We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
I don't deny the sometimes-usefulness of wine nomenclature; I am just opposed its fetishization and elaboration to the point of absurdity. I agree that the more esoteric and deliberately repugnant labels are often wielded like status symbols of superior discernment ("What, you can't smell the cat piss and wilted rhododendron? How odd."). This exists in France as well as in the US
I find these sorts of details largely superfluous. To know what wine's second fermentation is called or which Bordeaux were classed in 1855 is simply not very interesting except to a hobbyist.
I agree up to a point. Frankly, descriptors in magazines often don't help me much. Tobacco, mulch, currant - whatever. This isn't to say I haven't had a wine and thought "damn nice vanilla on that", but I see wine as a point in time thing and I don't like to characterize the time and effort put into a wine as "tar and fruit - 90 points". I think it should go beyond mere descriptors and assess based on things like balance, structure, viscosity, etc as this tends to be a much more accurate and enduring description. And despite the (understood) hesitation against Gary V, I think he has made great strides to get people to think of wine in this manner. However, some people are perfectly happy with the "is it good or not", and this is totally fine.
That looks incredible.
Well, the funniest thing to me is when somebody starts going on about four, five, six or more distinct aromas he can pick up in a wine. I think there was some study done that determined that the best tasters really could pick up one to two, plus balance, but you get guys like Gary V. and assorted bloggers and other all stars listing an entire potpourri. I think it's pretty hysterical. Myself, I definitely am more interested in balance and overall enjoyment than in analyzing the various compounds in a wine's aroma, but whatever floats your boat, even if that which floats is impossible.
Do you have any more info about this? I love those studies that show professional critics rating the same wine differently according to the bottle it's poured from, or that they can't even distinguish between red and white in a blind test.
Thank God that could never happen to audio reviewers
I find that I'm just not smart enough to connect the dots on wine flavors and aromas. I'll drink a wine and detect a very distinct aroma/flavor, but for the life of me I can't place what it reminds me of. I do think that the descriptors can be useful if you have enough background in wine to know what your preferences are. The problem for me comes in the fact that there are 100x more wines out there than I will ever try in my lifetime. How do I choose which ones to try and which ones to bypass? I don't know any methods beyond (a) blind luck/trial and error, and (b) seeking out opinions of people who have tried the wines (retailers, bloggers, writers, friends, etc.) and whose opinions you trust. Is there another method I'm missing? I always look at the 'expert' opinions as just another tool in the toolbelt for the wine consumer. It's not the be-all, end-all; but I don't think it's completely useless either.