Welcome Guest ( Log In | Join )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
JO's response
"Matthew"
post Nov 28 2002, 07:22 AM
Post #1





Guests






Everyone else is wrong and Scott is right.....in his own mind.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Scott"
post Nov 25 2002, 11:34 PM
Post #2





Guests






Davo,
we are not going to agree. easy.
I don't need you to agree with me, it's no skin off my nose. I would expect the reverse is also true.
I haven't asked you for your background, (why would I care?) I asked you to explain an issue you were outspoken on, to see if you were bluffing it.
The explanation and understanding would be your credentials, not a phony job title.





This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"TORB"
post Nov 23 2002, 03:14 PM
Post #3





Guests






Davo,

Next think you are going to be telling us is that you are a medical doctor and licensed to practise medicine on human beings. God I hope we don?t get into e-surgery with you instructing people on amputations or lobotomies. -smile.gif

Then we will be in real trouble. But hang on, we don?t have to listen to you, we can always read all about how to do it ourselves in the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Anatomy. -smile.gif (With tongue firmly planed in cheek.)

Cheers
Ric




This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Davo"
post Nov 23 2002, 01:28 PM
Post #4





Guests






Scott,

You just don't get it. This is an e-conversation. I could tell you I was senior winemaker for Southmount and how could you prove I wasn't, which is precisely why on technical topics I prefer to quote a published expert in the field rather than profer personal opinion. As I stated, either you choose to believe the experts or not but my personal opinion in this is of little consequence.

My personal opinion is made even more irrelevent by your history of bagging anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours and personnalising your comments, and which continues in this thread.

You have chosen not to believe any expert opinion provided for you on this and other topics. Why then would you then choose to believe anything I told you about myself or my experience.

As I said, it would be an exercise in futility, much like this thread.

Cheers, Davo



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Scott"
post Nov 22 2002, 09:16 PM
Post #5





Guests






As an aside, this review just came to my attention. it doesn't support either view, but it made me laugh so i'd post it.

its a note on Rayas 1989 by Jancis Robinson, within a panel situation.

Rayas 89 The rim is already showing signs of age. Sweet, earthy, nose - indeed an earthiness which gave rise to much comment including 'Brett city' countered by 'a purity of dirtiness'. Make of this what you will but on no account serve it to an Australian. Very alcoholic, still slightly tough but an impressive relic of an ancient r?gime. My score 17.5 - drink now.





This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Scott"
post Nov 22 2002, 07:13 PM
Post #6





Guests






Davo,
my only point remains to you, is not about variations from the norm - I am and was talking about forming an opinion of your own. Given the loud tone you have used, I am surprised you don't know more on the subject. It just seems strange to me - irrespective of what the topic is.

I think if you don't know how it occurs, where it comes from, under what circumstances it activates, etc I don't know why anyone would argue the toss.

Ak's view is very hard to argue with, and I would think that probably synthesises the 2 views pretty well.




This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Adair"
post Nov 22 2002, 11:39 AM
Post #7





Guests






AK,

Well done. IMO, your comment displays the most intelligent thinking in the past 42 postings.

Thanks,
Adair.




This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Clive"
post Nov 22 2002, 08:38 AM
Post #8





Guests






Scott,
Can you please provide us with a list of all the famous wine identities you regularily hob nob with. I am sure we would all gasp most appreciably and hold you in even higher admiration (if at all possible) than we already do. When are you publishing the Scott wine encyclopaedia as I am sure it would be the definitive text. You could ask someone famous to do the foreword as well.
Clive



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"AK"
post Nov 22 2002, 08:19 AM
Post #9





Guests






IMO, assuming the wine is made consistenty for every bottle, whether or not the wine is faulty is a question which can only be answered by the winemaker.

If he/she intended to use Brett to enhance his/her wine, then it is not a fault.

If however, it is not intended, it is a fault.

We, as wine drinker, can only decide whether we like this wine or not.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"TORB"
post Nov 22 2002, 05:31 AM
Post #10





Guests






Scott,

Earlier in this thread you stated "Ric, if you must continue your theme of vicarious validation, perhaps you might care to edit less strategically.

My reading of this is the term 'fault' as less as a technical reference, but a generic term of understanding. witness the opening paragraph:

"Faults in wines vary, of course, according to the taste of the consumer. Some diners will quite WRONGLY 'send back' a wine (see serving wine and sommelier) simply because they find it is not to their taste. Taste varies not only according to individuals but also according to nationality."


The fact is I was not editing strategically, I was editing with a modicum of logic.

In your last post you state to Davo "Oxford says you are wrong to send back a wine with these characters"

Actually that?s not what the Oxford says at all. Have a look again, what is says is "Some diners will quite WRONGLY 'send back' a wine (see serving wine and sommelier) simply because they find it is not to their taste."

You also state that whilst Brett is listed in the smellable faults section of the Oxford its not listed in the tastable faults section and whilst that?s correct, in the tastable faults section the following is written "Most faults are already obvious to the nose and need only confirmation on the palate.."

As to my ? vicarious validation? whilst I do have some knowledge and experience in wine I am not an expert who knows it all and am never afraid to gain knowledge from what ever sources I can. If that?s ?vicarious?, I am proud to be known by that term.

Finally, as Huon Hooke said in the article referenced ?"The important thing is tolerance: we shouldn't browbeat people who enjoy mildly faulty wines."

So, as I don?t want to be seen a browbeating you I will shut up now. -J

Cheers
Ric




This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Davo"
post Nov 22 2002, 01:03 AM
Post #11





Guests






Scott,

It is not I who am differing from the norm, nor I who should be proving my provenence.

You are the one arguing against provided expert opinion, not just from myself but also from TORB, and you are arguing from a stance of unproven personal opinion.

As I say, my expertise is not called into question, but your certainly has been.

BTW, I always did dislike name droppers.

Cheers, Davo



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Scott"
post Nov 21 2002, 11:38 PM
Post #12





Guests






Davo,

you haven't brought anything to the table other than a one short quote, given your professed expertise it is hardly unreasonable that you set out your argument.
You have not done so yet, nor provided any explanation of your point of view - where it extends to and where you differ or agree to the norm.

If being called to account is an exercise in futility, fine - I may refer to it as a calling of the bluff instead.

I have no real problems with anything quoted here, but they will always be limited by the nature of a general work of reference. I.e. they won't provide your whole argument, like any well argued view you will draw it from multiple sources, and synthesise to form your opinion. Single source scholarship brings little to any debate.

In fact these quoted sentences are contradictory by their brevity. Oxford says you are wrong to send back a wine with these characters, whilst your reference just says 'no, shouldn't be accepted'. fine, I think in a different context and with greater detail both would probably intersect a lot of the way before finally differing at the last conclusion of how serious this condition is to be taken.

Perhaps next time you should be careful about passing off opinions or more correctly conclusions as your own, if as it turns out you don't really understand the phenomena nor have an argument of your own.
As for the way you delivered your well considered rebuttals, well you're a porkchop.

Ps. Warren Winiarski is head winemaker and proprietor of Stag's Leap winery in Napa.

As a last point, I still maintain that someone (journalist/critic) who says a wine such as 1999 Petrus is ruined to the point of undrinkability is wrong, certainly in the context of grand standing in front of a panel of experts that it is faulty, and unacceptable. particularly when most there disagreed verhmently, and is often inherent within a house style. My personal opinion is that this is no different to someone who doesn't like riesling, declaring all riesling is rubbish as a qualitative statement. It doesn't enhance the understanding of their readers, and perhaps at least should include a disclaimer as to their personal preferences.

Also it would be nice if those who devote as much energy to naysaying, provided more content to the forum in general. whether it be wines they liked, wines they didn't. Issues that bother them, or issues they don't understand, or just points of view they want to share or hear from others. Tasting notes, be they detailed or simple.




This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Guinness"
post Nov 21 2002, 11:21 PM
Post #13





Guests






Tck Tck Tck Ric

How dare you WRONGLY send back a bottle based purely on your purely SUBJECTIVE intolerance of a bacterial spoileage? There may even be other people who can't smell or taste what you smelt or tasted, or who hold up their noses and let their superduper saliva neutralise it all, so how could there be anything wrong with the bottle?
Thank your lucky stars the winemaker's Australian.

Cheers
Wee Chiang



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Davo"
post Nov 21 2002, 09:23 PM
Post #14





Guests






Scott,

That would be an entirely futile process on my behalf.

You choose not to believe quotations from experts in this field who have far more experience than myself, so what difference would my humble experience make to you.

You would just dismiss my opinions as readily as you choose to dismiss the opinions and experience of those quoted, and as you have chosen to deride the opinion of anyone who has dared to differ from you on this board.

Enjoy your dinner, Davo



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Scott"
post Nov 21 2002, 07:05 PM
Post #15





Guests






Davo,
one last thing, I am having dinner with Warren Winiarksi tonight. I'll let him know what you think of his hygiene practises, perhaps he'll give you a call.

cheers mate.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Scott"
post Nov 21 2002, 06:52 PM
Post #16





Guests






Davo,

Why don't you explain to us how you define poor hygiene as you are such the expert.
perhaps also explain how why this easily treatable compound still exists.

Why don't you also explain to us, how you reconcile your view with that of other winemaking countries? none of whom like this character, but hardly care enough to change practises.

Why don't you prove how much you know then?
also how about some of the wines you saw it in, and how did it effect it.
time to put up, given your tone its the least you can do - or should be able to do.

Lantana, your comments about petrol and kero are a perfect analogy.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"TORB"
post Nov 21 2002, 01:40 PM
Post #17





Guests






Gary,

You state "Plenty of Australian wines have plenty of Brett in them. I think most Australian wineries would also gladly replace wines that are riddled with it and call it a fault."

Interestingly enough I had a bottle of Yalumba recently that was way off what it should have been. Kevin Glastonbury the Winemaker at Yalumba rang me to discuss it. He confirmed it was Brett and in this case was caused by lack of sulphur.

So I guess it doesnt have to be "dirty" winemaking it can also be "not enough sulpur." Interestingly enough, he agreed the wine was faulty. Did I mention the "fault" was Brett? -smile.gif

Also, in the article by Huon Hooke referenced in a previous post, he also stated that Brett in Oz wineries was on the increase and that we will be seeing more of it in the coming years.

Cheers
Ric



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Davo"
post Nov 21 2002, 01:14 PM
Post #18





Guests






Lantana,

I think I said that.

It all boils down to an individuals tolerance of the particular spoilage/fault/flavour/smell/taint etc, call it what you like.

I don't mind a touch, and I mean a faint touch, of Brett lending a certain feral funky style to some wines. More than that and I can't drink it.

We all have met people who are insensitive to TCA taint. It does not mean the wine is not corked / faulty just because they can't taste it, or perhaps even like it.

This discussion to me seems to be more about the definition of a fault, rather than an individuals tolerance of it.

As I said "A little is tolerable, though still a fault, too much is revolting, and still a fault."

Cheers, Davo



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Gary W"
post Nov 21 2002, 12:59 PM
Post #19





Guests






Lantana,
Interesting and I agree that a bit of it can be a tool for the winemaker to add complexity etc etc. I don't mind a bit of it either (so to speak). I also appreciate that others like a bit of it or maybe a lot more of it. The only point I am trying to stress is that when it is the dominant character in the wine e.g. just a big pooey stench drowning out (say) lovely cherry fruit and causing a metallic zing or an oystery palate then a fault it is. A very interesting and lively topic to say the least!

Gary



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"lantana"
post Nov 21 2002, 12:42 PM
Post #20





Guests






Not that I agree with Scott's patronising tone, but I'd like to mention as an example of Aussie pristine winemaking philosophy, an exchange I witnessed with John Vickery (legend Aussie Riesling producer) and an experienced Riesling drinker at a masterclass some years ago. The punter asked John what he thought of the kero type character some rieslings develop with age. J.V. answered that he didn't like it as it is a winemaking fault due to exposure to bacteria, at the production stage. Well the punter said something about the Alsace & Germans must have been in the wrong for all these years, as this kero trait is much admired as a character of complexity & interest as long as it doesn't totally dominate. To which J.V. swiftly changed the subject.
I mention this because I think it shows the mindset of many Aust. wine makers, in that any character a wine shows that isn't representative of these sterile conditions is written off as faulty! I like a bit of brett, petroleum smells & V.A. for that matter, as long as it doesn't dominate or overwhelm everything else the wine offers, I think it can add to the individual character of the particular bottle of wine.
I actually want it all, a world full of ugly, brooding, interesting individuals as well as those beautiful, sexy, slinky, clean as a whistle wines, so I can chose what to drink according to the way I feel.
lantana



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th August 2019 - 03:10 PM