Indeed Kevin - it's like a trigger point - at a certain (low) level, as noted, it's just another element of complexity, but at a certain threshold for me it is as bad/undrinkable as if the wine is corked.Kevin Harvey wrote:Bill,
It sounds like my sensitivity is similar to yours. I cannot finish a glass that shows this awful character (chemical not “green” to me). Most recently I couldn’t drink an otherwis nice grower champagne over the weekend.
FWIW sensitivity to this compound is not related to tasting acuity. Some of the best tasters I know are blind to it.
Nope, can't explain, though it's certainly more prevalent (but well below my 'gag' threshold) and whilst I saw it a bit more in 14 than in 15 and 16, the fact that wines show it in those latter vintages too, implies to me that phenolic ripeness might not be 100% the driver...Karl K wrote:Bill, can you explain why you taste it more in Gamay? Just easier to detect in that grape, or more prevalent with it for some reason?
Red herring or red bug? So you ignore completely the link I gave you to the academics who research this and say LBT (lady bug taint) is real? Rather you say (paraphrase alert) 'I don't know any vignerons but I'm right' on one hand, but you imply that everything else is unscientific on the other. Ask Thomas Bouley, Charles Lachaux, Nico Rossignol, David Croix amongst, many, many others what they think. There are, of-course, many other vignerons that don't believe it (though can't propose another mechanism) too - balance in reporting is important.Nathan V. wrote:It's because the ladybug thing is a red herring. I don't know any vignerons (not that I'm best friends with any in Burgundy) that think 2004 was ladybugs.Alan Rath wrote:There is just no excuse whatsoever for them not to know this. Too easy to compare pyrazines in ladybugs with what's in the wine and know for sure.Howard Cooper wrote: Fourrier said in an interview with Levi Dalton on I'll Drink to That that he did not think ladybugs is the cause.
Science is easy - you come up with a hypothesis and then test it - until then it remains a theory. Before the 2011 vintage Jean-Marie's theory - which he also explained to me - was no better, no worse than mine, just different. His explanation did not pass the test of 2011 - so far mine did. As a professional scientist until concentrating on writing since 2013, I will simply wait for the next, better, theory than mine and I will happily jump ship to that - that's what science is. Whatever it might sound like, I will only back the LBT theory until there's there's a demonstrable other mechanism. Your version of 'science' (on my reading!) simply says that LBT doesn't exist - is that not inflexible and unrealistic?
If you want me to come up with with the 'proof' because it's my theory, no problem, give me $100k and I'll do all the GC-MS work myself - because I can Otherwise ask the academics who I linked...