So I’ve been reading the current WA issue with the coverage of the California Rhone Rangers. There’s a review of the Clos Mimi Syrahs, with alcohol %'s listed at 17.5% to 18.5%, and descriptions like “more Amarone than dry table wine.” So far, so good–all helpful information. But then: “This is not for everybody (especially those incapable of thinking ‘outside the box.’)”
Personally, I’m not a fan of Clos Mimi wines (the fruit is far too overripe for my tastes, and they have a tendency to show far too much VA for my tastes). But regardless of how one feels about this particular wine, I’m really struck by the “incapable of thinking ‘outside the box’” comment.
Why is the purpose of attacking the palate and sensibility of people who don’t want Amarone when they want something labeled Syrah? Whose “box” is it, and who draws the line? Perhaps people want a Syrah they can drink with their dinner that won’t knock them on their ass after a glass, or that can be consumed at a candlelight dinner without concern about its bursting into flames?
I’m not one of those folks who automatically objects to wine over 14% alcohol, but I don’t really see the point in a review that seems to attack people who don’t care for extremely high alcohol “table wines”…
Same Shit Different Day…and becoming somewhat typical to the online persona. Now I just need the emoticon in which the smiley jumps into the glass…Todd?
Is that outside the box to enjoy Clos Mimi Syrah or outside the box to survive drinking the wines Bruce? The guy is the advocate of something, but not quality and enjoyable wines anymore. Is his agenda strictly helping those in the industry he admires or has his palate been lost at sea.
I’m puzzled by those that feel saying someone is “incapable of thinking outside the box” is not a derogatory statement. It’s not exactly something that one puts on their resume. Of course, I’m a lowbrow ESJ drinker so what do I know.
Makes you wonder why thinking outside the box requires appreciating Clos Mimi but disparaging ESJ? Maybe everyone has their own box they like to think inside of.
Not taking sides here, and I don’t have a personal line to Bob himself, so I can’t know what he was thinking . . . . .
But let’s face it - there are a LOT of wines that folks simply do not try for NUMEROUS reaons . . . Price . . . Label Art . . . Alcohol level . . . Unfamiliarity with the brand or variety . . . etc . . . etc.
No big deal . . . simply means to me that one should be open to exploring ALL types and styles of wines out there - if you don’t TRY it, you really cannot know if you will LIKE it or HATE it!
I agree with someone above that stated that if he had written this about another more highly regarded producer - SQN, Rivers Marie, Maybach, Tensley, Saxum - the reaction would have been different . . .
I really don’t think there is much to see here IMHO . . .
Larry–On a general/philosophical level, I tend to agree. I like to experiment, and it’s worth tasting wines of different grapes and different styles from time to time just to see what’s going on. One reason why an event like HdR is so valuable is precisely to have the chance to taste a broad spectrum.
BUT, most people aren’t winegeeks, and most people have neither the time, the money, nor the interest in buying 30-40 different Syrahs from their local retailer and tasting through them all to decide what they like. People read professional tasting notes (or notes posted by winegeeks online) so that they can get a reasonable idea of whether a wine is likely to appeal to them. And, of course, they try to get good recommendations from retailers they trust.
So if you write a review about an extreme 18.% alc. Syrah that seems more like Amarone than Syrah, why take shots at people who think that kind of wine isn’t likely to be for them?
I think the obvious answer is to show how superior you consider yourself to be. As I said before, his snarkiness, which has shown itself on way too many occasions, is one of the many reasons (along with unreliable palate, gross overestimation of drinking windows, ratings too heavily weighted to his own unreliable palate, his bizarre vendetta against ESJ wines and a host of other reasons) I no longer deign to spend my hard-earned money on his franchise.
This (and Leve’s comments in support of “taste the wines”) just shows how abused and intellectually-bankrupt Parker’s 100 point system has become in practice. The role of the critic should simply be to help you identify wines that may be worth your while to try. No more, no less.
let’s put things in perspective. Bob pretty much has to write like what…800 tasting notes every 2 months. And along with the notes you often get info on the winery, people, pets…It not a one sentence tasting note. So he is pumping them out, I’m guessing into a dictaphone to a transcriber. I don’t think it’s fair to pull out one sentence he probably just said to point out that the wine is different, and make it a pejorative.
