Harry Oldman on Killing the Geezers that lay the Golden Eggs

Hello, friends, Dr. Harry W. Oldman here! It has been a while since I've come here to put pen to paper - or do these young whippersnappers call it fingering the computer - partly because I wanted to see what the reaction would be when I said to myself I might cease writing. About a year ago, I took a position with a big-name wine producer, but recently left. My non-disclosure agreement only allows me to say good things about them, but I can't identify them by name. Anyway, I'm back because the wine world needs more old white guys to keep it from destroying itself. Without us, I'd be surprised if the wine industry would survive more than a few weeks. Millennials and bloggers - scum of the earth - are intent on destroying what we worked so hard to achieve: delicious wine.

There used to be hedonism in the wine business. I know, because I know some wonderful women winemakers who... well, let's just leave it at me knowing them. I don't want to get in trouble because the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me. So, let me see... well, we don't have hedonism anymore. No, now, because of all those slack-line-walking bloggers, we have another form of prejudice that’s just as pernicious: asceticism.

Read, for example, this piece, from The New York Times Magazine, that refers to "a band of upstart winemakers ... trying to redefine what California wine should taste like." This group of self-proclaimed arbiters of taste wants wine to be minerally and flavorless. They think wine should have no perceivable alcohol! We are basically living a second-coming of the temperance movement.

Okay, let's break this down.

The Quest for Certainty Blocks the Search for Meaning...

"The quest for certainty blocks the quest for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers." - Erich Fromm, 1947

That quote from Fromm's Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics is a peak into his into his views on human nature, but as I read it the other day the first thing that popped into my mind was the 100-pt wine rating system. I know, I know, this horse has long been dead. Perhaps this was my first thought because I actually found myself defending the system over the weekend. My friend, Jeff Siegel, made the statement that the 100-pt system is useless. I countered that it is quite useful as a means to convey information about one person's perception of a wine to another. However, I acknowledged that the system is quite flawed. Jeff, in all his wisdom, correctly pointed out that 'flawed' implies it can be corrected.

There is no way that this system of using numbers to portray an authoritative characterization of a wine's quality can be fixed to correct the false sense of certainty it has created. The true meaning of a wine cannot be replaced by a number, yet the wine world in which we live has been corrupted by the quest for perfection. Yes, information is conveyed but at what price?

There are those consumers and critics alike who understand that a wine's true worth is not found in the pedigree of the cultivar, or the reputation of the region, or the celebrity of the winemaker, but in the collection of traits that leads to an experience. A number draws a sand in the line; Whoever is not with me is against me (Matthew 12:30). Wow, I never thought I'd quote the Bible on this blog! Only by erasing the number from the equation can we erase this false dichotomy of good and evil, or right and wrong. Wine is neither good nor evil. Wine is communal. You have the right to love a bottle I can't stand.

Wine is meant to be enjoyed, shared, and celebrated. Arguments are part of the fun, but the quest for certainty and the quest for high scores has replaced the true meaning of wine for too many consumers, critics, and winemakers. Only naked from certainty that numbers imply, can we then drive forward to experience wine in its true beauty.

101 Punctuations

In an exclusive interview, Jeff Siegel, aka The Wine Curmudgeon, confided in me a stunning reversal to his wine reviewing policy. "As of today, I will be review wine on the 101-point scale," Siegel giddily revealed. "I know I've bellyached about the quantitative rating of wine for many years now, but I've finally realized the beauty of the system." Siegel has obtained both a patent and a trademark on the revolutionary system. Siegel made clear that any attempt to co-opt the use of the additional point will be met with swift action by Siegel's legal team, the famous Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe.

The 100-pt system for rating wine has been widely ridiculed, but yet remains popular. "I've seen how Cruella de Monkton has kidnapped the wine world with his 100 points. I have no plans to skinning wines for financial gain," explained Siegel. "I've rolled myself in the soot of bloggerdom long enough and will finally give Bogle and Cristalino the points they deserve. I will start a Dynasty of Dearly Deserving Wines," Siegel said with a sardonic grin. "I'm even thinking of taking the idea further than wine with a magazine called 101 Points by Jeff Siegel," admitted Siegel. "My crackpot legal team is working out the details as we speak!"

