Another AFWer wrote me privately, asking re my recent note re the Franciscan Oakville. He noted I said it was very good, yet I damned with faint praise. He wrote a thoughtful piece, wondering if some of us New World dwellers have an inferiority complex, keeping us from fully praising our own country's wines. My response:
"it's tough sorting out all the mental associations we have. But my gut feeling is that I don't have an inferiority complex re old-vs-new world, but merely a set of taste preferences. I go to blind tastings quite often (by the way, I post my identical notes on a couple of web sites, where many of my tasting compatriots read, as we give our opinions each night while wines are still blind, if I changed my tune I'd be crucified and rightly so); results are usually the same. It's clear that my personal preferences generally fall into a particular slot- wines with good but not overwhelming fruit, good acidity, no more than moderate oak. Those are some of the trademarks of "Old World" wines. But I think it's more the profile than the place of origin. I will generally prefer a more classically styled California Bdx blend wine such as Ridge Montebello or (in certain vintages) Dominus to a French wine in the '00 Pavie mode. While my tastes in Pinot Noir run more towards Burgundy, I'll take a Saintsbury or St. Innocent PN over say a Perrot Minot or Mortet.
Which brings us to the Franciscan. I thought it a well-made wine, an excellent example of its style (for the price at least, I don't taste much Bryant Family). But its not the style I personally prefer. As an aside, it would have certainly shown better with a steak (the most common time for me to pull out a typical CalCab) than lasagna. I gave it a B++. I participate on a couple of fora. The main thing one must keep in mind when reading TNs is that they are a personal view, representative of a personal set of tastes. The sheeple who follow avidly the words (and points) of a particular critic don't always acknowledge that (and no, that's not a swipe at Parker or his readers, because it's just as true for readers of WS, Halliday, Burghound, Bettane, etc.). One must read notes in the context of the reviewer. There is no uniform "best". After one has read someone's notes for a while, agreed a lot, then one might start buying wines based on a recommendation. And often one might agree with someone is certain areas and not others. I tend to agree with Parker fairly often on the Medoc, less so on Right Bank Bordeaux, Australian wines, etc (and certainly we're worlds apart onLoire reds and Burgs, neither of which he reviews anymore). Similarly, on AFW I might tend to agree with Ed Rasimus about Cabernet more than Pinot Noir. It makes neither of us right or wrong, just different tastes. Its important IMHO to keep these things in mind. When doing tasting notes, I try (as much as possible) to note when I think something is well-made but not in my preferred style. But a very well made wine in a style that's not a favorite is never going to get a solid A from me. Words are always more important than the score, in any case. It's also civil to try to note style differences without TOO much judgement (as tasting notes are inherently judgemental, total lack of bias is impossible). Sometimes in wine discussions the folks who like Mortet will refer to those who like de Montille as loving "fruitless thin hard acidic wines", while the de Montilleans say the Mortetians (I feel like Swift making up these classes) are simpletons who don't appreciate subtlety. I think their tastes just differ. "
After I wrote all this, I thought I might as well post to the group as a new thread. These are just my opinions, but from my view the idea of people appreciating that everyone's tastes are valid is the basis for a sense of community here. None of us are "right" or "wrong" about a wine.
If one has a sense of the author, a good tasting note gives one a pretty good sense of a wine. I used Ed as an example. I realize that his preference in PN is for a riper style than mine; I can extrapolate from his clear notes whether I might like a wine or not. My guess is he would react the same way. If I said the Whatyousay Winery PN was "clean restrained Pinot with bright acidity, a good deal at $30"he's unlikely to go out and buy. Just as I'd probably skip a $30 RRV that Ed recommended for exuberant fruit. At the same time, if Ed recommends a $20 CalCab I sit up and pay attention. Or if he recommends a $7 PN
- I know each of us has lesser expectations at that level, and I'll try anything that someone whose tastes I respect touts at that price (note to Ed- sorry to pick on you, just used you as an example because we had commented on Franciscan. I could have used Mike Tomassi, Michael Pronay, Ian Hoare, or a variety of others in a similar manner).
I don't need (or want) everyone to share my preferences. What we do need is for people to accept that others have different tastes and opinions. Thanks to my correspondent for bringing up these thoughts. Anyway, I thought I'd share these musings. Dale
Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply