Huh?
I think we do “cheat” ourselves out of great wine experiences sometimes. A while ago I had a 2005 El Nido and 2005 Termanthia open side by side at dinner. The Termanthia is an AWESOME wine, but poured next to the El Nido it seemed just so-so. Makes me wish I’d saved the Termanthia for another day.
I’ve noticed that when trying some of our wines side by side. That’s why I take our wines home one at a time to enjoy over the course of an evening when coming up with tasting notes for our mailers.
I always ponder this when I see some grand tasting with a dozen or more great wines written up. I tend to think seeing the evolution of a wine is a large part of the experience. It seems very superficial at times to drink an ounce or two, then move on to compare to the next wine. What if a wine has several layers that are revealed with time? Isn’t that more likely to be the case with great wines? (Which are in turn more likely to be consumed in a competitive fashion.)
It does keep people honest doing comparative tastings, especially critics. But with nuanced, deep wines, I think many people are indeed sapping the pleasure. I’d go so far as to say often it becomes conspicuous consumption.
I don’t really drink wine. I taste it. Sad really.
NOT!
Sirge, have you considered taking this matter up with Soren Kierkegaard?
I take a similar approach and have noticed the same thing, Brian. I taste everything side by side and take basic notes leading up to a release – for primary impressions across “visual”, “nose” and “palate”. It’s hard to not find favorites in that tasting. But I give every wine a solo session a few weeks later to focus on it’s own merits. I start blind (the boss likes to test me) and we always pair each wine with a test dish prepped by one of our local chef-pals before moving to the next wine. I’ve changed my thoughts on favorites more than once after that process. And my prose notes are always better. 
I only drink the best, so I’ll line up 10-12 bottles, taste each, pick the best, and Charlie Fu/Otto Dobre the rest.
The answer is personal. That said, when ever i see the heavy lumber crowd or some other group talking about drinking 60 very special very expensive bottles I think what’s the point? I tend not to attend too many formal tastings where large numbers of wines are being poured because I ultimately find the whole affair kind of tedious, not very fun and have on occasion opted out and started drinking beer or a cocktail. I don’t need to deconstruct every experience I have with a one ounce pour and write it down in notes. I can drink in the wine and the company and be very happy. And besides, the FuF tends to be very low at those tastings ![[highfive.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/db21b9263a9105e51f6f8b11e61dd4de095611f9.gif "highfive"){kind=small}
I very interesting observation…
For myself, I find that the greatest pleasures with wine come from enjoying it with family, friends and good food. So in those situations I have to agree that having a number of wines “competing” against each other makes no sense and can ruin the most important aspects of the experience.
That being said, there is a place for comparing wines as a way to learn about styles and/or regional differences. I might open say a Mosel and a Nahe riesling side by side so we can learn how they differ, but in these instances there is not competition, but a learning experience. I personally have never found much use in attending tastings with a lot of different wines as after 2 or three different ones they all start to taste the same!
Cheers,
RIchard
that’s the only way to go. But if you aren’t close to a sink I think a Blue Solo cup does just fine 
+1
I hate when I have a “taste” and I love something, but can’t get anymore because it is a “tasting”. I am with “King Cab” on this one. I would say I am a drinker, not necessarily a taster…although if one of you guys want to give me a “taste” of '82 Petrus, I will make exceptions. ![[beg.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/c/c8f47f94d6cf4d2028b6fb3e1d25ac809b9ab827.gif "beg"){kind=small}
To me, it’s all good. I love going to events with other wine geeks and getting to try a bunch of different wines - it is how I do quite a bit of my buying, based on what I like from those tastings. But that is a small percentage of my wine consumption - most of which is over dinner or an evening so that I have a chance to really savor a bottle.
I thought Todd meant he was sending Otto or you the rest…
I taste wines side by side (very rarely these days) but I drink them on their own (more and more often). I don’t see the point of trying to compare one bottle to the other at the same time, all I ever got out of that was one wasted bottle (at least). Two wines tasted side by side rarely make each other better the way one can achieve that with wine+food. Each bottle gets proper attention, and if I’m not enjoying it I’ll move on to the next one. It also ensures that I don’t end up with a lot of unfinished bottles at the end of the night–move on to the next one when the previous one has either been emptied or discarded (if flawed, etc.)
I think I tend to score wines more critically/harshly in larger / more formal tastings than if I were just having a single bottle with dinner.