After finishing a bottle of cheap Gascon wine, Siegel let another secret slip. Not only will he attempt to change the world of wine critiquing, Siegel claims to have plans to take cheap wine mainstream via broadcast television. "Not enough wine consumers pay attention to cheap wine. If I can put it on TV maybe consumers will start buying the stuff! I've got a green-light to start filming a remake of a famous sitcom," whispered a clearly intoxicated Siegel. "I can't give you any details right now, but will say that Jon Bonné, W. Blake Gray, and I will start filming next month. Just as the original series was all about hedonism, jingle writing, and drinking, I couldn't think of a better way to put cheap wine on center stage than on CBS' Monday night programming."

Siegel went on to mention that the project kicked off when Bonné approached him about starting show about two ex-newspaper wine writers living together and working in a local wine shop while attempting to raise funds to start a winery. The show was going to be called 2 Broke Guys. Getting word of the project, Gray wrote a draft of a scandalous blog post uncovering the plans and demanded to be included or else he would expose the project to the world, taking away the thunder of Bonné's first story for Punch.

Siegel sighed and explained that to make the best of a bad situation he called his friend Chuck Lorre. "I've already said too much, but damn isn't this colombard tasty. I think it might be the first 101-pt wine," Siegel slurred. I figured out the details of the project when Siegel doffed his trademark fedora, winked repeatedly, and not-so-subtly mouthed the name of the show. Apparently, Chuck Lorre thought it would be great to remake Two and a Half Men. Sadly, Siegel refused to tell me which character each writer would play.

Look for the revamped Two and a Half Men on your local CBS affiliate this coming September.

Matt Kramer got it wrong about bullies who put down wine

Without wine lore, and wine tasting, and wine talk, and wine labels, and, yes, wine writing and rating—the whole elaborate idea of wine—we would still get drunk, but we would be merely drunk. The language of wine appreciation is there not because wine is such a special subtle challenge to our discernment but because without the elaborate language—without the idea of wine, held up and regularly polished—it would all be about the same, or taste that way. —Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker

Two days ago, in Wine Spectator, Matt Kramer penned a polemic against nameless skeptics of the sensory value of wine. In Kramer's defense, he attempted to use an article by Adam Gopnik (yes, I misspelled his name (twice) in a comment over on the Jackson Family Wines blog, and for that I apologize) in the The New Yorker as evidence this anti-intellectualism bullying. The problems with him basing his condemnation on Gopnik's article are twofold. First, the article is more than ten years old. If you haven't read it, I strongly suggest that you do so. Yes, it reads as if it were written yesterday (or maybe tomorrow) and that is the sign of a good writer. But nevertheless it was written at a different point along the wine industry continuum and was actually an editorial on the 2004 state of wine prompted by William Echikson's book, Noble Rot. Second, and more important, Kramer completely missed the point of Gopnik's article. Kramer chose to quote Gopnik out of context. He should have started his article with the full quote that I've provided above. Gopnik actually accomplished what Kramer was attempting to do by making the case that wine talk and wine description are an integral "part of what lets the experience happen."

Dr. Oldman channels Oprah to expose a doping scandal that will rock the wine world...

After his surprising Boxing Day interview, Dr. Harry Oldman thought that today would be the perfect day to share his next interview with us.

I had so much fun with my interview with my anonymous wine critic friend (though I hope the interview wasn't the real reason he is no longer a critic...), that I thought I'd try my hand again at asking another famous wine personality some tough questions. Bobby P and I go all the way back to his early days as the world's first blogger, a camp which I too have fallen into. Together, Bob and I would take on the heathens of the wine world on Prodigy's Wine Forum. It had been some time since we last talked, but I've long defended him from the many sheep of the Interwebs. When Bob agreed to sit down with me I decided that I had better improve my interview skills, so I watched countless hours of the best interviewer I could think of: Oprah. I've followed Oprah from her very start on AM Chicago, but spending a week straight of watching reruns gave me all the insight I'd need to make this a newsworthy interview sure to cause a ripple in the space-time-wine-blogger continuum. One day, I am sure that this interview will be as talked about as any interview Oprah did with Tom Cruise, Lance Armstrong or Lindsay Lohan. Make sure that you are sitting, because what I'm about to share with you will knock your tastevins off!

The Daily Grind...

Writing a wine blog can be a difficult endeavor. I have the utmost respect for those individuals that are able to publish something on a daily basis. A few blogs are the result of a collection of collaborators, but many are lone writers typing away every single day. I'd love to be able to write every day, but I just can't. While my blog sometimes gets in the way of my life, my life gets more in the way of my blog.

