Adam Lee and Siduri: Noo Yawk Times article

Fun prank!

Yes, fun prank and Mr. Asimov seemed to take offense, perhaps because he focused on the label rather than what was in the glass.

Good for Adam…funniest wine-related thing I’ve read in a long time!


"…Ultimately, Mr. Lee’s switch-up proved very little…"

Ummmm…no Eric! It actually proved exactly what it was supposed to and that it that there are a lotta guys with very good palates that can be proved to be not as bloody smart as they think they are! And as much as I like reading Asmiov’s column, he can come off a bit too superior at times.


Wow. Asimov completely misses the point, gets defensive and declares a war. rolleyes

Imagine if that number was never on the labels. deadhorse

There’s some history here - the Adam Lee Blind Alcohol Challenge - that has a life far outside this particular event. Knowing that, one can see what Adam was planning and by his own admission it never went off as he envisioned, as his lecture was cut short due to time. If it didn’t prove anything, it’s a shame, because it might have.

A bit disappointed by the tail end of this article. I thought Eric was putting together a nice piece until his anti-flavor-elite side came out. Too bad, as I generally like almost all of his writing. Adam was doing no malice and he simply put his cards on the table after Raj gave him his blessing to do so… I wouldn’t call it counterproductive in the slightest.

Nicely done Adam.

The end of the article left me feeling like Mr. Asimov felt duped by the switch and did not care for being played.
Seems like this was an opportunity for him to be humbled or perhaps even recognize value in blind tastings.
Oh well. Still, I liked the switch.
And on a commercial level - I would like to try both of the Siduri pinots. Good marketing Adam.

thankfully there is enough alcohol in california pinots to make those molotoc cocktails.

I really like Asimov’s writting, he’s one of my favorite wine writters far and away. But, in this case, not sure he did himself and favors with the article. I thought he might have been better served if he focused the dicussion on the seminar and his premise of “who decides” than a jab at Adam Lee.

Well, I am currently diving down the rabbit hole of Burgundy, but at the same time keep thinking about how fantastic the 2008 Holdredge 11 pinot is.

Did you expect anything different Chris? Asimov has made it clear he’s part of the AFWE jihad on many occasions.

Asimov grinds my gears because often his points are valid and could be argued intelligently but he chooses to argue like a two year old. I was fooled but but but but doesn’t prove anything because I wasn’t paying attention! Really Asimov?
The alcohol debate will never be resolved. There will always be someone who prefers the opposite to the idiot with the microphone.

In a hobby of pomposity, Asimov takes the cake. I have quit reading him, although admittedly his base articles are interesting. He’s just so high on himself and cannot even admit when he should reexamine his dogmatic beliefs.

Go Adam, this kind of hit piece just makes me support siduri even more. I do not think asimov respects the power of his pen. Or actually I think he does and is so patronizing he thinks you are a fool if you don’t think like him.

guess I’m dimwitted, but it sure proved a point to me.

Bully for Adam.

It strikes me that some here are reading a bit more in this than Asimov’s article warrants, which rather goes to his point.

See? I am dimwitted…

So, here’s how shallow I am.

Eric writes, “I was wrapping things up when Mr. Lee grabbed the microphone.” – As if in an MTV moment, I snatched the single mic from an 18 year old girl’s hands.

In fact, each person had their own microphone, which was in front of each participant on the table. And I brought up the switch of the labels and the end of answering a question that Eric had specifically asked me…rather than jumping in as Eric was ending the show.

— That being said, the problem, it seems to me, is that many people want me to have been attempting to make some greater point. Eric is right in that the my intent was to show that a 15.2% alcohol pinot could be balanced and that judging balance based on the label number was somewhat foolish. — I think that point was made. Unfortunately, (and this hasn’t been mentioned much) I apparently also made a 13.6% alcohol Pinot that was less balanced than the 15.2% one - as I assume Raj chose the wine that was most balanced to want to purchase. – That doesn’t say a lot about my skills…

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

Eric Asimov seemed to protest too much about what he regarded trivial.

The other thread on the seminar included a link to the full transcript. Alcohol and Balance in Pinot Noir - the World of Pinot Noir - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers. Outside of the “grabbing the microphone” note, Asimov completely omits the exchange between Adam and Rajat Parr. From the other thread:

If someone still finds the switch impolite, fine. Life isn’t that serious too me, but to each their own. Either way, it wasn’t intended to be directed at Parr, it just ended up that way because he wanted to by the higher ABV, and then did the most stand-up thing of the whole story by telling Adam he had to let others know.

In any case, it doesn’t “prove” any general point about alcohol level and wine, and I don’t think Adam has ever implied that it does. Didn’t he do a blind tasting with a blogger in which both had a hard time pegging the ABVs at >/< 14.5%? Point to me is that the correlation between balance and ABV, whatever it is, is less than many people think.

If people want to use alcohol levels, including a bright line rule, in buying wine, I get that – especially when buying wines or producers they haven’t tasted. It’s not much different from deciding that one does not like X variety from Y appellation. But I’d hope that people would follow Rajat’s lead and evaluate a wine they have tasted on it’s merits, not it’s label numbers.

Frankly, this kind of writing is where Asimov is loosing me. I don’t care for a stated or all-but stated agenda in political writers, and in wine writers it’s particularly annoying. It’s fine when a blogger or columnist has an obvious set of preferences that are different from mine – Terry Theise’s recent book as an example. When they evaluate a wine by something other than what’s in the glass, that’s advocacy not observation. It hasn’t gone well of late for Parker, so I can’t understand why others are treading the same road in the opposite direction.