainty about some questions is a human condition and not a disproof that human beings can have accurate knowledge of things. The subjectivity of evaluation of sensory experience is really just a matter of what sensory experience is.

User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 694
Joined: May 31st, 2009, 5:43 am
Location: Saarland, Germany

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#97 Post by Rudi Finkler » November 20th, 2019, 11:09 pm

Robert Sand wrote:
November 20th, 2019, 8:32 am
Mark Golodetz wrote:
November 20th, 2019, 6:25 am

That is the point. If objectivity is not 100%, then what is it? Over 70%? And does that change according to the reputation of the experts? It just doesn’t work.

I don’t think you can call any wines good or bad simply because there will never be 100% agreement. It is not like 2+2, which is a demonstrable fact, and calling a wine objectively good or bad is not.
According to Einstein everything is relative, so nothing is 100% sure - but if a high probability doesn´t count (for you) this whole thread is senseless.
High probability is high probability and nothing else. If high probability would be the same as objectivity, then we would not need different terms. But that in no way means that high probability would not count and this thread would be senseless.
For me, this thread is about objectivity vs. subjectivity, truth vs. belief, or certainty vs. opinion – fundamental questions of human existence and absolutely worth rethinking and discussing here.

BTW, although the most of our daily decisions are based on beliefs and assumptions -the purchase of wine included-, it can do no harm to think something through.
Rudi - The Bordeauxphile

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." Francis Bacon

User avatar
David Glasser
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6623
Joined: August 16th, 2009, 6:03 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#98 Post by David Glasser » November 21st, 2019, 7:09 am


User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 694
Joined: May 31st, 2009, 5:43 am
Location: Saarland, Germany

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#99 Post by Rudi Finkler » November 21st, 2019, 7:32 am

Ha, nice, a song for mentally lazy people. neener :-)
Last edited by Rudi Finkler on November 21st, 2019, 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rudi - The Bordeauxphile

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." Francis Bacon

Jonathan Loesberg
Posts: 1731
Joined: April 27th, 2010, 5:59 am

Re: Are there objectively good and bad wines?

#100 Post by Jonathan Loesberg » November 21st, 2019, 7:42 am

The fact that a claim is very probable or not very probable is not a measure of whether it is true or not but a measure of how good our evidence is for knowing whether it is true. One can only make meaningful probability claims about things that could be objectively true. Claims about wine evaluation are neither probable nor improbable because they are not really knowledge claims but taste claims. Whether a wine contains x amount of alcohol, brett, tca, are all things that can be measured in a lab and are objective. It would be coherent on tasting a wine, to guess how likely it was that it had x amount of alcohol, tca, etc.Whether the wine is good or bad because of the alcohol, brett, tca, etc. is another thing. It would not be coherent to say, upon tasting, I think there is a high probability that this wine is bad because your sensory perceptions don't work that way. You might say that meaning something like, I'm not sure how I feel about my taste sensation of this wine, but that's a different matter.

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”