I have a job, a wife, a child and a house to take care. The cats and chickens are easy when compared to all of those other things, but they take work too. I'd be willing to bet that most wine writers that are able to publish daily have few of those responsibilities. I'm sure some do, and probably even more! The hardest part, but also best, of my life has to be the 2-yr old that is sitting next to me as I type this. 2-yr olds require near constant attention (if you expect them, and your belongings, to be safe). When I am home, and thus able to write, my attention is usually not directed at my computer. Diverting a few moments here and there to Twitter is much easier than spend a decent chunk of time typing on this keyboard (which coincidentally is missing the comma key because of a curious little boy...) when feeding, entertaining and cleaning up after the little guy are necessary. Before Ben was born I used to write at night before bed. But now, after he has gone to sleep, I usually just want to turn my brain off and watch television. Over the past year, I've been lucky if I've posted something once a week. Now, I'm not trying to get any sympathy. I understand that I could watch less TV or sleep less if I really wanted to publish more blog posts. My lack of ability for posting more often makes what others do even more impressive.

Time isn't the only limiting factor. Coming up with ideas is almost as difficult as finding the time to put those ideas into a form that other people might want to read. Yes, I do respect the writers that are able to write something every single day. I don't care if some of the topics are repetitive, banal or vexatious, daily publishing is still impressive.

I started this blog as more of a journal to catalog my exploration of the wine world. I would write about the wines that I drank, but I a grew tired of just writing tasting notes with no real bigger picture than just promoting a wine. I do receive a small number of sample wines and taste them with every intent of writing about them, but unless I find the wine really interesting and fitting into a bigger topic I am unlikely to just write a tasting note. Now if I were to start receiving more samples, then then topics such as comparing similar wines from different regions might be more reasonable stories. One successful tasting series was Ben's Bubbly. When my son was born, I added a weekly topic that focused on tasting sparkling wines from around the world, as well as documenting Ben's growth. It was a fun series, and one that I am considering bringing back, although with a different style of wine.

I tried to do a regular interview with Colorado winemakers, but that ran its course when I couldn't get any more responses from more winemakers. It is frustrating that so few Colorado vintners keep up with the world of wine writing. That idea morphed into a series of interviews of American vintners over on Decanter.com, but ever since an editorial change a few months ago I have been unable to continue with that (in fact, two additional interviews were submitted but never published). I might also try to bring these interviews back to the blog in the the future if I can find interested winemakers.

One of my favorite new topics is the occasional "guest" posts by Dr. Harry Oldman and Remi Burmí. The posts by these two characters are more creative and humorous than traditional wine blogging. Plus, they provide a different perspective than I would normal provide. I can guarantee that both will continue as guest writers in the future.

Most of my recent posts are simply opinion pieces reacting to some news item or an other wine writer's articles. I know that across the blogosphere too many stories are about blogging and I am just as guilty as the next blogger. Social media, the 100-pt system and the alcohol content of wine seem to be some of the more discussed topics by digital and traditional writers alike. I happen to think that a healthy debate has its place in the wine world. I am not shy, especially when I disagree with someone. However, there is a lot of navel gazing in the world of wine writing, but that can be said about many other fields. Just look at tabloid journalism. All TMZ and the like "report" on is the illegal or absurd activity of a few celebrities. In academics, many peer-reviewed articles are researchers debating research methods and findings. Politics seems the same way these days. There is more name-calling and criticism, over the same few topics, than getting anything actually accomplished for the good of the country.

I'd love to get feedback from my readers as to what you want to read. I'd love to be able to publish on a daily basis, but that is most likely not going to happen. I do, however, want to try to be more active on my blog. Would more reviews be of interest? How about interviews with winemakers or even retailers? Would having posts published on the same day of the week be a good idea? Do you think Dr. Oldman or Ms. Burmí should be retired? Get more coverage? I really want to know how can I make this blog better. Please let me know in the comments!

Marketing myopia in the wine world

This morning, my good pal Steve Heimoff published a blog post about how wineries can get famous. He raised some interesting points about the changes that have taken place in mass communication between the present and 1994 when the movie Disclosure "made Pahlmeyer a star." Obviously, he discussed the rise of social media, but concluded that a critic's score was the "best way to get huge notice by the public."

Dr. Harry Oldman has a Surprise Holiday Interview...

Dr. Harry Oldman generously unwraps a spectacular interview for us on this Boxing Day.

