All these discussions about blind or not blind bring to my mind an other problem.
Explanation :
Every one has his own sense of what a great wine should be. All of us we know that the typology, the style of a Cab-Merlot is different from a Pinot Noir or a Nebbiolo. But some amateurs drink only wines from a specific region. I know for example some german geeks who drink only Piemont wines. never Bordeaux or Burgundy. In other words, when they do taste a Chambertin, they do not have our knowledge and, some way they use their criteria piemontese.
So, the question : do you think this “mono-type” amateurs have a specific approach of the wines versus “us” who like Burgundy as much as Bordeaux or Tuscany ?
Do they have a more sophisticated approach or it is “us”, who with our larger definition of what a great wine must be, are more accurate in our judgment ?
In other words : the fact that I do love the finesse of a Côte de Nuits (Mugnier) push me to prefer in Bordeaux the wines who develop also a finesse instead of the power ?
I am a big fan of young wines that have forward fruit and oak…I think everyone here knows this. On the rare occasion that I DO taste something aged from Burgundy, I don’t know if what I am tasting is representative of what I should be tasting. I am handicapped in that sense…not enough experience to know what was good, bad, indicative of the terroir, etc. But I don’t make my living from it, and more importantly, I don’t have influence on how others make a living.
For professional critics, I think that they need to have an initmate knowledge of their particular “beat”, but also have a working knowledge of the other major wine regions around the world. Just like a sous chef in a restaurant needs to have the ability to fill in with basic knowledge when necessary.
François, when you say “us,” I think you are being far too generous in suggesting that we are all NOT “mono-type” amateurs in one way or another. Some here on the boards (and not just WB) principally drink Bordeaux/Burgundy/Californian, for example, and as a result, use those regions as the benchmark for their evaluation of all wines, regardless of the varietal. There are also those here who IMO have a prejudice against more modern styles of winemaking, inveighing against those wines (and sometimes winemakers) as somehow deviants of typology and/or tradition. For myself, I try really hard not to hold any one type/standard in mind when I drink a particular wine. Although I do readily admit that I tend to have a New World palate, I feel I can recognize a great Old World wine, much to the surprise of some of my drinking buddies. But that is not to say that some of my own “mono-type” amateurishness does not occasionally creep in.
Interesting question. I think if you have no base point for evaluating a wine then it would be difficult to fairly evaluate the wine for what it was supposed to be. OTOH, it is still possible to decide if you like the wine and why it appeals (or not) to you.
But, as a professional reviewer or critic, a simple “I liked it” or “nice” really doesn’t cut it. Shouldn’t they be able to convey whether the wine is varietally correct, speaks to the terroir or is consistent with the vintage based on other producers in the region.
Oprah can say that a boxed wine tastes good to her, and it sells a million cases…but a wine critic she ain’t.
So, the question : do you think this “mono-type” amateurs have a specific approach of the wines versus “us” who like Burgundy as much as Bordeaux or Tuscany ?
Do they have a more sophisticated approach or it is “us”, who with our larger definition of what a great wine must be, are more accurate in our judgment ?
Francois - to answer your question, I think the “mono-type” amateur does have a different approach when tasting wine. That person, say they are a fan of Burgundy only, when they taste or drink a Burgundy (red) they are usually looking for the characteristics of the particular region (i.e., why this tastes like a Chambolle versus a Volnay versus a Pommard). Once they determine that, then maybe if they have enough experience they begin to look for signs that point them to a vintage and then maybe to a producer (if tasting blind). The mono-type drinker drinks different wines within their singular area of enjoyment based upon the differences the region, vineyard, vintage and producer.
I think those that have a broader range of wine likes (and even dislikes) taste to what fits their palate - do they like richer fruit driven wines, more or less new oak, lots of acid or little acid or somewhere in between. If the wine fits their wheelhouse, they’ll enjoy it, if not they won’t. I know when I taste a CA Pinot there are certain things I look for and some of things are the same when I taste a Cabernet or a Syrah.
