It is interesting how certain wines remind you of other totally unrelated wines previously consumed. The same can be said of people. Sometimes these similarities can be good things or not so good. I notice things about Beatrice that I remember happening with Ben, but I know they're completely different people. I sometimes find myself tasting a wine and think it is something else when I know it can't possibly be. I've been put off by wines that reminded me so much of something I didn't enjoy in the past, only to be surprised when the labels were revealed. But the best instances of these mistaken identities are when you taste a wine that is a dead ringer for something either rare or much more expensive. Well, this week's rosé fits into that category.
Showing posts with label Sine Qua Non. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sine Qua Non. Show all posts
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Thursday, October 9, 2014
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."
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."
Friday, December 14, 2012
Five predictions for 2013
2012 has been an eventful year in the wine industry. There are more licensed American wineries than ever before (almost three times as many wineries as breweries...). California (and Colorado) had a bumper crop of high (not exceptional) quality. The Rudy Kurniawan story made headlines in the non-wine world after he was arrested for producing and selling millions of dollars of fraudulent wine. And in probably the biggest news that wasn't really wasn't that big (see yesterday's post), Robert Parker, Jr. announced that he was stepping down as editor-in-chief of the Wine Advocate, opening a second office in Singapore and sold a share of the ownership to three Asian investors (rumor is they aren't all Asian...). So what will 2013 bring in terms of worthy wine news?
Here are five prognostications:
Here are five prognostications:
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wine as Art and Art as Wine (and a visit at Eric Kent)
Wine is a science. Wine is Art. Wine is a craft. Wine is a commodity. Wine is a luxury. Wine is a many things to many people. Wine should be drunk. Wine should be discussed. Wine should be savored. Wine should be collected. Yet, any way you look at it, wine is meant to be enjoyed. Luckily, there are many different ways to enjoy wine. Some people like to feel tipsy. Some people like to simply smell the aromas for hours. Some people even like to collect it. Some do so for financial gain (or adrenaline rush or even ego). Some people even collect wine as Art. No, not necessarily for the masterpiece inside, but the label.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)