• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
joekelly

Wine Tasting Discussion

7 posts in this topic

Regarding the wine, you may consider this

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

and then we can talk again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Okay. ??? "Speaking of horses. Did you ever see any of those Lipizzaner stallions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the wine, you may consider this

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

and then we can talk again.

The tough part about rating wines is everyone has different preference for what they like.  I don't doubt that expert tasters can sense the different elements they are looking for in a wine, but what they consider better may be different than me.  Add to that some expert ratings are based on having wine with a meal.  Some wines are better with meals than just quaffing.

I have a qualified nose for evaluating products at my company.  I have been tested to be able to determine if odors are off and have been doing this for 25 years.  But that doesn't mean I know what fragrance you will like the best.  I know what I like the best.  The same goes with wine.

Lastly, price should not be a consideration on the quality of a wine.  Some will charge what they think they can get.  A $39 bottle of Cakebread Chardonnay may be no better to you than a $12 of Clos du Bois.  But, Cakebread can get $39, so that is what retail charges.

I like wine and have read a few books on the subject.  I like to try different wines and grapes to experiment too.  I have even made a Pinot Noir in my basement that was decent.  Experimenting can be fun, but I also know which ones I go back to because they taste the best to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

You are so right, boogielicious.  We like what we know and know what we like.  Any reasonable person would also say that the earlier in life we learn to like something, like taste, the more strongly this opinion is held.  When i was boy in a house with 5 younger sibs my granny told me to suck on the rubber nipple, to get it wet, then dunk it into the sugar bowl, then stick that into my bro/sisters mouth. Do we all 7 sibs like sweet foods now?  Certainly.  Yet my current girl friend (Asian) has no taste for chocolates, that i adore. Too Sweet, she says.

And if you go to China/Asia you will learn that many of those folks prefer foods that an American would never, ever, taste.  Two items come to mind esp, stinky tofu and durian fruit.  God, both smell like vomit on a spoon, yet folks pay good money to gobble them up.

All i'm trying to say is that tastes are highly conditioned by our former experience and objectivity is hard to come by. When a boy i learned a Latin phrase 'de gustibus non est disputantum'. No disputing the tastes.

It's my belief that if a scientific study were made of golf balls where all labeling was removed prior to testing and some pros and ams hit those balls under controlled conditions, no one, not a pro nor an am, could tell brand X from brand Y. The pros may be able to tell 'rocks' from 'spinners' but not much else. Titleist pays huge sums to keep their name in our sight so we are highly conditioned to think Titleist = the best.  It's baloney, IMO.

Is the million dollar Stradavarius a 'better' violin than a top o' the line Yamaha?  If label is hidden, experts can't hear the difference.  Everyone wants to personally associate with betterment and through money power can make that proported association. It's the old belief, 'we get what we pay for'.

Off topic, but are making Pinot Noir from concentrate?  Massachusetts, to my knowledge, ain't great wine country but sometimes grapes from other areas are available.

best :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, from concentrate.  It was a gift from my neighbors for my birthday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Yes, from concentrate.  It was a gift from my neighbors for my birthday.

I make TONS of wine from concentrate. It's a LOT different than it used to be quality wise. I make Pinot Noir, Chianti, Barolo and a few others. It's not "knock you socks off" good but it's decent table wine or "Plonk" as we say in French. The advantage is that I use that as my table wine for regular dinners and if I'm going out to someone else's house for dinner the savings I make allow me to drop a wad on a really great wine to bring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Quote:

It was next shown that while some research indicates that wine experts display dismal, quite meaningless levels of agreement, there is also evidence to indicate that other judges have demonstrated quite adequate levels of agreement,; and ones that have replicated successfully. It is also possible and even likely, that groups of tasters share similar likes and dislikes of wines. For example, while the agreement level between JR and RP on both 2004 and 2009 Bordeaux wines is almost embarrassingly low, the agreement level between RP and James Suckling (JS) of the Wine Spectator wine staff, on the 2004 Bodeaux was respectable at .52, or 76%. Future research will be required to determine how broad are the implications of such a finding.

http://www.wine-economics.org/aawe/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cicchetti_Dom.pdf