And there are some that like a range of wines but really love a couple varietals or regions or whatever. They might have much more experience in those areas than in others and may start looking for things that a mono type drinker does as well.
Now if you are asking about a professional critic - someone who gets paid to write about, judge, etc., I don’t necessarily think that person should only drink the wines of the regions they cover. But they should have a broad range of knowledge about the region, the varietals indigenous to the region, the styles from different producers within that winemaking region so they just aren’t tasting whatever wine is put in front of them.
For instance, what gets lost to me in the big mass tastings where 500 wines are sampled in 2 days is the fact that someone doesn’t produce the big rich wine or doesn’t produce the super acidic wine. I appreciate and enjoy Sin Qua Non red wines…the Syrahs can be awesome expressions, the Grenache based wines are great red wine to me but don’t really scream Grenache. On the other hand, I can enjoy Steve Edmunds grenache and Syrahs. i don’t think it fair to compare the two to come up with a score for both though. It helps to know the style of each and is it successful in that particular vintage/bottling. Sometimes an ESJ wine might seem a little thin and sometimes an SQN can seem a little volatile…it happens.
Very good question, François. And one that we’ve talked about in the GJE. A wide knowledge is advisable, IMHO, for any wine buff and not just for professional tasters. I think one spectacular case of prejudice and little knowledge about one large wine region relate to my own backyard: Spain. It’s only been in the last decade that some international aficionados have begun to show a (modest) interest in Spanish wines, but the tendency is to either consider that only one style - that of traditional Rioja - is “truly, recognizably Spanish”, or to simply dismiss other, different Spanish wines because they “could come from anywhere”. Both attitudes, when applied to the largest vineyard surface and possibly the largest variety of climates and terroirs in the world, are misguided.
I was of course very fortunate as a young wine apprentice to be reared simultaneously on Rioja, Switzerland, Burgundy and the Rhône, so I had an early appreciation for the differences and what to look for in each region. Today, I find two things equally irritating: the ignorance of wines from the rest of the world shown by too many Spanish tasters, and the ignorance of wines from Spain shown by too many tasters from the rest of the world.
I’ll try to answer with my own personal experience:
I just began drinking Riesling with an eye towards quality and typicity. It’s a bit of a struggle, as I find the language barrier and the geographical minutae to be challenging, but I knew from my previous experiences with random bottles that there were certain characteristics that I found intriguing in the grape varietal.
I went over to a local merchant who hand selected a half dozen or so German Rieslings (mostly Mosel Kabinetts) and I have been tasting through them for the last month or so. After doing my homework, I’m begining to see the stylistic preferences that I find appealing. For one, I think an integration of acidity to balance preceived residual sugar is important to my palate. Many have suggested Alsatian Rieslings as a good place to start due to their vinification philosophy, compared to their northerly neighbors. I am hosting a tasting of 20+ German Rieslings in a few weeks and that can only add to my understanding of the wine.
With that being said, if I were flung into an indepth blind tasting of top flight German Rieslings, would I be able to provide qualitatively meaningful analysis of the tasting? Perhaps. What my palate likes will not change, save from experience developing a certain sense of culture or familiarity with flavor profiles. I know a thing or two about wine, albeit far different regions and types. However, I will not be able to make inferences about potential growth and evolutionary potential with reference points without a depth of knowledge behind me.
In that sense, when we delve into regions we do not drink, we echo the sympathies of our non-wine geeks who simply proclaim “I like this” or “I didn’t like that so much.” We can recognize quality and craft but our sensibilities and ability to synthesize the information from the tasting, may not quite be honed so sharp.
A “mono-taster” doesn’t have a sufficient reference point to fully appreciate the ‘details’ of wines outside their area of experience. Not that they can’t enjoy the wine, or appreciate it but they won’t appreciate the nuances or how it compares with others of its venue without a broad reference point.
![[shock.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0b1dcf699ec319f43254f92e3f145786dcd93904.gif "shock"){kind=small}