It seems to me very much like TVs at best buy. If you show me 30 tvs next to each other, it is easy to say ‘this one is sharper,’ ‘this one is over priced’, etc. but at the end of the day, once you pick one and put it in your home, you get used to it and just enjoy it, regardless of how it would compare against 25 others.
Am I alone on this one?
I think it can be instructive to taste similar wines side by side, it worked very well with the three 2001 Alsace Riesling I popped last night. However, I’d much rather have a limited selection of wines and taste them over a longer period of time so I can see how they develop and give them (if they are good) the attention they deserve.
When I’ve done some wine judging, attended a panel tastings for wine magazines or been to large trade tastings I have found them to be unsatisfactory experiences. I don’t like having 90 seconds to assess a minuscule dribble of what could be a really fine wine, and have to come to come to a snap decision about its quality before moving onto the next of fifty wines I have to get through in far too short a time. It is hard, and not terribly enjoyable, work for me and the possibility of misjudging a wine is just too high.
I do turn up to producers in Burgundy, Alsace and Germany every year; of course in such circumstances you try a reasonable number of wines in a short space of time. Wonderful as it is to try and discuss the wines with the producer (all though not all wine makers are loquacious about their babies, and there can be a language barrier), again I feel I need more time and a bigger measure to totally analyse and accurately assess the wines I taste. This is why my notes made in such circumstances are generally brief and only give my most general impressions of a wine: they are a bit too similar to good old Clive Coates’ style of note-taking, which is only so revealing. An example, my notes on Christophe Roumier’s quite brilliant 2008s (which are here) I hope communicate my excitement for them, and give a quick impression of the important facets of the wines, but they are neither deeply analytical nor highly informative. To achieve that I’d have to take up far too much of the winemaker’s valuable time to probe him/her deeply whilst tasting and scribbling furiously. I don’t know how Alan ‘The Burghound’ Meadows does it. I love my trips to wine regions to meet and taste with people I (almost) worship as living gods, but I wish both winemaker and I had more time to spend with each wine.
Cheers,
David.
Gene,
There are several “points” to having dinners like the type you mention. However, before I get to those points let me just clarify the atmosphere at these dinners. Besides the food, wine and wine service there is absolutely nothing serious or formal to any of the dinners like these that I attend. It’s a non-stop laughfest where we all make fun of each other, tell humorous stories and just have a great time. Things like me showing up in top hat, tails, cane, spats and my butchered shaving job for a '20’s style moustache for a 1920’s themed dinner is hardly formal. I could fill pages detailing the shenanigans that go on at some of our dinners. The number one overall goal at our dinners is to have fun. I seriously doubt you would opt out from boredom and start drinking screwdrivers if you were at one. Dinners tend to last for at least five or six hours and there is always the ability to save any glasses that you want so you can go back to the wines and see how they have evolved over the course of several hours. And generally the pours at most of these dinners is at least 2oz. Only one person ever takes serious notes and that’s because he is in the business. The most I ever do is jot down a few words next to each wine when I plan on posting my notes.
The “point” of dinners like these are several. One, until you (or at least for myself) drink a number of great wines side by side it is almost impossible to separate the great wines from the greatest wines ever made (putting aside bottle variation of course). This format makes it easy. Two, it gives validity, or not, to the reputation of either producers and/or terroirs over a historical period of time. Three it’s a challenge for the attendees. Almost every one of these dinners is either single or double blind so it’s both fun and educational to try to guess regions, vintages and producers of all of these wines when side by side. While not something I like doing more than five or six times a year, there are 365 days a year to drink wine. So, for the other 360 or so days left, I can drink a bottle by myself, a couple of bottles between two people, four bottles between six people, etc, etc, etc.
Fourth and most importantly, we do it because we have FUN.
I think Serge is on to something, but I hesitate to agree with any post by him that has “rimming” in it
Try Sartre, they grow better grapes where he was raised.
Does anyone feel that when comparing wines that one wine effects the flavors of the next wine? I’ve drank a wine then tasted wine#2. Tried to clear my palate (water, bread, crackers) went back and tasted wine#2 again and got totally different flavors.
I prefer drinking a wine for dinner or occasions but also love tastings (especially blind). But I always try to clear my palate before tasting the next wine to experience the true flavors.
Agreed. This is why I don’t write or post notes anymore. It seemed like I was paying too much attention to writing a out an experience instead of just enjoying it. Another thing, ‘best’ is a word I try not to use, feel or think anymore with wine. I feel as though I get much more out of each pour now.