Kyle, as an old white man with a beard, I felt that it was only appropriate that I give you and your readers a present this year, but I couldn't quite figure out what would be a good gift. Then it dawned on me! I'm friends with a moderately notorious wine critic and we talk fairly often about wine and life in general. He was kind enough to answer the kind of tough questions no one has ever had the balls to ask him. I felt like Katie Couric! He didn't know that I was going to publish the interview, and I don’t want to name names because I don’t have his permission, so I'll just refer to him as SHhh (as in I'll never tell!). You can guess, but I'll never reveal my source!

HARRY: Hey, buddy! Thanks for agreeing to answer some questions. I know how much you hate answering questions, so this really means a lot to me!

SHhh: No problem, anything for you Harry. I actually love to answer questions, almost as much as asking questions! I write for the consumer, first, foremost and always. So when my readers engage with me, I make it a point to always respond. I learn so much from my readers! Blogs and bulletin boards are supposed to be back-and-forths, right? I mean, we live in this new age of participatory journalism. It is not uncommon for me to comment on other blogs, too!

Hooked on a Feelin' ... (1800 words on authenticity and Matthiasson wines)

Authenticity is one of the words buzzing its way around the tiny little realm that we call the wine industry. The term even made its way into a Huffington Post story yesterday about common food terms that have lost all meaning. In our little world, one camp (producers, consumers and writers) clamors for authentic wines, while the other (more producers, consumers and writers) bemoans the abstract idea of a wine's authenticity. The whole argument over "authenticity," as it concerns wine, is really over the definition of what is "authentic."

Well, I'll dip my toes into the water on this subject. Authentic wines are wines of undisputed origin and wines (and producers) worthy of trust. Authentic wines can be made in small quantities by an individual or, albeit more difficult, in an industrial setting by a team of enologists in a lab. Authentic wines can be single-vineyard, single-clone wines or blends of unlikely varieties. To me, the idea of an authentic wine is tied to the relationship between the consumer and the producer. This is where trust in the origin of the wine comes into play. I find it easier to have a connection with people, but as my buddy Joe Roberts so eloquently put it (I'm sensing a Pulitzer...) consumers can have a "relationship with a f*cking bag of candy." Proponents of authentic wines want to feel connected to a wine's origin, whether that be the soil, the grower or the producer. They want to know everything they possibly can about how, and perhaps more importantly why, a wine was created.

Oldman on questions...

Harry Oldman chimes in with his nonsensical babble once more:

As a man with more wine experience than most, I have developed a keen eye for what really matters in this intoxicating industry. I've met more winemakers than I can count and it doesn't matter that I had to repeat Algebra three times in middle school because Arithmetic is the only type of mathematics that matters in wine. 97 points more more than 96 points. Easy as pie. But not that pi. That doesn't mean a 97-pt wine is better than a 96-pt wine, because we all know that comparing wines is like an MMA fight between a kung fu panda and a jujitsu jackass. For one, they both are from different continents. But both are distinctly mammalian. Donkey meat is rubbery and full of ferality. Panda is rare, succulent and full of fresh acidity. It's a question of taste and not fact. Or maybe the other way around. Now where was I?

Voiceless

After reading Dr. Oldman's guest post a few weeks ago, another friend of mine wrote me and demanded to contribute to the blog, too. I had to ask her to remind me who she was again, and then it hit me. Her name is Remi Burmí. How could I forget her, with her bright red, Buddy Holly glasses and Converse low tops. She's a few years older than I. She's a self-taught wine expert whose dad was an award-winning science fiction author (I think his last novel even won gold at the California State Fair). Her mom was a sex therapist from Mendocino. She writes a biennial wine column for Examiner.com (or at least that's what she claims). Her writing makes me think of Eric Asimov and Jon Bonné co-publishing an online magazine using a nom de guerre.

Any way, she said that with all the Baby Boomers and Millennials writing past each other in the wine blogosphere she felt like she was part of a forgotten generation. She said, for some reason, that my blog was the hispster-est place to speak out for these forgotten beer wine consumers. Oh, and to even make it more hipster, she wanted the post to go live after 5:00 EDT on a Friday because no one will read it over the weekend and people will still be talking about the non-cabernet Parker perfect wine and the imminent wine shortage. Oh and it's a poem... (Oh Lorde, save yourself and just stop reading right now!)

