Why wine reviewers should meet the winemaker
I was reading Steve Heimoff’s blog this morning and he had an interesting question about revieweing wines: should the wine be reviewed with the winemaker or should it be reviewed blind with no context. I have, as usual, an opinion. The more time I spend in our wine industry, the more I think that it is difficult to separate the winemaker (I use winemaker as a broad term, not the individual, but the set of circumstances that leads to make a particular bottle of wine) and the wine itself. Of course one can try to be very analytical and cold about wine reviews and that is a viable way to test a wine no question. But there is so much more in a bottle of wine than just the taste – how was it made (what techniques were used), where are the grapes from, what was the intent behind this wine. The value of knowing the tid bits are as important to me as the wine itself. I relate wine to Classical music; some folks just like to listen to a piece and give it a thumb up or down while others want to know how was this written, why was the composer pushed to write this – sometimes a not so good sounding piece of music becomes interesting once one knows the reason for its being. The details are not for everyone, many people just want to know the score and that’s it and we should respect that. For the few for whom the context matters, wine should be reviewed with some emotional background and I would love for us to keep some of that.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Yes, I also read this piece and it has been rolling around in my mind ever since. Particularly, where Steve said something to the effect of: …I then went home, tasted the wines again and adjusted my scores (down) to compensate for my hightened enthusiasm (enthusiasm from tasting earlier with the winemaker). So, “mood” then affects Steve’s, supposedly, trained toungue? He tastes in one moment, sets a score in stone, and the etheral influencer of mood plays a part? Another highlight to the fact that scores are set at a point in time, on an evolving life-cycle of wine, by constantly changing people. Everything is changing in the world, mood, wine evolution, time, barometric pressure, but Steve’s scores are set in stone. finite math and bold statements should never mix with finished wine.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Steele,
Thank you for the comment. I agree witht he fixed nature of score that would seem inappropriate for an evolving wine. Can’t find something to replace scores though…