I once saw a video where people identified the year and region from which a wine came, pretty accurately, in a blind test. I don't care enough to find the video, just wanted to say I don't think ALL of wine tasting is junk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • Iron Game Suffers when Driver Going Well
      For high handicappers myself included, this is typical.   I think it is b/c we don't have the same swing for irons and longer clubs.  If we get them both right in the same round, it is probably by pure luck or coincidence.  Grin and bear, and enjoy the journey.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      The topic title is the question who is the greatest golfer, the poll is the question who was the best. Two different things in my opinion. There's no doubt to me Tiger was a better golfer. How could he not? Spieth, McIlroy, Day but even guys like Wiesberger, Luiten and Donaldson play better golf than Jack. The game evolved so much over the years, and got so much more professional. If Jack would have been around in this era he would benefit from all that as well and be a better golfer than he was (and probably top those guys I just mentioned). But who was the greatest. How do you measure that (can you)? Tiger was dominant in a stronger field, winning more titles than you can count. Jack was the first of a kind, winning the biggest titles (majors) over an enourmous span and having the most of them. Isn't it mostly a matter of personal who you find 'greater'? For me Johan Cruyff is the greatest Dutch football player of time, but I have no doubt that Dennis Bergkamp and Arjen Robben were/are better because the game evolved. 
    • Making a Murderer Discussion Thread (Spoilers Likely)
      Obvisously... she took his case about a month ago. On one hand I hope Avery is guilty as hell, on the other hand it would be an amazing story and twist if turns out to be set up and she can prove that. I think that chance is less than 1%, but still..... Possibly, good point. Should be quite some blood though since they found 'drops', meaning it was dripping from (in this theory) his glove. Exactly my point. I don't think the blood was freely flowing, because than there should be a lot more blood in the car. They found blood consisting with bloody hair. Seems to me, and I know I'm not an expert, that she was already dead when she was in the car, because that would explain the little amount of blood found (no pumping of the heart, no flow of blood) and the place it was found (in the back). One can easily argue that he killed in the garage, moved her to the car, and only then got the plan to burn her instead and moved her again; to the pit. But the 'problem' is that that's not what the DA said what happenend. In my opinion that blood in the car contradicts the story (or truth) he wants us and the jury to believe, and contradicts also with the story of Dassey which is the only thing that links Dassey to the case: his own words. That doesn't mean Avery is innocent, but it might raise some doubt. The DA should stick with the facts, not filling in the blanks with guessing. If he can't prove exact chronologically he shouldn't state it as 'fact'.   Absolutely. I'm not convinced in anything, not in my opinion, not in yours, not at all in the people who made the documentary. Also not a fan of conspiracy theory's. I don't think the murder was planted on him, but I do think some mistakes were made by the justice system. Mistakes that possibly should have lead to his and maybe even more Dassey's release, even though there's a big chance he did it. That's for me perhaps the most interesting part in this case and in the discussion. If we want a justice system where the chance is close to 0% that we convict someone innocent, and the prosecution and police need to follow the rules, it means sometimes the guilty walk free. I think everything they found on the compount while Manitowoc detectives were present should have been excluded. I think the DNA on the blood of the bullet should have been excluded. I think the 'confession' of Dassey should have been excluded. I think Dassey should have given at least a new trial, but that was denied by the same judge which handled his initial case (?!).
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      A long time ago, by Tiger's own admission,  said a golfer's career is measured by "majors won" . So if Woody does not break Jack's major record, then according to Woody, his career will be second to Jack's. Now Jack has said that he expects (expected) Woody to break his major record. So Jack is saying he expects Woody will have the better career.  These are the only two guys who would know who had the best career.   Neither one is going to be the GOAT. They will just be a GOTE. 
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      Nope, you blindly worship Jack.  It is obvious that you have not read much, if any, of the thread.  But hey, you saw Jack.  In person, yet.  So what.  I did too.  I saw him win his last USGA championship at Cherry Hills.  I saw Tiger play as well - although in person I only saw practice rounds.  So what.  That does not make my assessment of their respective careers more or less credible.  Geee, I never saw Hogan play so I guess we cannot count him in the discussion.   You think Jack was better.  That is fine.  You are entitled to your opinion.  Just don't spoil it with specious reasons or arguments.  Because those we will slice apart like one of Klinger's salamis.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries