Do you spit or swallow?
April 30, 2013 3:20 PM Subscribe
Bostonians Tyler Balliet and Morgan First love wine. Drinking it, talking about it, introducing other people to it. But wine, unfortunately, is often perceived to have an attitude, a culture of snottiness and pretension that puts people off before they even get close to a wine glass. Why swirl it? What's with that obnoxious sucking sound? What the hell is the deal with spitting it out? What about the confusing vocabulary and snooty descriptors? When did wine become "sassy" or "understated", instead of "delicious"?
How do they intend to do that? By throwing a series of Wine Riots - expo-style walk-around wine tasting festivals, complete with 20 minute "crash courses", DJs, swag, food...and unlimited tastings of 250 wines from all over the world, presented in a casual, party atmosphere. And to make it easy to keep track of your wine adventuring? They've got a mobile app to help you take notes and tell you where to find your favorites after you've sobered up.
The first Wine Riot of 2013 has already passed, but there are more! Next one is this weekend in Chicago, with more scheduled in San Francisco, NYC, DC, Boston, and LA.
At a large wine festival in New York, Tyler Balliet witnessed what he described as “one of the saddest things I ever saw.” A group of young people who—while excited to be at the $85-per-ticket event—were clearly flummoxed about how to appreciate wine. Without knowing what to do, Balliet said one member of the group turned to another and said, “Screw it, let’s just get drunk.” The story, Balliet said, serves as an example of how the wine industry has failed to connect with the younger generation of U.S. wine drinkers.Frustrated by that disconnect between wine producers and would-be wine consumers, First and Balliet maxed out their credit cards in 2008 to found Second Glass, a company dedicated to making wine more accessible and fun for next-gen wine drinkers.
How do they intend to do that? By throwing a series of Wine Riots - expo-style walk-around wine tasting festivals, complete with 20 minute "crash courses", DJs, swag, food...and unlimited tastings of 250 wines from all over the world, presented in a casual, party atmosphere. And to make it easy to keep track of your wine adventuring? They've got a mobile app to help you take notes and tell you where to find your favorites after you've sobered up.
The first Wine Riot of 2013 has already passed, but there are more! Next one is this weekend in Chicago, with more scheduled in San Francisco, NYC, DC, Boston, and LA.
I think one of the biggest challenges in my part of Canada is that "budget" or "value" wines typically fruity, sweet, Shiraz, and even if they're not Shiraz they're really sweet, like drinking soda pop.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:31 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 3:31 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
more scheduled in San Francisco, NYC, DC, Boston, and LA.
I suspect that wil be tough because I seem to be the only person in the entire bay area who can't tell a zinfandel from a merlot at twenty paces.
posted by GuyZero at 3:31 PM on April 30, 2013
I suspect that wil be tough because I seem to be the only person in the entire bay area who can't tell a zinfandel from a merlot at twenty paces.
posted by GuyZero at 3:31 PM on April 30, 2013
As long as this isn't Pepsi Blue, I think this is a pretty cool idea.
But then I hit the 50/50 mark between appreciating wine and just wanting a nice "classy" buzz so don't mind me.
posted by Kitteh at 3:32 PM on April 30, 2013
But then I hit the 50/50 mark between appreciating wine and just wanting a nice "classy" buzz so don't mind me.
posted by Kitteh at 3:32 PM on April 30, 2013
One of my aunt's favorite stories is about wine, and my great-grandmother's sister, Great Aunt Nell.
It was on a Thanksgiving when my parents and aunts and uncles were all in their early 20's, old enough to have tried getting into wine but young enough that they were still insecure and trying to impress each other a little. They were all sitting around the table and getting everything served; someone was pouring the wine, and one of my uncles remarked on the label - "oh, a burgundy. I like the body on that." (I'm inventing the exact conversation for a bit here.)
"I tend to like the cabernets more," another uncle chimed in. "Especially from France. Better legs."
"Not so sure about the nose on that," someone else said...and after a few minutes all my aunts and uncles and my parents got all caught up in this conversation about wine, using all these buzzwords, and leaving the wine at the table in front of them just sitting there.
After a few minutes of this, Great Aunt Nell leaned in and tapped my aunt on the arm. "Suzie?" she asked. "Suzie, do you want to hear what I know about wine?" Everyone smothered their giggles indulgently and asked Great aunt Nell what she knew about wine. And when they did, Great Aunt Nell picked up her glass, toasted them all and said, "I know enough to shut up and drink it." And she did.
...I dated a somelier for two years; I learned a couple things from him, but haven't really retained it - ultimately it didn't matter, because I found that obsessing about some of this stuff too much just gets too much in the way of shutting up and drinking it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:34 PM on April 30, 2013 [16 favorites]
It was on a Thanksgiving when my parents and aunts and uncles were all in their early 20's, old enough to have tried getting into wine but young enough that they were still insecure and trying to impress each other a little. They were all sitting around the table and getting everything served; someone was pouring the wine, and one of my uncles remarked on the label - "oh, a burgundy. I like the body on that." (I'm inventing the exact conversation for a bit here.)
"I tend to like the cabernets more," another uncle chimed in. "Especially from France. Better legs."
"Not so sure about the nose on that," someone else said...and after a few minutes all my aunts and uncles and my parents got all caught up in this conversation about wine, using all these buzzwords, and leaving the wine at the table in front of them just sitting there.
After a few minutes of this, Great Aunt Nell leaned in and tapped my aunt on the arm. "Suzie?" she asked. "Suzie, do you want to hear what I know about wine?" Everyone smothered their giggles indulgently and asked Great aunt Nell what she knew about wine. And when they did, Great Aunt Nell picked up her glass, toasted them all and said, "I know enough to shut up and drink it." And she did.
...I dated a somelier for two years; I learned a couple things from him, but haven't really retained it - ultimately it didn't matter, because I found that obsessing about some of this stuff too much just gets too much in the way of shutting up and drinking it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:34 PM on April 30, 2013 [16 favorites]
The entire point of 'high wine culture' is the snottiness and pretension. The confusing vocabulary, the spitting, the exclusion of those not 'in the know' is a feature, not a bug.
I think of the study showing that even the wine experts, the connoisseurs, the writers for "Wine Wank Monthly" or what have you, couldn't tell the difference between a bottle of two-buck-chuck and a bottle of something supposedly much better (or at least pricier).
The vocab is confusing to mask the fact that it's all bullshit.
So, I mean, I like wine. I suspect I would enjoy visiting one of the Wine Riots. Maybe I'll check out the one in SF in June. Might be fun.
But even so, I have a hard time seeing this as something other than "Oh no! People are perceiving this deliberately snobbish thing as snobbish!"
Which, like, yeah. The Republicans are having that same problem, man.
posted by Myca at 3:38 PM on April 30, 2013 [6 favorites]
I think of the study showing that even the wine experts, the connoisseurs, the writers for "Wine Wank Monthly" or what have you, couldn't tell the difference between a bottle of two-buck-chuck and a bottle of something supposedly much better (or at least pricier).
The vocab is confusing to mask the fact that it's all bullshit.
So, I mean, I like wine. I suspect I would enjoy visiting one of the Wine Riots. Maybe I'll check out the one in SF in June. Might be fun.
But even so, I have a hard time seeing this as something other than "Oh no! People are perceiving this deliberately snobbish thing as snobbish!"
Which, like, yeah. The Republicans are having that same problem, man.
posted by Myca at 3:38 PM on April 30, 2013 [6 favorites]
I thought the spitting was just so you don't get tipsy when you're setting out to compare flavors. I mean, I can't even tell the difference between a red and a white by taste, so maybe I'm missing something.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:40 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:40 PM on April 30, 2013
After a few minutes of this, Great Aunt Nell leaned in and tapped my aunt on the arm. "Suzie?" she asked. "Suzie, do you want to hear what I know about wine?" Everyone smothered their giggles indulgently and asked Great aunt Nell what she knew about wine. And when they did, Great Aunt Nell picked up her glass, toasted them all and said, "I know enough to shut up and drink it." And she did.
Great Aunt Nell is my new hero!
I volunteer in a very small winery in Tecumseh, MI, and spend as much of my free time as I can futzing about in assorted Michigan wine regions. I can throw around all the buzzwords if I want to be pretentious and mean, but who the hell wants to be pretentious and mean about WINE? Not me! So when I'm running the tasting room at Pentamere - or just hanging out and shooting the shit with whoever is working and whoever is tasting - the buzzwords NEVER exit my mouth unless a customer wants to know what they mean. Wino's First Rule is "Drink what you like!" How do you find out what you like? Taste everything, decide what it reminds you of (so when you're looking for wine later, you can figure out what to get), make a note, and for the love of the grape, have a good time of it.
I'd love to have a Great Aunt Nell behind the tasting bar at every winery, it would really help people enjoy themselves a lot more.
posted by MissySedai at 3:42 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Great Aunt Nell is my new hero!
I volunteer in a very small winery in Tecumseh, MI, and spend as much of my free time as I can futzing about in assorted Michigan wine regions. I can throw around all the buzzwords if I want to be pretentious and mean, but who the hell wants to be pretentious and mean about WINE? Not me! So when I'm running the tasting room at Pentamere - or just hanging out and shooting the shit with whoever is working and whoever is tasting - the buzzwords NEVER exit my mouth unless a customer wants to know what they mean. Wino's First Rule is "Drink what you like!" How do you find out what you like? Taste everything, decide what it reminds you of (so when you're looking for wine later, you can figure out what to get), make a note, and for the love of the grape, have a good time of it.
I'd love to have a Great Aunt Nell behind the tasting bar at every winery, it would really help people enjoy themselves a lot more.
posted by MissySedai at 3:42 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
The entire point of 'high wine culture' is the snottiness and pretension. The confusing vocabulary, the spitting, the exclusion of those not 'in the know' is a feature, not a bug.This is not true. =(
Look, I'm not a wine person really, although it's a thing I can like to drink. And it's certainly true that goofy terms aren't great. But when you read tasting notes for wines, what you're going to encounter is a lot of comparisons. Peach and melon and oak and violets and cinnamon and blueberry and honey and so on. They're trying to pick out what the flavors remind them of. This isn't hard to understand, and is actually pretty much the opposite of snobbery. Do you like strawberries? Maybe you'll like this wine! Do you like cedar-smoked meats? Maybe you'll like this other one! And so on.
This perspective brought to you from my position as someone who loves good coffee, a similarly-maligned beverage.
posted by kavasa at 3:44 PM on April 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
Old wine is good wine. But new wine is good wine also.
posted by billiebee at 3:56 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by billiebee at 3:56 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Going to one-off "events" seems like a poor way to learn to appreciate wine. Better to just drink a lot of wine, perhaps in just one or two styles, until you become familiar with it. Then try some different styles. Eventually you will learn what you like and what you don't. Somewhere along the way the vocabulary will start to make more sense. Give it 6 months or so.
posted by ryanrs at 3:57 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by ryanrs at 3:57 PM on April 30, 2013
coffee, a similarly-maligned beverage
You're in the United States? Where Starbucks (even if you hate them) has 20 types of whole-bean available on nearly every corner? Where there's a "third-wave" movement of coffee shops?
There's still plenty of shit coffee out there but coffee is hardly maligned, nor are coffee snobs particularly maligned either. OK, those third-wave coffee hipsters get kinda mocked, yeah. But people still line up to buy their stuff.
posted by GuyZero at 3:57 PM on April 30, 2013
You're in the United States? Where Starbucks (even if you hate them) has 20 types of whole-bean available on nearly every corner? Where there's a "third-wave" movement of coffee shops?
There's still plenty of shit coffee out there but coffee is hardly maligned, nor are coffee snobs particularly maligned either. OK, those third-wave coffee hipsters get kinda mocked, yeah. But people still line up to buy their stuff.
posted by GuyZero at 3:57 PM on April 30, 2013
While the vocab is useful in describing the flavors of wine it's also used as a barrier to entry for enjoying wine and flavor comparison.
Which sucks. For everyone.
Then again I had a friend rant about how awful and snobbish wine lovers are And there can't possibly be a need for all this verbiage and then go on a two paragraph long description of some scotch they had just got.
posted by The Whelk at 4:00 PM on April 30, 2013
Which sucks. For everyone.
Then again I had a friend rant about how awful and snobbish wine lovers are And there can't possibly be a need for all this verbiage and then go on a two paragraph long description of some scotch they had just got.
posted by The Whelk at 4:00 PM on April 30, 2013
GuyZero, did I really have to say "maligned similarly to the way in which the post I quoted maligned wine and people that like it"?
Also just look up any mefi thread in re: coffee for a long line of snarking about how people that like the way something tastes are actually totally lying, indifferent to the taste, and are really in it so they can feel superior.
Whelk - I guess I'm under the impression that most of the vocab is of the form "tastes like [common food item]." Is my impression wrong? Because that really seems like the opposite of a barrier.
posted by kavasa at 4:03 PM on April 30, 2013
Also just look up any mefi thread in re: coffee for a long line of snarking about how people that like the way something tastes are actually totally lying, indifferent to the taste, and are really in it so they can feel superior.
Whelk - I guess I'm under the impression that most of the vocab is of the form "tastes like [common food item]." Is my impression wrong? Because that really seems like the opposite of a barrier.
posted by kavasa at 4:03 PM on April 30, 2013
Do I like people who have a passion and try to spread it? Yes.
Do I like people that "launch a venture" to "help an industry connect with demographic"? No.
Here's how you make wine less snobby: Lower the price.
posted by DU at 4:07 PM on April 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
Do I like people that "launch a venture" to "help an industry connect with demographic"? No.
Here's how you make wine less snobby: Lower the price.
posted by DU at 4:07 PM on April 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
The stuff like legs and body, that's a bit opaque and the perceived cultural notions get in people's way.
posted by The Whelk at 4:07 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by The Whelk at 4:07 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Lower the price
Quite honestly, any domestic wine at about around 25 bucks is gonna be fine, even great. Forty bucks is about where the dimishing returns kicks in, domestic or no, a seventyw dollar bottle is not automatically better than a fifteen dollar one, but you have t be aware of your local store's stock.
Then again again rather have a good cheap daily wine I can't drink with anything then a speical occasional wine I build something around.
posted by The Whelk at 4:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
Quite honestly, any domestic wine at about around 25 bucks is gonna be fine, even great. Forty bucks is about where the dimishing returns kicks in, domestic or no, a seventyw dollar bottle is not automatically better than a fifteen dollar one, but you have t be aware of your local store's stock.
Then again again rather have a good cheap daily wine I can't drink with anything then a speical occasional wine I build something around.
posted by The Whelk at 4:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
Here's how you make wine less snobby: Lower the price.
If you live in a major metro in the US there is lots of great wine for between 11 and 15 a bottle. Realistically it is a defensible position to say that spending more than that is not a good use of your money.
If you live in Europe its even cheaper.
posted by JPD at 4:13 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
(averaged out I probably spend ten dollars a day on wine, which considering I don't really eat out or ...buy things, seems okay. Birthday Montrache and the occasionally magnum of Vuev Cliqueco is skewing things I bet).
posted by The Whelk at 4:13 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 4:13 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah but the only time I have poured a bottle down the drain was in France
Us wine may lack some subtly in the lower end but it's very drinkable and inoffensive , we got that going.
posted by The Whelk at 4:14 PM on April 30, 2013
Us wine may lack some subtly in the lower end but it's very drinkable and inoffensive , we got that going.
posted by The Whelk at 4:14 PM on April 30, 2013
My man drinks Yellow Tail. It's $5.00 a bottle, and is, so I have been told, very good.
I know it drunks him pretty good.
I am allergic to wine/vinegar, so I can't have it, but if I wasn't ladies never spit.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 4:14 PM on April 30, 2013
I know it drunks him pretty good.
I am allergic to wine/vinegar, so I can't have it, but if I wasn't ladies never spit.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 4:14 PM on April 30, 2013
Also just look up any mefi thread in re: coffee for a long line of snarking
FTFY.
I don't think we should take MeFi as a good example when it comes to snarking. I sincerely believe that the notion that different coffees taste different is very widely accepted.
And while people do make fun of wine snobs, even my local grocery store does see fit to stock a really vast array of different wines (and coffee). So clearly even if people aren't totally into it, they're not totally rejecting the notion that people want different things.
Lower the price.
There's lots of cheap wine and enough wine aficionados that any decent wine will have a demand that far exceeds the supply. Thus, wine is expensive.
That said, I doubt I'd ever spend more than $30 for a retail bottle of wine. (Normally I spend a lot less but there is one particular local winery I make an exception for - yes, I do drink wine but all the taste characterization stuff is lost on me. My sister does that for a living and the idea of my hobby being her job seems... redundant)
posted by GuyZero at 4:16 PM on April 30, 2013
FTFY.
I don't think we should take MeFi as a good example when it comes to snarking. I sincerely believe that the notion that different coffees taste different is very widely accepted.
And while people do make fun of wine snobs, even my local grocery store does see fit to stock a really vast array of different wines (and coffee). So clearly even if people aren't totally into it, they're not totally rejecting the notion that people want different things.
Lower the price.
There's lots of cheap wine and enough wine aficionados that any decent wine will have a demand that far exceeds the supply. Thus, wine is expensive.
That said, I doubt I'd ever spend more than $30 for a retail bottle of wine. (Normally I spend a lot less but there is one particular local winery I make an exception for - yes, I do drink wine but all the taste characterization stuff is lost on me. My sister does that for a living and the idea of my hobby being her job seems... redundant)
posted by GuyZero at 4:16 PM on April 30, 2013
I thought the spitting was just so you don't get tipsy when you're setting out to compare flavors.
That's the conventional wisdom, yes. The vintner I volunteer for, though, says that bit of conventional wisdom is actually meant to give people an out if they taste a wine they don't like and don't want to feel embarrassed about spitting/dumping.
I suspect it's a little of each. Me? I swallow. ;) A typical tasting pour is 1/4 ounce. A full pour is considered to be 6 ounces. If I can't handle what amounts to a glass or two of wine at one winery, I'm slippin'!
I mean, I can't even tell the difference between a red and a white by taste, so maybe I'm missing something.
Most whites should be chilled, most reds should be room temperature (or a bit warmer, achieved by cradling the glass in your palm, as you prefer). Elsewise, no, I can't usually tell the difference between a white and a red by taste, either! I can tell you what food to eat with whatever I'm tasting, though. (Wine is a food group at my house. Tonight is "I ain't cookin'" night, we're ordering in from my favorite Mexican joint, and I've got some cheap-assed sangria chilling.)
This is not true. =(
It really isn't! At least, not in the wineries I frequent, and certainly not on my "local" wine trail. We...politely raise our eyebrows at the people who get snobby. Every single state in the Union produces wine. Some of it is phenomenally good. Some of it...isn't. Most of it is perfectly drinkable, delightful with or without food, and not meant to be "mysterious" or "elite".
When I visited wine regions in France and Germany, some of the winemakers openly mocked wine tourists who put on airs. The attitude I encountered the most was "Wine is a pleasure. Drink until you find what you like, then drink some more."
Here's how you make wine less snobby: Lower the price.
My favorite locally produced wines are $11 (Michigan Cherry, Phantom Peach), $12 (S.S. Gem, a red blend), and $17 (Monk's Haven Merlot). There are lots of inexpensive, perfectly delightful wines about. I'm partial to Flip Flop and Barefoot (except for Flip Flop's Malbec), and find Crane Lake mostly delightful (I don't like their Chardonnay). Those run $4 - $7, and are perfect for every day wine. I rarely spend more than $20/bottle, unless it's for a special dinner or if it's a particularly hard to get varietal.
posted by MissySedai at 4:22 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
That's the conventional wisdom, yes. The vintner I volunteer for, though, says that bit of conventional wisdom is actually meant to give people an out if they taste a wine they don't like and don't want to feel embarrassed about spitting/dumping.
I suspect it's a little of each. Me? I swallow. ;) A typical tasting pour is 1/4 ounce. A full pour is considered to be 6 ounces. If I can't handle what amounts to a glass or two of wine at one winery, I'm slippin'!
I mean, I can't even tell the difference between a red and a white by taste, so maybe I'm missing something.
Most whites should be chilled, most reds should be room temperature (or a bit warmer, achieved by cradling the glass in your palm, as you prefer). Elsewise, no, I can't usually tell the difference between a white and a red by taste, either! I can tell you what food to eat with whatever I'm tasting, though. (Wine is a food group at my house. Tonight is "I ain't cookin'" night, we're ordering in from my favorite Mexican joint, and I've got some cheap-assed sangria chilling.)
This is not true. =(
It really isn't! At least, not in the wineries I frequent, and certainly not on my "local" wine trail. We...politely raise our eyebrows at the people who get snobby. Every single state in the Union produces wine. Some of it is phenomenally good. Some of it...isn't. Most of it is perfectly drinkable, delightful with or without food, and not meant to be "mysterious" or "elite".
When I visited wine regions in France and Germany, some of the winemakers openly mocked wine tourists who put on airs. The attitude I encountered the most was "Wine is a pleasure. Drink until you find what you like, then drink some more."
Here's how you make wine less snobby: Lower the price.
My favorite locally produced wines are $11 (Michigan Cherry, Phantom Peach), $12 (S.S. Gem, a red blend), and $17 (Monk's Haven Merlot). There are lots of inexpensive, perfectly delightful wines about. I'm partial to Flip Flop and Barefoot (except for Flip Flop's Malbec), and find Crane Lake mostly delightful (I don't like their Chardonnay). Those run $4 - $7, and are perfect for every day wine. I rarely spend more than $20/bottle, unless it's for a special dinner or if it's a particularly hard to get varietal.
posted by MissySedai at 4:22 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
I've been to many tastings in different parts of Europe and California and have never been snooted upon for my lack of knowledge or appreciation. Wine culture as I've experienced it is actually pretty awesome and inclusive. People love to share their insight, their favorites and not so favorites.
posted by snsranch at 4:26 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by snsranch at 4:26 PM on April 30, 2013
Tonight is "I ain't cookin'" night, we're ordering in from my favorite Mexican joint, and I've got some cheap-assed sangria chilling
We are in alignment! I too am ordering in tacos, but with that Bandit Tetra-Pak wine that is ...much better than a box wine should be at like 7 dollars a bottle.
posted by The Whelk at 4:31 PM on April 30, 2013
We are in alignment! I too am ordering in tacos, but with that Bandit Tetra-Pak wine that is ...much better than a box wine should be at like 7 dollars a bottle.
posted by The Whelk at 4:31 PM on April 30, 2013
I'd love it if they threw one in Seattle, but we kinda don't need it. Peeps love their grape ape here.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:33 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by lumpenprole at 4:33 PM on April 30, 2013
This is not true. =(
Yeah it is. Look, I'm not commenting on "liking and describing wine," which is what you seemed to think I was objecting to.
I'm commenting on, "high wine culture," which is a different animal, and which is built on creating a perceived value that has little relationship to actual difference in the product. One of the ways you can create this perceived value is by creating a cachet around your product associating it with high culture and expensive luxury goods.
Here's how you make wine less snobby: Lower the price.
Yes. "Come buy a $60 ticket to my wine festival," may not have the desired effect.
I mean, look, I may just have a shitty attitude, it's been known to happen. If so, BTW, it comes from growing up within wine-spitting distance of the Napa Valley.
posted by Myca at 4:34 PM on April 30, 2013
Yeah it is. Look, I'm not commenting on "liking and describing wine," which is what you seemed to think I was objecting to.
I'm commenting on, "high wine culture," which is a different animal, and which is built on creating a perceived value that has little relationship to actual difference in the product. One of the ways you can create this perceived value is by creating a cachet around your product associating it with high culture and expensive luxury goods.
Here's how you make wine less snobby: Lower the price.
Yes. "Come buy a $60 ticket to my wine festival," may not have the desired effect.
I mean, look, I may just have a shitty attitude, it's been known to happen. If so, BTW, it comes from growing up within wine-spitting distance of the Napa Valley.
posted by Myca at 4:34 PM on April 30, 2013
Ah yes! Here it is!
A few paragraphs in, he talks about dining on an expense account and drinking "red wines at those dinners from wineries like Far Niente, Silver Oak or Cakebread Cellars*. Wines like that retailed for upwards of $80 and cost much more in the restaurant."
What I'm saying is that that is a scam. It's a scam supported by language and customs that make it hard to say, "this wine is pretty good, but it's sure as shit not worth 80 bucks."
* All three, incidentally, in the Napa Valley
posted by Myca at 4:45 PM on April 30, 2013
A few paragraphs in, he talks about dining on an expense account and drinking "red wines at those dinners from wineries like Far Niente, Silver Oak or Cakebread Cellars*. Wines like that retailed for upwards of $80 and cost much more in the restaurant."
What I'm saying is that that is a scam. It's a scam supported by language and customs that make it hard to say, "this wine is pretty good, but it's sure as shit not worth 80 bucks."
* All three, incidentally, in the Napa Valley
posted by Myca at 4:45 PM on April 30, 2013
Hey, we know those guys. They're not Bostonians anymore, they moved the company to SF.
A couple of our friends started working for them after hanging out at their wine tasting events (this was before Wine Riot started), and... I'll just say there's been drama and leave it at that.
posted by backseatpilot at 4:46 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
A couple of our friends started working for them after hanging out at their wine tasting events (this was before Wine Riot started), and... I'll just say there's been drama and leave it at that.
posted by backseatpilot at 4:46 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
We are in alignment! I too am ordering in tacos, but with that Bandit Tetra-Pak wine that is ...much better than a box wine should be at like 7 dollars a bottle.
Just for shits and giggles, I tried a Cab Sauv "wine cube" from Target (!) a while back. It was $25 for 3 liters of wine, and I figured that, if nothing else, I could make wine slushies with it later if we didn't care for it. Sugar and freezing making everything better, of course.
It turned out to be really good, fruity and not too dry. We've tried the other varietals in the meantime, and they're great for slapping on the patio table and drinking by the fire. Bandit doesn't seem to have made it to my neck of the woods, but I'll keep an eye out for it.
I wish my delivery dude would step on it. It's almost time for NCIS, and my chorizo con queso isn't here yet. I am famished, and the sangria is singing loudly to me. "Missy! I love you! Please drink me now, I'm lonely!"
posted by MissySedai at 4:47 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Just for shits and giggles, I tried a Cab Sauv "wine cube" from Target (!) a while back. It was $25 for 3 liters of wine, and I figured that, if nothing else, I could make wine slushies with it later if we didn't care for it. Sugar and freezing making everything better, of course.
It turned out to be really good, fruity and not too dry. We've tried the other varietals in the meantime, and they're great for slapping on the patio table and drinking by the fire. Bandit doesn't seem to have made it to my neck of the woods, but I'll keep an eye out for it.
I wish my delivery dude would step on it. It's almost time for NCIS, and my chorizo con queso isn't here yet. I am famished, and the sangria is singing loudly to me. "Missy! I love you! Please drink me now, I'm lonely!"
posted by MissySedai at 4:47 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Non-pedantic and inclusionist post:
I've drunk a lot of wine since I first got into it 15 years ago, including dating a wine store owner for a while. I've drunk some very expensive stuff that I can no longer afford to indulge in, and a lot more of the less expensive but still quality stuff. The rule I've found most worth knowing is that paying more might get better quality; that there really is some expensive wine that gives an experience that no inexpensive wine can match (e.g., wines that can age and improve beyond 10 or 15 years or so); but that, (a) that experience is largely one of taste and memory and affectation, and (b) so what, when there is so much great wine out there at decent prices, meant to be drunk young and enjoyed as such?
Pedantic wine snob post:
MissySedai, your post is right on. Except possibly this: "most reds should be room temperature (or a bit warmer, achieved by cradling the glass in your palm, as you prefer)." Although I'm all for the pleasure principle (i.e., whatever floats your boat is great), the proscriptivist position would be that red wine ought to be served at cellar temperature (55 to 57 degrees F) or somewhere between that range and room temperature (e.g., if you decant it or counter age the open bottle for an hour or so).
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 4:47 PM on April 30, 2013
I've drunk a lot of wine since I first got into it 15 years ago, including dating a wine store owner for a while. I've drunk some very expensive stuff that I can no longer afford to indulge in, and a lot more of the less expensive but still quality stuff. The rule I've found most worth knowing is that paying more might get better quality; that there really is some expensive wine that gives an experience that no inexpensive wine can match (e.g., wines that can age and improve beyond 10 or 15 years or so); but that, (a) that experience is largely one of taste and memory and affectation, and (b) so what, when there is so much great wine out there at decent prices, meant to be drunk young and enjoyed as such?
Pedantic wine snob post:
MissySedai, your post is right on. Except possibly this: "most reds should be room temperature (or a bit warmer, achieved by cradling the glass in your palm, as you prefer)." Although I'm all for the pleasure principle (i.e., whatever floats your boat is great), the proscriptivist position would be that red wine ought to be served at cellar temperature (55 to 57 degrees F) or somewhere between that range and room temperature (e.g., if you decant it or counter age the open bottle for an hour or so).
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 4:47 PM on April 30, 2013
And anyone who claims that you can't taste the different between two buck chuck and a $50 bottle in a blind test probably does not own a tongue.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:48 PM on April 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 4:48 PM on April 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
I swear I'm the only person who blindly hates two buck chuck...it's so rough and bland! Maybe as a mixer but, c'mon like spend an extra three dollars and get something swallowable.
Yeeeech.
posted by The Whelk at 4:54 PM on April 30, 2013 [5 favorites]
Yeeeech.
posted by The Whelk at 4:54 PM on April 30, 2013 [5 favorites]
With respect to expensive or very expensive wines, there are many reasons why the prices get so high, probably the most important being lack of supply versus demand and the fact that fine wine is an investment, not just a drink. As to why you might want to pay a lot of money for a bottle, the only good reason in my opinion is because it is a personal favorite of yours, with a flavor (and aroma) profile no other wine can match. A $50 bottle of wine is not "five times better" than a $10 bottle; but it (probably, maybe, not always) is going to be better for any taster, and might be that one wine that really means something to you. For example, I'd put any of Cosentino's wines in that category; others will have their own favorites. If you want that particular flavor profile of your favorite wine, then you'll pay what that wine costs to get it. If you just want good-to-great wine, there's a wide world of affordable options out there.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 4:55 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 4:55 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Something else to think about - a $7 bottle of wine is almost certainly a big industrial wine maker where the process is more akin to making packaged food than some natural biological product. In the low teens you can start to get wines made by winemakers who farm their own grapes, often organically and are just a few craftsman in a cellar making the wine.
posted by JPD at 4:56 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JPD at 4:56 PM on April 30, 2013
Yes, wine is an incredibly inefficient market. The starting point for name wines today is staggering, such that for entire generations the idea of drinking a great mature burgundy is something reserved for the 1%. But research is richly rewarded.
I am a great lover of German wines, where you would be hard pressed to spend more than $50 bucks on the absolutely best wine made on the absolute best site by the most absolutely cultiest winemaker. And I never spend more than $30 or so. And you can pay $60 for a quasi industrial premier cru chablis. You can buy the best muscadet in the world for less than $20. And that is truly a great wine.
posted by JPD at 5:01 PM on April 30, 2013
I am a great lover of German wines, where you would be hard pressed to spend more than $50 bucks on the absolutely best wine made on the absolute best site by the most absolutely cultiest winemaker. And I never spend more than $30 or so. And you can pay $60 for a quasi industrial premier cru chablis. You can buy the best muscadet in the world for less than $20. And that is truly a great wine.
posted by JPD at 5:01 PM on April 30, 2013
I think one of the biggest challenges in my part of Canada is that "budget" or "value" wines typically fruity, sweet, Shiraz, and even if they're not Shiraz they're really sweet, like drinking soda pop.
I know you're in BC, but the cheapest bottles of wine seem to be $9 in Alberta, and yeah, at that price they're bad. Not bum wine bad, but like you said, fruity, sweet or Shiraz. You need to spend a minimum of $15 on a bottle of red. (For white I'm happy with some $10ish wines like Barefoot pinot grigio)
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 5:05 PM on April 30, 2013
I know you're in BC, but the cheapest bottles of wine seem to be $9 in Alberta, and yeah, at that price they're bad. Not bum wine bad, but like you said, fruity, sweet or Shiraz. You need to spend a minimum of $15 on a bottle of red. (For white I'm happy with some $10ish wines like Barefoot pinot grigio)
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 5:05 PM on April 30, 2013
JPD: German whites and premier cru Chablis are where it's at! Good call.
Also, I'll throw this out there. Go ahead and buy a wine based on how you like the looks of the label. Years ago, I determined that if I think a label looks nifty or artistic, then 7 or 8 times out of 10 I will like that wine, because the care put into the label is reflected in the care given to making the wine. YMMV, but give it a shot; as long as you're not going broke on the experiment. I have had some great successes and discovered some cool wines this way.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 5:06 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, I'll throw this out there. Go ahead and buy a wine based on how you like the looks of the label. Years ago, I determined that if I think a label looks nifty or artistic, then 7 or 8 times out of 10 I will like that wine, because the care put into the label is reflected in the care given to making the wine. YMMV, but give it a shot; as long as you're not going broke on the experiment. I have had some great successes and discovered some cool wines this way.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 5:06 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Quite honestly, any domestic wine at about around 25 bucks is gonna be fine, even great.
You guys really have no idea how much people earn, do you? If it costs more than a 2 liter of Coke, it's fancy. If it costs more than the cheapest bottle of vodka, it's snobby.
posted by DU at 5:08 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
You guys really have no idea how much people earn, do you? If it costs more than a 2 liter of Coke, it's fancy. If it costs more than the cheapest bottle of vodka, it's snobby.
posted by DU at 5:08 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's past one AM here and all the stores are closed.
You people are really goddamned lucky I still had some wine in the kitchen, is what I'm saying.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 5:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
You people are really goddamned lucky I still had some wine in the kitchen, is what I'm saying.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 5:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
I swear I'm the only person who blindly hates two buck chuck...it's so rough and bland!
It tastes like it's been in a canteen in the sun all day.
posted by shakespeherian at 5:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [3 favorites]
It tastes like it's been in a canteen in the sun all day.
posted by shakespeherian at 5:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [3 favorites]
If it costs more than a 2 liter of Coke, it's fancy. If it costs more than the cheapest bottle of vodka, it's snobby.
My favorite cheap-ass wine is Bandit and it retails at six bucks a 1.5 liter at the general store in the small rural grocery store in Maine And about nine in Manhattan.
posted by The Whelk at 5:19 PM on April 30, 2013
My favorite cheap-ass wine is Bandit and it retails at six bucks a 1.5 liter at the general store in the small rural grocery store in Maine And about nine in Manhattan.
posted by The Whelk at 5:19 PM on April 30, 2013
I enjoyed this James May Man Lab about bluffing your way through a wine tasting (starts at about 26.5 minutes in).
posted by Killick at 5:23 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by Killick at 5:23 PM on April 30, 2013
DU, there is no doubt that most wine appreciation in the Unites States (and apparently also Canada, where prices seem even more askew) is coming from a position of privilege. Much wine is overpriced. I used to have the income that allowed me to indulge in a lot of very expensive wine; I no longer do. But throughout (including when I got free wine from dating that wine store owner), I drank wines at a range of prices that included lots below $10/bottle. That's where I focus my attention now. Banrock Station Shiraz is usually sold at below $7.00/bottle at CVS here in Chicago; sometimes on sale at $5.00. If you think of the wine as a course in your dinner, then the cost might seem more in line, too; if you're just swigging it (not that there's anything wrong with that), then of course even $10/bottle is pretty costly for most folks.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 5:23 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 5:23 PM on April 30, 2013
I don't have much interest in commercial grape wines, but I was inspired a few years ago by a metafilter thread to start making apple wine (not this thread, though Edwort's Apfelwein is the recipe I started with).
Super simplified recipe (needs no more than an hour of your time and $5 in equipment aside from the juice itself): From a brew shop, obtain a rubber stopper (bung) with a hole for an airlock; the airlock itself; and a packet of Red Star Montrachet wine yeast. At a grocery store, buy two 1-gallon glass bottles of preservative free apple juice (ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is OK; potassium sorbate is definitely NOT). Get "not from concentrate" juice if at all possible. My local natural foods store has an organic apple juice that fits the bill.
Drink one bottle of apple juice but retain the bottle and its lid for later. To the second bottle, add the contents of the yeast packet. Stopper it, and put the airlock (filled with cheap vodka) on top.
Now put the whole works somewhere away from direct sunlight; any comfortable indoor temperature is OK. After the airlock starts bubbling (which it should begin to do within 24 hours), you can basically neglect it for at least 3 weeks. (top off the airlock with vodka every few days as needed). If you think you want a dryer wine, go 4+ weeks; if you want sweeter, stop it at 2.
Once the bubbling has stopped, dig out that bottle you saved at the beginning. To sanitize it, add 1T vodka cheap, put the cap on, and shake until the inside is vodka-coated. Pour out the vodka. Trying to avoid sloshing and splashing as much as possible, pour the apple wine from the first container into the new container. Leave as much of the spent yeast (which will be a somewhat muddy-looking layer on the bottom) in the old container.
Cap the new container and refrigerate; drink it within a week or so. And consider trying it with a splash of mineral water or (if it ended up too dry for your tastes) even sprite.
If you liked the experience, it's the start of a great new hobby. There are plenty of more advanced techniques (and you'll also learn that I cut a lot of corners in my directions above) and certainly a lot more equipment you could buy. But the real fun is in being able to answer questions like: is pomegranate cyser (cyser is fermented honey and apple juice) a good idea? (answer: too soon to tell, but I'll have to find some way to use six gallons of the stuff no matter how it turns out)
Of course, making your own merely turns you into a different kind of snob than the person who knows all about the most expensive and highest-quality commercial ones…
posted by jepler at 5:25 PM on April 30, 2013 [3 favorites]
Super simplified recipe (needs no more than an hour of your time and $5 in equipment aside from the juice itself): From a brew shop, obtain a rubber stopper (bung) with a hole for an airlock; the airlock itself; and a packet of Red Star Montrachet wine yeast. At a grocery store, buy two 1-gallon glass bottles of preservative free apple juice (ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is OK; potassium sorbate is definitely NOT). Get "not from concentrate" juice if at all possible. My local natural foods store has an organic apple juice that fits the bill.
Drink one bottle of apple juice but retain the bottle and its lid for later. To the second bottle, add the contents of the yeast packet. Stopper it, and put the airlock (filled with cheap vodka) on top.
Now put the whole works somewhere away from direct sunlight; any comfortable indoor temperature is OK. After the airlock starts bubbling (which it should begin to do within 24 hours), you can basically neglect it for at least 3 weeks. (top off the airlock with vodka every few days as needed). If you think you want a dryer wine, go 4+ weeks; if you want sweeter, stop it at 2.
Once the bubbling has stopped, dig out that bottle you saved at the beginning. To sanitize it, add 1T vodka cheap, put the cap on, and shake until the inside is vodka-coated. Pour out the vodka. Trying to avoid sloshing and splashing as much as possible, pour the apple wine from the first container into the new container. Leave as much of the spent yeast (which will be a somewhat muddy-looking layer on the bottom) in the old container.
Cap the new container and refrigerate; drink it within a week or so. And consider trying it with a splash of mineral water or (if it ended up too dry for your tastes) even sprite.
If you liked the experience, it's the start of a great new hobby. There are plenty of more advanced techniques (and you'll also learn that I cut a lot of corners in my directions above) and certainly a lot more equipment you could buy. But the real fun is in being able to answer questions like: is pomegranate cyser (cyser is fermented honey and apple juice) a good idea? (answer: too soon to tell, but I'll have to find some way to use six gallons of the stuff no matter how it turns out)
Of course, making your own merely turns you into a different kind of snob than the person who knows all about the most expensive and highest-quality commercial ones…
posted by jepler at 5:25 PM on April 30, 2013 [3 favorites]
You guys really have no idea how much people earn, do you? If it costs more than a 2 liter of Coke, it's fancy. If it costs more than the cheapest bottle of vodka, it's snobby.
So here in NYC a 6er of craft brew is about the same price as entry level wines from the loire.
Yes, its not the cheapest way of getting drunk, but I'd hope that's not the definition of "snobby"
posted by JPD at 5:25 PM on April 30, 2013
So here in NYC a 6er of craft brew is about the same price as entry level wines from the loire.
Yes, its not the cheapest way of getting drunk, but I'd hope that's not the definition of "snobby"
posted by JPD at 5:25 PM on April 30, 2013
And anyone who claims that you can't taste the different between two buck chuck and a $50 bottle in a blind test probably does not own a tongue.
So here's the thing. This has been shown in test after test after test after test.
And no, it's not like there's literally no difference, it's that the difference is very small and hard to detect (even for people who get paid to be experts), and that whether you prefer cheap wine or expensive wine seems to have little relation to the wine, and quite a lot of relation to whether you've been told it's expensive or not.
posted by Myca at 5:35 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
So here's the thing. This has been shown in test after test after test after test.
And no, it's not like there's literally no difference, it's that the difference is very small and hard to detect (even for people who get paid to be experts), and that whether you prefer cheap wine or expensive wine seems to have little relation to the wine, and quite a lot of relation to whether you've been told it's expensive or not.
posted by Myca at 5:35 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Eh I can reliably tell the difference between a five dollar bottle and a twenty dollar one but not a twenty dollar and a fifty dollar, something I can do with scotch - wine prices are Bizzaro and there are a ton of great, cheap domestic wines out there.
posted by The Whelk at 5:39 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by The Whelk at 5:39 PM on April 30, 2013
Myca, many of these tests are based on the premise that there is a single vector in wine taste, ranging from "bad" to "good." The reality is more subtle than that (and in fact, the 1976 California vs. France test reflected that fact). Wines include a wide range of flavors and aromas, many of which are found to be "the shit" by some tasters, and just "shit" by others. Sure, if asked to rate several wines on one axis (good vs. bad), most tasters will group them in the middle. But if asked, "Is this a wine with a particular taste profile that really gets you off? Is this the wine you drank on your first date with your spouse? Does this wine have too much oak (not enough oak/you hate all oak)?" Then you will get different reactions. I know with absolute certainty that there are certain wines I could sample blind and identify, even ones I have not drunk in years (e.g., Cosentino's Cigar Zin).
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 5:55 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 5:55 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
So here in NYC a 6er of craft brew is about the same price as entry level wines from the loire.
Yes, its not the cheapest way of getting drunk, but I'd hope that's not the definition of "snobby"
If your food product has "craft" in the name, it's probably snobby. Unless it's spelled with a 'K'.
posted by DU at 6:05 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, its not the cheapest way of getting drunk, but I'd hope that's not the definition of "snobby"
If your food product has "craft" in the name, it's probably snobby. Unless it's spelled with a 'K'.
posted by DU at 6:05 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Come on up to NE PA, and get all the local $12 wine ya want. it's good. wins awards and is cheap.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
And no, it's not like there's literally no difference, it's that the difference is very small and hard to detect (even for people who get paid to be experts), and that whether you prefer cheap wine or expensive wine seems to have little relation to the wine, and quite a lot of relation to whether you've been told it's expensive or not.
I have personally watched this play out. Sure, anecdata, but anyway...
There is an acquaintance of mine who is thoroughly convinced that $$$$$ = quality, and everything else is shit. That attitude gets on my dead last nerve, so some of us decided to shut him up at a dinner party.
I decanted a bottle of S.S. Gem, a soft red blend made by the winery I volunteer in. It's lovely, inexpensive, and infinitely drinkable. Told my acquaintance it was a fancypants French red that set me back $100. Also put a bottle of Gem on the table. He flat out refused a pour from the bottle of Gem, and exclusively drank the decanted Gem, declaring the bottle of Gem "cheap shit". The decanted Gem? "Outstanding, phenomenal, unbelievable." After dinner, he asked to see the label so he could get a bottle.
He has stopped spouting off about wine, to our relief and delight. Wine snobbery is so...tiresome.
posted by MissySedai at 6:19 PM on April 30, 2013 [6 favorites]
I have personally watched this play out. Sure, anecdata, but anyway...
There is an acquaintance of mine who is thoroughly convinced that $$$$$ = quality, and everything else is shit. That attitude gets on my dead last nerve, so some of us decided to shut him up at a dinner party.
I decanted a bottle of S.S. Gem, a soft red blend made by the winery I volunteer in. It's lovely, inexpensive, and infinitely drinkable. Told my acquaintance it was a fancypants French red that set me back $100. Also put a bottle of Gem on the table. He flat out refused a pour from the bottle of Gem, and exclusively drank the decanted Gem, declaring the bottle of Gem "cheap shit". The decanted Gem? "Outstanding, phenomenal, unbelievable." After dinner, he asked to see the label so he could get a bottle.
He has stopped spouting off about wine, to our relief and delight. Wine snobbery is so...tiresome.
posted by MissySedai at 6:19 PM on April 30, 2013 [6 favorites]
I mean, have you tasted Charles Shaw wine? I used to be a broke-ass college student and then an unemployed couchsurfer and Charles Shaw was the only wine I drank. And I thought: This is really incredibly good, especially considering the price! Now I am not broke and am older and have developed a palate and mostly buy stuff in the $7 - $10 range. I'm no snob. And sometimes I go to Trader Joe's and one time recently I remembered ol' Chuck and thought I'd indulge in some nostalgia.
That shit is awful. I did not go in thinking Now for some wine I won't like! In fact, the opposite. But it's really bad.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:22 PM on April 30, 2013
That shit is awful. I did not go in thinking Now for some wine I won't like! In fact, the opposite. But it's really bad.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:22 PM on April 30, 2013
I sold wine for a few years and found that most people don't care about the descriptors--they just want something to have with lamb or something to drink to get buzzed (best question: "What's a good Champagne for pot?").
That said, I'm not on board with most attempts to "democratize" wine by making it "fun" and "not scary." Tasting wine (and I add here that I never had a great palate) is a thing, and it's real, not just a bunch of "BS" that pretentious people throw around to make others feel inferior.
Wines do have "barnyard" noses and "grippy" bodies, and oak does taste like vanilla, and some wines taste fantastic with goat cheeses, while others taste like crap. These are real things to learn and enjoy, just as someone who really understands opera or poetry or abstract expressionist painting gets the nuances. To say, "Hey, let's put a thumping beat behind La Boheme, and it won't be so off-putting to the hoi polloi!" completely misses the point of learning how to appreciate the nuances. It's not "snobby," and I hate the implication that taking the time to learn about something makes one a frickin' snob. Do people use knowledge as a social weapon? Of course; there are assholes in every crowd. But the anti-intellectualism or, maybe, better put, anti-aestheticism, of this country is bred in its bones to an extent that's occasionally unbelievable.
posted by the sobsister at 6:25 PM on April 30, 2013 [6 favorites]
That said, I'm not on board with most attempts to "democratize" wine by making it "fun" and "not scary." Tasting wine (and I add here that I never had a great palate) is a thing, and it's real, not just a bunch of "BS" that pretentious people throw around to make others feel inferior.
Wines do have "barnyard" noses and "grippy" bodies, and oak does taste like vanilla, and some wines taste fantastic with goat cheeses, while others taste like crap. These are real things to learn and enjoy, just as someone who really understands opera or poetry or abstract expressionist painting gets the nuances. To say, "Hey, let's put a thumping beat behind La Boheme, and it won't be so off-putting to the hoi polloi!" completely misses the point of learning how to appreciate the nuances. It's not "snobby," and I hate the implication that taking the time to learn about something makes one a frickin' snob. Do people use knowledge as a social weapon? Of course; there are assholes in every crowd. But the anti-intellectualism or, maybe, better put, anti-aestheticism, of this country is bred in its bones to an extent that's occasionally unbelievable.
posted by the sobsister at 6:25 PM on April 30, 2013 [6 favorites]
Wine snobbery is ridiculous, but having taste in wine is not. As I tried to articulate above, it's not about placing wines along some single-dimensional vector ranging from "plonk" to "divine," but rather, "this wine has a character I like ... oak or lack thereof; dark berry fruit or not; tannins or not; dry or sweet," etc. Good wines are like good friends; they aren't necessarily "better" than other people, but, dammit, they are your friends, and therefore worth hanging out with/drinking. It's not objective with respect to "value" but it is objective with respect to whether it falls within the circle of wines you happen to enjoy. I was raised to believe that part of growing up includes refining your tastes, such that you are no longer a child (even if you still like some childish things); wine enjoyment requires developing your taste a little to distinguish those things you like versus those you don't, and learning to like some things that at first turned you off, but damn, it's all pleasure doing so!
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 6:27 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 6:27 PM on April 30, 2013
Down here in NC they make wine from the local scuppernong grapes. There is a winery in Duplin County that produces the stuff that I indulge in occasionally. They are sweet wines, and they cost about 8.99 at Harris Teeter. My wine snob friends mock this.
Now several years ago husband and I went out for our anniversary to a nice restaurant (too nice for our budget, but hey, anniversary) and when it came time to order my husband suggested I get a glass of wine. I confessed to the waiter that my tastes did indeed run to Dublin County. He didn't mock me at all and used the information to suggest a particular white wine they had. It was like my Duplin County elementary wine had grown up and gone to Harvard. There were definitely more complex flavor notes in it, but I could still taste the unique scuppernong and it was still on the sweet side. I am still kicking myself that I didn't write down what it was.
But for everyday once in awhile ineedaglassofwine days, Duplin County is just fine.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:40 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
Now several years ago husband and I went out for our anniversary to a nice restaurant (too nice for our budget, but hey, anniversary) and when it came time to order my husband suggested I get a glass of wine. I confessed to the waiter that my tastes did indeed run to Dublin County. He didn't mock me at all and used the information to suggest a particular white wine they had. It was like my Duplin County elementary wine had grown up and gone to Harvard. There were definitely more complex flavor notes in it, but I could still taste the unique scuppernong and it was still on the sweet side. I am still kicking myself that I didn't write down what it was.
But for everyday once in awhile ineedaglassofwine days, Duplin County is just fine.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:40 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
On the topic, a few observations for those as care to use them:
- drink cru Beaujolais rather than red Burgundy--a lot of similarities, and the bang for the buck is outrageous: a good Fleurie or Chiroubles will rock your world at a fraction of the cost of a Côte de Nuits, et al. That said, "Beaujolais nouveau" will generally taste like strawberry bubble gum.
- drink small-producer Champagne--the non-vintage Big Names are generally made from grapes sourced from all over the place (unless you get into serious big bucks territory), whereas non-vintage Champagne from a small producer will often have been made from grapes from a single vineyard or parcel of vineyards and will taste much, much better. Also, U.S. Veuve Clicquot is noticeably sweeter than French Veuve Clicquot.
- drink wines from lesser-known areas of Europe, e.g., the Douro region of Portugal, Sicily, southern France outside the Côtes du Rhône. You'll get many of the same varietals (types of grapes), flavors and quality as the better-know regions/wines at a fraction of the cost.
- small producers > big producers/local styles > "international" styles.
posted by the sobsister at 6:43 PM on April 30, 2013
- drink cru Beaujolais rather than red Burgundy--a lot of similarities, and the bang for the buck is outrageous: a good Fleurie or Chiroubles will rock your world at a fraction of the cost of a Côte de Nuits, et al. That said, "Beaujolais nouveau" will generally taste like strawberry bubble gum.
- drink small-producer Champagne--the non-vintage Big Names are generally made from grapes sourced from all over the place (unless you get into serious big bucks territory), whereas non-vintage Champagne from a small producer will often have been made from grapes from a single vineyard or parcel of vineyards and will taste much, much better. Also, U.S. Veuve Clicquot is noticeably sweeter than French Veuve Clicquot.
- drink wines from lesser-known areas of Europe, e.g., the Douro region of Portugal, Sicily, southern France outside the Côtes du Rhône. You'll get many of the same varietals (types of grapes), flavors and quality as the better-know regions/wines at a fraction of the cost.
- small producers > big producers/local styles > "international" styles.
posted by the sobsister at 6:43 PM on April 30, 2013
How do they intend to do that? By throwing a series of Wine Riots - expo-style walk-around wine tasting festivals, complete with 20 minute "crash courses", DJs, swag, food... and unlimited tastings of 250 wines from all over the world, presented in a casual, party atmosphere.
Congratulations, guys, you just invented the American Craft Beer Fest.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:48 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Congratulations, guys, you just invented the American Craft Beer Fest.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:48 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
U.S. Veuve Cliquot is noticeably sweeter than French Veuve Clicquot.
Yeah I'd advise a really sweet champagne for the hypothetical pot pairing, maybe even a rose.
posted by The Whelk at 6:51 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah I'd advise a really sweet champagne for the hypothetical pot pairing, maybe even a rose.
posted by The Whelk at 6:51 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Wine snobbery is ridiculous, but having taste in wine is not.
I definitely agree with this. Knowing what you like is the key to enjoying wine. It's just difficult - in my experience, anyway - to help people figure out what they like because they're intimidated by the snob crowd and worried that they're doing it wrong. I tell the folks in the tasting room that the only way to do wine wrong is to never try it at all. I enjoyed learning about wine (still do, there's always something to learn), and I really want other people to enjoy the learning, too. Learning what you like should be fun, not a chore.
My own tastes are all over the place. Late Harvest Rieslings, especially the ones that taste faintly of cotton candy on the finish. Alsatian Gewürztraminers that smell and taste of cinnamon and roses. Big, obnoxious Pinot Noirs that make you crave a fat steak. Fruity Malbecs that want a hunk of lamb. One of my regular haunts makes a rich Gamay Noir, and underprice it immensely at just $8. I'd cheerfully pay two or three times that, it just blows my socks off. Earthy Cabernet Francs that smell of diesel and taste the way freshly turned earth smells really get me going.
posted by MissySedai at 6:53 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
I definitely agree with this. Knowing what you like is the key to enjoying wine. It's just difficult - in my experience, anyway - to help people figure out what they like because they're intimidated by the snob crowd and worried that they're doing it wrong. I tell the folks in the tasting room that the only way to do wine wrong is to never try it at all. I enjoyed learning about wine (still do, there's always something to learn), and I really want other people to enjoy the learning, too. Learning what you like should be fun, not a chore.
My own tastes are all over the place. Late Harvest Rieslings, especially the ones that taste faintly of cotton candy on the finish. Alsatian Gewürztraminers that smell and taste of cinnamon and roses. Big, obnoxious Pinot Noirs that make you crave a fat steak. Fruity Malbecs that want a hunk of lamb. One of my regular haunts makes a rich Gamay Noir, and underprice it immensely at just $8. I'd cheerfully pay two or three times that, it just blows my socks off. Earthy Cabernet Francs that smell of diesel and taste the way freshly turned earth smells really get me going.
posted by MissySedai at 6:53 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also everyone should drink more blends. The whole single-grape thing is silly.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:59 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by shakespeherian at 6:59 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
The whole single-grape thing is silly.
I would disagree with that. There are, of course, a lot of great wines that have always been blended, from the best red Bordeaux to lip-smacking and affordable Passetoutgrains (Gamay + Pinot Noir).
That said, as with any food, having something by itself allows one to taste that thing's essential flavor in isolation. Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are fine, as is gianduja ice cream, but that's not chocolate: it's chocolate plus peanut butter or hazelnut paste.
Having a crisp Sauvignon Blanc that is only that varietal is an entirely different--and, to my taste, more enjoyable--experience than having it blended with Semillon, Muscadet, dry Riesling and a host of other varietals.
I'd be interested in hearing why you think single-varietal wines are "silly."
posted by the sobsister at 7:07 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would disagree with that. There are, of course, a lot of great wines that have always been blended, from the best red Bordeaux to lip-smacking and affordable Passetoutgrains (Gamay + Pinot Noir).
That said, as with any food, having something by itself allows one to taste that thing's essential flavor in isolation. Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are fine, as is gianduja ice cream, but that's not chocolate: it's chocolate plus peanut butter or hazelnut paste.
Having a crisp Sauvignon Blanc that is only that varietal is an entirely different--and, to my taste, more enjoyable--experience than having it blended with Semillon, Muscadet, dry Riesling and a host of other varietals.
I'd be interested in hearing why you think single-varietal wines are "silly."
posted by the sobsister at 7:07 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
shakespeherian, I agree that an absolute fixation on single varietals would be silly; the sobister, I agree with you that ignoring varietals is equally silly. Some grapes benefit from blending; others may not, depending on how and where they were grown. There is a reason that there is such a thing as the Bordeaux blend (the "king" being the Chateaux blends of 70% Cabernet Sauvignon, 15% Cabernet Franc, 15% Merlot, or some variation thereof; many variations including a lot more Merlot, of course). Cabernet Sauvignon almost always makes for one overwhelmingly tannic shitstorm of a wine, and even though some geniuses have managed to make it work out, in general the mix of Cab Sauv (for tannins/aging ability), Cab Franc (for brightness and fruit) and Merlot (for structure and the overall "background" of the wine's flavor) make a much better wine, even on the low end. California wineries have been doing this for ages, and Italians "Super Cabs" also (but also lower-cost Italian blends). But then, look at what Argentina has done with Malbec as a varietal, a grape that in France was just a minor blending ingredient. My conclusion is that, Hurrah! There are lots of ways for wine to taste fantastic!!
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:10 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:10 PM on April 30, 2013
I just don't "get" wine. I can drink it, and I love some fortified wine (Port!), but ultimately when I'm drinking a normal wine I find myself wishing I had a beer or hard liquor.
posted by sonic meat machine at 7:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by sonic meat machine at 7:11 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
sonic meat machine, you have two alternatives, both equally valid. Alternative one is to continue as you have. Alternative two is to make a concerted effort - perhaps involving getting to know a local wine purveyor or joining a wine club - to learn about wine and develop a taste for it. Nobody is born with a taste for wine (or classical music, or jazz, or dada theater, or Port, or Bourbon, or ... fill in the blank). If we never grew or expanded our tastes, we'd all just want to drink breast milk (or formula). You clearly got past that point; the rest is really relatively easy. You did not come out of the womb craving Port or hard liquor; you learned to like them. Apply the same procedure to wine, and you might learn to like it; or not, but then, so what, if you tried?
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:17 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:17 PM on April 30, 2013
Yeah, I'm aware... and I am a pretty eclectic eater, and I've made efforts at wine. I just seem to have a mental block (or flavor block)... I can't do it. I can drink whiskey and enjoy it, but wine forever tastes like spoiled grapes. It makes me a little sad.
posted by sonic meat machine at 7:34 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by sonic meat machine at 7:34 PM on April 30, 2013
Reading about wine prices in other countries makes me sad. Here in Ontario, the cheapest plonk available is at least eight or nine bucks.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 7:42 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by sevenyearlurk at 7:42 PM on April 30, 2013
sonic meat machine, why be sad? Port and hard liquor taste great! If wine doesn't do it for you, then so what? Assuming you don't find yourself forced into wine-centric social situations, nobody will ever force you to drink wine you don't like. I'll admit, I've never tasted a wine that I liked that I'd compare to "spoiled grapes," and it's possible you've only ever tried poorly-made wines, but it's not worth sweating over.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:43 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:43 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah my point is this idea that blends are gauche and varietals are Purer And Therefore Better. That's what I have beef with.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:47 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 7:47 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
shakespeherian, that's not something I've seen going on; who's pulling that shit? France knows that blends can be better than varietals; California will acknowledge it if forced to; other places do the same (Australia is really good about mixing up the grapes). Who says that Bordeaux is "gauche" (unless they literally mean, Graves and Medoc)?
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:51 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:51 PM on April 30, 2013
Not winemakers-- wine drinkers.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:53 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by shakespeherian at 7:53 PM on April 30, 2013
Well, that is those wine drinkers' loss. They are idiots.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:55 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 7:55 PM on April 30, 2013
Hence my admonishment.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:57 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by shakespeherian at 7:57 PM on April 30, 2013
And there you go; but you must admit, "the single grape thing" in your earlier post somewhat cloaked who was the object of your scorn, especially given the trend over the past 20 years or so by large bottlers to plump for varietals. You could well have been referring to the E. & J. Gallo Winery. Anyway, I agree with you; it's nuts to get too focused on a varietal (unless it is Zin and the year is 1997 ... ah, well).
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 8:03 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 8:03 PM on April 30, 2013
Shakespeherian,
Wine drinkers who dismiss all blends as "gauche" either don't know what they're drinking at least some of the time or are being willfully and pointlessly dogmatic.
In either case, avoid them and drink what you like. My house white is an inexpensive blend of a bunch of stuff that tastes good with quesadillas and baked chicken breasts. That said, a good Chablis or a Sancerre can be a thing of beauty.
posted by the sobsister at 8:05 PM on April 30, 2013
Wine drinkers who dismiss all blends as "gauche" either don't know what they're drinking at least some of the time or are being willfully and pointlessly dogmatic.
In either case, avoid them and drink what you like. My house white is an inexpensive blend of a bunch of stuff that tastes good with quesadillas and baked chicken breasts. That said, a good Chablis or a Sancerre can be a thing of beauty.
posted by the sobsister at 8:05 PM on April 30, 2013
the sobsister, Shakespeherian, or anybody else out there: Is dogmatic adherence to drinking only varietals some new hipster thing of which I am only know being made aware? What the hell is wrong with people if this is a thing?
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 8:12 PM on April 30, 2013
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 8:12 PM on April 30, 2013
JimInLoganSquare,
Why are twenty-something women wearing glasses with enormous black frames? Why is Auto-Tune inescapable? How did Zooey Deschanel become popular?
There are many imponderables in life. If some tattoo-sleeved, porkpie-hat-wearing, soul-patch-sporting hipster doofuses are now becoming varietal Nazis, add your question to the list above.
posted by the sobsister at 8:17 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Why are twenty-something women wearing glasses with enormous black frames? Why is Auto-Tune inescapable? How did Zooey Deschanel become popular?
There are many imponderables in life. If some tattoo-sleeved, porkpie-hat-wearing, soul-patch-sporting hipster doofuses are now becoming varietal Nazis, add your question to the list above.
posted by the sobsister at 8:17 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, fuck that shit. Unless, of course, those varietal Nazi hipsters have stowed away a supply of 1997 Russian River Valley Zinfandel, in which case, I want to talk to them.
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 8:19 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 8:19 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
I have been collecting wines for years. I think a lot of the comments above contain various myths, to wit --
1) The fear of appearing to be a pompous wine snob is a great barrier to fully enjoying wine. Good wine is one of the most complex things we consume, and it is fun to talk about. The only way to start is by sticking your nose in a glass and talking about what it smells like to you, then tasting it and talking about whether you like it or not and why. People are very reluctant to do that because they don't want to seem pompous or like they are loading too much significance on to a drink. But discussing and thinking about wine is one of its pleasures. The 'hey, it's delicious! Like a milkshake! End of story!' school of wine 'appreciation' is lame.
2) There is such a thing as good wine and bad wine. Good wine generally tastes better than bad wine, and generally costs more (sometimes a lot more) than bad wine. The various 'studies' purporting to show that people cannot tell the difference between good and bad wine blind are BS. I run this test blind on all the time on wine novices. People can tell the difference between a $10 supermarket wine and really good wine, and most of the time they will like the fancy wine more (even if they don't have the vocabulary to say why). This varies by individual taste of course; everyone's mouth is different. If you like your wine on the sweeter side (as many people do, no matter what they say), you may reject a very fine and complex wine that has more acidity, etc. But in general people can taste a wine's quality. I guarantee that I could distinguish a good Bordeaux from a cheap California supermarket wine blind.
3) It's true that there is a big component of expectations to wine that adds a subjective component to price (you are primed for a great experience when you open a $100 bottle...but you may be extra disappointed if you don't get it). However, in my experience, and I have a lot of it, red wine goes up markedly in quality through somewhere in the $50-100 a bottle range, depending on the wine and region, then you get diminishing returns. I am not as familiar with the true top end (say $200 a bottle and up) but I think you are still getting increments in quality but they are more dependent on your tastes and more variable depending on what bottle you happen to get. For less recognized regions, and certain whites, you can find some excellent bargains at lower prices (someone accurately mentioned Beaujolais above...Loire reds (cab franc) can also be a fantastic deal and age really well...there are some great Zinfandels out there for reasonable prices...the Southern Rhone will get you some great deals as well, as will parts of Italy). But if you want the unique experiences that the most famous regions have to offer, you will have to pay something for it...or get the right friends!
4) If you never spend more than $10-15 a bottle for wine you are missing a lot of great wine experiences you can't get any other way. It's true that a lot of wine pricing is about prestige and the desire of rich people to show off...there is probably no wine in the world that really costs more than about $40 a bottle to actually make. But at $10 a bottle you are getting more of an industrial product, and the most famous wine growing areas of the world get bid up by the competition for their product.
posted by zipadee at 8:42 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
1) The fear of appearing to be a pompous wine snob is a great barrier to fully enjoying wine. Good wine is one of the most complex things we consume, and it is fun to talk about. The only way to start is by sticking your nose in a glass and talking about what it smells like to you, then tasting it and talking about whether you like it or not and why. People are very reluctant to do that because they don't want to seem pompous or like they are loading too much significance on to a drink. But discussing and thinking about wine is one of its pleasures. The 'hey, it's delicious! Like a milkshake! End of story!' school of wine 'appreciation' is lame.
2) There is such a thing as good wine and bad wine. Good wine generally tastes better than bad wine, and generally costs more (sometimes a lot more) than bad wine. The various 'studies' purporting to show that people cannot tell the difference between good and bad wine blind are BS. I run this test blind on all the time on wine novices. People can tell the difference between a $10 supermarket wine and really good wine, and most of the time they will like the fancy wine more (even if they don't have the vocabulary to say why). This varies by individual taste of course; everyone's mouth is different. If you like your wine on the sweeter side (as many people do, no matter what they say), you may reject a very fine and complex wine that has more acidity, etc. But in general people can taste a wine's quality. I guarantee that I could distinguish a good Bordeaux from a cheap California supermarket wine blind.
3) It's true that there is a big component of expectations to wine that adds a subjective component to price (you are primed for a great experience when you open a $100 bottle...but you may be extra disappointed if you don't get it). However, in my experience, and I have a lot of it, red wine goes up markedly in quality through somewhere in the $50-100 a bottle range, depending on the wine and region, then you get diminishing returns. I am not as familiar with the true top end (say $200 a bottle and up) but I think you are still getting increments in quality but they are more dependent on your tastes and more variable depending on what bottle you happen to get. For less recognized regions, and certain whites, you can find some excellent bargains at lower prices (someone accurately mentioned Beaujolais above...Loire reds (cab franc) can also be a fantastic deal and age really well...there are some great Zinfandels out there for reasonable prices...the Southern Rhone will get you some great deals as well, as will parts of Italy). But if you want the unique experiences that the most famous regions have to offer, you will have to pay something for it...or get the right friends!
4) If you never spend more than $10-15 a bottle for wine you are missing a lot of great wine experiences you can't get any other way. It's true that a lot of wine pricing is about prestige and the desire of rich people to show off...there is probably no wine in the world that really costs more than about $40 a bottle to actually make. But at $10 a bottle you are getting more of an industrial product, and the most famous wine growing areas of the world get bid up by the competition for their product.
posted by zipadee at 8:42 PM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
Actually, the $50 a bottle line may have been a little too high...there's a bunch of really nice, very ageworthy stuff in the $25-50 range but you have to know what you're doing and sometimes trade off various qualities...I find my sweet spot more often in the $50-100 range, and I think it's worth it, but I know that makes me an insane person by most peoples' standards.
posted by zipadee at 8:48 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by zipadee at 8:48 PM on April 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
My wine knowledge consists of:
a) red wines (Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, uh...red table wine). Don't care for white, but then again I can count on one hand the number of glasses of white wine I've drunk.
b) I avoid the $5 bottles, but start around $10. $15 is a bit of a splurge. $20 and I feel like I'm breaking the bank.
I do love red wine, though, but like anything else, you get what you pay for and drinking premium wines on a regular basis is something that'll have to wait until I get rich.
posted by zardoz at 8:51 PM on April 30, 2013
a) red wines (Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, uh...red table wine). Don't care for white, but then again I can count on one hand the number of glasses of white wine I've drunk.
b) I avoid the $5 bottles, but start around $10. $15 is a bit of a splurge. $20 and I feel like I'm breaking the bank.
I do love red wine, though, but like anything else, you get what you pay for and drinking premium wines on a regular basis is something that'll have to wait until I get rich.
posted by zardoz at 8:51 PM on April 30, 2013
Memo to self: Can probably induce Jim to get into all kinds of trouble if he is given this particular Zin.
I've got a Merlot that I am similarly nuts for. A 2004 estate grown and bottled Michigan Merlot, produced by the crankiest vintner I've ever met. Now, Kip's Merlot has a rep around here for being amazing anyway - the joke is that his goofy dog, Ozzy, makes the grapes happy with his antics. But that 2004...oh my dear winos, this was choirs-of-angels-singing heavenly. It was that ideal blend of fruit and tannins that just lingered and begged you to have just one more sip, and next thing you knew, the bottle was empty and you wanted to cry because you just wanted more. I bought a case of it. We only just had the last bottle back in September, on my birthday.
I would commit all manner of unseemly acts for just one more glass of that perfect Merlot.
posted by MissySedai at 8:52 PM on April 30, 2013
I've got a Merlot that I am similarly nuts for. A 2004 estate grown and bottled Michigan Merlot, produced by the crankiest vintner I've ever met. Now, Kip's Merlot has a rep around here for being amazing anyway - the joke is that his goofy dog, Ozzy, makes the grapes happy with his antics. But that 2004...oh my dear winos, this was choirs-of-angels-singing heavenly. It was that ideal blend of fruit and tannins that just lingered and begged you to have just one more sip, and next thing you knew, the bottle was empty and you wanted to cry because you just wanted more. I bought a case of it. We only just had the last bottle back in September, on my birthday.
I would commit all manner of unseemly acts for just one more glass of that perfect Merlot.
posted by MissySedai at 8:52 PM on April 30, 2013
The various 'studies' purporting to show that people cannot tell the difference between good and bad wine blind are BS.
Well if you say so. I guess these people are just hacks.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:12 PM on April 30, 2013 [3 favorites]
Well if you say so. I guess these people are just hacks.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:12 PM on April 30, 2013 [3 favorites]
I know a wine professional. He has served me some amazing glasses of wine. I have never had the opportunity to attend one of his tasting events where he instructs you on understanding the various tastes. One of the differences he is often on about is the state of the barrels.
Be that as it may, I prefer wine made from barley to that made from grapes :-P It's a much older thing and ultimately, the root of civilization itself. No grape product can make that claim.
But I second the recommendation for Russian River Valley Zinfandel. Pairs perfectly with my red marinara for a true synergistic experience. At least it did in the 1980s.
posted by Goofyy at 12:19 AM on May 1, 2013
Be that as it may, I prefer wine made from barley to that made from grapes :-P It's a much older thing and ultimately, the root of civilization itself. No grape product can make that claim.
But I second the recommendation for Russian River Valley Zinfandel. Pairs perfectly with my red marinara for a true synergistic experience. At least it did in the 1980s.
posted by Goofyy at 12:19 AM on May 1, 2013
I know a guy who worked at a French vineyard and winery, and whose knowledge of wine is as near to encyclopedic as anyone I've ever met. I've watched him walk right past a $50 bottle of wine to pick up a $7 bottle because he knows it's something he'll like and will go well with dinner. His choices are always fantastic. So there are definitely those who know the differences without being snobbish about it. And to be clear on my own background and what I mean by 'fantastic,' I know I am more likely to enjoy a merlot than a cabernet, for instance, but if you handed me a glass of each I might or might not be able to tell you which was which. I'd be able to tell you which glass I wanted to keep and which you could have back, though.
On the other hand, I have another friend who knows as little or less about wine as I do. Whenever anyone presents him with some, he'll sip it, look thoughtful, and say "Ambitious, yet pedestrian." This formula has never failed to impress people.
posted by solotoro at 4:25 AM on May 1, 2013
On the other hand, I have another friend who knows as little or less about wine as I do. Whenever anyone presents him with some, he'll sip it, look thoughtful, and say "Ambitious, yet pedestrian." This formula has never failed to impress people.
posted by solotoro at 4:25 AM on May 1, 2013
Just shared a bottle of this.
It's a cheeky little number, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
posted by Wolof at 4:46 AM on May 1, 2013
It's a cheeky little number, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
posted by Wolof at 4:46 AM on May 1, 2013
This is all something I've spent a lot of time thinking about (and working with/against). I'll just add a few considerations here.
Blends / single-varietal.
The origin of the concept of single varietal as the defining category was as a genius stroke of new world winemaking/-marketing to counter (and as it's worked out, actually pretty nearly defeat) the old world (= French) concept of geographic region as a wine's principal ID. (Rediscovered autochthonous varietals are a recent old-world revenge, using same concept to stigmatize the new world's relative lack of history/heirlooms.) So: yes, a blend is a trickier concept to work by, because it "isolates" the wine. But it is certainly wise to not let prefabricated concepts dominate your own thinking/taste-buds.
posted by progosk at 7:35 AM on May 1, 2013
Blends / single-varietal.
The origin of the concept of single varietal as the defining category was as a genius stroke of new world winemaking/-marketing to counter (and as it's worked out, actually pretty nearly defeat) the old world (= French) concept of geographic region as a wine's principal ID. (Rediscovered autochthonous varietals are a recent old-world revenge, using same concept to stigmatize the new world's relative lack of history/heirlooms.) So: yes, a blend is a trickier concept to work by, because it "isolates" the wine. But it is certainly wise to not let prefabricated concepts dominate your own thinking/taste-buds.
posted by progosk at 7:35 AM on May 1, 2013
As a wine novice but enjoyer, I highly recommend just about any Rioja (blends or any tempranillo in general). In New England I've hardly ever been dissapointed by a $7-$15 bottle of anything with tempranillo involved. I can't afford to find out if I'd like $50 wine better, but an $8 rioja blend from a discount rack was my favorite I've ever tasted.
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:51 AM on May 1, 2013
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:51 AM on May 1, 2013
Some historical perspective.
The wine world is a fantastically complex construct, as would seem fitting given the amazing gamut of pleasures/sensations that can be had from a glass of the stuff. But if you stop and look at the point in wine history that almost all of those concepts originated at, the surprise is to find how so much of what's perceived as the fundamentals were put in place by... the French. Ageing as ennobling a wine. Indeed: high-end vs. low-end wines as such (in place of good vs. bad). Oak as a normal (and again: ennobling!) flavour-component. Bottles as the proper shape/form for wine to be bought in. All the serving concepts such as temperature, airing, decanting. The endless jargon/terminology that neatly corroborate the various concepts. But even the basic idea of red and white as fundamental categories.
Wine was being made for centuries before this, but it's as though a spell was cast. And what's fascinating to witness is when the construct start to creak under its own weight. Because making and drinking wine, at heart, aren't about this construct. They're about something much simpler, and something completely universal: making amazing stuff to drink and... enjoying it.
posted by progosk at 8:20 AM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
The wine world is a fantastically complex construct, as would seem fitting given the amazing gamut of pleasures/sensations that can be had from a glass of the stuff. But if you stop and look at the point in wine history that almost all of those concepts originated at, the surprise is to find how so much of what's perceived as the fundamentals were put in place by... the French. Ageing as ennobling a wine. Indeed: high-end vs. low-end wines as such (in place of good vs. bad). Oak as a normal (and again: ennobling!) flavour-component. Bottles as the proper shape/form for wine to be bought in. All the serving concepts such as temperature, airing, decanting. The endless jargon/terminology that neatly corroborate the various concepts. But even the basic idea of red and white as fundamental categories.
Wine was being made for centuries before this, but it's as though a spell was cast. And what's fascinating to witness is when the construct start to creak under its own weight. Because making and drinking wine, at heart, aren't about this construct. They're about something much simpler, and something completely universal: making amazing stuff to drink and... enjoying it.
posted by progosk at 8:20 AM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
What's useful to remember when considering any and all of these fundamental (French) concepts, is that they were fundamentally marketing concepts, and almost invariably aimed at maximizing price. With time they have become a culture, indeed they define wine culture as such - and what beautiful culture it is. But it really is just one take on what wine can be.
posted by progosk at 8:34 AM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by progosk at 8:34 AM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
That said, I'm not on board with most attempts to "democratize" wine by making it "fun" and "not scary."
Why not? I am baffled by the notion that because wine is a thing for some people (and I am one of those people), it should be treated as somehow sacred, and accessible only to those "in the know". That? That's just marketing crap from big name wine producers. Screw them. They are not the boss of me.
I hate the implication that taking the time to learn about something makes one a frickin' snob.
I certainly don't think that taking the time to learn about something makes one a snob. I do, however, think that being a dick about the knowledge one has acquired does. Particularly if one takes that acquired knowledge and deliberately makes it opaque for others who are trying to learn. Shit like this: "Ambitious, yet pedestrian." comes out of the mouths of the wine educated quite often. The attitude that goes with such pronouncements is utter nonsense.
I fell into wine love by happenstance. My German host parents served wine with dinner every night, and when they realized that I was clueless about it (being 16 and all), they toted me off to a few dozen wineries over the course of my time with them. When we visited friends in France, they did the same, with our French hosts cheerfully explaining to me that wine is food, and anyone who said otherwise was a fool, and hey kid, stick your nose in that glass and get a good snootful, and tell us what you smell. Now taste it and tell us what it reminds you of.
Frankly, I think my host parents and their friends did a great job teaching me. When you don't know anything about wine, being told to think about what the taste reminds you of is much more beneficial than blathering about how "sassy" or "lively" the palate is. Being shown how a meal can be enhanced by a wine that complements the flavors on your plate is more beneficial than throwing buzzwords around.
Wine has been around since dirt was new, and to pretend it is something more a wonderful and interesting companion to dinner or a night with friends or a hot bath and a good book is ridiculous.
I know I am more likely to enjoy a merlot than a cabernet, for instance, but if you handed me a glass of each I might or might not be able to tell you which was which. I'd be able to tell you which glass I wanted to keep and which you could have back, though.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to know much more than that to enjoy and appreciate wine. I like knowing how different wines work with different foods, too. It can sometimes be the difference between a merely pleasant meal, and a meal that you want to linger over and stretch the enjoyment out as long as you can.
posted by MissySedai at 8:48 AM on May 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
Why not? I am baffled by the notion that because wine is a thing for some people (and I am one of those people), it should be treated as somehow sacred, and accessible only to those "in the know". That? That's just marketing crap from big name wine producers. Screw them. They are not the boss of me.
I hate the implication that taking the time to learn about something makes one a frickin' snob.
I certainly don't think that taking the time to learn about something makes one a snob. I do, however, think that being a dick about the knowledge one has acquired does. Particularly if one takes that acquired knowledge and deliberately makes it opaque for others who are trying to learn. Shit like this: "Ambitious, yet pedestrian." comes out of the mouths of the wine educated quite often. The attitude that goes with such pronouncements is utter nonsense.
I fell into wine love by happenstance. My German host parents served wine with dinner every night, and when they realized that I was clueless about it (being 16 and all), they toted me off to a few dozen wineries over the course of my time with them. When we visited friends in France, they did the same, with our French hosts cheerfully explaining to me that wine is food, and anyone who said otherwise was a fool, and hey kid, stick your nose in that glass and get a good snootful, and tell us what you smell. Now taste it and tell us what it reminds you of.
Frankly, I think my host parents and their friends did a great job teaching me. When you don't know anything about wine, being told to think about what the taste reminds you of is much more beneficial than blathering about how "sassy" or "lively" the palate is. Being shown how a meal can be enhanced by a wine that complements the flavors on your plate is more beneficial than throwing buzzwords around.
Wine has been around since dirt was new, and to pretend it is something more a wonderful and interesting companion to dinner or a night with friends or a hot bath and a good book is ridiculous.
I know I am more likely to enjoy a merlot than a cabernet, for instance, but if you handed me a glass of each I might or might not be able to tell you which was which. I'd be able to tell you which glass I wanted to keep and which you could have back, though.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to know much more than that to enjoy and appreciate wine. I like knowing how different wines work with different foods, too. It can sometimes be the difference between a merely pleasant meal, and a meal that you want to linger over and stretch the enjoyment out as long as you can.
posted by MissySedai at 8:48 AM on May 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wines that are sweet.
There's a wide-spread stigma attached to (the vast majority of) wines that are sweet
This is interesting, not only because it wasn't always so, but given that sweetness provides a kind of accessibility to wine-drinking, the fact that it's marked out as a generally base characteristic, typical of wines that are deemed too facile, too likeable, this deserves the distinct suspicion that again there is a taste-bias that's been consolidated over time, with an exclusionary agenda: wines that are easy to like (how often will you hear a person confessing to not knowing about wine, yet liking dessert wines? or just consider the whole wine-cooler phenomenon), are not part of the canon. This idea is not only un-historical (an illustrative case in point: Amarone, nowadays a respected member of the inner circle of top breeds, was originally quite literally singled out as "bitter stuff" because it was Recioto gone wrong, whose sugar had fermented into just more alcohol; until roughly the '70's it was the lowly by-product, sold off at cut price with respect to the highly prized Recioto), it's also contrary to a simple logic that would have kept wine-sales from dwindling-while-spiraling-in-price, a tendency that is spelling major trouble for winemakers (vis. the steady, seemingly unhaltable drop in production for years now): make wines that more people will spontaneously like.
Wines were made to be drunk. Why not admit that it's surely taste, everybody's taste, that should be king, instead of anybody's prescriptive canon?
posted by progosk at 11:12 AM on May 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's a wide-spread stigma attached to (the vast majority of) wines that are sweet
This is interesting, not only because it wasn't always so, but given that sweetness provides a kind of accessibility to wine-drinking, the fact that it's marked out as a generally base characteristic, typical of wines that are deemed too facile, too likeable, this deserves the distinct suspicion that again there is a taste-bias that's been consolidated over time, with an exclusionary agenda: wines that are easy to like (how often will you hear a person confessing to not knowing about wine, yet liking dessert wines? or just consider the whole wine-cooler phenomenon), are not part of the canon. This idea is not only un-historical (an illustrative case in point: Amarone, nowadays a respected member of the inner circle of top breeds, was originally quite literally singled out as "bitter stuff" because it was Recioto gone wrong, whose sugar had fermented into just more alcohol; until roughly the '70's it was the lowly by-product, sold off at cut price with respect to the highly prized Recioto), it's also contrary to a simple logic that would have kept wine-sales from dwindling-while-spiraling-in-price, a tendency that is spelling major trouble for winemakers (vis. the steady, seemingly unhaltable drop in production for years now): make wines that more people will spontaneously like.
Wines were made to be drunk. Why not admit that it's surely taste, everybody's taste, that should be king, instead of anybody's prescriptive canon?
posted by progosk at 11:12 AM on May 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well if you say so. I guess these people are just hacks.
I like Robin Goldstein's work, but what the paper you linked actually shows is that people with wine training/experience liked more expensive wines more than cheaper wines, but people without wine expertise liked cheaper wines more than more expensive wines. Both findings were very statistically significant (not sure why the authors say that one is marginally significant; the actual regressions show very significant findings). This makes sense if you think a lot of people have a taste for sweetness, obviousness, and maybe a touch of alcohol, vs. the tannins and acidity that can appear in higher level wines. That's why more people drink kool-aid than cabernet in the first place. I have in general found that people who like and enjoy wine but are not necessarily expert or that experienced with it -- a lot of my dinner guests -- will prefer the 'better' wine when they taste blind.
BTW, Goldstein himself, the author of the paper, collects and drinks aged Burgundy and Barolo -- some of the most expensive wines in the world. Says they're overpriced but he can't help it, he likes them.
posted by zipadee at 11:53 AM on May 1, 2013
I like Robin Goldstein's work, but what the paper you linked actually shows is that people with wine training/experience liked more expensive wines more than cheaper wines, but people without wine expertise liked cheaper wines more than more expensive wines. Both findings were very statistically significant (not sure why the authors say that one is marginally significant; the actual regressions show very significant findings). This makes sense if you think a lot of people have a taste for sweetness, obviousness, and maybe a touch of alcohol, vs. the tannins and acidity that can appear in higher level wines. That's why more people drink kool-aid than cabernet in the first place. I have in general found that people who like and enjoy wine but are not necessarily expert or that experienced with it -- a lot of my dinner guests -- will prefer the 'better' wine when they taste blind.
BTW, Goldstein himself, the author of the paper, collects and drinks aged Burgundy and Barolo -- some of the most expensive wines in the world. Says they're overpriced but he can't help it, he likes them.
posted by zipadee at 11:53 AM on May 1, 2013
Wines were made to be drunk. Why not admit that it's surely taste, everybody's taste, that should be king, instead of anybody's prescriptive canon?
Exactly. "My taste is better than your taste, as you'd understand if you weren't such an uneducated plebe," isn't an argument against wine culture being snobbish. It's the soul of snobbishness.
posted by Myca at 12:01 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Exactly. "My taste is better than your taste, as you'd understand if you weren't such an uneducated plebe," isn't an argument against wine culture being snobbish. It's the soul of snobbishness.
posted by Myca at 12:01 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
But isn't that an argument against all criticism ever?
posted by shakespeherian at 12:02 PM on May 1, 2013
posted by shakespeherian at 12:02 PM on May 1, 2013
This puts me in mind of David Hume:
"And not to draw our philosophy from too profound a source, we shall have recourse to a noted story in Don Quixote.
"It is with good reason, says Sancho to the squire with the great nose, that I pretend to have a judgment in wine: This is a quality hereditary in our family. Two of my kinsmen were once called to give their opinion of a hogshead, which was supposed to be excellent, being old and of a good vintage. One of them tastes it; considers it; and, after mature reflection, pronounces the wine to be good, were it not for a small taste of leather, which he perceived in it. The other, after using the same precautions, gives also his verdict in favour of the wine; but with the reserve of a taste of iron, which he could easily distinguish. You cannot imagine how much they were both ridiculed for their judgment. But who laughed in the end? On emptying the hogshead, there was found at the bottom an old key with a leathern thong tied to it."
(excerpted from "Of the Standard of Taste")
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 12:07 PM on May 1, 2013
"And not to draw our philosophy from too profound a source, we shall have recourse to a noted story in Don Quixote.
"It is with good reason, says Sancho to the squire with the great nose, that I pretend to have a judgment in wine: This is a quality hereditary in our family. Two of my kinsmen were once called to give their opinion of a hogshead, which was supposed to be excellent, being old and of a good vintage. One of them tastes it; considers it; and, after mature reflection, pronounces the wine to be good, were it not for a small taste of leather, which he perceived in it. The other, after using the same precautions, gives also his verdict in favour of the wine; but with the reserve of a taste of iron, which he could easily distinguish. You cannot imagine how much they were both ridiculed for their judgment. But who laughed in the end? On emptying the hogshead, there was found at the bottom an old key with a leathern thong tied to it."
(excerpted from "Of the Standard of Taste")
posted by JimInLoganSquare at 12:07 PM on May 1, 2013
You can still evaluate whether something tastes good without delving into "you're enjoying it wrong." "It's sweet, therefore it's swill" is different from "it's cloyingly sweet, indistinguishable from spiked grape Kool-Aid."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:08 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:08 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
But isn't that an argument against all criticism ever?
Only if you buy into the idea that critics are the final arbiters of what you should or should not [insert thing here].
"I don't like it, and here's why" is one thing. "This is total shit and if you like it, you're wrong" is something else entirely.
posted by MissySedai at 12:13 PM on May 1, 2013
Only if you buy into the idea that critics are the final arbiters of what you should or should not [insert thing here].
"I don't like it, and here's why" is one thing. "This is total shit and if you like it, you're wrong" is something else entirely.
posted by MissySedai at 12:13 PM on May 1, 2013
Sure but I didn't think anyone was arguing that.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:22 PM on May 1, 2013
posted by shakespeherian at 12:22 PM on May 1, 2013
But isn't that an argument against all criticism ever?
Not at all.
The problem, from my perspective, is that 'accessible' is being used as a negative quality. We can discuss the pros and cons of, say Buffy The Vampire Slayer or The Beatles until the cows come home. Just because something is accessible doesn't mean it must be lousy.
But, I mean, look at zipadee's line up here: "This makes sense if you think a lot of people have a taste for sweetness, obviousness, and maybe a touch of alcohol, vs. the tannins and acidity that can appear in higher level wines."
"Obviousness" vs "Higher level"
Being inaccessible is not a mark of quality. Being inaccessible should not be a selling point.
And, look, I enjoy some inaccessible shit in my life. Inaccessibility isn't bad either. It's just a thing.
But the scoffing rejection of wines people like is exactly what people mean when they discuss wine snobbery.
posted by Myca at 12:30 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Not at all.
The problem, from my perspective, is that 'accessible' is being used as a negative quality. We can discuss the pros and cons of, say Buffy The Vampire Slayer or The Beatles until the cows come home. Just because something is accessible doesn't mean it must be lousy.
But, I mean, look at zipadee's line up here: "This makes sense if you think a lot of people have a taste for sweetness, obviousness, and maybe a touch of alcohol, vs. the tannins and acidity that can appear in higher level wines."
"Obviousness" vs "Higher level"
Being inaccessible is not a mark of quality. Being inaccessible should not be a selling point.
And, look, I enjoy some inaccessible shit in my life. Inaccessibility isn't bad either. It's just a thing.
But the scoffing rejection of wines people like is exactly what people mean when they discuss wine snobbery.
posted by Myca at 12:30 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't think zipadee said that inaccessibility is a mark of quality. To my read, zipadee is saying 'This study indicates that people without experience in wine prefer inexpensive wines, while people with experience in wine prefer expensive wines.' (Insert as many conditionals as you like.) I don't see any scoffing in the comment or even really any judgement of any type at all.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:34 PM on May 1, 2013
posted by shakespeherian at 12:34 PM on May 1, 2013
But isn't that an argument against all criticism ever?
Waxing poetic about wines should be identified as just that: poetry. It can be great fun to read.
Whereas criticism that attempts to score wines needs to seriously rethink itself: its criteria and its real aims; some writers have - Luca Maroni is the best example I know of. (Will chase up any English links I can find.)
posted by progosk at 12:42 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Waxing poetic about wines should be identified as just that: poetry. It can be great fun to read.
Whereas criticism that attempts to score wines needs to seriously rethink itself: its criteria and its real aims; some writers have - Luca Maroni is the best example I know of. (Will chase up any English links I can find.)
posted by progosk at 12:42 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
The position (strawman?) being argued against is not that there is value in the "high-level" wines, but that the flavors they tend toward are the only ones that can be legitimately enjoyed, and if you like something that's characteristic of a less subtle flavor (e.g. overt sweetness), that's because your palate is bad and you should feel bad.
to use the Lego analogy, imagine if the sets were color-coded, with the more simple ones predominantly yellow, red for the intermediates, and green for the advanced. No reason a hardcore hobbyist can't make something "advanced" entirely out of the yellow blocks if they happen to like the color yellow.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:48 PM on May 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
to use the Lego analogy, imagine if the sets were color-coded, with the more simple ones predominantly yellow, red for the intermediates, and green for the advanced. No reason a hardcore hobbyist can't make something "advanced" entirely out of the yellow blocks if they happen to like the color yellow.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:48 PM on May 1, 2013 [2 favorites]
Imagine you really love Lego. You're a hobbyist, have been for many years. All right. Now, I'm going to tell you that your preference for the really big Lego builds, stuff that frankly I just don't have the patience or skill for, is just snobbishness. Man, they're just Lego. Make a little house and get over yourself.
Sure. I think it's entirely possible to swing to the other extreme and that that's a problem too. Yay variety. Let a thousand grapevines bloom, & etc.
But as progosk points out up here, I don't think excessive populism is the problem facing the wine industry and wine culture right now.
posted by Myca at 12:55 PM on May 1, 2013
Sure. I think it's entirely possible to swing to the other extreme and that that's a problem too. Yay variety. Let a thousand grapevines bloom, & etc.
But as progosk points out up here, I don't think excessive populism is the problem facing the wine industry and wine culture right now.
posted by Myca at 12:55 PM on May 1, 2013
When you like something, it's a pleasure and a joy to learn the depths of that something. [...] Is it better to only enjoy anything on a surface level?
Just as an experiment, try this line of thought: what is wine? It is fruit juice (grape juice) that's alcoholic.
When you say "surface" and "depth", what exactly are you referring to?
posted by progosk at 1:29 PM on May 1, 2013
Just as an experiment, try this line of thought: what is wine? It is fruit juice (grape juice) that's alcoholic.
When you say "surface" and "depth", what exactly are you referring to?
posted by progosk at 1:29 PM on May 1, 2013
Well, only a blowhard or wannabe would say this, in the wine world.
That's rather the point. If I had a nickel for every blowhard that has come through Pentamere's doors and condescended at the winemaker (unaware that he's the winemaker) just when I'm there hanging out, I could go visit Napa and and try everything in the region at my leisure. And if I expanded that to every time it has happened when I'm wandering around wineries on vacation, I could retire to Italy, buy a vineyard and winery, pay a staff, and sit in the tasting room, drinking and shooting the shit with customers about wine and food all day long until my liver finally surrendered and pleaded for respite.
The blowhards and posers make wine tasting intimidating for n00bs, and that's just, as the man says, fucked up and bullshit. I no longer have any idea how much time I've spent coaxing people who've suddenly encountered a snob to ignore the snob and concentrate on their own experience with the wine at hand, that's how often I see it. It genuinely pains me to see someone just starting to learn about wine get that "Oh, shit, am I doing it wrong?" look when some asshole starts blithering on like he's at a meeting of Wine Assholes United, instead of in a tasting room where there are people shiny and new to wine who might need a little encouragement. I HATE seeing that expression, and I do make it a point to try to help people get past the assholes, because wine is meant to be a pleasure and I very much want people to have as much fun learning about wine as I did.
posted by MissySedai at 1:45 PM on May 1, 2013
That's rather the point. If I had a nickel for every blowhard that has come through Pentamere's doors and condescended at the winemaker (unaware that he's the winemaker) just when I'm there hanging out, I could go visit Napa and and try everything in the region at my leisure. And if I expanded that to every time it has happened when I'm wandering around wineries on vacation, I could retire to Italy, buy a vineyard and winery, pay a staff, and sit in the tasting room, drinking and shooting the shit with customers about wine and food all day long until my liver finally surrendered and pleaded for respite.
The blowhards and posers make wine tasting intimidating for n00bs, and that's just, as the man says, fucked up and bullshit. I no longer have any idea how much time I've spent coaxing people who've suddenly encountered a snob to ignore the snob and concentrate on their own experience with the wine at hand, that's how often I see it. It genuinely pains me to see someone just starting to learn about wine get that "Oh, shit, am I doing it wrong?" look when some asshole starts blithering on like he's at a meeting of Wine Assholes United, instead of in a tasting room where there are people shiny and new to wine who might need a little encouragement. I HATE seeing that expression, and I do make it a point to try to help people get past the assholes, because wine is meant to be a pleasure and I very much want people to have as much fun learning about wine as I did.
posted by MissySedai at 1:45 PM on May 1, 2013
gilrain, a gas-chromatograph will undoubtedly yield an interesting graph of the wine of your choice - but are you sure that's what makes it worthwhile to drink?
All I mean by the thought-experiment is: when you question your assumptions, you're likely to find more "depth" than when you're drinking by (whose?) design.
posted by progosk at 1:55 PM on May 1, 2013
All I mean by the thought-experiment is: when you question your assumptions, you're likely to find more "depth" than when you're drinking by (whose?) design.
posted by progosk at 1:55 PM on May 1, 2013
More random wine-thoughts.
Wine used to be made and drunk year by year. When did that stop, and why? (Compare/correlate to the undeniable - but yet-again half-frowned-upon - wide-spread success of nouveau/novello/this-year's wines.)
Single varietal wines are generally considered as neatly recognisable by certain characteristic tastes/notes. To the point that the quality of a single-varietal wine will be judgeable (to a basic extent) by its exhibiting those characteristic notes - white sauvignon = passion fruit/tomato leaf/cat pee, to take one of the easier and international examples. Then one day you taste ripe sauvignon grapes (or even a particular sauvignon made from really ripe grapes) - and they taste, instead, of peaches. What to make of this? And once you get to the conclusion that someone managed to canonise a characteristic that was simply (and above all) replicable - ripeness be damned - whereto then, with all the sauvignon-appreciation/critiquing?