Throwing up a roadblock for certain cars... (Why Wine Spectator's change in policy is bad for the industry)

The Wine Spectator has never been a big proponent of regional American wines. This is not news. In the past few years, New York wines started to get more coverage, but that was due more to the hard work of the Finger Lakes Wine Alliance and its former executive director Morgen McLaughlin than an inherit interest from the Wine Spectator. The occasion review of wines from Arizona, Colorado or Virginia would appear at times in the past few years as well. But for the most part, coverage of wine from the other 46 states was virtually non-existent.

Why wine reviewers should be more like book reviewers

Yesterday, Tom Wark wrote about the differences between wine and book reviewers. The article was insightful, but I took exception to his basic premise that "it doesn’t take much time to produce a wine review." It doesn't take much time to produce a review of anything. I can look at a car for 30 seconds and estimate how fast it is, what kind of fuel efficiency you should expect and tell you if I like its lines. But how much time a critic takes to conduct a review is related to the thoroughness of the assessment. Thirty seconds with a car does nothing to explore the comfort or practicality of the automobile. A thorough assessment is not a guarantee of a quality assessment, but it does make an thoughtful review more likely.

It is an industry standard that wine reviewers spend 5-10 minutes (at most) swirling, sniffing, sipping and spitting wine in a sterile (not in the medical sense) setting. Yes, most good critics will also visit the regions and meet with the producers they critique to develop a context for the wines they assess. Yet, the official reviews come from relatively short periods of time spent with the actual wine and in the presence of dozens of other wines also being assessed. The resulting wine reviews are meant to assist consumers with their purchase decisions. I am not ardently against tasting notes and despite my disdain for the 100-pt system I understand its purpose and relative usefulness.

The thing that irks me about the standard system for wine reviews and pointed out by Tom Wark, is that there is no need for a wine critic to spend more than 10 minutes with a wine. Most consumers I know do not spend only 10 minutes with wine swirling, sniffing, sipping, spitting and repeating. They consume the wine. Often with food and rarely in the presence of other wines. There may be no need to spend more than 60 seconds with a wine, but there is a benefit to the consumer when a critic gives a wine the attention its users give it. As I commented on Tom's blog, [t]asting a wine with food can be important. Tasting wine at different points in its lifetime can be important. Spending 2 minutes with 20 wines is like reading the prologue of 20 books and stating definitively what happens in the last chapter of each and proclaiming which book is the most well-written!

Yes, an experienced book reviewer can probably give a good estimate of what's a book about by looking at the author's name, the publisher and reading the prologue or first chapter. That is exactly what wine critics do. Some do it quite well, but none are perfect. I understand this process because I often do the same thing. For those of you (if any) who have read my blog from its inception will know that wine reviews have become increasingly missing from my posts. Sure, I still write about specific wines, and sometimes I tasted them in the way I am critiquing here. But most of the few reviews I post are of wines I drink at home, over the course of a few hours, with and without food. That's how most wine consumers drink.

I really like Tom's suggestion of the long-form wine review. I know that is not going to happen with the major wine publications because they depend on volume. More reviews equals more points. More points equates to more readers. More readers means more revenue. But perhaps alternative critics might be able to utilize Tom's suggestion. In fact, more writers/bloggers are adding in the story of the vintner or the land in lieu of lists of aromas and flavors that you may or may not be able to detect in a wine.  Two of my favorite writers doing this are Alder Yarrow, of Vinography, and RH Drexel, of Loam Baby. They both tell the story of wine differently, but each does so with enthusiasm and interesting writing. They add value to their writing when they spend more than 60 seconds with a wine or winemaker (despite Alder also having a tendency for many short reviews from mass tastings...).

Wine reviewers should spend more time with wines they are reviewing just like book reviewers spend hours, if not days, with the books they review. They should aim to be more than just reviewers, but actual writers. Just as with a book, not all the subtleties of a wine are noticeable at first. Consumers could benefit from the greater insight and context of a wine gained from more thorough assessments. Wine reviews don't need to be longer, but they should be!

Guest post from my extern

I've turned this post over to my friend and psuedo-mentor, Harry Oldman.

Dr. Oldman has been in the wine business for decades. He used to be a computational physicist at a national laboratory in New Mexico, involved in computational fluid dynamics of wine. But after getting sidetracked on a trip to California by Randall Grahm, he has never been the same.

He shares his thoughts and opinions on wine and wine writing on various online wine boards, but I of course don't listen to what he has to say (you know, with me being a Millennial and all).

Since 1WineDude and The Hosemaster of Wine^TM have occasionally handed their blogs over to their interns, I figured I’d open my blog to this extern. Plus, this will allow me to put in extra hours on social media and get my beauty rest all at the same time.

So, with out any further ado, here is Dr. Oldman:

Using social media to get laid.... or something like that!

People who use social media to make sales are like people who go to bars to get laid. It's a crude picture, but you probably aren't going to have a great experience. You may, but basically in both cases actually starting a relationship is what it's about. What social media is about is starting relationships, long-term ideally, with consumers who are actually going to listen to you and you're going to listen to them. - Robert Joseph during "The role of social media and traditional communication" at Savour Australia 2013.

The most interesting, imaginative and intelligent wine publication...

There are lots of wine publications floating around, both in paper and digital formats. Decanter, Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Advocate are probably considered the most influential and most dominant wine glossies aimed at consumers. Though they all contain articles about people, places and various lifestyle topics, their raison d'être is reviewing wine and distilling the wine down to a numerical shorthand (all now use the 100-point system) that supposedly corresponds to quality. The editors may claim that the score is secondary to the actual review, but those periodicals are most cited by consumers and retailers in connection with just the ratings, often times with the actual arbiter of the score detached from his or her decree.

Maybe Steve Heimoff was right (I might have lost my mind...)

After giving it a week of thought, I'm going to argue something with which, on the surface, I adamantly disagree. Last week, my digital buddy, Steve Heimoff, wrote a blog post titled, "Saying Goodbye to the Golden Age of Wine Writing." His thesis was that with the rise of the "Age of Digital Information" (i.e., wine blogs) wine writers are finding it more and more difficult to earn a living writing about wine. He claims that the world of wine writing is no longer the utopia it was when he got into this profession and made a name for himself (I'd argue he actually has made his name via his blog and not as the California Editor for Wine Enthusiast Magazine). David White penned a great response to Steve's assertions and claimed that things are actually getting better in the world of wine writing. I wholeheartedly agree with David, but I want to take a deeper look into Steve's post.

John Madden the wine critic...

Football season is finally upon us. For many of you (including me), yesterday was spent parked in front of the TV with a beer in hand. The entire state of Colorado is bursting with anticipation for a Super Bowl run after Peyton Manning and the Broncos thrashed the defending champions on Thursday. However, I grew up in Wisconsin so naturally I'm a Green Bay Packers fan. In fact, ever since 1998 I have actively rooted against the Broncos. If the Broncos aren't going to finish 0-16 this year, I'd like nothing more than to see the Packers beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl in New York. I'd be in a better mood today had the Packers beaten the 49ers, but thinking about a Green Bay Super Bowl victory over the Broncos keeps me smiling.

You may be wondering what football has to do with wine. Bear with me as I get there. Along with the beginning of the NFL season, perhaps the most popular sports video game, Madden 25, was released recently. In the game, every single player is given a numerical rating - from 1 to 100. Sound familiar to wine yet? Thinking about how and why human beings are given such subjective ratings got me thinking about how the video game is like the wine review game. Is Calvin Johnson equivalent to a bottle of 2009 Château Latour (WS 99)? Is Anquan Boldin like a bottle of 2007 Canyon Wind Cellars IV (WS 88)? Which bottle of red blend or which receiver would you rather have had yesterday?

Is the 100-pt system more confusing than helpful?

Proponents of the 100-pt system for often claim that the main advantage of the system is that it provides consumers with a clear, concise and relative measure of a wine's intrinsic quality. The problem with that statement is that a wine's intrinsic quality is completely subjective. Every person is born with a unique palate and a distinct set of experiences from which to conjure aroma and flavor comparisons from memory (how else does one know what an "intense sensation of ... gunflint" tastes like? Those experiences also make relative scoring inherently flawed. Do you enjoy green tobacco or do you find it off-putting? Acidity, oh don't start a debate about acidity amongst wine writers! Sure, one person's opinion is easily defensible, but when two (or more) prominent wine publications diverge dramatically on their assessment of a wine (more often than you would expect), the result for consumers could be more confusing than helpful.

An antagonistic approach (a reputation you get when you question authority)

This weekend, a colleague of mine introduced me to a friend of his at the third annual Colorado Urban Winefest. Part of his introduction include a reference to my wine writing. He referred to me as an "antagonistic blogger." Both of those terms are used pejoratively in the world of wine writing. Now I have no problem being called a blogger. I write about wine on this blog. I have also contributed to Palate Press, Sommelier Journal, Wine Spectator and Decanter. So I am a wine blogger, and I also consider myself a wine writer.