3 ms·
So is this article saying that trying to quantify what makes a wine "good" or "bad" is a matter of perspective and lacks any kind scientific method? I mean, do
by blakeja 12y ago
So is this article saying that trying to quantify what makes a wine "good" or "bad" is a matter of perspective and lacks any kind scientific method? I mean, do we need a scientific method if it is something we collectively can pretty much agree upon? They can do all the studies they want and criticize this all to the finest minutiae, but in my own personal experience I can say with certainty that wine recommended me to by trusted experts is generally better than just blindly picking a bottle. (Well not quite blind, but with a really limited knowledge of regions and vintages). At the end of the day for all us casual wine drinkers, I would think that is all that really matters. It may be interesting to see some statistics on casual vs serious wine drinkers, could help clarify a lot of this.
I would also say getting to know an expert to the point where they know your own individual tastes really helps. Perhaps it is this aspect that people are getting hung up, everyone will have their own tastes, enter the expert who can categorize this for you, etc.
- glenra 12y agoNo, it's saying that people who claim to be able to identify which wines are "better" than others (and how they differ) can't reliably do that. Wine recommended to you by trusted experts is not better than just blindly picking a bottle. Or at least, that is not something you can "say with certainty" if you haven't tested it. (And if you do test it, the results are likely to surprise you.) An awful lot of the experience of wine turns out to be the result of your expectations of it.