Many people are non-wine-drinkers because they feel they do not understand/know enough about wine. I have never met a person who does not drink fruit juice because they feel they do not understand/know enough about fruit juice. (And I am pretty sure that the potential organoleptic complexity of fruit juice, given the myriad varieties of amazing fruit there is in the world, would be on a scientific par with that of wine.)
The other day, by more of an accident than choice, we found ourselves with two different glasses of wine accompanying our meal in a very nice restaurant. Each wine was a distinct component in the interplay of flavours. Suddenly it seemed odd that one would necessarily choose one wine, rather than several, simultaneously, for a meal. (MissySedai's novel-to-me thought of wine-as-food gets at what I'm trying to say here.)
There was a brief movement underfoot here in Italy of producers who printed their selling-price-at-origin onto their labels, so as to disrupt (or rather: re-frame) the wine-merchant pricing game. It was immediately championed by buyers (who found a truer gauge of value) - and almost as quickly put a stop to by wine-shops (by simply refusing to stock these producers' wines). Whose interest prevailed in this scenario?
posted by progosk at 2:41 PM on May 1, 2013
Wine used to be made and drunk year by year. When did that stop, and why? (Compare/correlate to the undeniable - but yet-again half-frowned-upon - wide-spread success of nouveau/novello/this-year's wines.)
Single varietal wines are generally considered as neatly recognisable by certain characteristic tastes/notes. To the point that the quality of a single-varietal wine will be judgeable (to a basic extent) by its exhibiting those characteristic notes - white sauvignon = passion fruit/tomato leaf/cat pee, to take one of the easier and international examples. Then one day you taste ripe sauvignon grapes (or even a particular sauvignon made from really ripe grapes) - and they taste, instead, of peaches. What to make of this? And once you get to the conclusion that someone managed to canonise a characteristic that was simply (and above all) replicable - ripeness be damned - whereto then, with all the sauvignon-appreciation/critiquing?
Many people are non-wine-drinkers because they feel they do not understand/know enough about wine. I have never met a person who does not drink fruit juice because they feel they do not understand/know enough about fruit juice. (And I am pretty sure that the potential organoleptic complexity of fruit juice, given the myriad varieties of amazing fruit there is in the world, would be on a scientific par with that of wine.)
The other day, by more of an accident than choice, we found ourselves with two different glasses of wine accompanying our meal in a very nice restaurant. Each wine was a distinct component in the interplay of flavours. Suddenly it seemed odd that one would necessarily choose one wine, rather than several, simultaneously, for a meal. (MissySedai's novel-to-me thought of wine-as-food gets at what I'm trying to say here.)
There was a brief movement underfoot here in Italy of producers who printed their selling-price-at-origin onto their labels, so as to disrupt (or rather: re-frame) the wine-merchant pricing game. It was immediately championed by buyers (who found a truer gauge of value) - and almost as quickly put a stop to by wine-shops (by simply refusing to stock these producers' wines). Whose interest prevailed in this scenario?
posted by progosk at 2:41 PM on May 1, 2013
Many people are non-wine-drinkers because they feel they do not understand/know enough about wine. I have never met a person who does not drink fruit juice because they feel they do not understand/know enough about fruit juice.
Fruit juice doesn't have a learning curve, though. It legitimately takes practice to train your taste buds to discern the difference in flavor between one wine and another even vaguely similar one. Hell, I don't even have the patience to drink alcohol at all – it all tastes like paint thinner to me (I said above I can't tell the difference between a red and a white, but I'm pretty sure you could also fool me with a red and, say, whiskey). I'm sure there's a panopoly of flavors there once I can learn to ignore the ethanol, but I'd rather just stick with something I can already tolerate.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:47 PM on May 1, 2013
Fruit juice doesn't have a learning curve, though. It legitimately takes practice to train your taste buds to discern the difference in flavor between one wine and another even vaguely similar one. Hell, I don't even have the patience to drink alcohol at all – it all tastes like paint thinner to me (I said above I can't tell the difference between a red and a white, but I'm pretty sure you could also fool me with a red and, say, whiskey). I'm sure there's a panopoly of flavors there once I can learn to ignore the ethanol, but I'd rather just stick with something I can already tolerate.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:47 PM on May 1, 2013
It legitimately takes practice to train your taste buds to discern the difference in flavor between one wine and another even vaguely similar one.
It would take no less pratice to discern between two apple juices os different apple varietals. But that's besides the point: the difference is that everybody feels free to enjoy fruit juice, whereas there is a perception that it takes something more to enjoy wine. But that is where things are just upside down. If a wine is difficult to enjoy, the simplest thing that means is that it doesn't taste great. It might taste very interesting, but just not - simply - great, in a way that good fruit juices taste - simply - great. So the question is: what is being done to wines so that they taste... not great? (And why?)
posted by progosk at 2:54 PM on May 1, 2013
It would take no less pratice to discern between two apple juices os different apple varietals. But that's besides the point: the difference is that everybody feels free to enjoy fruit juice, whereas there is a perception that it takes something more to enjoy wine. But that is where things are just upside down. If a wine is difficult to enjoy, the simplest thing that means is that it doesn't taste great. It might taste very interesting, but just not - simply - great, in a way that good fruit juices taste - simply - great. So the question is: what is being done to wines so that they taste... not great? (And why?)
posted by progosk at 2:54 PM on May 1, 2013
(Also wine is not just "fruit juice" but one very specific kind of fruit juice. Nobody says "I don't know enough about fruit juice to drink it," but very few people would find value in becoming a connoisseur of a certain fruit's juice, to the point where they can find sub-flavors in different presses. Perhaps orange, but even that is generally considered along a linear old/concentrate/bad---->fresh-squeezed/good continuum.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:56 PM on May 1, 2013
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:56 PM on May 1, 2013
very few people would find value in becoming a connoisseur of a specific kind of juice, to the point where they can find sub-flavors in it.
So how has the value been found in people doing exactly that regarding grapes? (Why grapes?)
I'm not trying to be facetious or absurdist: it's that there is so much special weight being attributed to a pretty simple product, fermented grape juice, that it's always fascinating to see how much of that weight goes completely unchallenged, or un-investigated, to sound less confrontational.
(This, from a serious wine-fiend and -maker.)
posted by progosk at 3:04 PM on May 1, 2013
So how has the value been found in people doing exactly that regarding grapes? (Why grapes?)
I'm not trying to be facetious or absurdist: it's that there is so much special weight being attributed to a pretty simple product, fermented grape juice, that it's always fascinating to see how much of that weight goes completely unchallenged, or un-investigated, to sound less confrontational.
(This, from a serious wine-fiend and -maker.)
posted by progosk at 3:04 PM on May 1, 2013
Whose interest prevailed in this scenario?
Not wine drinkers. :( That's sad.
As far as wine as food, that's just the way that I was taught, and it's a concept I talk about on both sides of the counter. When we have friends over for dinner, we frequently have 3 or 4 bottles of wine on the table, and there usually ends up being a lot of cheery passing back and forth of glasses.
A couple Italian places around here offer flights with dinner, and I rather enjoy that. The Husband and I make a point of getting different flights, so we end up with 6 different wines on the table to play with and enjoy. It's great fun.
posted by MissySedai at 3:06 PM on May 1, 2013
Not wine drinkers. :( That's sad.
As far as wine as food, that's just the way that I was taught, and it's a concept I talk about on both sides of the counter. When we have friends over for dinner, we frequently have 3 or 4 bottles of wine on the table, and there usually ends up being a lot of cheery passing back and forth of glasses.
A couple Italian places around here offer flights with dinner, and I rather enjoy that. The Husband and I make a point of getting different flights, so we end up with 6 different wines on the table to play with and enjoy. It's great fun.
posted by MissySedai at 3:06 PM on May 1, 2013
The answer, I suspect, is that fruit juice doesn't get you drunk. There's not a whole ton of plant species that can be safely converted to palatable alcohol, and a great deal of demand for the end result so what there is gets refined and studied ad infinitum. Consider how much thought we put into fermented wheat, rye and barley.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:08 PM on May 1, 2013
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:08 PM on May 1, 2013
re fruit: apples ≠ apples (same goes for the juice).
A handy, super-simple wine test for finding wines that taste good? Have a child taste it. (You'd be surprised.)
posted by progosk at 3:09 PM on May 1, 2013
A handy, super-simple wine test for finding wines that taste good? Have a child taste it. (You'd be surprised.)
posted by progosk at 3:09 PM on May 1, 2013
One last fruit thought: ever tried aged fruit juice?
Tying back to my previous question of when people started to make wine not to be consumed within the year: do you reckon that someone just thought it would be an interesting idea, let's see how our wine (fruit juice) tastes three years from now?
Or do you think perhaps someone was stuck with a batch of unsold wine and worked out a marketing ploy to not only sell the stuff, but actually sell it at a premium, coining the concept of "aged" rather than "old", to euphemise what a scientist would simply describe as oxidation? And before they knew it the marketing ploy was such a success that winemakers started to make wine so that it could last long enough to merit the same premium price, and in the process ended up making wines that in order to last the tests of time/ageing, were less and less drinkable within the year of their making?
posted by progosk at 3:24 PM on May 1, 2013
Tying back to my previous question of when people started to make wine not to be consumed within the year: do you reckon that someone just thought it would be an interesting idea, let's see how our wine (fruit juice) tastes three years from now?
Or do you think perhaps someone was stuck with a batch of unsold wine and worked out a marketing ploy to not only sell the stuff, but actually sell it at a premium, coining the concept of "aged" rather than "old", to euphemise what a scientist would simply describe as oxidation? And before they knew it the marketing ploy was such a success that winemakers started to make wine so that it could last long enough to merit the same premium price, and in the process ended up making wines that in order to last the tests of time/ageing, were less and less drinkable within the year of their making?
posted by progosk at 3:24 PM on May 1, 2013
A measure of flavor complexity, with the caveat that the complexity must remain enjoyable.
See, I find this interesting, because what I think I've seen others in this thread say is that some of this is learning to enjoy flavors that are initially off-putting or unpleasant.
... and I sort of think that given time and exposure, you can learn to enjoy the taste of most stuff (I mean, good god, people eat vegemite), and your timeline included a year of "not sure I like this, tastes sort of weird."
So half the time when I talk to wine folks, I feel like someone who just said that he likes pastrami sandwiches and got told that if I devoted a year to it, I'd discover that there's a whole world beyond *cough cough* 'obvious' sandwich flavors, and that in time, I could learn to enjoy the complexity of a vegemite and natto wrap.
posted by Myca at 3:25 PM on May 1, 2013
See, I find this interesting, because what I think I've seen others in this thread say is that some of this is learning to enjoy flavors that are initially off-putting or unpleasant.
... and I sort of think that given time and exposure, you can learn to enjoy the taste of most stuff (I mean, good god, people eat vegemite), and your timeline included a year of "not sure I like this, tastes sort of weird."
So half the time when I talk to wine folks, I feel like someone who just said that he likes pastrami sandwiches and got told that if I devoted a year to it, I'd discover that there's a whole world beyond *cough cough* 'obvious' sandwich flavors, and that in time, I could learn to enjoy the complexity of a vegemite and natto wrap.
posted by Myca at 3:25 PM on May 1, 2013
So half the time when I talk to wine folks, I feel like someone who just said that he likes pastrami sandwiches and got told that if I devoted a year to it, I'd discover that there's a whole world beyond *cough cough* 'obvious' sandwich flavors, and that in time, I could learn to enjoy the complexity of a vegemite and natto wrap.
Aw, Myca. That really sucks, and I'm sorry that you've had that experience. Come see me, we'll hit my regular wine trail, and spend time looking for things that you can enjoy right now.
posted by MissySedai at 3:35 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Aw, Myca. That really sucks, and I'm sorry that you've had that experience. Come see me, we'll hit my regular wine trail, and spend time looking for things that you can enjoy right now.
posted by MissySedai at 3:35 PM on May 1, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sounds a bit like a [GA]BF for wine. Giving folks exposure to ways of thinking about wine beyond "will this fuck me up?" and developing the vocabulary and framework to help share the experience is all good in my book. The spectacle may be offensive to traditionalists and it may underscore the anti-hipster disdain for authentic experience in others, but it likely fills a niche. Renewed interest in regionalism when it comes to consumable products plays to my personal aesthetics/politics so I guess I'm all for getting other people rowing in the same direction.
Insofar as wine--or beer or sculpture or cheese or basketball or model railroading--is an acquired interest, pretty much anything that has lasting value or delivers a deeper satisfaction requires an investment of time and effort. Hopefully we are all given the opportunity to be drawn into something interesting and have the means to purse that. It's what sets humanity apart.
[on preview]
Look at me getting all deep and philosophical. I'm not even deep into my cups yet. Also, you heard it here first. The *next big thing* in alcoholic beverage appreciation? Mead. It's not for me, but I've seen an appreciable groundswell of interest amongst craft beer drinkers like myself.
posted by Fezboy! at 4:41 PM on May 1, 2013
Insofar as wine--or beer or sculpture or cheese or basketball or model railroading--is an acquired interest, pretty much anything that has lasting value or delivers a deeper satisfaction requires an investment of time and effort. Hopefully we are all given the opportunity to be drawn into something interesting and have the means to purse that. It's what sets humanity apart.
[on preview]
Look at me getting all deep and philosophical. I'm not even deep into my cups yet. Also, you heard it here first. The *next big thing* in alcoholic beverage appreciation? Mead. It's not for me, but I've seen an appreciable groundswell of interest amongst craft beer drinkers like myself.
posted by Fezboy! at 4:41 PM on May 1, 2013
« Older Sesame Street outreach | Featuring the suggested voice talent of Burt... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by MissySedai at 3:22 PM on April 30, 2013